Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• URSU sought interlocutory injunctions compelling the University to release collected student fees and continue collecting them moving forward.

• The University lawfully terminated the fee collection agreement, raising concerns about URSU’s financial mismanagement and governance failures.

• The Court applied the RJR-MacDonald three-part test for injunctions, requiring URSU to show a serious issue, irreparable harm, and balance of convenience.

• URSU failed to demonstrate a strong prima facie case to justify mandatory relief requiring the University to keep collecting fees.

• Evidence showed URSU could still access student funds through the University’s Payment Protocol, undercutting claims of irreparable harm.

• The balance of convenience and equitable considerations favored the University due to its oversight role and URSU’s lack of accountability.

Background and breakdown of the dispute

The Students’ Union of the University of Regina Inc. (URSU) filed a lawsuit against the University of Regina after the University ceased transferring student fees to URSU and later terminated their long-standing fee collection agreement. URSU is a non-profit organization representing over 14,000 students, responsible for various services and advocacy efforts. The University had historically collected student fees and forwarded them to URSU under a 1989 agreement.

However, the University became increasingly concerned with URSU’s financial position and governance, citing recurring deficits, increasing debt, underperformance of the Owl student bar, questionable financial practices, and failure to provide detailed plans to remedy its financial crisis. URSU’s 2024 audited financial statements included a “Material Uncertainty Related to Going Concern” warning, reflecting the risk of insolvency.

Repeated efforts by the University to engage with URSU leadership were unsuccessful. Despite offers to fund a forensic audit and governance review, URSU resisted transparency, refused to provide key financial information, and delayed or skipped meetings. By early 2025, the University formally stopped transferring fees and implemented a Payment Protocol allowing URSU to request payments for specific expenses. Later, in April 2025, the University provided 90 days’ notice terminating the fee collection agreement effective Fall 2025.

URSU’s legal application and arguments

URSU applied to the Court for interlocutory relief. Specifically, it asked for an order requiring the University to immediately transfer collected fees for the Winter and Spring/Summer 2025 terms and to continue collecting and transferring student fees until the lawsuit was resolved. URSU argued that the University had no authority to withhold the fees and that failure to pay them would force URSU to shut down. It characterized the injunction as prohibitory and insisted its case met the legal test for injunctive relief, citing case law including Ryerson Students’ Union v Ryerson University.

URSU maintained that student services would cease, employment would be lost, and harm would ripple through various student-funded organizations. It criticized the University’s Payment Protocol as impractical and claimed the University’s actions were overreaching and unfairly punitive based on prior administrations' mistakes.

The University’s position

The University opposed the injunctions, arguing that it had legally terminated the agreement and that URSU’s conduct justified its actions. It emphasized URSU’s financial instability, refusal to implement accountability measures, and misuse of funds intended for specific student groups. The University defended the Payment Protocol as a responsible interim solution ensuring continuity of essential services without direct transfer of large sums to URSU. It also maintained that any alleged harm was avoidable and largely self-inflicted.

The University distinguished this case from Ryerson, pointing out that URSU had not pursued a forensic audit, had offered only vague assurances of reform, and had been uncooperative.

Court’s legal analysis and ruling

Justice Bergbusch applied the standard three-part test from RJR-MacDonald v Canada (AG) for granting interlocutory injunctions: (1) serious question to be tried or strong prima facie case (depending on the type of injunction), (2) irreparable harm, and (3) balance of convenience.

For the first injunction (releasing already collected student fees), the Court accepted there was a serious question to be tried regarding whether the University had breached the agreement before its termination took effect. However, for the second injunction (to continue collecting and remitting student fees post-termination), the Court held that URSU failed to show a strong prima facie case. The agreement clearly allowed for termination, which the University executed lawfully.

On the question of irreparable harm, the Court found that while URSU was in financial distress, it had access to student funds via the Payment Protocol. Since URSU had not even attempted to use this process, the claim of irreparable harm lacked merit. The Court emphasized that the protocol was functional and modeled on a similar one used by the University of Ottawa during its own student union issues.

As for the balance of convenience, the Court found that URSU’s inconvenience was minimal compared to the potential harm to the University and its students. The Court noted that URSU did not segregate funds for specific student groups, had withdrawn a fee allocation breakdown from its website, and had refused oversight. By contrast, the University faced reputational and operational risks if compelled to hand over large sums to an unaccountable organization.

Final outcome

The Court dismissed URSU’s application for both prohibitory and mandatory injunctions. It concluded that requiring the University to continue collecting and transferring student fees after the agreement had been properly terminated would amount to imposing a new contract on the parties. The Court also emphasized the University’s good faith efforts to support URSU and the latter’s consistent failure to engage constructively. Costs were awarded against URSU.