Counsel:
|
Keyhan Derakhshan, on his own behalf. S. John Page, for the defendant. |
¶ 1 P. THOMSON J.:— This is a Motion to Strike the Claim and stay the action pursuant to the Court's powers under Rule 12.02. The Motion will be granted.
¶ 2 The Plaintiff applied for law school as a mature student. His LSAT score was very low. The law school declined to offer the Plaintiff a place in the Bachelor of Laws program.
¶ 3 The Faculty of Law, in answer to letters of complaint, reminded the Plaintiff that:
"Because there are so many candidates competing for a place at our law school, we are able to choose women and men in the mature group who have distinguished themselves in their careers or life experiences, who have excelled academically and who have also performed well on the Law School Admission Test."' |
||
"As you know, your LSAT score of 137 is a weakness in your application. The average score of a mature student application admitted for 1997 was 162, which is in the 89th percentile. Bearing this in mind, the Admissions Committee considered your application to be less competitive than the application of other mature candidates who demonstrated strengths in each of the areas mentioned." |
||
The Dean of the Faculty of Law told the Plaintiff that: |
"When assessing applications, the Admissions Committee looks very carefully at a candidate's entire record, including the career and life experiences of the candidate and the difficulty of the academic program in which the candidate is or was enrolled. Although you have done well on the courses taken at York University, your application as a whole remains less competitive than the applications of those mature candidates we have admitted." |
¶ 4 The Plaintiff was informed by the Secretariat of the Governing Council of the University that:
"The Faculty, like other academic divisions, is authorized to make admission decisions with the general objective of admitting the best possible students on the basis of academic performance and potential. Divisions are responsible for deciding how to make these academic judgments. Within this general objective, but not derogating from it, Divisions may also take into account a variety of other achievements that they deem worthy of consideration. Decisions on exactly how to implement these objectives, including the choice of factors and the weight applied to them, are matters of judgment which divisions are authorized to make. |
||
Having read the Faculty of Law calendar statements of its admission policy and of the application of this policy, it seems to me that they conform to the above general approach. It further seems to me that the calendar goes into an exemplary amount of detail in order to give applicants a real understanding of what is an extremely competitive process. I have read the correspondence you sent with your letter and do not believe that it provides grounds for the conclusion that the Faculty violated its own admission guidelines." |
The Calendar states as follows: |
| "a) | In considering application for admission, the Faculty looks to a number of factors including academic achievement, Law School Admission Test ("LSAT") score, non-academic achievement, the response to disadvantage due to adverse personal or socioeconomic circumstances, motivation and involvement in academic and non-academic activities as well as the impact of temporary or permanent physical disabilities; |
||
| f) | Among the factors listed above, the greatest weight is given to an applicant's cumulative undergraduate academic record and LSAT score; |
||
| f) | The threshold for admission is extremely high. In view of the very large number of candidates whose applications disclose excellent academic records, very high LSAT scores and worthy non-academic accomplishments, candidates without these characteristics are unlikely to be competitive for admission; |
||
| f) | Within the three general categories of admission, namely, regular, mature and aboriginal, an applicant's file is reviewed entirely and in comparison to the other candidates within the group seeking admission; and |
||
| f) | With respect to mature applicants, in addition to the above factors, consideration is also given to an applicant's ability to organize his or her life and work, ability to reason, analyze and engage in intellectual inquiry as well as past experience." |
¶ 6 A contract is formed once a person has been accepted as a student into a university and has paid the tuition: Wong v. University of Toronto (1989) 79 D.L.R. (4TH) 652 at page 657, affirmed April, [1992] O.J. No. 3608, O.C.A. There is no contract until a position is offered. Applying to a law school does not create a contract with the law school.
¶ 7 If there are matters of misapplication, misrepresentation, misapprehension, or mistrust, the Plaintiff has the opportunity to apply for judicial review in the Superior Court under the appropriate statutes and rules: Wong v. University of Toronto, supra; Re Polten and Governing Council of the University of Toronto (1975) 59 D.L.R. (3d) 197 at pages 211, 213.
¶ 8 The standards of admission and the decisions made pursuant to those standards are internal and domestic matters which are not subject to the supervision of the court unless there is a breach of contract (such as in Chicoine vs. Ryerson Polytechnical Institute, (1985) 15 Admin. L.R. 261),: Wong v. University of Toronto, supra at pages 663 to 664; and see written endorsement by Justice Krever, April 13, 1992.
¶ 9 It is clear from Wong and Re Polten, supra, that academic matters are not to be the subject of litigation other than in the narrow circumstances of a Superior Court exercising a supervisory power.
¶ 10 Even if the LSAT scores are used as a "first round culling" of applications, this is not a matter of breach of contract, but is an academic one over which this Court has no authority. Further, the Plaintiff was well aware that the calendar stipulated that the greatest weight is given to an applicant's cumulative undergraduate academic record and LSAT score; and that applicants without excellent academic records, high LSAT scores, and worthy non-academic accomplishments are unlikely to be competitive for admission. As a mature student, consideration is also to be given to the applicant's ability to organize his or her life and work, ability to reason, analyze and engage in intellectual inquiry as well as past experience, in addition to the above factors.
¶ 11 The Plaintiff, by bringing this action, wants the Court to order the University to ignore his LSAT and to accept his other qualifications to the exclusion of his score. This is an application for a declaration which this Court has no power to grant: Section 97, Courts of Justice Act.
¶ 12 The Plaintiff further wants damages, wants reimbursement for his LSAT exams and for his application and reapplication, because he was "misled". There is not, on the face of the Claim, anything indicating a misrepresentation.
¶ 13 It is not for the courts to second-guess an academic decision. There is no genuine issue for trial and no reasonable cause of action. The Claim must be dismissed.
¶ 14 An order was made by a Deputy Judge at pre-trial with respect to requiring the disclosure of confidential records of other applicants. Although the Court has some doubt about the validity of that order (Slavutych v. Baker [1976] 1 S.C.R. 254), there is no necessity to deal with it.
¶ 15 Given the reasons for dismissal of this Claim, the Claim is dismissed without prejudice to any application for judicial review that the Plaintiff sees fit to bring with respect to any aspect of procedural fairness.
¶ 16 If the Defendant desires that I address the issue of costs, it may so advise.
P. THOMSON J.
QL Update: 20000515
qp/s/qlfwb/qlalm