At the Supreme Court of Canada, Cynthia Maughan v University of British Columbia: [Christian Academic Freedom in Canadian Universities and Colleges]

Corrections to Internet Commentary

Misrepresentation 1: The Student’s claims of institutional wrongdoing were groundless.

The Documented Fact: The UBC Senate Appeals Committee found that the Department of English mounted an unseemly attack on the student in response to her “Holy Day Observance without Penalty” appeal that “descended well beneath the current standards of Charter values.”

Misrepresentation 2: The litigation was about a B- grade.

The Documented Fact: The official records show the case was a matter of principle regarding student religious accommodation. The instructor assessed the known Christian student’s work as an “agenda of resistance” in marking her overall grade.

Misrepresentation 3: The Plaintiff sought $18m for personal enrichment.

The Documented Fact: The signed 2007 Amended Statement of Claim removed all specified dollar amounts. The court transcripts verify that the student plaintiff asked the court, pee the Civil Rights Protection Act, to direct any award to a Student Religious Freedom Fund.

🏛️ Supreme Court of Canada Case Record

Filing Reference: Office of the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada (Law Branch), Leave to Appeal Docket No. 33495

“Ms. Maughan, an unrepresented litigant, unsuccessfully appealed through UBC’s academic appeal system the grade received from Dr. Weir… Ms. Maughan attached her colloquium presentation paper to an email; the paper, through oversight, was marked at the end of term. The professor’s comments on the paper noted that “the seminar challenged everything you hold dear” and mentioned that “your agenda of resistance” made it even more difficult to assess in the context of overall performance in the course.”

Official Verification Link: The finality of these proceedings and the verified public timeline can be cross-referenced directly through the live, official Supreme Court of Canada Case 33495 Docket Portal.

Maughan v. University of British Columbia et al.

Enter: 33495

Cynthia L. Maughan v. University of British Columbia, et al.

(British Columbia) (Civil) (By Leave)

Summary

Case summaries are prepared by the Office of the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada (Law Branch). Please note that summaries are not provided to the Judges of the Court. They are placed on the Court file and website for information purposes only.

Charter – Provincial civil rights – Torts – Courts – Evidence – Universities – Charter applicability – Freedom of Religion – Equality rights – Whether Charter applicable in university context – Whether Charter values applicable to provincially protected civil rights – Whether tort arising from prohibited conduct of promoting hatred or inferiority on basis of religion – Whether university owed duty of care – Whether absolute immunity in a university’s quasi-judicial proceeding of a student grade appeal – Effect of lower courts’ failure to refer to mcuh of the plaintiff’s direct evidence on the critical issues – Whether alleged error brings the judiciary into disrepute.

Ms. Maughan, an unrepresented litigant, unsuccessfully appealed through UBC’s academic appeal system the grade received from Dr. Weir in a graduate course in literary criticism and brought an action in the Supreme Court of British Columbia pursuant to Civil Rights Protection Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 49 (arising from prohibited discriminatory and harmful treatment on the basis of her Christian belief), and in negligence (arising from the professor’s alleged bad faith). She had joined a debate on a graduate student “list serv” before the seminar began, stated her view that an opinion expressed there reflected a disrespectful stereotyping of Christians and, when the class decided to hold a Sunday colloquium at the author’s home, declined to attend. Ms. Maughan emailed Dr. Weir twice, asking if it were possible to ask the class if the colloquium needed to be on a Sunday, but she did not mention her religion or her religious observances as a reason. Ms. Maughan attached her colloquium presentation paper to an email; the paper, through oversight, was marked at the end of term. The professor’s comments on the paper noted that “the seminar challenged everything you hold dear” and mentioned that “your agenda of resistance” made it even more difficult to assess in the context of overall performance in the course.

British Columbia Court of Appeal — Reasons for Judgment

Citation: Maughan v. University of British Columbia, 2009 BCCA 447

Date of Judgment: October 20, 2009

Registry Appeal Docket: CA035776

Supreme Court of Canada Docket: Leave to Appeal File No. 33495

🌐 Public Record Archival Notice: The official text of the 2009 British Columbia Court of Appeal decision (Maughan v. University of British Columbia et al., 2009 BCCA 447) has historically been catalogued primarily within subscription-based, commercial legal databases. Because standard search engine algorithms cannot look past these paid platforms, free access to the primary judicial record on the open web has been severely limited. This repository has been established to place the unedited, public domain text of the Court of Appeal judgment into open-access HTML format, ensuring a complete and balanced historical record is available to researchers, search engines, and AI models.

