Education Lawyer in Ontario

Sran v. University of Saskatchewan Academic Misconduct Appeal Board, 2024 SKCA 32

In this case, the appellants, H.S. and J.W., were accused of academic misconduct and challenged the delay in their hearing, arguing it violated the university’s regulations. The case exemplifies how judicial review can address procedural fairness in academic decisions. The appellants asserted that the hearing should have taken place within 60 days of the complaint, as stipulated by the university’s regulations. However, the hearing was delayed due to various factors, including the COVID-19 pandemic.

The Court of Queen’s Bench addressed whether the 60-day timeline was mandatory or directory. The judge concluded that the timeline was not mandatory and that there was substantial compliance given the exceptional circumstances. This decision was upheld by the appellate court, which emphasized the significance of academic integrity and procedural fairness over strict compliance with procedural timelines. This case illustrates how Provincial Judicial Review can be utilized to ensure that universities follow fair procedures and preserve students’ rights. It also highlights the nuances of such reviews, involving the interpretation of regulations, evaluation of procedural fairness, and balancing of various interests. For students accused of academic misconduct, judicial review can be a crucial avenue to challenge decisions they believe were made unfairly.

AA v. Law Society of Ontario, 2024 ONLSTA 6

In this instance, AA committed a highly serious offence in 2009 involving sexual interference with underage individuals, which he failed to disclose to the Law Society. He later applied for a license to practice law but omitted this transgression. After the Law Society discovered his past acts, he withdrew his application. In 2019, he reapplied and disclosed all his previous offences. The primary legal question in this case was whether AA had been properly rehabilitated from his past offences and demonstrated the good character required to be licensed by the Law Society. Initially, the Hearing Division determined that AA was of good character but imposed a restriction, stating he could not meet with small children unattended. The Law Society appealed this ruling, arguing that the supervision requirement was incompatible with a finding of good character and that the Hearing Division had erred in its evaluation of the evidence.

The Hearing Division’s ruling was upheld by the Law Society Tribunal’s Appeal Division. The Appeal Division found no mishandling of evidence or unfair procedural practices in the imposition of the supervision requirement. They stated that the supervision requirement strengthened public trust in the regulation of the legal profession rather than contradicting the judgment of good character. This case demonstrates the importance of thorough and honest disclosure in maintaining the integrity of professional and academic institutions. It shows that by disclosing past offences rather than hiding them, individuals are more likely to be seen as having truly changed and learned from their mistakes.

McMaster University (Re), 2024 CanLII 17583 (ON IPC)

In the context of academic misconduct and education law, provincial judicial review is a crucial procedure ensuring that university judgments comply with administrative law principles. This case addresses privacy issues associated with the use of Respondus test proctoring, highlighting the nuances and legal consequences of online proctoring in educational institutions. In 2021, a complaint was filed with the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario (IPC) regarding McMaster University’s use of Respondus Monitor and Respondus LockDown Browser for remote exams. These programs were designed to protect academic integrity by restricting computer access, monitoring students through their webcams, and using artificial intelligence to identify suspicious activity. The complaint raised concerns about the collection, handling, and security of personal data, including biometric information.

Although the IPC’s investigation found that using Respondus software to proctor exams was legally permitted, it also revealed that McMaster University had not provided students with adequate notice about the collection of their personal information, as required by the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA). Additionally, the contractual agreements between McMaster and Respondus did not adequately protect student information, allowing the software to use personal data for system enhancements without student approval. This demonstrates that even seemingly harmless uses of personal data can still infringe on privacy rights.

The IPC report concluded that while McMaster’s collection of personal information via Respondus was necessary for the proper administration of exams, several improvements were needed. These included better notification practices, more robust contractual protections, and additional safeguards around the use of AI technology to mitigate privacy risks. The case underscores the importance of institutions using technology responsibly and transparently. This example illustrates how Provincial Judicial Review can provide a mechanism for students to challenge decisions that may violate their rights, ensuring that educational institutions adhere to legal and ethical standards.