Tariq v. Toronto Metropolitan University, 2024 ONSC 6037
CITATION: Tariq v. Toronto Metropolitan University, 2024 ONSC 6037
DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: 118/24
DATE: 20241104
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
DIVISIONAL COURT
Sachs, Charney and Davies JJ.
BETWEEN:
Muhammad Tariq
Applicant
– and –
Toronto Metropolitan University
Respondent
Muhammad Tariq, self-represented
Catherine Fan, for the Respondent
HEARD at Toronto: October 15, 2024
BY THE COURT
REASONS FOR DECISION
A. Overview
[1] In the fall of 2017, Mr. Tariq enrolled as a full-time Masters student at the Ted Rogers School of Management at Toronto Metropolitan University (TMU). Five years later, in October 2022, the School of Management withdrew Mr. Tariq from the program. When Mr. Tariq was withdrawn, he had completed the required courses but had not produced a thesis.
[2] Mr. Tariq appealed his withdrawal to the Senate Appeals Committee at TMU. Mr. Tariq sought a one-semester extension to finish and defend his thesis. He argued that he had experienced extenuating circumstances that had impacted his ability to complete his thesis. Mr. Tariq also argued he was entitled to a further extension as an accommodation for his disability.
[3] On November 23, 2023, the Senate Appeals Committee dismissed Mr. Tariq’s appeal.
[4] Mr. Tariq now seeks judicial review of the Senate Appeals Committee’s decision. He raises four grounds of appeal:
a. The Senate Appeals Committee failed to consider whether Mr. Tariq was entitled to an accommodation for his disabilities;
b. The hearing was procedurally unfair because the Senate Appeals Committee refused to admit relevant evidence;
c. The Senate Appeals Committee erred in finding that Mr. Tariq was not entitled to register and continue his program while his appeal was ongoing; and
d. The Senate Appeals Committee made unreasonable findings of fact.
[5] The onus is on Mr. Tariq to show that the Senate Appeals Committee’s decision is unreasonable or the process the Senate Appeals Committee followed was unfair. For the following reasons, we are not satisfied that the Senate Appeals Committee’s decision was unreasonable or that the process was unfair. As a result, Mr. Tariq’s application for judicial review is dismissed.
B. The Senate Appeals Committee had no jurisdiction to deal with Mr. Tariq’s claim that he was entitled to an extension as a form of accommodation
[6] Mr. Tariq argues that the Senate Appeals Committee’s decision to deny him a further extension was unreasonable because it failed to take into account his disability. We disagree. In fact, the Senate Appeals Committee does not have jurisdiction to consider claims of discrimination.
[7] Students at TMU can appeal their academic standing (including a withdrawal from their program), on four grounds: (i) course management, (ii) extenuating circumstances, (iii) procedural error, or (iv) prejudice: Policy 168, s. 6. If a student claims that a decision about their academic standing was impacted by prejudice based on any ground protected under the Ontario Human Rights Code, that portion of the appeal must be considered in a separate process through the TMU’s Human Rights Services. If a student raises prejudice as a ground of appeal, the proceedings before the Senate Appeals Committee are paused pending the outcome of the Human Rights Services process. Once the Human Rights Services completes its review and communicates its decision to the parties, the student’s appeal can resume before the Senate Appeals Committee but only in relation to “any other grounds.” The student is prohibited from re-arguing the allegations of prejuidice or discrimination before the Senate Appeals Committee: Policy 168: Procedures, s. 2.4.2.6.
[8] That portion of Mr. Tariq’s appeal related to his claim that TMU did not adequately accommodate his disability was referred to the Human Rights Services. The Human Rights Services concluded that Mr. Tariq’s claim of discrimination was unfounded. Mr. Tariq has not sought to review the Human Rights Services’ decision.
