Carleton moves to dismiss claims of anti-abortion activists
The Ottawa Citizen reported last week that Carleton University, which is being sued by two anti-abortion student activists for shutting down an unauthorized protest on campus, has asked the court to toss out the students’ lawsuit on the basis that they did not disclose a reasonable cause of action – i.e. the claim is frivolous, vexatious, etc.
This sort of application is available to defendants who think the claim against them does not meet the minimum threshold necessary to justify using the court’s resources. Occasionally, it is brought up when the defendant feels their pursuer is using law as a public relations tool or for a malicious purpose, without actually having a truly legitimate issue to explore in court. In these situations, it would be a shameful waste on everyones’ time and money to let the legal fight continue.
Universities consistently make this application when confronted by lawsuits from students in the hopes that it will end the dispute shortly after the starting line (see here for more on this). The usual argument from the university is that the dispute is an internal, private one and – parenthetically – the claim against it is silly anyways.
In terms of Carleton, these are the claims made by the students that form the basis of the lawsuit:
- Carleton broke its own internal policies related to academic freedom.
- Carleton broke its fiduciary duties to students to provide an environment for free and open debate.
- Carleton had the students wrongfully arrested.
- Carleton broke its contract with the students by not protecting their right to free expression on campus.
- Carleton infringed many of the students’ rights under the Charter.
The university appears to have responded to each of these points in the legal documents, but the most interesting issue is whether this is, in fact, an internal matter between private parties. If the students in this case have rights under the Charter against the university, then it means at least for the purposes of free speech the university is a governmental actor (ala the Pridgen decision in Alberta). The dispute, then, would be private citizens vs. government actor, and not private citizens vs. private institution, the latter being more likely to be dismissed at this stage.
Ontario Superior Court Justice Giovanna Toscano Roccamo has not yet revealed her decision on the university’s application.