The University of Calgary has appealed a ruling by the Court of Queen’s Bench that found the school had no right to file non-academic misconduct charges against two students who created a Facebook page criticizing their sessional instructor.
In a statement released Nov. 29, the school said it would bring the case back to court as a means of clarifying the decision made by Court of Queen’s Bench Justice Jo’Anne Strekaf which ruled post-secondary institutions were subject to the same standards as government in their operations under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Keith Pridgen said while he appreciates the university’s right to appeal as part of the justice system, he wasn’t expecting it to happen.
“I think it’s been recognized once already by the system that we were right, which I think is a big hurdle to overcome,” said Pridgen. “Every time this gets back in the news, in my opinion, it doesn’t look very good on them. The media doesn’t seem to do them any favours.”
Keith and his brother Stephen Pridgen won their case against the university earlier this year when Strekaf found that the creation of the Facebook page “I no longer fear hell, I took a course with Aruna Mitra,” and the comments on it made by the twins did not cause harm to instructor Mitra or justify non-academic misconduct charges. The ruling also established the brothers’ charter rights of free expression were infringed upon by the school’s review committee decisions.
U of C senior communications manager James Stevenson said the school’s appeal is not an attack on the brothers but only an attempt to clarify the extent to which the Charter applies on post-secondary campuses.
“With respect to the charter as it stands now, it’s not clear how it applies to our operations,” said Stevenson. “The case law is inconsistent across Canada and it’s a question that many post secondary institutions are looking for answers to, which is why we are seeking clarity on this matter.”
Pridgen said he and his brother will respond, though they thought the previous ruling was clear and had hoped the school would accept it and work within the charter.
“I think they’re using very guarded language to simply ask the question, ‘To what extent can we violate student rights and still get away with it?’ ” said Pridgen. “My guess is that they’re getting heck from other universities because now other universities are feeling the strains of actually having to abide by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.”
Stevenson said that because of its complexity, the school needs to know how the charter will impact operations.
“For example, admissions, operations of programs and classes — at what point does the charter play a role in day-to-day decision making?” asked Stevenson.
The court will hear the appeal within six months to a year.
Meanwhile Pridgen said his lawyer has advised him the amount of work required will be just as much as the first leg of the case.
“Let me just say it’s a very expensive process,” said Pridgen. “We’ll take it as it comes.”