Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• The dispute centers on UBC's refusal to apply course credits earned as an "unclassified" student toward a Bachelor of Arts degree, which the court characterized as academic in nature.

• Section 69(2) of the University Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 468 bars civil actions against a university when it acts under the authority of the Act, including its power to grant degrees and diplomas under s. 37.

• Courts lack jurisdiction over matters of an academic nature, with well-established precedent limiting intervention to judicial review on procedural fairness and natural justice grounds.

• An appellant's impecuniosity does not prevent an order for security for costs where the appeal has very little merit, as established in Chung v. Shin, 2017 BCCA 355.

• Constitutional challenges to s. 69 under the Charter and Canadian Bill of Rights were raised for the first time on appeal, a practice appellate courts do not generally permit.

• Neither the appellant's status as an unclassified student nor UBC's policies were found to constitute an analogous ground under s. 15 of the Charter.

Background and facts of the dispute

Oleg Bryzzhev was registered as an "unclassified" student at the University of British Columbia ("UBC"), during which time he completed a number of courses and earned academic credits. UBC recognized these credits and awarded Mr. Bryzzhev a Diploma in Education – Teaching English as a Second Language in May 2022. Subsequently, Mr. Bryzzhev enrolled in a Bachelor of Arts degree program at UBC and requested that the credits he had already earned be applied toward the requirements of that degree. UBC denied his request, prompting Mr. Bryzzhev to appeal the decision to UBC's Senate Committee on Academic Standing. The Senate Committee dismissed his appeal in June 2024.

Procedural history at the lower court

Following the Senate Committee's dismissal, Mr. Bryzzhev initially applied for judicial review of the decision. However, he discontinued that petition and instead commenced a civil claim against UBC in March 2025, advancing various causes of action including breach of contract, tort, bad faith, and alleged statutory and constitutional breaches. UBC responded by applying to have the claim struck under Rule 9-5(1)(a) as disclosing no reasonable cause of action. In a decision issued on July 8, 2025 (indexed as 2025 BCSC 1285), the chambers judge granted UBC's application and struck Mr. Bryzzhev's claim without leave to amend. The judge found that the essential character of the dispute was academic in nature—concerning the way UBC registered Mr. Bryzzhev as a student and how his course credits were applied toward earning a diploma or a degree. The judge also determined that the identified defects went to the heart of the claim, so it was not possible to cure them.

The statutory framework under the University Act

Central to the lower court's decision was s. 69(2) of the University Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 468, which requires a court to dismiss any action against a university where it appears the university acted under the authority of the Act. Section 37 of the Act confers on universities the power to grant degrees and diplomas. The chambers judge concluded that Mr. Bryzzhev's breach of contract, tort, and bad faith causes of action were not actionable because of s. 69(2). She also found the alleged statutory and constitutional breaches were not actionable under the Act and because it is well-settled that the Charter does not apply to universities.

The appeal and security for costs application

Mr. Bryzzhev appealed the chambers judge's decision to the Court of Appeal for British Columbia. He also filed a notice of constitutional question, challenging the constitutionality of s. 69 and of the chambers judge's decision under the equality and mobility provisions of the Charter and the equality provision of the Canadian Bill of Rights. UBC, as respondent, brought an application for security for costs. At the outset, Mr. Bryzzhev requested an adjournment of the security for costs hearing, having informed UBC only the day before that he would be making this request. Justice Iyer denied the adjournment, finding that UBC was entitled to have its application heard within a reasonable time.

The court's assessment of the merits

Justice Iyer applied the test for security for costs as set out in Gardezi v. Positive Living Society of British Columbia, 2018 BCCA 84 (Chambers), which requires the appellant to show that such an order is not in the interests of justice. Relevant factors include the appellant's financial means, the merits of the appeal, the timeliness of the application, and whether costs will be readily recoverable. While Mr. Bryzzhev stated he is indigent and has opposed the costs order against him made by the chambers judge, the Court emphasized that an appellant's impecuniosity will not bar a security for costs order where the appeal has very little merit, citing Chung v. Shin, 2017 BCCA 355 at para. 24. Justice Iyer accepted that UBC's application was timely and that it would be difficult for UBC to recover its costs in the event the appeal is unsuccessful. The Court found that Mr. Bryzzhev's dispute about how UBC treats course credits falls squarely within its exclusive jurisdiction over academic matters, relying on well-established precedent including Skyllar v. The University of British Columbia, 2023 BCCA 90, which adopted the reasoning of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice in Dawson v. University of Toronto, [2007] O.J. No. 591. The Court further noted that appellate courts do not generally hear issues raised for the first time on appeal, citing Quan v. Cusson, 2009 SCC 62 at paras. 36–37, and that the Charter does not apply to court judgments. Mr. Bryzzhev's invocation of s. 15 of the Charter on the basis of his status as an unclassified student and/or UBC's policies was also found to have no prospect of establishing either as an analogous s. 15 ground.

Ruling and outcome

Justice Iyer concluded that it was in the interests of justice to grant UBC's application for security for costs, finding the appeal had little prospect of success. UBC had asked for security of $7,500 to be posted based on a draft bill of costs of $12,443.20, which the Court considered a reasonable amount. The Court ordered Mr. Bryzzhev to post security in the amount of $7,500 within 30 days, in a form acceptable to the registrar or in such form as the parties may agree, and the appeal was stayed pending posting of security. If security is not posted within 30 days, UBC may apply to have the appeal dismissed as abandoned. UBC was the successful party on this application. Justice Iyer accepted that Mr. Bryzzhev's financial circumstances may mean that any order for security will mean he cannot pursue the appeal; however, the Court held that a party that was successful in the court below should not have to bear the unrecoverable costs of an appeal that has very little prospect of success.