Ontario Superior Court of Justice

Court File No.: CV-15-65784
Date: 2025/06/24

Between:
Ahmed Abada, Plaintiff
and
University of Ottawa, Azzedine Boukerche, and Abdelghani Benmaddi, Defendants

Applicant: Self-represented
Respondent Counsel: Jamie Macdonald
Heard: January 6 to 23, 2025

Reasons for Decision
Robert Smith

Overview

[1] Ahmed Abada (“Abada”) claims damages against his former PhD supervisor, Dr. Azzedine Boukerche (“Professor Boukerche”), the University of Ottawa (the “University”), and his former friend Abdelghani Benmaddi (“Benmaddi”). Abada was a PhD graduate student at the School of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science (the “School of EECS”) within the Faculty of Engineering at the University of Ottawa. Abada was enrolled in the graduate program from January 18, 2007, until he was removed in December 2015 for receiving two unsatisfactory progress reports. Abada spent a period of approximately nine years in the graduate program at the University but failed to complete his thesis and as a result was removed from the PhD program.

[2] Abada claims over $1,000,000 for loss of earnings during the 9-year period plus interest on his financial loans incurred during the 9-year period against all of the Defendants. Abada also claims $200,000 in general damages and $500,000 for punitive damages against Professor Boukerche and Benmaddi for committing the torts of intimidation, breach of fiduciary duty, misfeasance in public office, conspiracy, intentional infliction of mental distress and special damages of $10,000 for performing unpaid menial tasks at Professor Boukerche’s residence.

[3] Professor Boukerche denied that he withheld the Plaintiff’s research assistant bursary (the “RA bursary”) payments and denies threatening the Plaintiff that he would be removed from the PhD program if he insisted on payment of the RA bursary funds.

[4] Professor Boukerche also denied that he prevented the Plaintiff from writing his comprehensive exam and testified that the Plaintiff never asked him to write the comprehensive exam because he was never adequately prepared due to his personal problems, namely being convicted of assaulting his wife, being sentenced to a period of time in prison, conducting an appeal, and dealing with a legal custody dispute.

[5] Professor Boukerche testified that Abada advised him that he could not concentrate because of his personal and legal problems. As a result of his inability to concentrate, he was unable to prepare for the comprehensive exams or complete a thesis while Professor Boukerche was his supervisor from 2007 until 2013, a period of approximately 7 years.

[6] The University denied that Abada has any valid cause of action against any of the Defendants as the “pith and substance” of his claim is of an academic nature, namely that the Defendants were negligent and breached his educational contract with the University. The University submits that the appropriate forum for the Plaintiff’s complaints was the University’s appeal process and not the courts.

[7] The Defendants further deny that they have breached any duty to the Plaintiff and deny that they have intentionally or negligently harmed the Plaintiff. The University submits that any damages the Plaintiff suffered are result of his own negligence and failure to fulfil his PhD requirements.

[8] Benmaddi was an event coordinator at the University and also worked as an assistant to Professor Boukerche, commencing in 2011. Benmaddi was formerly one of the Plaintiff’s best friends and submits that he did not have any responsibility for oversight of the Plaintiff’s PhD program whatsoever. He also denies being involved in any agreement or conspiracy with Professor Boukerche to harm Abada or to cause him mental distress. He also denies intentionally causing any harm to the Plaintiff.

Issues

[9] The following issues must be decided:

I. Did Professor Boukerche refuse to pay the research assistant bursary funds to Abada and did he threaten to remove him from the PhD program if he insisted on receiving the RA bursary funds?

II. Did Professor Boukerche refuse to allow Abada to write the Comprehensive Exam?

III. Did Professor Boukerche direct Abada to perform menial tasks for his personal benefit?

IV. Did Professor Boukerche fail to provide adequate direction and supervision to Abada, which prevented him from obtaining his PhD?

V. Were the Defendants negligent and did they breach Abada’s contract with the University?

VI. Did the Defendants commit the torts of intimidation, breach of fiduciary duty, misfeasance in public office, conspiracy, or intentional infliction of mental distress?

