A university brought a motion under Rule 21 of the Rules of Civil Procedure to strike a statement of claim alleging negligence, breach of contract, negligent misrepresentation, breach of fiduciary duty, and breach of the duty of good faith arising from alleged deficiencies in a medical residency training program.
The court held it was not plain and obvious that the claim was statute‑barred under the Limitations Act, 2002 because discoverability and factual context had not yet been fully developed.
The court further held that although courts generally defer to universities on academic matters, contractual claims may proceed where the plaintiff alleges failure to meet express or implied contractual obligations.
However, several causes of action were insufficiently pleaded or legally unavailable in the context of academic discretion.
Portions of the claim were therefore struck, some with leave to amend and others without leave.
