) ) GENC KUKI Applicant – v. –, 2013 ONSC 5574

CITATION : Kuki v. (MTCU), 2013 ONSC 5574 COURT FILE NO.: 13-1946 DATE: 20130903 ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE BETWEEN: ) ) GENC KUKI Applicant – and – MINISTRY OF TRAINING, COLLEGES, AND UNIVERSITIES (MTCU) Respondent ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )))) Applicant is self-represented, Sarah Valair, for the Respondent ) ) ) HEARD: August 21, 2013 Justice Patrick Smith [ 1 ] The Applicant, Genc Kuki, seeks a judicial review on an urgent basis of the decision of the Ministry of Training, Colleges and Universities (MTCU) dated July 15, 2013 to deny his application to the Second Career program. [ 2 ] The Respondent, MTCU, opposes the application on the basis that it is not urgent and that delay will not involve a failure of justice.

Further, the Respondent submits that the decision is not reviewable, and in any event was reasonable. Factual Overview [ 3 ] In 2008, MTCU created the Second Career program to provide laid-off, unemployed individuals with skills training to assist them in finding employment in occupations with demonstrated labour market prospects in Ontario.

Skill training is designed to be vocational in nature with occupationally-specific outcomes. [ 4 ] To be eligible to receive funding from the Second Career program, an applicant must be laid off, unemployed or working at an interim job and choose to retrain for a career that is in demand. [ 5 ] The Applicant submitted his application to the Second Careers program in June 2013 stating that he wanted to pursue a Master’s degree in Public Administration at the University of Ottawa or Queen’s University with the goal of finding employment in the public sector. [ 6 ] MTCU wrote to the Applicant on July 13, 2013 denying his application on the basis that the skills training program requested must lead to one of the occupations listed in the guidelines which did not include the education program that the Applicant intended to pursue. [ 7 ] The Applicant requested that the decision denying his application be reviewed.

MTCU refused the request for a review and confirmed its original decision. The Applicant seeks judicial review on an urgent basis. [ 8 ] Section 6(2) of the Judicial Review Procedure Act , R.S.O. 1990,

CHAPTER J.1, provides: An application for judicial review may be made to the Superior Court of Justice with leave of a judge thereof, which may be granted at the hearing of the application, where it is made to appear to the judge that the case is one of urgency and that the delay required for an application to the Divisional Court is likely to involve a failure of justice. R.S.O. 1990, c. J.1, s. 6 (2) ; 2006, c. 19 , Sched. C, s. 1 (1).

[9] The Applicant argues that the case in one of urgency because the Master’s degree programs are scheduled to commence inSeptember 2013. [10] It is not clear from the material filed by the Applicant what his status is regarding registering at either the University ofOttawa or Queen’s University.

Notwithstanding the lack of clarity regarding the issue of urgency, I find that the Applicant has failed tosatisfy me that the delay required for an application to the Divisional Court is likely to involve a failure of justice. [11] The merits of an application are important factors in determining whether there will be a failure of justice: see Savone v.

LawSociety of Upper Canada Regulations Division, 2013 ONSC 1015. [12] I agree with the position of the Respondent and find that the application before the court is without merit and that the decisionof MTCU is not reviewable and was reasonable. [13] The Crown has the authority to establish programs for the benefit of the public as it sees fit. Programs that are created withoutstatutory authority at the discretion of the government are not reviewable by courts of law unless they violate the Canadian Charter ofRights and Freedoms,

Part I of the Constitution Act, 1982, being

Schedule B to the Canada Act 1982 (U.K.), 1982, c.11, or otherimportant fundamental rights. There is no evidence that any of the Applicant’s Charter or other rights have been violated: seePharmaceutical Manufacturers Association of Canada v. British Columbia (Attorney General), [1997] S.C.C.A. 529. [14] The decision of MTCU to define who was eligible for the Second Career program is a decision that is not subject to judicialreview because it is a decision for the disbursement of public funds and as such is within the authority of the legislature alone: seeHamilton-Wentworth (Regional Municipality) v.

Ontario (Ministry of Transportation) (1991), (ON SC), 78 D.L.R. (4th) 289. [15] I do not intend to comment on the reasonableness of the decision in view of my findings set out above except to state that theApplicant did not meet the eligibility requirements of the Second Career program – criteria that are completely reasonable in view of thegoals of the program which is specifically designed not to fund education programs at universities with no specific vocational outcome.

Conclusion [16] For the reasons set out above, the application is dismissed. [17] In the event that the Respondent seeks an order for costs, written submissions may be filed within 10 days of the date of therelease of this decision. The Applicant will have 15 days thereafter to file a written reply. Patrick Smith J. Released: Sept 3, 2013 CITATION: Kuki v. (MTCU), 2013 ONSC 5574 COURT FILE NO.: 13-1946 DATE: 20130903 ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

BETWEEN: GENC KUKI Applicant – and – MINISTRY OF TRAINING, COLLEGES, AND UNIVERSITIES (MTCU) Respondent REASONS FOR JUDGMENT Justice Patrick Smith Released: Sept 3, 2013