Tariq v. Toronto Metropolitan University, 2024 ONSC 5306

Court File and Parties

CITATION: Tariq v. Toronto Metropolitan University, 2024 ONSC 5306

DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: 118/24

DATE: 20240925

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE – ONTARIO

DIVISIONAL COURT

RE: MUHAMMAD TARIQ, Applicant

AND: TORONTO METROPOLITAN UNIVERSITY, Respondent

BEFORE: Backhouse, D.L. Corbett, Stothart, JJ.

COUNSEL: Mohammad Tariq, Self-Represented Tina Lie and Catherine Fan, for the Respondent

HEARD at Toronto: September 17, 2024

Endorsement

D.L. Corbett J. (Orally)

Overview

1Mr Tariq moves before this panel to review the decision of Myers J., sitting as a single motions judge of the Divisional Court.

Background

2Justice Myers conducted an initial case management conference at which he

(a) correctly noted that there is no appeal to this court from a decision of the respondent University Senate;

(b) reasonably reconstituted the appeal as an application for judicial review;

(c) set a schedule for the application that would have seen the application ready for argument on the merits before a panel of this court by the week of September 16, 2024 (within about six months of the date of the case management conference), and

(d) denied a stay pending hearing of the application.

3Mr Tariq did not file his materials in accordance with the order of Myers J., but with the assistance of case management, the parties agree that the case is now ready to be scheduled for hearing.

Analysis

4On the stay issue, the decision of Myers J. discloses no error in principle. A stay is not granted to award a party the ultimate relief he seeks in the proceeding, but rather to preserve a reasonable state of affairs until this court may decide the underlying proceeding on the merits. Where, as here, there is no right of appeal, the presumed finality of the impugned decision weighs in the balance of factors to be considered when weighing the totality of circumstances. We see no reason to interfere with the conclusion of Myers J. that there would be no irreparable harm to the moving party from the absence of a stay during the period required to bring this case to a hearing in this court, nor in the conclusion of Myers J. that the balance of convenience weighed in favour of respecting the authority of the University Senate’s autonomy in managing academic affairs within the university. The hearing of the application will be delayed longer than Myers J. had envisaged, but the fault for that delay lies with the moving party, and so the additional delay does not commend itself as a changed circumstance that would lead us to vary the order of Myers J.

Disposition

5The motion to review the order of Myers J. is dismissed. The University is entitled to costs, but in light of the early return of the underlying application we fix costs in the amount of $5,000, payable by Mr Tariq to the University, in the discretion of the application panel.

6During the hearing, we confirmed a return date before a panel for the underlying application: October 15, 2024, for an estimated 0.5 days (roughly 1.25 hours for each side, maximum, for oral submissions).

“D.L. Corbett J.”

I agree: “Backhouse J.”

I agree: “Stothart J.”