This article was originally published by Law360 Canada, part of LexisNexis Canada Inc.
The recent Divisional Court ruling in Tariq v Toronto Metropolitan University deals with the importance of fairness and that universities must adhere to their policies to ensure student justice. It also underscores the need for students to follow proper processes when seeking accommodations for disabilities and challenging decisions.
Factual Background
The applicant, Mr. Muhammad Tariq, enrolled as a master’s student in 2017 at the Ted Rogers School of Management (“School of Management”) at Toronto Metropolitan University (“TMU”). Students in this program were required to complete both coursework and a thesis. Despite receiving four extensions, Mr. Tariq failed to produce a thesis in a defensible form. After he failed to meet the deadline (i.e. the end of the spring/summer 2022 semester) set when a fourth extension was granted, Mr. Tariq was withdrawn from the program.
The TMU policies allow appeals of withdrawals based upon: (i) course management, (ii) extenuating circumstances, (iii) procedural error, or (iv) prejudice. Mr. Tariq appealed his withdrawal to TMU’s Senate Appeals Committee (“Senate Committee”) arguing that extenuating circumstances in the summer of 2022 prevented him from completing his thesis and that he was entitled to one semester extension as an accommodation for his disability. Mr. Tariq’s claim in the appeal that his disability was not adequately accommodated was referred to the Human Rights Services, which concluded that the claim of discrimination was unfounded. Mr. Tariq did not seek to challenge the Human Rights Services decision. The Senate Committee resumed the appeal after the Human Rights Services decision and dismissed Mr. Tariq’s appeal of his academic standing (“the withdrawal”), and Mr. Tariq subsequently sought judicial review of this decision.
Judicial Review Application
In the judicial review application, Mr. Tariq raised several arguments including that the process before the Senate Committee was procedurally unfair, as it excluded relevant evidence and the decision was unreasonable as the Senate Committee failed to consider his disability accommodation request; failed to allow him to re-apply; and, failed to grant him a further extension.
The onus was on Mr. Tariq in the judicial review application. After hearing Mr. Tariq's arguments, the Divisional Court was not satisfied that the Senate Committee’s decision was unreasonable or that the process was unfair and as such, dismissed his application.
Proper Processes to Address Issues
The Divisional Court disagreed with Mr. Tariq’s argument that Senate Committee’s decision was unreasonable as it failed to consider his disability. The Divisional Court considered the applicable TMU policy and procedures as those set the scope and limits on the jurisdiction of the Senate Committee.
The TMU policy and procedures dictated that prejudice based upon any ground under the Ontario Human Rights Code would be considered by Human Rights Services with the appeal before the Senate Committee paused, then once restarted only dealing with “any other grounds”. The Divisional Court held that the Senate Committee acted reasonably by considering the appeal without reference to the discrimination claims, as those claims fell outside its jurisdiction.
Fresh Evidence
Mr. Tariq argued that the Senate Committee had excluded relevant evidence, but the Divisional Court disagreed. The TMU policy and procedures allow fresh evidence only if it is relevant and there is a reasonable chance it will affect the outcome of the appeal.
The Senate Committee allowed some of Mr. Tariq’s requests for fresh evidence but denied the requests to allow fresh evidence related only to the discrimination claims as those claims were not before the Senate Committee. The Divisional Court held that this was reasonable.
The Divisional Court also felt that the decision to refuse admission of raw data was reasonable, as that evidence would not have changed the Senate Committee’s conclusion, based on other evidence, that there was no reasonable prospect that Mr. Tariq could complete his thesis even if he was given another one-term extension.
Denial of Re-Admission was Reasonable
Mr. Tariq contended that he should be allowed to reapply to the master’s program as his failure to meet the thesis requirement was the only reason for his withdrawal such that there was a TMU policy provision allowing him to reapply. On that basis, Mr. Tariq argued that the Senate Committee ruling that he was not eligible for readmission was unreasonable.
The Divisional Court looked at the TMU policy provisions and disagreed with Mr. Tariq’s interpretation. The provision was held to only apply to withdrawals before an extension request, with re-entry to then allow an extension request to be made, not where an extension request had been already made and denied. The Senate Committee’s interpretation of the policy and decision that Mr. Tariq was not eligible for re-admission was reasonable.
Denial of Further Extension was Reasonable
Mr. Tariq argued that the Senate Committee’s finding of fact that he would not likely complete his thesis if a further extension was granted was unreasonable. The Divisional Court noted that factual findings made by the Senate Committee are entitled to significant deference – will not be interfered with absent exceptional circumstances.
The Divisional Court acknowledged that “Mr. Tariq experienced very difficult personal circumstances throughout his studies at TMU”, however, the Senate Committee had considered all of the circumstances in reaching its decision on the extension request. The Divisional Court held that the decision not to grant a further extension was reasonable given the evidence, arguments and submissions before the Senate Committee.
Final Comments
The policies and procedures of TMU were at the heart of each issue delineating the scope of what the Senate Committee appeal could address and the limits on evidence that will be considered in such an appeal. In this case, the student did not pursue a challenge of a Human Rights Services decision and was not permitted to otherwise challenge that decision to address his concerns about whether he should receive more accommodation based upon a disability. This case demonstrates how important it is to carefully consider and follow all policies and procedures in academic appeals as well as the need to exhaust all routes to challenge decisions.