[9] The Senate Appeals Committee resumed its process after the Human Rights Services completed its review. Mr. Tariq was not permitted to re-argue his claim of discrimination before the Senate Appeals Committee and the Senate Appeals Committee only had jursidiction to consider his “other grounds”. It was, therefore, reasonable for the Senate Appeals Committee to consider Mr. Tariq’s appeal without reference to his discrimination claims.
A. The process before the Senate Appeals Committee was procedurally fair
[10] Mr. Tariq argues the proceedings before the Senate Appeals Committee were unfair because the Senate Appeals Committee excluded relevant evidence.
[11] A hearing before the Senate Appeals Committee is not a de novo hearing. The Senate Appeals Committee will not permit the parties to adduce evidence on an appeal that was not before the initial decision maker unless it is relevant to the appeal and there is a reasonable chance it will affect the outcome of the appeal: Policy 168 Procedures, s. 6.12.4.
[12] The Senate Appeals Committee allowed Mr. Tariq to adduce some fresh evidence on his appeal. However, the Senate Appeals Committee did not permit Mr. Tariq to adduce evidence related to his allegation of prejudice and discrimination. The Senate Appeals Committee also excluded a spreadsheet that contained the raw data from Mr. Tariq’s research. The Senate Appeals Committee’s decision on the admissibility of the fresh evidence was reasonable.
[13] The evidence related to the Human Rights Services’ decision concerning Mr. Tariq’s allegations of prejudice and discrimination was irrelevant to the issues before the Senate Appeals Committee. The hearing before the Senate Appeals Committee was proceeding only on the other grounds of appeal Mr. Tariq had raised. Mr. Tariq was not permitted to re-argue his prejudice claims and the Senate Appeals Committee had no jurisdiction to consider those claims. It was, therefore, reasonable for the Senate Appeals Committee to exclude evidence about those claims as irrelevant.
[14] The raw data Mr. Tariq collected during his research was also irrelevant. Mr. Tariq repeatedly said that he required only 10 to 15 days to complete his thesis. TMU adduced evidence that Mr. Tariq’s thesis was not close to being completed or being ready to defend. The Senate Appeals Committee preferred TMU’s evidence over Mr. Tariq’s evidence on the progress he had made on his thesis. The raw data would not have changed the Senate Appeals Committee’s finding that there was no reasonable prospect that Mr. Tariq could complete his thesis even if he was given another one-term extension. It was, therefore, reasonable for the Senate Appeals Committee to exclude the raw data as fresh evidence on the appeal.
C. The decision to deny Mr. Tariq an opportunity to re-apply was reasonable
[15] When the Senate Appeals Committee dismissed Mr. Tariq’s appeal and confirmed the decision to withdraw him from the Masters program, it also ruled that Mr. Tariq was not eligible for re-admission to the program. Mr. Tariq argues the decision that he is not eligible for re-admission is unreasonable.
[16] Mr. Tariq’s argument turns on the interpretation of two related provisions of the TMU’s policy on Graduate Status, Enrolment and Evaluation (Policy 170(B)). To understand Mr. Tariq’s argument, we must set out TMU’s policies related to its graduate programs in some detail.
[17] The Masters program in which Mr. Tariq was enrolled was a full-time, thesis-based program. Students are expected to complete the program in 16 months (or 4 academic terms). The University also has a policy that sets out the maximum amount of time students will be given to complete their course of studies. Masters students in a full-time course of studies must complete their program requirements within 3 years: Policy 170(B) Procedures, s. 8.1.1.
[18] If a student cannot complete their program within the maximum time prescribed, they can apply for an extension: Policy 170(B) Procedures, s. 8.2. Mr. Tariq was granted four extensions during his course of studies.[^1] The last extension was granted by the Dean of the School of Graduate Studies on June 23, 2022. By that time, Mr. Tariq had completed his courses and was working on his thesis. In his email approving the extension, the Dean wrote that Mr. Tariq was required to produce his thesis in a defensible form by the end of the spring/summer 2022 semester. The Dean also wrote, “if your defence is not scheduled by the end of the semester, no further extension will be granted under any circumstances.”