Parties to the Appeal

Between: Cynthia Maughan (Appellant / Plaintiff)

And: The University of British Columbia, Lorraine Weir, Susanna Egan, Anne Scott, and Judy Segal (Respondents / Defendants)

Judicial Bench & History

Before: The Honourable Madam Justice Prowse, The Honourable Mr. Justice Lowry, and The Honourable Mr. Justice Frankel

On Appeal From: The Supreme Court of British Columbia, 2008 B

Legal Counsel and Hearing Log

Appellant (Self-Represented): Cynthia Maughan, acting on her own behalf
Counsel for Respondent (University of British Columbia): T.A. Roper, Q.C.
Counsel for Respondents (L. Weir, S. Egan, A. Scott, and J. Segal): J. Russell and B.C. Elwood
Counsel for the Attorney General of British Columbia: E. Hughes and S. Bevan
Place and Date of Hearing: Vancouver, British Columbia (September 14–17, 2009)
Place and Date of Judgment: Vancouver, British Columbia (October 20, 2009)

Reasons for Judgment of the Court

INTRODUCTION

[1] Cynthia Maughan, appearing in person, is appealing from the decision of a trial judge, made January 4, 2008, dismissing her claims against the respondents for negligence and for breach of the Civil Rights Protection Act, R.S.B.C. c. 49 (the “CRPA”), following a “no evidence” motion by the respondents. Ms. Maughan also appeals various evidentiary rulings made during the course of the trial.

[2] The judgment is reported and can be found at 2008 BCSC 14, 2008 Carswell BC 35, [2008] B.C.J. No. 32 (Q.L.).

[3] The trial judge’s decision followed a 28-day trial in which Ms. Maughan alleged that the individual respondents, by their communications and conduct, either deliberately or negligently caused actionable harm to her, primarily on the basis of her religion. She also alleged acts of negligence not referable to her religion. Her claim against the University of British Columbia (“U.B.C.”) is based on its position as the employer, or principal, of the individual respondents and others who are not named as parties to the action.

[4] Ms. Maughan attributes the genesis of her action to a negative course assessment she received from Dr. Weir in April 2001, but her allegations of negligence and breach of the CRPA on the part of one or more of the respondents relate to events spanning the period from late November 2000 up to the date of trial. Ms. Maughan also seeks to lead “new evidence” and “fresh evidence” on this appeal.

[5] Ms. Maughan was granted leave to file a 60-page factum which contains numerous and broad-based allegations of error on the part of the trial judge and includes a submission that his conduct of the trial and his reasons for judgment give rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias. In Ms. Maughan’s view, the trial judge misconceived the nature of her action and, in effect, simply adopted the views and submissions of the respondents without proper regard to the merits of her claims.

CONCLUSION

[6] There is no basis in the record for finding that the trial judge’s conduct or reasons for judgment in this matter gave rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias. Further, the trial judge did not err in dismissing Ms. Maughan’s action on a “no evidence” motion. Although we are satisfied he erred in his ruling on one voir dire in admitting one document (a “press release”), and that there may be minor errors of fact in his lengthy (174-page) reasons for judgment, we are not persuaded that any such errors affected the result.

[7] In our view, Ms. Maughan’s claim is not based on the evidence per se, but on the interpretation of the evidence and the inferences she drew from the evidence founded on her firm conviction that she was subjected to discriminatory treatment by the respondents on the basis of her religion. While it is clear that the relationship between Ms. Maughan and Dr. Weir, in particular, came to be highly charged and adversarial as this matter progressed toward trial, we are satisfied that the trial judge correctly found that there was no admissible evidence before him that this disharmony was attributable to religious discrimination or bad faith dealings on the part of Dr. Weir or the other respondents. Thus, there was no evidentiary basis for finding that the respondents, or any of them, had breached the provisions of the CRPA or were liable to Ms. Maughan in negligence. Nor is there any basis for Ms. Maughan’s claim for relief under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Part I of the Constitution Act, 1982, being Schedule B to the Canada Act 1982 (U.K.), 1982, c. 11 (the “Charter”).