VII. Should the Plaintiff be awarded punitive damages?

VIII. What damages, if any, should be awarded to the Plaintiff?

Facts

[10] Most of the facts have been taken from the parties’ Agreed Statement of Facts.

[11] The University of Ottawa is a university established further to An Act respecting Université d'Ottawa, S.O. 1965, c. 137. The University operates a School of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science (the “School of EECS”) within the Faculty of Engineering.

[12] Dr. Azzedine Boukerche is a professor in the School of EECS. Dr. Boukerche was the Plaintiff’s PhD supervisor from his admission into the program in January 2007 until the end of 2013. During the same period, he also acted as the research supervisor for approximately 20 graduate students enrolled in the University at either the masters, doctoral, or postdoctoral level.

[13] The University hired Abdelghani Benmaddi in July 2011 to work as an event co-ordinator within the School of EECS. He was one of the Plaintiff’s best friends until this action was commenced.

[14] Benmaddi did not have any responsibility for oversight of graduate students in the School of EECS.

[15] The Plaintiff obtained an undergraduate degree in Computer Engineering from the University of Ottawa in 2002 and a Master of Applied Science in Electrical Engineering from Carleton University in 2006.

[16] In January 2007, the Faculty of Graduate and Postdoctoral Studies (the “FGPS”) accepted the Plaintiff into the PhD program in the School of EECS with Dr. Boukerche as his research supervisor. The FGPS awarded the Plaintiff an admission scholarship to cover the cost of tuition fees for four years (valued at the time at $23,028), and the School of EECS offered the Plaintiff a research assistant bursary with an initial annual value of $9,250, to increase to $10,250 in September 2007 (the “RA bursary”).

[17] Candidates for a doctoral degree within the School of EECS are required to take a minimum number of required courses, pass a comprehensive exam, and submit a thesis. They are also required to complete the requirements for their doctoral degree within six years. If a candidate required additional time, a request for an extension of time had to be submitted to the Executive Committee of the FGPS.

[18] The Plaintiff started his program in January 2007, which meant that he was required to complete the requirements for his doctoral degree by the end of December 2012 or obtain an extension of time.

[19] The Plaintiff experienced personal issues around the time of his acceptance into the PhD program. In January 2007, the Plaintiff was charged with three counts of assault contrary to s. 266 of the Criminal Code, one count of assault causing bodily harm contrary to s. 267(b) of the Criminal Code, and one count of uttering a threat to cause death contrary to s. 264.1(2) of the Criminal Code. The complainant with respect of all counts was the Plaintiff’s wife.

[20] On February 13, 2007, the Plaintiff’s wife commenced an application for custody of their two children, a restraining order, access to the Plaintiff, a non-removal of children clause, and a police enforcement mechanism. The court made an interim order on March 22, 2007.

[21] The evidence in the Plaintiff’s criminal trial was heard on November 19, 20, and 21, 2007 and February 12 and 13, 2008, with closing submissions on March 27, 2008.

[22] In January 2008 (in the middle of the criminal trial), the Plaintiff applied for and was granted four months leave from the program for “family related problems”.

[23] On April 9, 2008, Justice Nicholas of the Ontario Court of Justice found the Plaintiff guilty on all counts.

[24] On December 5, 2008, Justice Nicholas imposed a sentence of 90 days in jail on the assault charge of December 2005, a sentence of 30 days consecutive on the assault charge of September 2006, a sentence of 30 days consecutive on the assault charge of December 2006, a sentence of 30 days consecutive on the assault charge of January 2007 and a sentence of 30 days concurrent on the threatening charge of January 2007.

[25] The Plaintiff was remanded into custody upon sentencing on December 5, 2008 until January 5, 2009 when he was granted bail pending appeal.

[26] On February 24, 2009, the court issued an order in the family law proceeding on consent that, among other things, provided for joint custody of their children and a consent to a civil divorce.

[27] The Plaintiff appealed his criminal convictions. The appeal was heard on April 13, 2011 before Justice McNamara. On May 27, 2011, Justice McNamara found that the Plaintiff was entitled to a new trial due to the incompetence of his counsel.