[19] Mr. Tariq did not complete his thesis by the end of the spring/summer semester in 2022 and, as a result, he was withdrawn from the program.
[20] Under TMU’s policy on Graduate Status, Enrolment and Evaluation (Policy 179(b), s. 7.3.1), a student can be withdrawn in several circumstances, including if the student has
a. Two unsatisfactory progress reports
b. Two failed grades
c. Failed to meet the requirements of a provisional plan
d. Failed their thesis or dissertation
e. Failed to complete the program within the allowable time
[21] The Senate Appeals Committee found that Mr. Tariq was withdrawn for two reasons: because he failed to complete his program within the maximum allowable time and because he failed to satisfy the requirements of a provisional plan.
[22] According to the University Policy, a student will be assigned “provisional status” when they fail to meet a specific program requirement: Policy 170(B), s. 7.2.1. A student with provisional status cannot continue in the program unless a “specific provisional plan to correct academic deficiencies has been authorized”: Policy 170(B), s. 7.2.2. The Committee found that when the Dean approved the final extension in June 2022, he had imposed a “provisional plan” that required Mr. Tariq to produce a thesis in a defensible format by the end of that term. The Committee found that Mr. Tariq’s failure to produce a thesis by the end of the term constituted a failure to meet the requirements of a provisional plan.
[23] Mr. Tariq argues the Senate Appeals Committee mis-characterized the reason for his withdrawal. Mr. Tariq takes the position he was withdrawn only because he did not complete his program within the prescribed time. Mr. Tariq argues he was never subject to a provisional plan so he could not have been withdrawn for failing to meet the requirements of such a plan. Mr. Tariq argues that this error was significant because if he was withdrawn for exceeding the maximum time for completing his program only, he was eligible to re-apply, but if he was withdrawn for failing to satisfy the requirements of a provisional plan, he had no right to re-apply.
[24] We do not need to decide whether the Senate Appeals Committee mis-characterized the reason for Mr. Tariq’s withdrawal because we find that he was not entitled to re-apply under either scenario.
[25] As a starting point, the University’s policy on withdrawn students states: “Students who have been withdrawn from a program are not eligible for re-admission into that progam”: Policy 170(B),s. 7.3.2.
[26] However, Mr. Tariq relies on the following provisions of Policy 170(B) to support his argument that he would have been eligible to apply for re-admission if he was withdrawn only because he had exceeded the prescribed time to completion:
8.2 Extension of time to completion
If students cannot complete program requirements before the maximum time to completion as stipulated in Procedure 8.1, they must apply for an extension.
8.2.1 Under extenuating circumstances, the GPD, in consultation with the student’s supervisor, can grant a one term extension to the time to completion.
8.2.2 An application for an extension of more than one term or a second petition must be granted final approval from the Vice-Provost and Dean, YSGS.
8.2.3 Students who do not apply for extension by the last date to add a course for the term, or if the petition is not approved, will be withdrawn from the program.
8.2.4 Students who are withdrawn from their program must reapply to re-enter the program and apply for an extension. (emphasis added)
[27] Mr. Tariq argues that if he had been withdrawn because he could not complete the program requirements within the maximum time allowed, he would have been entitled, under s. 8.2.4 of Policy 170(B), to “reapply to re-enter the program.” We do not agree with Mr. Tariq’s interpretation of s. 8.2.4. That provision only applies to students who are withdrawn before they apply for an extension. In those limited circumstances, the student can apply to be re-admitted for the sole purpose of applying for an extension.
[28] It would be unreasonable to interpret s. 8.2.4 as providing Mr. Tariq a right to re-apply. By the time Mr. Tariq’s appeal was heard, he had already applied for and been denied another extension. There would, therefore, be no reason to allow Mr. Tariq to “reapply to re-enter the program and apply for an extension.”