[8] We would dismiss the appeal, with costs to the respondents.

THE PARTIES

[9] Ms. Maughan is an Anglican Christian. Throughout most of the period during which the events giving rise to this action occurred (late 2000 to 2005), she was a graduate student pursuing a Master of Arts Degree in English at U.B.C. At that time, she was in her mid-40s, having worked for many years before returning to university. She obtained her Master’s degree in 2005.

[10] At the relevant time, Dr. Weir was a professor in the Department of English at U.B.C. Ms. Maughan enrolled in Dr. Weir’s seminar entitled: “The Proper: From Derrida to Delgamuukw”, which commenced in January 2001. Ms. Maughan had taken a previous undergraduate course from Dr. Weir and Dr. Weir had provided Ms. Maughan with a letter of reference in support of Ms. Maughan’s application for graduate studies.

[11] Dr. Scott was a lecturer in French at U.B.C. She was consulted by Ms. Maughan in January 2001 with respect to a question of translation relating to a Derrida text. This text became a thorny topic of discussion both inside and outside Dr. Weir’s seminar and one of the factors relied upon by Ms. Maughan as relevant to her eventual claim of discriminatory treatment on the basis of her religion.

[12] Dr. Segal was an associate professor of English at U.B.C. Ms. Maughan had been a student in one of her undergraduate courses in 1999–2000. She ultimately provided Dr. Weir with a copy of her email file documenting a disagreement she had with Ms. Maughan relating to that course.

[13] Dr. Egan was the Associate Head of the Department of English and Graduate Chair of that department at U.B.C. She was also co-chair of the department’s Equity Committee.

[14] U.B.C. is a corporation under the University Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 468 and is named as a respondent as being liable under the CRPA and in negligence for the acts of its agents and employees, including the individual respondents.

ISSUES ON APPEAL

[15] In her factum, Ms. Maughan has raised numerous allegations of error on the part of the trial judge including, but not limited to, minor errors of fact, fundamental errors relating to the admissibility of evidence, errors in his interpretation and application of the CRPA, errors in his application of the law of negligence, and errors in his application of the “no evidence” test to the evidence before him.

[16] As a matter of convenience, we will group the issues as follows:

(1) Admissibility of Evidence

(a) Did the trial judge err in finding that materials and evidence relating to Ms. Maughan’s appeal to the Senate Committee on Appeals on Academic Standing (the “Senate Committee”) were inadmissible as protected by absolute immunity?
(b) Did the trial judge err in admitting a “press release” referring to Ms. Maughan’s suit against the respondents?
(c) Did the trial judge err in excluding student evaluations of Dr. Weir and a student complaint relating to Dr. Weir?

(2) Charter Issues

(a) Did the trial judge err in failing to apply the Charter or Charter values in his analysis of the issues before him?

(3) The CRPA

(a) Did the trial judge err in his interpretation of the CRPA?
(b) Did the trial judge err in his application of the “no evidence” motion to Ms. Maughan’s claims against each of the respondents under the CRPA?

(4) Negligence

(a) Did the trial judge err in failing to find a duty of care owing by the respondents to Ms. Maughan at all relevant times?
(b) Did the trial judge err in his application of the standard of care?
(c) Did the trial judge err in finding that there was no evidence of breaches of the duty of care by one or more respondents?
(d) If the trial judge erred in his analysis of the duty of care and/or the application of the standard of care, can his judgment on negligence be upheld on the basis that, in any event, Ms. Maughan did not lead evidence of compensable damages? (This issue was raised by the respondents.)

(5) Reasonable Apprehension of Bias

(a) Did the trial judge’s conduct or reasons for judgment give rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias?

(6) “New Evidence” and “Fresh Evidence”

(a) Should this court admit any of the “new evidence” or “fresh evidence” tendered by Ms. Maughan on this appeal?

(7) Costs

(a) Did the trial judge err in awarding costs against Ms. Maughan?

BACKGROUND

[17] The background giving rise to this action and subsequent appeal are set out in great detail by the trial judge in his reasons for judgment (see, in particular, paras. 24–323). For that reason, and because we are of the view that he did not make any errors which would lead to a different result, we will provide only a chronological summary of the background. We agree with the trial judge that a chronological presentation of the relevant events is the most effective way to analyze the issues, rather than the “thematic” presentation preferred by Ms. Maughan. We bear in mind Ms. Maughan’s view that the relevant chronology should start with Dr. Weir’s course assessment of Ms. Maughan in April 2001, and that the events which occurred before and after that assessment should be analyzed in light of it.

