Mpega v. Université de Moncton et al.,

• Jurisdiction: New Brunswick
• Judge: Daigle, C.J.N.B., Ayles and Larlee, JJ.A.
• Neutral Citation: 2001 NBCA 78
• Court: Court of Appeal (New Brunswick)
• Date: 28 June 2001

Mpega v. Moncton Univ. (2001), 240 N.B.R.(2d) 349 (CA);

    240 R.N.-B.(2e) 349; 622 A.P.R. 349

MLB headnote and full text

[French language version follows English language version]

[La version française vient à la suite de la version anglaise]

....................

Temp. Cite: [2001] N.B.R.(2d) TBEd. JL.008

Jean-Christian Mpega (appellant) v. Université de Moncton (respondent) and Fédération des étudiants et étudiantes du Centre universitaire de Moncton Inc. (intervener)

(50/99/CA; 2001 NBCA 78)

Indexed As: Mpega v. Université de Moncton et al.

New Brunswick Court of Appeal

Daigle, C.J.N.B., Ayles and Larlee, JJ.A.

June 28, 2001.

Summary:

The applicant was a student at the Univer­sité de Moncton. A female student filed a com­plaint against him with the Uni­versity under its Sexual and Sexist Harass­ment Policy. The Complaints Committee found that the ap­plicant was guilty of sexual ha­rassment. The president of the University expelled the applicant on a major dis­ciplinary charge. The Appeals Committee affirmed the decision of the Complaints Committee as well as the penalty imposed by the president. The ap­plicant applied for judicial review.

The New Brunswick Court of Queen's Bench, Trial Division, in a decision reported at 213 N.B.R.(2d) 241; 545 A.P.R. 241, dismissed the application. The applicant appealed.

The New Brunswick Court of Appeal allowed the appeal.

Constitutional Law - Topic 6443

Federal jurisdiction - Criminal law - Gen­eral - Matters criminal in nature - [See Education - Topic 4623 ].

Education - Topic 4093

Universities - Powers - Discipline - [See Education - Topic 4623 ].

Education - Topic 4623

Universities - Judicial review of exercise of powers of Universities - When available - A Université de Moncton female student filed a complaint against a male student under the University's Sexual and Sexist Harassment Policy - The female student alleged that the male student had had intercourse with her without her consent - The incident took place off-campus - The Complaints Committee found that the male student was guilty of sexual harassment - The student was expelled - The Appeals Committee affirmed - The student applied for, and obtained on appeal, judicial review of the decision, which decision was quashed - The New Brunswick Court of Appeal held: (1) the standard of review here was that of correctness; (2) the Policy applied to off-campus incidents; (3) how­ever, the Complaints Committee did not have jurisdiction to rule on the complaint because this was an isolated incident not covered by the definition of harassment under the Policy which required evidence of repeated acts of a sexual nature; (4) the Complaints Committee exceeded its juris­diction in investigating a specific criminal complaint, namely sexual assault, a matter of federal jurisdiction.

Education - Topic 4624

Universities - Judicial review of exercise of powers of universities - Standard of review - [See Education - Topic 4623 ].

Cases Noticed:

Borowski v. Canada (Attorney General), [1989] 1 S.C.R. 342; 92 N.R. 110; 75 Sask.R. 82; 38 C.R.R. 232; 57 D.L.R.(4th) 231; 47 C.C.C.(3d) 1; 33 C.P.C.(2d) 105; [1989] 3 W.W.R. 97, refd to. [para. 4].

Syndicat national des employés de la Com­mission scolaire régionale de l'Outaouais (CSN) v. Union des employés de service, local 298 (FTQ), [1988] 2 S.C.R. 1048; 95 N.R. 161; 24 Q.A.C. 244, refd to. [para. 25].

Bibeault - see Syndicat national des em­ployés de la Commission scolaire ré­gionale de l'Outaouais (CSN) v. Union des employés de service, local 298 (FTQ).

Union des employés de services, local 298 (FTQ) v. Bibeault - see Syndicat national des employés de la Commission scolaire régionale de l'Outaouais (CSN) v. Union des employés de service, local 298 (FTQ) et al.

Pezim v. British Columbia Securities Com­mission et al., [1994] 2 S.C.R. 557; 168 N.R. 321; 46 B.C.A.C. 1; 75 W.A.C. 1; 114 D.L.R.(4th) 385, refd to. [para. 25].

Pezim v. British Columbia (Superintendent of Brokers) - see Pezim v. British Columbia Securities Commission et al.

Pasiechnyk et al. v. Procrane Inc. et al., [1997] 2 S.C.R. 890; 216 N.R. 1; 158 Sask.R. 81; 153 W.A.C. 81, refd to. [para. 25].

Pasiechnyk v. Saskatchewan (Workers' Compensation Board) - see Pasiechnyk et al. v. Procrane Inc. et al.

Director of Investigation and Research, Competition Act v. Southam Inc. et al., [1997] 1 S.C.R. 748; 209 N.R. 20, refd to. [para. 25].

Pushpanathan v. Canada (Minister of Citi­zenship and Immigration), [1998] 1 S.C.R. 982; 226 N.R. 201, refd to. [para. 25].

Baker v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [1999] 2 S.C.R. 817; 243 N.R. 22; 174 D.L.R.(4th) 193, refd to. [para. 25].

Janzen and Govereau v. Pharos Restaurant and Grammas et al., [1989] 1 S.C.R. 1252; 95 N.R. 81; 58 Man.R.(2d) 1, refd to. [para. 40].

R. v. Ryback (C.W.) (1996), 71 B.C.A.C. 175; 117 W.A.C. 175; 105 C.C.C.(3d) 240; 47 C.R.(4th) 108 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 41].

R. v. Sillipp (E.F.) (1995), 172 A.R. 174; 99 C.C.C.(3d) 394 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 41].

R. v. Lamontagne (1998), 129 C.C.C.(3d) 181 (Qué. C.A.), refd to. [para. 41].

R. v. Kosikar (K.I.) (1999), 124 O.A.C. 289; 138 C.C.C.(3d) 217 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 41].

Starr et al. v. Houlden, [1990] 1 S.C.R. 1366; 110 N.R. 81; 41 O.A.C. 161; 55 C.C.C.(3d) 472, refd to. [para. 59].

Consortium Developments (Clearwater) Ltd. v. Sarnia (City) et al., [1998] 3 S.C.R. 3; 230 N.R. 343; 114 O.A.C 92, refd to. [para. 62].

Canada (Attorney General) et al. v. Royal Commission of Inquiry on the Blood System in Canada et al., [1997] 3 S.C.R. 440; 216 N.R. 321, refd to. [para. 62].

Phillips et al. v. Richard, J., [1995] 2 S.C.R. 97; 180 N.R. 1; 141 N.S.R.(2d) 1; 403 A.P.R. 1; 124 D.L.R.(4th) 129; 98 C.C.C.(3d) 20; 28 C.R.R.(2d) 1, refd to. [para. 62].

Counsel:

Jean-Eugène Trahan, for the appellant;

Denise LeBlanc, for the respondent;

Christian Michaud, for the intervener.

This appeal was heard on April 19, 2000, by Daigle, C.J.N.B., Ayles and Larlee, JJ.A., of the New Brunswick Court of Appeal.

The decision of the Court of Appeal was delivered on June 28, 2001, by Daigle, C.J.N.B.