An Ontario Superior Court judge has dismissed a lawsuit brought by a Laurentian University student against the institution, ruling that her claims of negligence, deceit, and breach of contract were fundamentally an improper attempt to have the court intervene in academic matters that fall within the university’s discretion1. The student, Rachel Obita, who represented herself, had her statement of claim struck in its entirety without the opportunity to amend it.
The case originated from Ms. Obita’s experiences in two courses during the fall 2021 semester: Intermediate Economics (ECON 2107) and International Management (MGMT 3006). In her lawsuit, she sought a refund of her tuition for both courses, totaling $3,000, along with $50,000 in punitive damages. She also requested that the court order Laurentian to remove the grades from her academic transcript and issue injunctions to force changes in the university’s grade appeal policies, including the creation of an online tracking system for appeals and new rules to ensure committee impartiality.
Laurentian University responded by filing a motion to strike the claim, arguing the court lacked jurisdiction over academic decision making, that the claim failed to disclose a reasonable cause of action, was frivolous or an abuse of process, and that the claims were filed outside the legal time limit. Justice A.D. Kurke, who heard the motion by videoconference, ultimately agreed with the university’s primary arguments and dismissed the action.
The central issue in the economics course, ECON 2107, revolved around professor feedback. Ms. Obita alleged that the professor, identified as Professor Russell, was negligent and failed to meet a standard duty of care because she did not provide feedback in a way that was clear or accessible. According to the claim, Ms. Obita was accustomed to seeing feedback in a specific location within the university’s “Brightspace” learning management system. Professor Russell, however, placed her comments within a Microsoft document located in a section labeled “attached files.” Ms. Obita stated in her claim that she never thought to click on the file because she was unaware of its nature and believed it was a link to the assignment submission page. As a result, she claimed she could not access the feedback needed to improve her performance on future assignments, which led to her failing the course.
The court document details the communication between Ms. Obita and her professor. After receiving a grade, Ms. Obita emailed Professor Russell asking for a feedback rubric. The professor replied that comments were available explaining every mark she had lost. When Ms. Obita insisted she had not received them, Professor Russell directed her to the location of the comments and suggested she contact the university’s information technology department for assistance if the issue persisted. Ms. Obita did contact IT, but when they asked a clarifying question to help resolve her problem, she chose not to respond, stating she believed IT would eventually discover the information on their own. Two weeks later, IT closed her support ticket due to the lack of response. It was not until she was preparing a further appeal that Ms. Obita said she “accidentally” clicked on the file and found the professor’s detailed comments.
Ms. Obita filed a grade appeal based on a university policy allowing for appeals when an instructor fails to provide feedback in a reasonable time. Her appeal was denied by a committee composed of three faculty members and two students. In her lawsuit, she made several assertions about this committee, claiming its composition compromised its independence and that faculty members could not be impartial, suggesting they might face reprisals for siding with a student or may have a personal stake in the outcome. Her subsequent appeal to the university’s Senate Committee was also denied.
The dispute in the international management course, MGMT 3006, concerned a late penalty applied to a final group project. The course instructions required students to submit their report on the same day as their group presentation. The presentations were scheduled over several days, from November 24 to December 1, 2021. The instructions also listed a final due date of December 1. Ms. Obita’s group presented before December 1 but submitted their report on that final date. In her claim, Ms. Obita acknowledged that the December 1 deadline was “strictly for students who presented on December 1, 2021,” yet her group was penalized for submitting their work late relative to their own presentation date.
Ms. Obita appealed this grade on the grounds that the assignment instructions were “excessively unclear and/or contradictory.” She alleged that she never received any response to this appeal. She further claimed that the university “sabotaged” her appeal by revoking her access to the course materials on Brightspace after a decision was rendered in her other appeal. When she was directed to contact the MGMT 3006 professor directly to get information, she refused, arguing the professor might not provide information that could be used against her in an appeal. She later emailed an assistant to the Dean about the appeal but received no reply. Months later, she received an email from the same assistant on an unrelated matter, which led her to conclude her initial email about the appeal had been deliberately ignored. Based on this and anecdotal information from other unnamed students, she asserted the university had a “deliberate habit” of ignoring student appeals.
In his analysis, Justice Kurke systematically dismantled each of Ms. Obita’s legal claims. Regarding the negligence claim, the judge found it was “plain and obvious” that it had no reasonable prospect of success. He noted that not only did Ms. Obita fail to properly plead the legal requirements for a negligence claim, but her own telling of the facts subverted her argument. The evidence showed Professor Russell did provide feedback and directed her on how to find it. It was Ms. Obita, the judge pointed out, who failed to recognize the file and who did not follow through with IT for assistance. The judge stated, “No amendment can convert this allegation into a tort by the university.”
For the claim of deceit, Justice Kurke explained that such a claim requires very specific pleadings, including a false representation made knowingly with the intent to mislead, and reliance on that representation by the plaintiff to their detriment. He found that Ms. Obita’s claim contained none of these required elements. Instead, he characterized her allegations about the appeal committee’s bias and the university’s motivations as “sweeping statements of conjecture, assumption and speculation” and “cynical conclusions pleaded as fact that do not ground the claim.”
Similarly, the breach of contract claim was struck down for lack of substance. Justice Kurke noted that Ms. Obita failed to plead the existence of a specific contract, identify its terms, or explain how the university’s actions constituted a breach. Without these foundational elements, the claim was reduced to “bald assertions of Laurentian’s bad faith and liability.”
Ultimately, Justice Kurke concluded that the lawsuit as a whole was an attempt to use the courts to resolve a matter of academic judgment. He affirmed the legal principle that universities have broad discretion over academic issues and that the proper avenue for students dissatisfied with academic decisions is through internal review processes and, if necessary, an application for judicial review, not a civil lawsuit for damages. He found that Ms. Obita’s pleadings did not demonstrate conduct by the university that would take the situation outside of this established framework. For these reasons, the judge dismissed the claim entirely and did not grant Ms. Obita leave to amend it, finding that the flaws in her case were fundamental and could not be corrected.
Read more cases about education law here.
