King v The University of Notre Dame

The case before the court involved a student, the plaintiff, who sought an interlocutory injunction against the University of Notre Dame, the defendant, to allow them to progress to the third year of their medical degree despite failing two successive years. The plaintiff had exhausted internal and external appeals under the university's regulations and was awaiting the outcome of some outstanding appeals. The plaintiff argued that they were entitled to progress to the third year, which involved clinical placements, pending the resolution of these appeals, and that this right extended to the judicial review proceedings. The court was tasked with determining whether the plaintiff had established a serious question to be tried and whether the balance of convenience favoured granting the injunction.

The court considered whether the plaintiff's rights under the university's regulations and appeals policy extended to the judicial review proceedings and whether the plaintiff had demonstrated a serious question to be tried. The court also assessed the balance of convenience to determine whether granting the injunction would cause more harm than good. The plaintiff argued that the right to progress to the third year, which was a critical component of their medical degree, should be preserved pending the appeals. The university contended that the right to progress to the third year was not absolute and could be subject to the outcome of the appeals.

The court found that the plaintiff had not demonstrated a serious question to be tried, as the outstanding appeals related to the substantive merits of the decisions to fail the plaintiff, not the right to progress to the third year. The court held that the balance of convenience favoured the university, as granting the injunction would potentially disrupt the clinical placements and the rights of other students. The court noted that the plaintiff could still pursue their outstanding appeals and that the outcome of those appeals might affect their eligibility to progress to the third year. The court ultimately refused the injunction, holding that the plaintiff had not met the threshold for an interlocutory injunction.

The court ordered that the plaintiff's application for an interlocutory injunction be dismissed, with no order as to costs.