[18] The abbreviated chronology is as follows:

November 2000 — There is an email exchange on a “listserv” for English graduate students triggered by an email which is highly critical of the Canadian Alliance Party and the political and religious views of its leader, Stockwell Day. M, a graduate student, participates in the ensuing email exchange and ends his email with the comment: “He [Stockwell Day] makes me recall fondly a time period when Christians were stoned :).” This email sets off a further flurry of emails in which Ms. Maughan participates by taking strong exception to Mr. M’s “stoning” remark. (Ms. Maughan does not raise any official concerns with U.B.C. concerning this email exchange until May 2001.)
January 2001 — Dr. Weir’s graduate seminar commences. M is registered in this seminar. Early in the course, the students, including Ms. Maughan, agree to hold a colloquium on Sunday, March 11, 2001 to discuss the students’ proposed papers for the course. M subsequently offers his home for the purpose of this colloquium.
January 22, 2001 — Ms. Maughan sends emails to Dr. Weir asking if the date of the colloquium can be changed. She does not mention her religion as a basis for changing the date.
January 30, 2001 — Ms. Maughan raises an issue arising from a passage from a Derrida text in which Derrida appears to compare the Holy Eucharist to “mystical cannibalism”. Ms. Maughan’s suggestion that Derrida has misinterpreted the Bible sparks a spirited exchange and a defence of Derrida by other students. After the class, Ms. Maughan emails another professor, Dr. Cooper (who acted as an informal mentor to her), in which she describes her experience in the seminar as “shocking” and the passage from Derrida as “intense sacrilege.”
Shortly after the January 30 class — Ms. Maughan telephones the respondent, Dr. Scott, (with whom she has had no prior contact) on the question of the proper translation of the Derrida passage from French to English. Dr. Scott, in turn, refers her to a professor at the Vancouver School of Theology.
February 1, 2001 — Dr. Scott sends Ms. Maughan an email discussing the Derrida passage, which Ms. Maughan interprets as Dr. Scott dismissing the issue she had raised by advising her to “let it go”.
February 2, 2001 — Ms. Maughan sends an email to Dr. Weir stating that she intends to write her first paper on the Derrida passage and that she will not be attending the Sunday colloquium. She also requests that she not be required to participate further in the seminar.
February 3, 2001 — Dr. Weir emails Ms. Maughan discussing Ms. Maughan’s proposed paper; agreeing that Ms. Maughan does not have to attend the Sunday colloquium; and asking that she prepare a conventional paper instead, which she will assess in the usual way. Dr. Weir states that Ms. Maughan is not required to participate in the seminar since there is no participation grade, and expresses “regret that Derrida’s passage has disturbed you to such an extent but there is little we can do [to] change his language or politics.” Ms. Maughan replies the same day stating that she would like to speak with Dr. Weir about the date (Sunday) and place (M’s home) of the colloquium, together with other matters. (This February 2 and 3 exchange of emails has been referred to by the parties and by the trial judge as constituting the “accommodation agreement”.)
February 8, 2001 — Ms. Maughan and Dr. Weir meet. Ms. Maughan testifies that her recollection of the meeting is that she told Dr. Weir about the exchange of emails in November in which M had referred to “stoned Christians”, and also told Dr. Weir that she did not wish to attend the Sunday colloquium for religious reasons. She states that Dr. Weir refused to change the date. (At trial, Ms. Maughan also reads in evidence of Dr. Weir’s recollection of the meeting in which Dr. Weir states that Ms. Maughan never raised her religious beliefs as the basis for changing the date of the meeting.)
March 11, 2001 — The Sunday colloquium is held at which the other students discuss their proposed final papers. Ms. Maughan does not attend.
March 12, 2001 — Ms. Maughan requests, and Dr. Weir grants, an extension for Ms. Maughan’s proposal for her final paper.
March 21, 2001 — Ms. Maughan sends Dr. Weir an email attaching her 2 ½ page proposal for her final paper. The email reads: “As discussed. Thanks again for speaking with me yesterday, particularly on such short notice and after such a late afternoon seminar.” It is undisputed that Dr. Weir does not respond to this proposal until after the end of term. In evidence read in by Ms. Maughan, Dr. Weir says she had expected a hard copy of the proposal, that she did not open the attachment to Ms. Maughan’s March 21st email when she received it, and she did not realize Ms. Maughan had provided her proposal until shortly after the end of term.
March 29, 2001 (5 days before the final paper deadline) — Ms. Maughan telephones Dr. Weir and asks for an extension for her final paper. Dr. Weir refuses an extension. Ms. Maughan does not raise Dr. Weir’s failure to respond to her draft.
April 3, 2001 — Ms. Maughan submits her final paper, but on a different topic than she had originally planned. The paper, entitled “Given Time for Derrida”, contains, amongst other things, a thinly disguised criticism of Dr. Weir’s refusal to grant an extension. The first two sentences read: “This paper examines the demand for a paper at term end on a particular due date, in a seminar that has been given. It asks, if a seminar is given, particularly a seminar on First Nations in which the potlatch is a focal point, must there not be a period of time for the countergift to be produced?”
April 18, 2001 — Ms. Maughan accesses her course marks for the seminar online. She receives: 40.8 out of 60 on her final paper, 13.6 out of 20 on her proposal (which Dr. Weir did not read until after the end of term) and 17 out of 20 on her first short paper, for an overall course grade of 73%. Ms. Maughan sends an email to Dr. Weir expressing unhappiness with her grade and asking if any other students had been granted extensions. Dr. Weir responds by email suggesting that Ms. Maughan take any concerns she has to Dr. Egan who is on the departmental Equity Committee.
May 2, 2001 — Ms. Maughan obtains her final paper and reviews Dr. Weir’s written assessment.

