Pridgen v. University of Calgary, 2012 ABCA 139

In Pridgen v University of Calgary, the Alberta Court of Appeal considered whether universities are Charter-free zones, and whether the University exercised reasonable discretion in its decision to impose disciplinary sanctions on students who had publicly criticized their instructors and educational institution on social networking sites. All three judges in the Court of Appeal ultimately upheld the decision of the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench, which quashed the disciplinary measures taken against the students, but the three concurring judgments had nuanced differences in their opinions.

Paperny JA held that McKinney v University of Guelph, [1990] 3 SCR 229 did not rule out Charter applicability on university campuses for all purposes. In Greater Vancouver Transportation Authority v Canadian Federation of Students - British Columbia Component, 2009 SCC 31, the Supreme Court of Canada held that the Charter applies: (i) where the entity itself is a body of government; or (ii) to certain activities conducted by a non-governmental entity, where the activities are considered governmental in nature. Further, Eldridge v British Columbia (Attorney General), [1997] 3 SCR 624 affirmed that the actions of otherwise private entities may be subject to Charter review if they are classified as “governmental” activities. Paperny JA, in emphasizing that the university-student relationship is not a matter of purely contractual relations, held that the imposition of discipline by universities, an activity considered governmental in nature, should attract Charter scrutiny. She further emphasized that the application of the Charter in these circumstances does not undermine or interfere with academic freedom. Consequently, the university’s decision to discipline the students was quashed as it infringed on the students’ freedom of expression, and could not be saved by section 1 of the Charter.

McDonald JA, in a concurring judgment, affirmed the Chambers judge’s decision that the students’ conduct did not warrant disciplinary measures. However, the decision was based entirely on administrative law grounds, as he found it was unnecessary to perform a Charter analysis. In the third judgment, O’Ferrall JA found that the university ought to have considered whether its discipline violated the students’ rights to freedom of expression and freedom of association, and noted that they were concepts that long pre-dated the Charter.

Link to Decision

Bhuvana Sankaranarayanan

*