Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• The appellant sought a judicial review order compelling SSHRC to process a grant application despite the university's refusal to confirm eligibility.

• The Federal Court found no public law duty owed by SSHRC to the appellant, as he was not a party to the agreement between SSHRC and the university.

• The application was dismissed for being, in essence, a challenge to a university decision—an entity outside Federal Court jurisdiction.

• A reconsideration motion under Federal Court Rules 397 and 399 was also dismissed as lacking merit and attempting to reargue the case.

• The Federal Court of Appeal held the notice of appeal was both late and substantively without merit.

• Costs of $200 were awarded to the respondent, with no damages granted.

Facts and outcome of the case

Background and parties involved

Dr. Anton Oleynik, a tenured professor at Memorial University of Newfoundland (MUN), initiated a judicial review application in the Federal Court in November 2022. He sought a mandamus order compelling the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council (SSHRC) to process a research grant application that he claimed to have submitted directly through SSHRC’s online system.

MUN and SSHRC were parties to a formal agreement where MUN was responsible for confirming grant applicants’ eligibility. According to Dr. Oleynik, MUN improperly declined to confirm his eligibility due to a conflict of interest. He further argued that SSHRC failed to act appropriately by not requiring MUN to correct the situation. His judicial review application requested that SSHRC be compelled to process his grant application despite MUN’s refusal.

Federal Court decision

In March 2023, the Federal Court granted a motion from the Attorney General to strike the application. The Court held that the core complaint was actually against MUN, a provincial institution, and not a federal board, commission, or tribunal. Therefore, the Court had no jurisdiction to review MUN’s actions. It also found that the agreement between MUN and SSHRC did not create a legal duty owed to Dr. Oleynik that could be enforced via judicial review.

Following this, Dr. Oleynik brought a motion under Federal Court Rules 397 and 399 to reconsider or vary the dismissal decision. This motion was heard and dismissed in May 2023. The Federal Court determined that the motion merely restated arguments already considered and rejected. The Court emphasized that Rule 397 is not meant to provide a second opportunity to reargue a case.

Appeal to the Federal Court of Appeal

Dr. Oleynik appealed both the March and May 2023 decisions to the Federal Court of Appeal. The appeal was dealt with in writing, without the appearance of the parties. The respondent, Attorney General of Canada, filed a motion to quash the appeal on two grounds: that the notice of appeal was filed too late to contest the March decision and that the appeal of the May decision lacked any reasonable prospect of success.

The Court of Appeal agreed on both points. It found the notice of appeal to be irregular, late, and substantively weak. It held that filing a reconsideration motion did not stop the appeal clock for the March decision. Regarding the May decision, the Court found that the appellant had simply repeated arguments already dismissed and failed to raise any issue warranting appellate review.

Final outcome

On July 21, 2023, the Federal Court of Appeal quashed the appeal in its entirety and awarded $200 in costs to the Attorney General of Canada. No damages were awarded. The appellant’s challenge was thus conclusively dismissed at both the trial and appellate levels.