CITATION: Moghadam v. York University, 2014 ONSC 2429

DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: 472/13

DATE: 20140417

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE – ONTARIO

DIVISIONAL COURT

RE: Mazdak Bandeh Moghadam, Applicant

AND:

York University, Respondent

BEFORE: Hackland R.S.J., Matlow and Kiteley JJ.

COUNSEL: Mazdak Bandeh Moghadam, In Person

Carole J. Piovesan, for the Respondent, York University

HEARD: April 15, 2014 at Toronto

ENDORSEMENT

[1] This application for judicial review must be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction for the following reasons.

[2] It is a fundamental principle that judicial review is a public law remedy. It exists to review the exercise of delegated state authority. The applicant, a former student at York University advances a series of complaints against the University which are purely private issues.

[3] The applicant was issued a Trespass Notice and after a series of conflicts with University staff, and a "cease and desist" letter. In our view, the University's actions were taken as a private landowner and not in the exercise of any delegated administrative authority.

[4] The applicant complains that the conduct of certain University officials was criminal in nature and in breach of his rights under the Ontario Human Rights Act. He has filed no complaint with the police or with the Human Rights Commission. The applicant is however, pursuing a complaint before the Information and Privacy Commissioner regarding access to his University records and is insisting that his SIN number be deleted from University records. He seeks the court's intervention and declaratory relief on these issues. The Court was advised that the applicant has obtained the records he seeks and that his SIN number has been deleted from University records such that these complaints are moot in any event.

[5] The applicant argues that the University breached a duty of fairness owed to him in relation to the issuance of the Trespass Notice, the cease and desist letter and in its treatment of his demands for copies of his records under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA). He asserts that the actions of the University violated his Charter rights to procedural fairness in respect to these matters.

[6] We are of the opinion that the Charter does not apply to the actions of the University about which the applicant seeks to complain because these actions were not governmental in nature; see McKinney v. University of Guelph, 1990 60 (SCC), [1990] 3 S.C.R. 229 at para. 16. Moreover, to the extent that his complaints involve alleged criminal conduct, human rights violations or FIPPA violations, the relief that he seeks must be sought elsewhere.

[7] The application for judicial review is dismissed. If the respondent wishes to seek costs, a written submission should be sent to the panel and the applicant within 14 days of the release of this endorsement. The applicant may then respond within 14 days of receiving the respondent's submission.

HACKLAND R.S.J.

MATLOW J.

KITELEY J.

Date: April 17, 2014