Application for Judicial Review Denied for Undue Delay

The petitioner sought a judicial review from an internal appeal that upheld the University of Saskatchewan’s (the “University”) decision to require him to discontinue his studies. The application for judicial review was dismissed and the petitioner’s appeal of that decision was subsequently dismissed. The University sought to have the petitioner’s application for judicial review dismissed for undue delay. The Chambers judge observed that the petitioner had been explicitly cautioned about delay in a separate dismissal decision regarding another related judicial review application brought the petitioner and dismissed the appeal. The Court of Appeal dismissed the petitioner’s further appeal noting that he failed to identify any palpable or overriding errors in the Chambers judge’s decision.

Administrative law – Decisions reviewed – University Appeal Board – Judicial review – Delay – Appeals – Procedural requirements and fairness – Standard of review – Reasonableness – Remedies – Mandamus – Universities – Students – Policies

Carrier v. University of Saskatchewan, [2025] S.J. No. 61, Saskatchewan Court of Appeal, March 5, 2025, N.W. Caldwell, J.A. Tholl and M. McCreary JJ.A.

The petitioner sought a judicial review from an internal appeal that upheld the University of Saskatchewan’s (the “University”) decision to require him to discontinue his studies. The application for judicial review was dismissed and the petitioner’s appeal of that decision was subsequently dismissed.

In 2019, based on the petitioner’s academic performance, the petitioner was advised to discontinue his studies, with the ability to apply for readmission. This decision was appealed internally in the department but dismissed. The appeal decision was then appealed to the University Appeal Board (the “UAB”), which was dismissed. The petitioner sought judicial review of the UAB decision.

The University sought to have the petitioner’s application for judicial review dismissed for undue delay, relying on Rule 3-56(3) of The King’s Bench Rules, which provides that the Court may refuse to grant a remedy if there has been undue delay in making an originating application. The Chambers judge noted that the UAB took less than one month to render their decision, but then it took the petitioner over two years to commence his judicial review. The Chambers judge further observed that the petitioner had been explicitly cautioned about delay in a prior appeal dismissal decision of another related judicial review application.

The Chambers judge ultimately concluded that the petitioner’s application should be dismissed for undue delay; however, despite this finding, she continued to examine the matter on its merits.

The Chambers judge held that the precise nature of the judicial review being requested was unclear and the evidentiary basis for his allegations were speculative. The Chambers judge held that the UAB had engaged with the petitioner’s submissions. The Chambers judge’s review of the UAB’s decision did not indicate any bias or discrimination in the process or reasoning.

The petitioner appealed the Chambers judge’s decision. The appeal was dismissed. The Court of Appeal held the Chambers judge did not err in determining that the application should be dismissed for delay. The Court of Appeal held that the petitioner did not identify any palpable or overriding errors in the assessment of the facts or pointed out any misapprehension of, or failure to consider, material evidence. There is no error revealed in any of the Chambers judge’s analysis. Consequently, the Court of Appeal held that there was no room for appellate intervention in the Chambers judge’s decision that the petitioner’s application should be dismissed for undue delay.

This case was digested by Eric Mo of Harper Grey LLP and first published in the LexisNexis® Harper Grey Administrative Law Netletter and the Harper Grey Administrative Law Newsletter.  If you would like to discuss this case further, please feel free to contact him directly at [email protected].