Lobo v. Carleton University

Lobo v. Carleton University

Booking of non‑academic extracurricular space by the University is not the implementation of a specific government program under Eldridge so the Charter does not apply; the amended pleading did not plead tortious conduct or facts showing individual defendants had a separate identity from the University, therefore...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
2012 ONCA 498
Parties
Plaintiff/appellant: Ruth Lobo; Plaintiff/appellant: John McLeod; Defendant/respondent: Carleton University; Defendant/respondent: Dr. Roseann O'Reilly Runte; Defendant/respondent: David Sterritt; Defendant/respondent: Ryan Flannagan; Defendant/respondent: Allan Burns
Court
Court of Appeal for Ontario
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
11 July 2012
Procedural Posture
Civil / Appeal — Motion to Strike Portions of Claim (charter and Individual Defendant Claims)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Section 32 Charter Application, Eldridge Test, Vicarious Liability, Striking Pleadings — Disclose No Reasonable Cause of Action, Personal Liability of Employees
Source Language
english
Constitutional Law Administrative Law Tort Law Civil Procedure Section 32 Charter Application Eldridge Test Vicarious Liability Striking Pleadings — Disclose No Reasonable Cause of Action +1 more

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ruth Lobo

Plaintiff/appellant

John McLeod

Plaintiff/appellant

Carleton University

Defendant/respondent

Dr. Roseann O'Reilly Runte

Defendant/respondent

David Sterritt

Defendant/respondent

Ryan Flannagan

Defendant/respondent

Allan Burns

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil / Appeal — Motion to Strike Portions of Claim (charter and Individual Defendant Claims)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Carleton University was acting as government or implementing a specific government program such that the Charter applied under Eldridge
  2. 2 Whether the appellants' Charter pleadings disclosed a reasonable cause of action
  3. 3 Whether the amended statement of claim pleaded facts sufficient to impose personal liability on individual university employees (separate identity or tortious acts)

Ratio Decidendi

Booking of non‑academic extracurricular space by the University is not the implementation of a specific government program under Eldridge so the Charter does not apply; the amended pleading did not plead tortious conduct or facts showing individual defendants had a separate identity from the University, therefore claims against individuals disclosed no reasonable cause of action; motion judge's striking order was correct and appeal is dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Costs to respondents fixed at $15,000 inclusive of disbursements and applicable taxes