[28] On April 13, 2012, the Crown stayed all charges against the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff requested an extension to complete his PhD program.

[29] By December 2012, the Plaintiff had completed his mandatory courses but had not passed a comprehensive exam or completed a thesis.

[30] On December 20, 2012, the Plaintiff applied to the FGPS for a one-year extension to complete his PhD program requirements. Abada stated that his progress had been delayed due to “Divorce, court proceedings, caring for dependent children, health issues”. Dr. Boukerche supported the Plaintiff’s request, noting on the application form that the Plaintiff had dealt with some family problems and so, until recently, had been unable to focus.

[31] On January 22, 2013, the FGPS granted a one-year extension to December 31, 2013, on the condition that the Plaintiff meet the goals of his proposed study plan. Further to this plan, the Plaintiff was required to pass his comprehensive exam by April 2013 and submit a thesis proposal by July 2013.

[32] On September 25, 2013, the FGPS wrote to the Plaintiff and asked him to submit a revised study plan because he had not met either of the goals set out in his initial study plan.

[33] In October 2013, the Plaintiff applied for another year long extension to complete his doctorate.

[34] On November 26, 2013, the Executive Committee of the FGPS rejected the Plaintiff’s request for a further extension and closed his file, effectively withdrawing him from the program. The Executive Committee advised the Plaintiff that he could appeal this decision to the University’s Senate Appeals Committee (the “SAC”).

[35] The SAC is the final level of appeal for academic matters once they have been heard at the faculty level. The Plaintiff successfully appealed to the SAC and was readmitted to the PhD program.

[36] On January 13, 2014, the Plaintiff submitted an appeal to the SAC. He sought a three-year extension to complete his PhD requirements.

[37] In his appeal, the Plaintiff alleged that his progress had been impeded due to a medical condition as well as criminal and family law proceedings. He also alleged, for the first time, that Dr. Boukerche had not provided adequate direction, had discouraged or prevented him from writing his comprehensive exam, had failed to give him the research assistant bursary funds promised to him on admission, and had asked him to help with household chores through Benmaddi.

[38] On April 25, 2014, the SAC granted the Plaintiff’s appeal. The SAC allowed him to re-register in the PhD program and set a deadline of December 2014 to pass his comprehensive exam and three years to complete his doctorate under a new supervisor. The SAC declined to deal with the allegations regarding funding because this was not an issue under its jurisdiction.

[39] On May 23, 2014, the Plaintiff made a formal request to the School of EECS for payment of the RA bursary. This was the first such request he had made.

[40] In May 2014, Dr. Boukerche agreed to pay the Plaintiff a total of $83,080, covering six years of RA funding plus accrued interest. Dr. Boukerche made this payment in June 2014.

[41] On June 2, 2014, the Plaintiff asked Dr. Timothy Stanley, then interim Dean of the FGPS, for an additional $15,985 as a refund in tuition fees paid after the expiry of his admission scholarship.

[42] On July 23, 2014, the Plaintiff sought clarification of the SAC’s decision and asked that the extension of time for his doctorate run from the date of re-registration, once he had found a new supervisor.

[43] On August 20, 2014, Dr. Stanley referred the Plaintiff’s request for a refund of tuition to the Executive Committee of the FGPS. Dr. Stanley granted the Plaintiff a special tuition scholarship of $6,000 to cover his fees for the Fall 2014 term to be deducted from any other refund of tuition, pending a final decision by the Executive Committee.

[44] In September 2014, the Plaintiff returned to studies with Dr. Amiya Nayak as his supervisor.

[45] On September 11, 2014, the Executive Committee of the FGPS advised the Plaintiff that it would recommend to the SAC that he be given until April 2015 to pass the comprehensive examination and up to four years to complete his doctoral requirements, conditional on satisfactory progress reports.

[46] On October 2, 2014, the SAC accepted the recommendation from the FGPS that the Plaintiff be granted a further extension until April 2015 to pass his comprehensive examination and until August 2018 to submit his thesis, conditional on satisfactory progress reports.

