Citation and Court Information
CITATION: Mann v. Ryerson University, 2011 ONSC 7378
DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: 631/10
DATE: 20111212
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
DIVISIONAL COURT
JENNINGS, DAMBROT AND HARVISON YOUNG
BETWEEN:
RICHARD MANN
Applicant
– and –
RYERSON UNIVERSITY
Respondent
In Person
Robert Centa and Danny Kastner, for the Respondent
HEARD at Toronto: December 12, 2011
Oral Reasons for Judgment
DAMBROT J. (orally)
[1] The applicant was a graduate student in the Department of Computer Science at Ryerson University. On September 22, 2008, as part of a directed reading course, the applicant submitted an essay to one of his professors. The professor determined that the essay contained significant plagiarism. The professor assigned the applicant a grade of zero on the assignment, an “F” in the course and recommended the applicant receive a disciplinary withdrawal, or dismissal. After a hearing the Faculty Appeals Committee of the School of Graduate Studies upheld this recommendation.
[2] The applicant appealed to the Senate Appeals Committee (the “SAC”). The SAC hearing took place on February 26, 2009. The applicant was entitled to be represented by a lawyer or a student advocate at the hearing. He chose to be represented by a student advocate. In its decision dated March 2, 2009, the SAC denied the appeal and confirmed the penalty of disciplinary withdrawal.
[3] The applicant brings this application for judicial review of the decision of the SAC claiming procedural unfairness. As a preliminary matter, the University argues that this application should be dismissed for delay.
[4] The SAC decision was released on March 2, 2009. On June 19, 2009, Ryerson received a letter from the applicant’s then counsel requesting a reconsideration. This request was denied by way of letter dated June 24, 2009, as the Ryerson policy does not contemplate reconsideration. The application for judicial review was commenced on December 23, 2010, more than twenty-one months after the SAC decision. It took a further nine months for the applicant to perfect his application.
[5] The Divisional Court has held on a number of occasions that a delay of six or more months in commencing an application and/or twelve or more months in perfecting it “could be serious enough alone to warrant the dismissal of the application.” (See Gigliotti v. Conseil d’administration du Collège des Grands Lacs (2005), 76 O.R. (3d) 561 (Div. Ct.)).
[6] The factors the Court will consider in deciding whether to dismiss an application for delay are:
(i) The length of the delay: Here the delay was well outside the six month range.
(ii) Any reasonable explanation for the delay: There has been no explanation provided despite the fact that the applicant has had the benefit of counsel, other than the applicant’s oral submission that he did not know that he had a right to bring this application. This does not constitute an explanation for delay that this Court can accept.
(iii) Any presumed or actual prejudice suffered by the respondent due to the delay: The prejudice here is presumed due to the delay. In addition, Ryerson has a critical interest in the finality of academic discipline disputes.
[7] In these circumstances, we are of the view that this application should be dismissed for delay.
[8] In any event, we are of the view that there is no merit to this application.
[9] The issues raised by the applicant relate to procedural fairness. As a result, no standard of review analysis is applicable. If the decision was arrived at in breach of the basic principles of procedural fairness, then it must be set aside.
[10] The applicant says that the disciplinary process was unfair because:
(i) there was undue delay in the discipline process;
(ii) he was given insufficient time to make oral submissions at the hearing and some evidence was not considered;
(iii) he was not permitted to be represented by a lawyer at the hearing;
(iv) he was prematurely withdrawn from the program and therefore lost the opportunity to apply for a teaching assistant position, scholarships and awards; and
(v) his professor was permitted to enter the room during the deliberation of the SAC.
[11] With respect to the first issue, the SAC appeal was heard within slightly more than five months of the submission of the paper alleged to contain plagiarism, and the applicant was permitted to remain enrolled in his classes pending the completion of the appeal process. There was no undue delay.
[12] With respect to the allegation forming part of the second issue that some evidence was not considered, the only point raised by the applicant is that the SAC stated in its reasons that the plagiarism comes from a book rather than an article. This is a small error. It does not demonstrate that the SAC failed to consider relevant evidence and is inconsequential.
[13] There is no evidence to support the remainder of the second issue or the third and fifth issues raised by the applicant.
[14] With respect to the fourth issue, the applicant was not prematurely withdrawn from the program, and in any event this allegation does not affect the fairness of the proceeding.
[15] In the result, there is no merit to any of these allegations of procedural unfairness. The application is dismissed.
COSTS
[16] Having regard to the view of the applicant’s financial position taken by the University, costs are fixed at $500.00, payable by June 12, 2012.
DAMBROT J.
JENNINGS J.
HARVISON YOUNG J.
Date of Reasons for Judgment: December 12, 2011
Date of Release: December 23, 2011
CITATION: Mann v. Ryerson University, 2011 ONSC 7378
DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: 631/10
DATE: 20111212
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
DIVISIONAL COURT
JENNINGS, DAMBROT AND HARVISON YOUNG
BETWEEN:
RICHARD MANN
Applicant
– and –
RYERSON UNIVERSITY
Respondent
ORAL REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
DAMBROT J.
Date of Reasons for Judgment: December 12, 2011
Date of Release: December 23, 2011