CITATION: Bell v. Toronto Metropolitan University, 2025 ONSC 1321

DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: 390/23

DATE: 20250226

ONTARIO

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

DIVISIONAL COURT

D.L. Corbett, Faieta, and Sutherland JJ.

BETWEEN:

JASON BELL

Appellant

• and -

TORONTO METROPOLITAN UNIVERSITY

Respondent

COUNSEL:

J. Bell, Self-Represented

W. Lawrence, Counsel for the Respondent, Toronto Metropolitan University

C. Fan, Counsel for the Respondent

HEARD via videoconference in Toronto on February 26, 2025

ENDORSEMENT

D.L. CORBETT J.

Overview

[1] During the course of submissions for counsel for the Respondent University, it emerged that the University takes the position that the Applicant has not raised an issue for review in respect of the Associate Dean’s decision not to refer for reassessment the course work that was done in the course.

[2] It is clear from the submissions of the Applicant, both written and oral, that reassessment of the assignment for which he received a grade of 12.5/30 is at the very heart of his concerns with his evaluation. The Applicant is self-represented both in his processes within the University and before this Court and is entitled to assistance from the Court in navigating the process so that his case is determined on the merits and not as a consequence of procedural mishaps.

[3] It is very clear that this issue was raised by Justice Davies during the course of case management and it is also clear to us having reviewed Her Honour’s endorsements that nowhere was the Applicant told that he needed take affirmative steps for this point to be an issue before this panel and nowhere did Justice Davies preclude this as an issue before this Court on this Application for Judicial Review.

[4] We accept however, the Respondent’s submission that as a matter of substance the Notice of Application does not specifically raise this issue and that it is the University’s position that the Associate Dean’s decision was not reviewable at the Senate level and thus is not reviewable before us. Counsel takes the position that this Court does not have a complete record before it for the purposes of a Judicial Review of the Associate Dean’s decision respecting the reassessment and that the University should be given an opportunity to put those materials and argument before this Court on that issue, and so this Court is of the view that in order to accommodate basic fundamental fairness in this process for the Applicant, and a proper process for Judicial Review of the decision not to reassess the assignment, that we must adjourn this Application and we do so on the following terms:

(a) We permit the Applicant to amend the Notice of Application to include a Request for Judicial Review of the decision of the Associate Dean to decline to reassess the course work and in particular, to reassess the assignment for which he received a grade of 12.5/30;

(b) The University will be given an opportunity to assemble a record in respect of that decision;

(c) Faieta, J has kindly agreed to case manage the matter to prepare it to come back before this panel;

(d) This panel is seized of the Applications which will come back before us once they are ready;

(e) Mr. Bell will not be permitted to repeat everything he has already said before us and indeed we had understood that he was impugning the decision not to reassess, so there may be nothing further he needs to add, but that would be a matter to be addressed during Case Management with Justice Faieta who is a member of this panel and understands what arguments have already been made; and

(f) Finally, the continued hearing before us likely be directed to be held by zoom rather than in person. Justice Sutherland, who is a member of this panel, is not ordinarily chambered in Toronto and cannot conveniently be here on an as yet undefined date to hear the matter and this panel will hear the balance of the Application.

Disposition

[5] The costs of today to be addressed as part costs of the overall Application.

“D.L. Corbett J.”

I agree: “Faieta J.”

I agree: “Sutherland J.”

Oral Reasons Released: February 26, 2025

Written Endorsement Released: March 12, 2025