[29] Regardless of the reason for Mr. Tariq’s withdrawal, s. 8.2.4 has no application in his case and the Senate Appeals Committee’s decision that Mr. Tariq was not eligible for re-admission was reasonable.
D. Decision to deny Mr. Tariq a further extension was reasonable
[30] Mr. Tariq argues that the Senate Appeals Committee’s finding that he was not likely to complete his thesis even if he was given a further extension was unreasonable. That is a factual finding that is entitled to significant deference by this Court. Absent exceptional circumstances, this Court will not interfere with the factual findings of the Senate Appeals Committee: Rengarajan v. University of Ottawa, 2022 ONSC 219, at paras. 33-34.
[31] When assessing the reasonableness of the Senate Appeals Committee’s findings, we must not consider what factual findings we would have made. It is not our role to re-weigh the evidence and make our own factual findings. Rather, we must decide whether the factual findings were reasonably open to the Senate Appeals Committee based on the evidence and arguments before it: Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Vavilov, 2019 SCC 65 at para. 100.
[32] Mr. Tariq has not established any basis to interfere with the Senate Appeals Committee’s factual findings. The Senate Appeals Committee received evidence from Mr. Tariq’s supervisor and from an expert that Mr. Tariq was not close to finishing his thesis or being ready to defend it. The Senate Appeals Committee was entitled to prefer that evidence over Mr. Tariq’s assurances that he could complete his thesis in 10 to 15 days, particularly in circumstances where Mr. Tariq had been given several extensions to complete his thesis.
[33] Overall, we are satisfied that the decision of the Senate Appeals Committee to dismiss Mr. Tariq’s appeal is reasonable. The Senate Appeals Committee was only considering whether there were extenuating circumstances that would justify granting Mr. Tariq a fifth extension to complete his thesis. The Senate Appeals Committee considered each of the issues Mr. Tariq raised. There is no doubt Mr. Tariq experienced very difficult personal circumstances throughout his studies at TMU. The Senate Appeals Committee considered each of those circumstances. The Committee found that most of the extenuating circumstances raised by Mr. Tariq had been considered in relation to his earlier extension requests. In fact, Mr. Tariq was granted four extensions because of those difficult circumstances. However, the Committee found that the issues Mr. Tariq experienced in the summer of 2022 did not meet the definition of extenuating circumstances and did not justify a further extension. That decision was reasonable given the evidence and arguments presented before the Senate Appeals Committee and the submissions made.
E. Conclusion and Costs
[34] Mr. Tariq’s application for judicial review is dismissed.
[35] TMU is not seeking costs on the judicial review application.
[36] TMU is asking that we order Mr. Tariq to pay the $5,000 in costs that this Court fixed on a pre-trial motion Mr. Tariq brought to review several orders made by the case management judge. Mr. Tariq’s motion was dismissed. The panel that heard the motion found that TMU was entitled to costs on the motion in the amount of $5,000. However, that panel left it to us to decide whether to order Mr. Tariq to pay those costs. In all the circumstances, we find it is appropriate to order Mr. Tariq to pay TMU the $5,000 awarded to TMU on the motion.
Sachs J.
Charney J.
Davies J.
Date: November 4, 2024
CITATION: Tariq v. Toronto Metropolitan University, 2024 ONSC 6037
DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: 118/24
DATE: 20241104
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
DIVISIONAL COURT
Sachs, Charney and Davies JJ.
BETWEEN:
Muhammad Tariq
Applicant
– and –
Toronto Metropolitan University
Respondent
REASONS FOR decision
BY THE COURT
Released: November 4, 2024
[^1]: Mr. Tariq was also granted two one-term leaves of absence. The time a student is on a leave of absence does not count towards the maximum allowable time to complete their program: Policy 170(B) Procedures, s. 9.3.1.2. By September 2022, Mr. Tariq had exceeded the three-year maximum even if the two terms he was on a leave of absence are deducted from the total time since he started his program in September 2017.