Khan v. University of Toronto et al., (1998) 111 O.A.C. 170 (DC)

• Judge: Dunnet, J.
• Court: Ontario Court of Justice General Division (Canada)
• Case Date: June 23, 1998
• Jurisdiction: Ontario
• Citations: (1998), 111 O.A.C. 170 (DC)

Khan v. Toronto Univ. (1998), 111 O.A.C. 170 (DC)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [1998] O.A.C. TBEd. JL.041

Shakeel Aziz Khan (applicant) v. The Governing Council of the University of Toronto and Patricia D. Jackson, Chair of the Disciplinary Tribunal of the University of Toronto (respondents)

(6/98)

Indexed As: Khan v. University of Toronto et al.

Ontario Court of Justice

General Division

Divisional Court

Dunnet, J.

July 3, 1998.

Summary:

The University of Toronto conducted a hearing into charges that Khan "intention­ally" failed to disclose all material informa­tion when applying for admission to medical school. The University Tribunal recom­mended expulsion. Khan applied for judicial review.

The Ontario Divisional Court, in a decision reported at 87 O.A.C. 241, allowed Khan's application for judicial review and ordered a rehearing by the University Tribunal.

The University Tribunal scheduled a new hearing into the charges. Khan applied for judicial review disputing the jurisdiction of the Tribunal to conduct the hearing. Pending the application, Khan moved for an order: striking the notice of appearance filed by University, removing the University's solici­tors of record and enjoining Jackson or any other Chair of the University Tribunal from conducting any hearing concerning Khan, pending the judicial review applica­tion.

The Ontario Divisional Court dismissed the motion.

Editor's Note: for another case involving these parties see 89 O.A.C. 303.

Administrative Law - Topic 3289

Judicial review - General - Stay of pro­ceedings pending before tribunal - Con­siderations - General - Khan argued that scheduled proceedings before the Disci­pline Tribunal of the University of Toronto should be stayed until his application for judicial review challenging the Tribunal's jurisdiction was heard - The Tribunal had ruled on a preliminary motion that it had jurisdiction to proceed on the merits of the hearing - Khan argued that he would suffer irreparable harm if the stay was not grant­ed and the balance of convenience favoured hear­ing the judicial review before proceeding at a financial cost to him - The Ontario Divisional Court held that there were no special circumstances warranting fragment­ing the administrative proceedings before the Tribunal to permit judicial review of interim rulings - Khan had failed to exhaust the university appeals process - It was in the interests of justice to avoid a multiplicity of proceedings - See para­graphs 12 to 14.

Administrative Law - Topic 3290

Judicial review - General - Stay of pro­ceedings pending before tribunal - Con­siderations - Balance of convenience - [See Administrative Law - Topic 3289 ].

Administrative Law - Topic 3291

Judicial review - General - Stay of pro­ceedings pending before tribunal - Con­siderations - Irreparable harm - [See Ad­ministrative Law - Topic 3289 ].

Administrative Law - Topic 3341

Judicial review - General - Practice - General - Civil Procedure Rule 38.07 required that a respondent who had been served with a notice of application shall forthwith deliver a notice of appearance - Khan sought to strike the Governing Coun­cil of the University of Toronto's notice of appearance because it was filed late - The Ontario Divisional Court dismissed the motion - It was always the University's intention to oppose the application and the notice was not served due to an oversight - Nothing in the Rules provided that a party who had not filed a notice to appear forth­with was barred from participating in the pro­ceedings - There was no evidence of preju­dice from the late filing warranting the order sought - Such a sanction would preclude a determination of the proceed­ings on the merits - See paragraphs 2 to 6.

Statutes Noticed:

Civil Procedure Rules (Ont.), rule 38.07 [para. 5].

Counsel:

Eric P. Polten, for the applicant;

Linda R. Rothstein and Andrew K. Lokan, for the respondent, the Governing Coun­cil of the University of Toronto.

This motion was heard on June 23, 1998, before Dunnet, J., of the Ontario Divisional Court, who released the following judgment on July 3, 1998.