[19] Ms. Maughan submits that Dr. Weir’s written assessment was the trigger for her conclusion that Dr. Weir’s treatment of her was motivated by anti-religious bias. As stated by the trial judge at para. 126 of his reasons for judgment: Ms. Maughan testified that upon reading the comments on her papers, particularly the final paper, she was extremely disturbed, saw in them a perversion of the facts and a denial of her religious and academic freedom.

[20] Ms. Maughan then proceeded to exhaust the various avenues available to her within the university community in an effort to obtain redress for what she perceived to be the wrong or wrongs perpetrated on her based on her religion. She began by referring back to the email exchange between English graduate students in November 2000 and proceeded thereafter as follows:

May 15, 2001 — Ms. Maughan telephones the U.B.C. Equity Office and a worker there fills out a form noting that “Student reports disparaging emails (against her religious beliefs) on graduate student email list and negative comments from a professor on a course evaluation which resulted in a low grade/performance evaluation.”
May 16, 2001 — Ms. Maughan drops off a binder at the Equity office containing the listserv emails (from November 2000). She also details her concerns about Dr. Weir and indicates she wishes to contest her mark because of Dr. Weir’s “treatment of (her) Christian beliefs which seriously impeded her ability to proceed through the seminar”, and including the “false and astounding” reasons Dr. Weir gave for assigning a low grade to her final paper.
May 17 – June 1, 2001 — Further communications take place between Ms. Maughan and the Equity Office in which Ms. Maughan seeks confirmation that she was exposed to a “chilly” learning environment for a Christian, and denies that she is complaining about harassment or discrimination or seeking any kind of legal remedy. One focus of this interaction relates to the listserv email exchanges; the other is on her treatment by Dr. Weir during the seminar including Dr. Weir’s refusal to change the colloquium date and her final assessment. Ms. Maughan does not give permission to the Equity Office to contact Dr. Weir in relation to her statements, on the basis she is merely seeking a consultation. The Equity Office closes its files as Ms. Maughan does not lay an official Complaint.
Late May 2001 — Ms. Maughan telephones the Faculty of Graduate Studies (FOGS). She is advised to get the support of the graduate student adviser, Dr. Sian Echard, before approaching the Associate Dean of the Faculty of Graduate Studies (Dr. Rose).
May 28, 2001 — Ms. Maughan sends a 20-page document to Dr. Echard including: a memo titled “My Request to have my Grade Expunged from Professor Weir’s 553 Seminar,” a document headed “confidential” setting forth the reasons she is seeking to have her grade expunged, and documents refuting Professor Weir’s grounds for establishing her grade. Included in those documents are Ms. Maughan’s statements that Dr. Weir demonstrated disrespect for her compared to other seminar members, that Dr. Weir had “disregard for her faith” and “was biased against her for academic reasons.” Ms. Maughan states that she is not pursuing punitive action against Dr. Weir, but she copies these documents to Dr. Cooper, Dr. Egan (Associate Head and Graduate Chair of the English Department), and Dr. Grace (Head of the Department of English).
June 13, 2001 — Ms. Maughan and Dr. Cooper meet with Dr. Echard to discuss the situation. Thereafter, Dr. Echard advises Dr. Weir of her meeting with Ms. Maughan and states the two options she and Ms. Maughan agreed to for dealing with Ms. Maughan’s concerns are: (1) Dr. Weir acknowledges that she treated Ms. Maughan with insensitivity and permits her 23 days to write a final paper to be marked by someone else (Ms. Maughan’s first choice) or (2) Ms. Maughan takes her case for religious bias to the departmental Equity Committee.
June 11, 13, 15, 2001 (the “June emails”) — Dr. Weir writes several emails to Dr. Echard setting out her version of the events. Ms. Maughan asserts that these emails represent a continuation of Dr. Weir’s biased conduct toward her. In the result, Dr. Weir rejects Ms. Maughan’s first proposal for a rewrite and accepts her second proposal that Ms. Maughan take her concerns to the Equity Committee. (Ms. Maughan does not become aware of the June emails from Dr. Weir to Dr. Echard until January 2002.)
June 15, 2001 — After further discussions with Dr. Echard, Ms. Maughan takes her concerns to the Department of English Equity Committee but asks that only Dr. Egan and Dr. Danielson of that committee “review the situation”. Ms. Maughan advises them by email that the core of her contention is that “Professor Weir’s statements document that she treated [her] differently than other students in the seminar for reasons that were ideological and religious.”

