Lam v. University of Western Ontario

Lam v. University of Western Ontario

The motion judge erred as a matter of law by dismissing the action on the basis that the dispute was academic and should be handled internally; the genuine issues of fact identified, if resolved in the appellant's favor, could establish breaches of contractual obligations (including implied handbook terms and the duty of honest performance) giving rise to damages actionable in court, therefore the summary judgment must be set aside and the matter proceed to trial.

Citation
2019 ONCA 82
Parties
Plaintiff/appellant: Simon Lam; Defendant/respondent: The University of Western Ontario Board of Governors
Court
Court of Appeal for Ontario
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
6 February 2019
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Summary Judgment Dismissal of Plaintiff's Action
Outcome
Appeal allowed; summary judgment set aside; University’s summary judgment motion dismissed; action to proceed to trial
Legal Topics
Summary Judgment, Breach of Contract, Breach of Fiduciary Duty, University Governance, Judicial Review, Duty of Honest Performance
Source Language
English
Contract Law Tort Law Administrative Law Education Law Civil Procedure Summary Judgment Breach of Contract Breach of Fiduciary Duty +3 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Simon Lam

Plaintiff/appellant

The University of Western Ontario Board of Governors

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Summary Judgment Dismissal of Plaintiff's Action

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a court has jurisdiction to hear a damages claim against a university arising from academic supervision decisions
  2. 2 Whether the pleaded facts if proven could establish a breach of contract despite the academic context
  3. 3 Whether internal university complaint processes oust the court's jurisdiction

Ratio Decidendi

The motion judge erred as a matter of law by dismissing the action on the basis that the dispute was academic and should be handled internally; the genuine issues of fact identified, if resolved in the appellant's favor, could establish breaches of contractual obligations (including implied handbook terms and the duty of honest performance) giving rise to damages actionable in court, therefore the summary judgment must be set aside and the matter proceed to trial.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; summary judgment set aside; University’s summary judgment motion dismissed; action to proceed to trial

Orders

  • Appeal allowed
  • Order set aside the judgment dismissing the action