Case Details
DATE:
January 16, 2026
PARTIES:
C.A. ("the Student"). v. the School of Graduate Studies
HEARING DATE:
November 20, 2025, via Zoom
COMMITTEE MEMBERS:
Sara Faherty, Chair
Professor Adam Stinchcombe, Teaching Staff Governor
Kevin Li, Student Governor
HEARING SECRETARY:
Carmelle Salomon-Labbé, Associate Director, Office of Appeals, Discipline and Faculty Grievances
APPEARANCES:
FOR THE STUDENT APPELLANT:
The Student
FOR THE FACULTY OF ARTS AND SCIENCE
Professor John Peever, Vice-Dean, Students
The Student was enrolled in the Master of Engineering Degree program that required students to enrol in at least five courses (out of ten) at the University of Toronto Institute of Aerospace Studies (UTIAS). The Student did not enrol in five UTIAS courses and petitioned to be allowed to graduate, despite the imbalance.
Over the course of their enrolment, the Student completed fifteen courses but still needed one course at UTIAS to meet the minimum requirement to obtain their degree. The Student asked that one of the courses that they had completed outside UTIAS to be substituted for the outstanding course. This request was denied at the levels below, culminating in a decision by the Graduate Academic Appeals Board (GAAB).
While the Student’s appeal at the GAAB was being argued and decided, the Student completed their fifth course at UTIAS and subsequently graduated in June 2025. As a result, the Division argued that the appeal was moot. The Student contended that the appeal was not moot, as it raised broader procedural and accommodation-related concerns.
The Committee agreed that the issue originally raised by the Appellant was moot. However, the Committee stated, pursuant to Borowski v Canada (AG) [1989] 1 S.C.R. 342, that they could decide the issue, despite the mootness, in three specific circumstances.
With respect to the first circumstance, that there was still a meaningful adversarial context presented by the facts, the Committee found that the Student’s argument that, should he win the appeal, he could petition to remove the last UTIAS course from his transcript, to be extremely unlikely. The Committee found that the argument did not create a genuinely adversarial relationship between the UTIAS and the Student.
The second circumstance is when hearing the case would be a sensible use of judicial resources. The Committee found that it was not, as the issues presented in the case were neither fleeting nor recurring. They were also no of public importance or general public interest.
With respect to the third reason to hear a moot case, that doing so would not displace the rightful role of a different institutional rule maker, the Committee noted that a purely advisory, general opinion coming from the Committee would be a weak and inappropriate replacement for the University’s systems for reviewing new academic programs.
The Committee dismissed the appeal as moot.