Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Sufficiency of pleadings under Rule 9-5(1)(a) and whether the claim disclosed any reasonable cause of action

• Jurisdictional limits of the court regarding academic decisions and university policy enforcement

• Applicability of human rights and accessibility legislation to a private post-secondary institution

• Adequacy of material facts pleaded to support claims in contract, negligence, and fiduciary duty

• Relevance and admissibility of evidence on an application to strike under the Supreme Court Civil Rules

• Entitlement to costs following a successful application to strike

Facts of the case

Munchang Choi, a student enrolled in the MBA program at University Canada West (UCW), a private post-secondary institution in Vancouver, became dissatisfied with the university’s handling of his complaints against instructors. He alleged that two instructors in his courses, HRMT 622 and BUSI 601, engaged in plagiarism by using materials copied from others. Mr. Choi reported these concerns to the university, claiming that UCW’s academic integrity policy was violated. He also filed complaints with external agencies. UCW investigated the complaints and determined that there was no academic misconduct, explaining that the materials in question were standardized templates and that the academic integrity policy applied only to students, not faculty. Mr. Choi was dissatisfied with this response, viewing it as unfair and discriminatory, and alleged that the university’s failure to act caused him emotional distress, financial loss, and damage to his academic prospects.

Procedural background

Mr. Choi filed a Notice of Civil Claim (NOCC) on January 14, 2025, and an Amended Notice of Civil Claim (ANOCC) on January 28, 2025, naming UCW and six individual instructors or administrators as defendants. He also filed two petitions for judicial review regarding the same allegations. The defendants applied to strike the ANOCC on the basis that it disclosed no reasonable cause of action, was frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process. Mr. Choi, citing medical and caregiving reasons, requested the court proceed based on his written materials and did not attend the hearing in person.

Policy terms and clauses at issue

Central to Mr. Choi’s complaint was UCW’s academic integrity policy, which he argued should apply equally to faculty and students. The university maintained that the policy was only applicable to students, and this distinction formed the basis of Mr. Choi’s claim of unfairness and discrimination. Mr. Choi also referenced various legislative frameworks, including the Human Rights Code, Accessible British Columbia Act, and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, alleging that UCW failed to provide equitable treatment and reasonable accommodation for his disability. However, the court found that these statutes did not apply to UCW as a private institution and that the proper forum for such complaints was the Human Rights Tribunal, not the Supreme Court.

Legal analysis and outcome

The court examined each of Mr. Choi’s pleaded causes of action, including breach of contract, negligence, negligent misrepresentation, misfeasance in public office, breach of fiduciary duty, and violations of human rights and accessibility legislation. It found that Mr. Choi failed to plead sufficient material facts to support any of these claims. The court also emphasized that academic matters, such as the application of plagiarism policies and internal university procedures, are generally not justiciable except through judicial review. The relief sought by Mr. Choi, including orders for independent investigations and policy changes, was found to be outside the court’s jurisdiction.

Ruling and overall outcome

Justice Chan concluded that the plaintiff’s Amended Notice of Civil Claim did not disclose any reasonable cause of action and that further amendments would not cure the defects. The claim was dismissed in its entirety. The defendants—Sandra Slopinski, Michele Vincenti, Mazi Shirvani, Stephanie Chu, Amirali Nourbakhsh, Sandra Song, and University Canada West—were the successful parties. The court awarded them their costs at the ordinary scale, with the exact amount to be determined according to standard procedures, and no damages were awarded.