Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Sinedu Dejene Tefera was removed from the University of Ottawa's Ph.D program after receiving two unsatisfactory progress reports, triggering a mandatory withdrawal under the university's academic regulations.
• She appealed the withdrawal to the Faculty and then to the Senate Appeals Committee (SAC), both of which denied her appeal before she sought judicial review.
• The applicable standard of review for the SAC's decision is reasonableness, as established in Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Vavilov, 2019 SCC 65.
• Procedural fairness was a central issue, with Ms. Tefera raising numerous arguments about the evaluation process, including concerns about medical leaves, inconsistent treatment, and the supervisor's reporting procedure.
• Courts have historically exercised significant deference toward university academic decisions, intervening only in cases of manifest unfairness or flagrant violations of natural justice.
• Costs were assessed against the applicant, in part due to her improper use of artificial intelligence in preparing the first version of her factum.

Facts of the case

Sinedu Dejene Tefera was a Ph.D student studying chemistry in the Faculty of Science at the University of Ottawa, admitted to the program in the spring/summer 2021 term. Her academic progress was assessed through a series of thesis advisory committee (TAC) reports and progress reports prepared by her supervisor. Her first and second progress reports, submitted in May and September 2022 respectively, evaluated her progress as fair. Ms. Tefera passed her comprehensive examination in December 2022, conditional on completing various steps — including submitting a progress summary and outlining her planned research before the next TAC meeting scheduled for April 2023. That meeting was postponed because she took a brief medical leave. The third TAC meeting was held on May 25, 2023, and found her progress to be unsatisfactory. A fourth TAC meeting was held on August 18, 2023, which resulted in a progress report deeming her work inadequate and not in line with what is expected of a Ph.D student two years into her program. The university's overarching concern was that Ms. Tefera was not making sufficient progress in her research or adequately communicating her research plan. Under the applicable academic regulation, two unsatisfactory progress reports triggered mandatory withdrawal from the program, and she was accordingly withdrawn.

Policy terms and academic regulations at issue

The central regulatory provision was the university's academic rule that receiving two unsatisfactory progress reports constitutes a mandatory ground for withdrawal from the Ph.D program. This regulation left no discretion once the threshold was met. The Faculty's internal appeal process also came under scrutiny: the Vice-Dean responsible for Graduate Studies dismissed Ms. Tefera's appeal, finding no procedural faults that would invalidate the two unsatisfactory grades. The SAC subsequently found that the Faculty had followed the university's rules and that no procedural errors had occurred in the handling of her file.

Reasoning and analysis

The Divisional Court applied the reasonableness standard to the SAC's decision, citing Vavilov, and assessed procedural fairness claims through the framework in Baker v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [1999] 2 SCR 817. The court noted that it has historically been reluctant to intervene in university academic decisions, particularly those concerning the standing of doctoral candidates evaluated by subject matter experts, citing Dawson v. University of Toronto (2007) and Sardar v. University of Ottawa, 2014 ONSC 3562. In Sardar, this court held that decisions of university bodies such as the SAC deserve a high degree of deference and should only be interfered with in cases of manifest unfairness or a flagrant violation of the rules of natural justice.

The court addressed each of Ms. Tefera's procedural fairness submissions in turn. On the first TAC meeting, it found the dispute over reporting expectations to be of limited relevance, since the "fair" rating from that meeting played no role in the withdrawal decision. On allegations of inconsistent treatment — including issues about progress reports and lab access — the court found no marked unfairness, accepting that the Faculty was within its discretion to require more detailed reports given previously ineffective or unclear presentations. Regarding medical leaves, the court found that Ms. Tefera had not provided her medical note at the time of the relevant meeting, and that her second leave in 2023 was brief and resulted only in a rescheduling of the third TAC meeting. On the third TAC meeting's process specifically, the court rejected three procedural objections: that reports were submitted separately, that the supervisor submitted her report before meeting with the applicant (a factual dispute the SAC was entitled to resolve), and that the applicant did not see the supervisor's notes until after the meeting — noting she had several months to act on them before the fourth meeting.

Finally, the court rejected the argument that the SAC failed to grapple with the central issues in dispute. Citing Vavilov at paragraphs 91 and 106, the court held that reasons need not address every issue raised, nor be assessed against a standard of perfection, and must be read together with the record before the decision-maker. Ms. Tefera had filed a 47-page written submission to the SAC, and the court found that the SAC's conclusions — read in context of the Faculty's decision and detailed written submissions — sufficiently engaged with the issues and were reasonable.

Ruling and overall outcome

The application for judicial review was dismissed. The University of Ottawa prevailed. Having reviewed the parties' costs outlines, the court also took into account Ms. Tefera's improper use of artificial intelligence in preparing the first version of her factum, which necessitated a case conference attendance and a revised factum, causing the university to incur additional costs. As a result, Ms. Tefera was ordered to pay costs of $10,000 to the University of Ottawa.