A former PhD student who spent nine years at the University of Ottawa without completing his degree has lost his $1.7-million lawsuit against the university, his supervisor and a former friend after an Ontario court found his claims were unfounded and that his academic struggles stemmed from personal legal troubles.
A.A. sued the University of Ottawa, professor A.B. and former friend A.B. for more than $1 million in lost earnings, plus $200,000 in general damages and $500,000 in punitive damages. He claimed the defendants committed intimidation, breach of fiduciary duty, conspiracy and intentional infliction of mental distress.
The court dismissed all claims, finding A.A.’s testimony was not credible and that his failure to complete his PhD was caused by his own personal problems, not any wrongdoing by the defendants.
Academic struggles amid criminal charges
A.A. enrolled in the PhD program at the School of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science in January 2007. Around the same time, he was charged with multiple counts of assault against his wife, including assault causing bodily harm and uttering threats to cause death.
The criminal proceedings stretched from January 2007 to April 2012, when the Crown stayed all charges. During this period, A.A. was convicted on all counts in April 2008 and sentenced to jail time before successfully appealing for a new trial due to incompetent counsel.
A.A. also dealt with a contested custody dispute and divorce proceedings during his early years in the PhD program. The court found these personal and legal issues prevented him from concentrating on his studies.
Research assistant bursary dispute
A.A.’s primary claim centred on allegations that Professor B. refused to pay him a research assistant bursary worth approximately $9,250 annually and threatened to remove him from the program if he insisted on payment.
The court rejected this claim, finding Professor B.’s testimony credible. The judge noted it was illogical that Professor B. would approve the bursary in fall 2006 then refuse payment months later without motive.
The court found the delay in bursary payments resulted from administrative failures. The graduate administration office never received A.A.’s admission letter confirming his entitlement to the bursary, so no file was opened and no payment process initiated.
S.S.M., who administered graduate funding, testified it was common for students to inquire about bursary payments at the beginning of each semester. She said A.A. was “the only graduate student she could remember who was entitled to receive a RA bursary and failed to inquire at her office about how they were to obtain the bursary funds.”
The court found A.A. bore primary responsibility for not receiving his bursary because he “failed to make any inquiries at the EECS graduate administration office at the beginning of the semester.”
Professor B. ultimately paid A.A. $83,080 covering six years of bursary funding plus interest after A.A. made a formal request in May 2014.
Comprehensive exam allegations dismissed
A.A. also claimed Professor B. prevented him from writing his comprehensive exam, a requirement for the PhD program. The court found no evidence supporting this allegation.
Professor B. testified A.A. was not ready for the exam because he “was unable to concentrate and prepare due to issues in his personal life.” The court noted there was “a complete absence of any written request by A.A. to anyone, including Professor B., that he wished to write his comprehensive exams.”
The court found this issue was “in pith and substance” of an academic nature that should be handled through university appeal processes rather than the courts.
Claims of menial tasks rejected
A.A. sought $10,000 in damages for allegedly being forced to perform menial tasks at Professor B.’s home, including lawn mowing, pool cleaning and garage cleaning.
Professor B. denied directing A.A. to perform these tasks and provided evidence he already had professional services for snow removal, lawn care and pool maintenance. The court accepted his testimony and dismissed this claim.
Credibility issues undermine case
The court found A.A. was not credible, noting his credibility was damaged by testimony from A.B., his former best friend who became a defendant in the lawsuit.
A.B. testified that A.A. approached him in 2015 asking him to join the lawsuit against Professor B. and “allege that Professor B. had acted in an abusive manner towards him as well.” A.B. said A.A. told him “if he joined in the plaintiff’s lawsuit against Professor B., they could receive $150,000.”
When A.B. refused, A.A. threatened to include him as a defendant, which he ultimately did.
The court found A.B. was “a credible and reliable witness who refused to give false evidence against Professor B. to obtain money.”
University appeal process provided remedies
The court noted A.A. successfully used the university’s internal appeal process to address his concerns. The Senate Appeals Committee allowed him to re-register in the PhD program with a new supervisor and extended deadlines.
A.A. completed his comprehensive exam in December 2014 but was removed from the program in December 2015 after receiving two unsatisfactory progress reports from his new supervisor.
No damages awarded
The court found A.A. failed to prove he suffered damages caused by the defendants’ actions. While an actuary calculated potential losses ranging from $93,000 to $886,800 for past damages, the court found A.A.’s delays and ultimate removal from the program were caused by his own inability to concentrate due to personal problems.
A.A. eventually completed a PhD at Carleton University in June 2023.
For more information, see (Plaintiff) v. University of Ottawa, 2025 ONSC 2702 (CanLII).
