UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO LAW SCHOOL ORDERED BY COURT TO PRODUCE AND DISCLOSE THE FILES OF ALL MATURE LAW SCHOOLS APPLICANTS FOR THE 1997 - 1998 ACADEMIC YEAR

BETWEEN:

KEYHAN DERAKHSHAN
Plaintiff
-and-

UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO, FACULTY OF LAW, COURT FILE NO: CP-17702/99

Defendants

by S. Pieters
obarri@geocities.com

February 25, 2000

In a Judicial Decision that have the University of Toronto smarting, a Deputy Judge of the Superior Court of Justice (Small Claims) ordered that the University of Toronto produce the files of the a litigant and all other mature applicants ranked by the Law School to be ahead of that man.

Keyhan Derakhshan, a person of Iranian origin, applied to the University of Toronto Faculty of Law as a mature student. He told the court that his academic grades were high but his LSAT scores were low. He was rejected by the University of Toronto Faculty of Law.

After attempts to Mr. Derakhshan to obtain a reasonable explanation for why his application was rejected - which was fruitless - he launched a claim against the University of Toronto in Small Claims Court seeking to recover his cost associated with his application to law school. Mr. Derakhshan position is he was "judged [by the University of Toronto Faculty of Law] on the elitist LSAT system."

In a decision dated December 14, 1999, Deputy Judge Winer issued an Order that the Defendant University of Toronto comply with the following directions by February 01, 2000:

Produce to the Plaintiff and the Court information on "How many applicant are there" under the mature applicants criteria;
"Is there a point system" to rank mature applicants?
"What was the Plaintiff Score" under the criteria used by the University of Toronto to rank mature applicants?;
"Is there a file for him?"
That "files for the plaintiff and the mature students [ranked] ahead of him be produced."

On February 25, 2000, Arthur L. Hamilton, from the law firm Cassels Brock & Blackwell, appeared before The Honourable Pamela A. Thomson (Toronto Region) seeking by way of motion an order quashing the decision of Deputy Judge Winer. The Univeristy of Toronto is taking the position that the order is too broad and that it has an interest in protecting the confidentiality of the other applicants (third parties) personal information. Arguments on Uniersity of Toronto motion was adjourned to Friday March 10, 2000 in order to give the Plaintiff and the Judge an opportunity to review the University's motion material.

The hearing of the motion will be for two hours on March 10, 2000 at 444 Yonge Street, 2nd floor, room 508.

Comments to: obarri@geocities.com

1