[47] In December 2014, the Plaintiff completed his comprehensive examinations on the first semester of re-registration in the program.

[48] On January 5, 2015, the Executive Committee advised the Plaintiff that it would not refund tuition already paid but would grant him a new scholarship to cover tuition for the next three years (the additional time granted to him to complete his doctoral requirements).

[49] On April 7, 2015, the Plaintiff filed a formal complaint against Dr. Boukerche to Dr. Claude Laguë, the Dean of the Faculty of Engineering.

[50] In his complaint, the Plaintiff repeated and expanded upon the allegations made in his appeal to the Senate in January 2014. The Plaintiff sought an internal investigation of Dr. Boukerche’s practices towards other students, a financial audit of the lab’s funding, disciplinary action against Dr. Boukerche, and monetary compensation.

[51] In June 2015, Dr. Laguë issued a report setting out the results of his investigation. Dr. Laguë upheld some portions of the complaint and found other allegations were unsubstantiated, including the allegations that Dr. Boukerche had directed the Plaintiff to complete tasks outside the scope of his graduate studies or research project or had refused to allow the Plaintiff to take his comprehensive exam.

[52] By letter dated August 27, 2015, Dr. Boukerche apologized to the Plaintiff for his unsatisfactory academic experience from 2007 to 2013, for the delay in payment of the RA bursary funding, and for failing to provide more detailed comments in his September 2008 progress report.

[53] The Plaintiff commenced this action on September 18, 2015.

[54] The Plaintiff was withdrawn from the PhD program at the University of Ottawa in December 2015 after receiving two unsatisfactory progress reports from Dr. Nayak.

[55] In September 2017, the Plaintiff entered the PhD program in Electrical and Computer Engineering at Carleton University. The Plaintiff successfully completed the program and obtained his doctorate in June 2023.

Analysis and Disposition

Issue #1 – Research Assistant Bursary

[56]–[63] (See full text above for detailed findings.)

Disposition: The court found that Professor Boukerche did not refuse to pay Abada his research assistant bursary funds and did not threaten to remove Abada from the PhD program if he insisted on receiving payment. Abada was primarily responsible for failing to receive his RA bursary funds because he failed to make any inquiries at the EECS graduate administration office at the beginning of the semester. The matter was resolved through the university's appeal process.

Issue #2 – Comprehensive Exam

[64]–[69] (See full text above for detailed findings.)

Disposition: The court found that Professor Boukerche did not refuse to allow Abada to take the comprehensive exam. The issue was academic in nature and was resolved through the university’s appeal process.

Issue #3 – Menial Tasks

[70]–[74] (See full text above for detailed findings.)

Disposition: The court found that Professor Boukerche did not direct Abada to perform menial maintenance tasks at his residence. The claim for damages was dismissed.

Issue #4 – Supervision and Direction

[75]–[86] (See full text above for detailed findings.)

Disposition: The court found that the adequacy of supervision and direction was an academic matter, already addressed by the university’s internal processes. The attempt to relitigate these issues was an abuse of process.

Issue #5 – Negligence and Breach of Contract

[87]–[92] (See full text above for detailed findings.)

Disposition: The court found no negligence or breach of contract by any defendant. The only contractual issue (bursary payment) was resolved through the university’s process.

Issue #6 – Torts

[93]–[104] (See full text above for detailed findings.)

Disposition: The court found no evidence to support the torts of intimidation, breach of fiduciary duty, misfeasance in public office, conspiracy, or intentional infliction of mental distress.

Issue #7 – Punitive Damages

[105] (See full text above for detailed findings.)

Disposition: No punitive damages were awarded.

Issue #8 – Damages

[106]–[111] (See full text above for detailed findings.)

Disposition: The court found that Abada failed to prove any damages caused by the defendants.

Final Disposition

[112] For the above reasons, the Plaintiff’s claims against all of the Defendants are dismissed.

Costs

[113] The Defendants shall be given 10 days to make submissions on costs, the Plaintiff shall have 10 days to respond and the Defendants shall have 7 days to reply.

Released: June 24, 2025

Robert Smith