Sharma v. University of Calgary, (1990) 107 A.R. 50 (QB)

• Judge: Cooke, J.
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta (Canada)
• Case Date: June 22, 1990
• Citations: (1990), 107 A.R. 50 (QB)

Sharma v. Calgary Univ. (1990), 107 A.R. 50 (QB)

MLB headnote and full text

Prabhat Sharma (applicant) v. The University of Calgary and The Governors of the University of Calgary (respondents)

(Action No. 9001-04693)

Indexed As: Sharma v. University of Calgary

Alberta Court of Queen's Bench

Judicial District of Calgary

Cooke, J.

June 22, 1990.

Summary:

A third year medical student at the University of Calgary applied for certiorari to quash various decisions of two committees of the Faculty of Medicine, the General Faculties Council and the Governors of the University. All decisions concerned clerkship requirements to be fulfilled before writing final exams. The university applied under rule 129 to strike the application on the grounds that (1) the certiorari application was barred by the six month limitation period (rule 753.11); (2) the decisions involved nonreviewable nonstatutory tribunals; and (3) internal appeals were not exhausted.

The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench dismissed the university's application and ordered the certiorari application to proceed to hearing. The court stated that the certiorari application was not statute barred, the various tribunals' decisions were subject to judicial review and the availability of internal appeals did not preclude the certiorari application.

Administrative Law - Topic 3342

Judicial review - Practice - Limitation period - Rule 753.11 required that applications for judicial review be made within six months of the decision or act sought to be set aside - A medical student requested that a tribunal reconsider a 1987 decision - The tribunal, after considering additional evidence and submissions, decided in October 1989 not to reconsider its initial decision - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench held that a certiorari application brought within six months of the October 1989 decision was not statute barred, because the tribunal's reaffirmation of its initial decision was a "decision" within the meaning of rule 753.11 - See paragraphs 16 to 18.

Administrative Law - Topic 5042

Judicial review - Certiorari - Tribunals subject to certiorari - Statutory tribunal - What constitutes - A medical student applied for certiorari to quash a decision of the Student Promotions Committee, which acted under authority delegated by the Faculty Council - The university submitted that the Committee was a nonstatutory tribunal not subject to judicial review - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench considered the Universities Act, the public interest and the university's submissions, and stated that both the Committee and the Council were statutory tribunals subject to judicial review - See paragraphs 19 to 37.

Administrative Law - Topic 5110

Judicial review - Certiorari - Conditions precedent - Exhaustion of appeals or other remedies - A medical student applied for certiorari to quash various tribunal decisions notwithstanding a failure to exhaust the internal appeal procedure - The student submitted that his past dealings with the tribunals showed that resort to the appeal process would be futile and there was a reasonable apprehension of bias - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench refused to strike the certiorari application on the ground of failure to exhaust the internal appeal process - See paragraphs 38 to 44.

Cases Noticed:

Spanach v. Workers' Compensation Board (1987), 75 A.R. 212 (Q.B.), dist. [para. 16].

Vinogradov v. University of Calgary (1987), 77 A.R. 227 (C.A.), consd. [para. 23].

Vanek v. Governors of the University of Alberta (1975), 57 D.L.R.(3d) 595 (Alta. C.A.), consd. [para. 23].

Martineau v. Matsqui Disciplinary Board, [1980] 1 S.C.R. 602; 30 N.R. 119, consd. [para. 32].

Statutes Noticed:

Rules of Court (Alta.), rule 753.11, rule 753.13.

Universities Act, R.S.A. 1980, c. U-5, sect. 25(1), sect. 25(3), sect. 35, sect. 37(1)(h) [para. 9]; sect. 37(1)(o) [para. 29]; sect. 39(1), sect. 40(1)(d), sect. 45(2) [para. 9].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Stevenson and Côté, Civil Procedure Guide (1989), p. 336 [para. 45].

Counsel:

P.R. Mack (Machida, Mack & Shewchuk), for the applicant;

Robert W. Thompson (Bennett Jones Verchere), for the respondents.

This application was heard before Cooke, J., of the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, Judicial District of Calgary, who delivered the following judgment on June 22, 1990.