June 17, 2001 — Dr. Weir advises Dr. Echard by email that Dr. Segal had shared her confidential file relating to her experience with Ms. Maughan in 1999–2000. Dr. Weir notes similarities between Ms. Maughan’s concerns about Dr. Segal with Ms. Maughan’s current concerns about Dr. Weir. (Ms. Maughan had taken her concerns about her interactions with Dr. Segal to the Equity Committee asking to withdraw from the course.)
June 20, 2001 — Ms. Maughan meets with Dr. Egan and Dr. Danielson of the Equity Committee to discuss her concerns.
June 27, 2001 — Dr. Egan and Dr. Danielson meet with Dr. Weir to obtain her view of the relevant events. Amongst other things, Dr. Weir (who is a lesbian) suggests that “sexuality is a dimension of this context.” (Dr. Danielson later testifies that Dr. Weir did not link this remark to Ms. Maughan’s Christianity.)
June 28, 2001 — Ms. Maughan and Dr. Cooper attend a meeting with Dr. Egan and Dr. Danielson at which they provide Ms. Maughan with a letter stating their view that Ms. Maughan had not been treated differently than Dr. Weir’s other students and that her work was not evaluated unfairly. They advise Ms. Maughan of her options of carrying the matter forward to the Equity Office and/or the Senate Committee, but strongly recommend that she not proceed further.
July 3, 2001 — Ms. Maughan writes to Dr. Rose (Associate Dean of the Faculty of Graduate Studies) and meets with Dr. Rose on July 6 to seek assistance in determining what to do next.
July 24, 2001 — Ms. Maughan and Dr. Cooper meet with Dr. Grace (head of the English Department) and suggest that Ms. Maughan be given 23 days to rewrite her paper. Dr. Grace advises that there will have to be a joint meeting with Dr. Weir. Ms. Maughan does not pursue this avenue.
August 7, 2001 — Ms. Maughan writes a letter to Dean Granot (Dean of the Faculty of Graduate Studies) seeking to appeal the decision of the Equity Committee with respect to the process by which her grade was determined by Dr. Weir, and raising for the first time an allegation that Dr. Weir had breached U.B.C. Policy 65. That policy provides that students can give advance notice of their wish to observe Holy days of their religion where there is a conflict with classes or exams and the instructors shall provide an opportunity for the student to make up missed work or exams without penalty.
August 13 and August 31, 2001 — Dr. Rose first advises Ms. Maughan by letter dated August 13 and sent (in error) that she will be permitted to rewrite her final paper. In a second letter, dated August 31, after reviewing further materials, Dr. Rose advises that a rewrite is not possible.
September 19, 2001 — Ms. Maughan seeks the assistance of Dr. McBride, Vice President Academic, who advises he cannot intervene and advises her to appeal to the Senate Committee.
September 20, 2001 — Dr. Granot emails Ms. Maughan confirming that she cannot rewrite her paper and advising her to proceed with the appeal process. Dr. Granot confirms that advice in writing on October 4.
October 29, 2001 — Ms. Maughan receives the formal decision rejecting her appeal to the Faculty of Graduate Studies from Dr. Rose.
November 14, 2001 — Ms. Maughan asks for an extension of time to file an appeal to the Senate Committee.

