) ) THOMAS NEWMAN Plaintiff – v. –, 2017 ONSC 335

CITATION : Newman v. Lakehead University, 2017 ONSC 335 COURT FILE NO.: 15-66-155 DATE: 2017/02/07 ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE BETWEEN: ) ) THOMAS NEWMAN Plaintiff – and – LAKEHEAD UNIVERSTIY and GORDON HAYMAN Defendants ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )) ) ) )) 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. [ 1 ] This 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. [ 2 ] The 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. [ 3 ] For the reasons that follow I would grant the motion to strike the claim without leave to amend.

Factual background: [ 4 ] The 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 anyalleged delays that he suffered while participating in the program. Legal principles: [5] The test for determining whether to strike out a claim is whether it is “plain and obvious” that the pleadings disclose noreasonable cause of action or prospect of success. See Bilich v. Toronto Police Services Board [2013] O.J. No.1082 Ont. SCJ para 12. [6] In this case I would not grant leave to amend the pleadings. The pleadings are incurable.

It is plain and obvious that theydisclose no reasonable cause of action or prospect of success. [7] The law is well-settled that disputes between students and universities about academic matters associated with thecompletion of a student’s program of study are not the subject matter for a breach of contract or tort claim. The action brought here fitsprecisely within that framework, the case at its core consists of a student complaining about how long his dissertation supervisor took toreview his work. The matter does not belong in a court of law. [8] In the decision of Dawson v.

The University of Toronto, (ON SC) Perell J. dealt with fairly similar case tothis one. He granted a motion to strike the plaintiff’s claim without leave to amend. At paragraph 19 of that decision he made a commentwhich bears repeating in the case before me: [19] I appreciate that not all conduct by a university is of an academic nature. The example of non-academic conduct, which I posedduring argument, was a university that failed to maintain its premises and to perform its obligations as an occupier. If a person wereinjured, 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 andunfairly and incorrectly evaluated and that the procedure adopted by the university to determine whether she should have an opportunityto defend her thesis and complete her doctorate was contrary to the principles of natural justice.

Her dispute is a disagreement aboutacademic matters associated with the completion of her doctoral program and according to the authorities, these matters of universityaffairs are not the subject matter of breach of contract or tort claims. [9] The plaintiff’s complaint is that the University insufficiently assisted him in the expeditious completion of his doctoraldissertation. His dispute is a disagreement about academic matters associated with the timeliness of the completion of his program ofstudy and the assignation of blame.

These are clearly matters which are university affairs and are not the subject matter of contract or tortclaims. [10] Therefore for the above reasons, I strike out the plaintiff’s statement of claim without leave to amend and thus dismiss theaction in its entirety. [11] With respect to the issue of costs, if the parties cannot agree, they may make written submissions of no more than three pagesin length within 15 days of the release of this decision. Maranger J. Released: February 7, 2017 CITATION: Newman v. Lakehead University, 2017 ONSC 335 COURT FILE NO.: 15-66-155 DATE: 2017/02/07

ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE B E T W E E N: THOMAS NEWMAN Plaintiff – and – LAKEHEAD UNIVERSITY and GORDON HAYMAN Defendants REASONS FOR decision Maranger J. Released: February 7, 2017