Court File and Parties
COURT FILE NO.: 15-66-155 DATE: 2017/02/07 ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
BETWEEN:
THOMAS NEWMAN Plaintiff
– and –
LAKEHEAD UNIVERSITY and GORDON HAYMAN Defendants
COUNSEL: Falon A. J. Milligan, for the Plaintiff Thomas Gold Pettingill, Sarah L. Jones, for the Defendants
HEARD: December 15, 2016
REASONS FOR DECISION ON MOTION
MARANGER J.
1This was a motion brought by the defendants, Lakehead University and Gordon Hayman to strike the plaintiff’s statement of claim issued October 15, 2015, without leave to amend.
2The plaintiff is a PhD in clinical psychology he obtained his degree from Lakehead University. He is suing both the University and one of his professors Dr. Gordon Hayman for breach of contract and negligence because he alleges it took longer than it should have for him to obtain his PhD.
3For the reasons that follow I would grant the motion to strike the claim without leave to amend.
Factual background:
4The pleadings and factums filed by both parties allow for the following findings of fact:
- The Plaintiff was enrolled as a doctoral student in the PhD Clinical Psychology Program at Lakehead University in the winter semester of 2009.
- The plaintiff received his PhD on October 20, 2014.
- One of the program requirements for obtaining a PhD is the completion of a dissertation.
- Lakehead University requires that a PhD candidate have the guidance of a PhD dissertation supervisory committee.
- Dr. Gordon Hayman was the dissertation supervisor for the plaintiff.
- The plaintiff claims that between December 21, 2011 and March 28, 2014 he submitted various drafts of sections of his dissertation to Dr. Hayman for review and feedback on and that Dr. Hayman consistently failed to provide comments within 10 days, and that these delays were unreasonable.
- The total amount of delay being complained about in this case is approximately nine months.
- The statement of claim makes no reference as to any steps taken by the plaintiff to commence an internal appeal with regard to any alleged delays that he suffered while participating in the program.
Legal principles:
5The test for determining whether to strike out a claim is whether it is “plain and obvious” that the pleadings disclose no reasonable cause of action or prospect of success. See Bilich v. Toronto Police Services Board, 2013 ONSC 1082, para 12.
6In this case I would not grant leave to amend the pleadings. The pleadings are incurable. It is plain and obvious that they disclose no reasonable cause of action or prospect of success.
7The law is well-settled that disputes between students and universities about academic matters associated with the completion of a student’s program of study are not the subject matter for a breach of contract or tort claim. The action brought here fits precisely within that framework, the case at its core consists of a student complaining about how long his dissertation supervisor took to review his work. The matter does not belong in a court of law.
8In the decision of Dawson v. The University of Toronto, 2007 ONSC 4311 Perell J. dealt with fairly similar case to this one. He granted a motion to strike the plaintiff’s claim without leave to amend. At paragraph 19 of that decision he made a comment which bears repeating in the case before me:
19I appreciate that not all conduct by a university is of an academic nature. The example of non-academic conduct, which I posed during argument, was a university that failed to maintain its premises and to perform its obligations as an occupier. If a person were injured, the university would be subject to a tort claim and perhaps a breach of contract claim. However, I have no doubt that Ms. Dawson’s complaints are about academic matters. Her essential complaints are that her thesis work was insufficiently assisted and unfairly and incorrectly evaluated and that the procedure adopted by the university to determine whether she should have an opportunity to defend her thesis and complete her doctorate was contrary to the principles of natural justice. Her dispute is a disagreement about academic matters associated with the completion of her doctoral program and according to the authorities, these matters of university affairs are not the subject matter of breach of contract or tort claims.
9The plaintiff’s complaint is that the University insufficiently assisted him in the expeditious completion of his doctoral dissertation. His dispute is a disagreement about academic matters associated with the timeliness of the completion of his program of study and the assignation of blame. These are clearly matters which are university affairs and are not the subject matter of contract or tort claims.
10Therefore for the above reasons, I strike out the plaintiff’s statement of claim without leave to amend and thus dismiss the action in its entirety.
11With respect to the issue of costs, if the parties cannot agree, they may make written submissions of no more than three pages in length within 15 days of the release of this decision.
Maranger J.
Released: February 7, 2017