Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• The court considered whether the applicant met the criteria for exceptional interim relief through safeguard measures.

• The urgency and cause of the applicant’s situation were scrutinized, including his actions and delays in seeking assistance.

• The sufficiency of the applicant’s evidence to establish a strong prima facie case for mandatory injunction was assessed.

• The existence and seriousness of alleged harm, as well as whether it was speculative or concrete, were examined.

• The respondent’s compliance with regulatory obligations and efforts to assist the applicant were evaluated.

• The appropriateness of appellate intervention in interim procedural matters was addressed, including the interests of justice and proportionality.

Background and facts
Ashraf Azar, a former Ph.D. student in the Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Medicine at Université de Montréal, began his doctoral studies under the supervision of Professor Michnick on January 1, 2004, with a $25,000 annual stipend. Following an evaluation in May 2024, Professor Michnick informed Azar in September 2024 that he could no longer act as his supervisor. Azar requested a review and reasons for this decision, which were provided in December 2024. The university offered assistance to help Azar find a new supervisor and provided emergency financial support. Despite repeated requests and meetings, Azar did not provide the necessary information or follow up constructively. He eventually submitted some information in July 2025, but it was deemed insufficient. The urgency of securing a new supervisor was emphasized as Azar’s Ph.D. admission would be terminated if no supervisor was found by August 15, 2025. Unable to secure a supervisor, Azar’s admission was terminated. On September 9, 2025, he filed proceedings seeking immediate readmission to the Ph.D. program and other related relief.

Procedural history and legal arguments
Azar sought safeguard measures in the Superior Court, including reinstatement as a Ph.D. candidate, restoration of insurance coverage, and assistance in finding a new supervisor. He also requested that the university not disclose unproven allegations to potential supervisors. The Superior Court, presided over by the Honourable Silvana Conte, dismissed Azar’s application on September 15, 2025. The court found that any urgency was due to Azar’s own inaction, that he failed to establish a strong prima facie case for a mandatory injunction, and that the harm alleged was speculative. The court also noted that the university had met its regulatory obligations and that Azar had not applied to other universities or made sufficient efforts to find a new supervisor. Azar then sought leave to appeal this decision to the Quebec Court of Appeal.

Decision and reasoning
The Honourable Christian Immer, J.A., of the Quebec Court of Appeal, heard the application for leave to appeal. The court found that the first instance judge correctly identified and applied the four criteria for granting safeguard measures and provided detailed reasons for finding that Azar did not meet them. The appellate court emphasized that safeguard measures are interim and discretionary, and that appellate intervention is warranted only in exceptional circumstances. The court concluded that Azar’s appeal had no reasonable chance of success and that the interests of justice and proportionality did not support granting leave to appeal. The court also noted concerns about Azar’s references to non-existent case law in his application, which the respondent attributed to artificial intelligence hallucinations, and Azar provided no explanation for this conduct.

Outcome and costs
The Quebec Court of Appeal dismissed Azar’s application for leave to appeal and ordered him to pay legal costs to Université de Montréal. No monetary damages or compensation were granted or ordered. The total amount of costs or monetary award could not be determined from the decision.