Ontario Civil


Plain and obvious that action against university could not succeed

Claim related to academic dispute. Plaintiff alleged she was target of harassing verbal comments by defendant professor and professor showed feelings of hate toward her. Plaintiff brought action against professor and university claiming breach of contract, negligence and tort of intentional infliction of mental distress. Defendants brought motion to strike out fresh as amended statement of claim without leave to amend. Motion was granted and action was dismissed in entirety. Plaintiff appealed. Appeal dismissed. Plaintiff failed to plead requisite elements of causes of action or material facts to support claims. There was no cause of action in tort at common law for discrimination. Plaintiff alleged educational malpractice by university but issues related to internal academic decision-making and resort to university’s internal processes was proper procedure to be followed to resolve complaints. Plaintiff failed to plead specific facts that could demonstrate that university’s alleged conduct constituted intentional tort or fell outside broad discretion enjoyed by university and professors. It was plain and obvious that action against university could not succeed. Plaintiff’s claim against professor did not disclose any conduct outside his duties and obligations as employee of university. No sustainable action against professor in his personal capacity was pleaded.

King v. Ryerson University (Sep. 25, 2015, Ont. C.A., E.A. Cronk J.A., C.W. Hourigan J.A., and M.L. Benotto J.A., File No. CA C60211) Decision at 250 A.C.W.S. (3d) 228 was affirmed.  258 A.C.W.S. (3d) 286.

cover image


Subscribers get early and easy access to Law Times.

Law Times Poll

Law Times reports that there is no explicit rule that lawyers in Ontario must be competent in the use of technology. Do you think there should be explicit rules spelling out the expectations of lawyers’ in terms of tech use in their practice?