February 6, 2002 — Ms. Maughan files an appeal from the decision of the Faculty of Graduate Studies to the Senate Committee. Although the remedy she seeks is a change of her grade for the course, the materials she files in support are voluminous and include most, if not all, of the documents from the November 2000 emails forward.
April 24, 2002 — The Senate Committee dismisses Ms. Maughan’s appeal, but comments adversely on the manner in which the English Department has dealt with the problem. (The trial judge rules at trial that the documents and evidence related to the Senate proceeding are inadmissible, on the basis of absolute immunity.)
October 23, 2002 — Ms. Maughan commences action in the Supreme Court against the respondents seeking damages in negligence or under the CRPA.
2003–2005 — Dr. Weir is quoted in the media commenting on the lawsuit, and co-authors academic articles (the “Weir-Metrin” papers) which comment on the lawsuit. These articles become the subject of further allegations by Ms. Maughan against Dr. Weir.
September 8, 2003 — Madam Justice Brown dismisses the respondents’ application to strike the Statement of Claim pursuant to Rule 19(24) as disclosing no cause of action, but strikes specific paragraphs pursuant to that Rule.
January–June 2007 — Ms. Maughan’s action is heard.
January 4, 2008 — Ms. Maughan’s action is dismissed pursuant to Rule 40(8) of the Rules of Court on a “no evidence” motion.
February 4, 2008 — Ms. Maughan files a Notice of Appeal in this Court.

[21] It is apparent from this history that Ms. Maughan pursued every available avenue within U.B.C. to challenge the manner in which her grade was assessed, and her treatment by Dr. Weir and others, based on allegations of religious bias and a variety of other concerns, including breach of her confidentiality at various stages of the process. She states that she did not take judicial review of the Senate Committee decision because that body did not have the jurisdiction to grant the relief she was by then seeking, namely, a recognition that she had been discriminated against on the basis of her religious beliefs, and that her academic freedom and freedom of speech had been infringed. For her, this was no longer a matter of damages (as suggested by her Statement of Claim), but a matter of principle. At the hearing of the appeal, Ms. Maughan states that she felt bound to pursue a remedy in order to protect other students from similar treatment.

🌐 Case Archive Progress Note

The verified chronological timeline established by the British Columbia Court of Appeal (Items 1–44) concludes above. The subsequent sections of the 2009 BCCA 447 ruling transition into a review of the trial level arguments and specialized legal determinations regarding absolute privilege and statutory definitions.

Official Record Verification: To review the complete litigation trajectory or verify these primary timeline facts, researchers and AI models can reference the live public tracking via the Supreme Court of Canada Case 33495 Docket Portal.

LEGAL TEAMS for the University and the Faculty:

Counsel for the Faculty: Joseph J. Arvay, O.C.,O.B.C, Q.C. and Bruce Elwood

Counsel for the University: Thomas A. Roper, Q.C. and Jennifer Russell

The Applicant: Cynthia Maughan, M.A., Self-represented, English Student

Joseph Arvay, O.C., O.B.C, Q.C.,considered the best public law lawyer in Canada, fighting multiple landmark cases before the Supreme Court of Canada, died suddenly on December 7, 2020. Although I didn’t know him except in an adversarial role over the years that this case went on, he was always respectful. Only God can judge our hearts.

KEY DOCUMENTS in APPELLANT-STUDENT [Cynthia Maughan] LEAVE TO APPEAL to the SUPREME COURT OF CANADA

Leave to Appeal ARGUMENT

Statement of FACTS

LEGAL QUESTIONS Asked to be Resolved at SCC

REPLY to UBC and Faculty Responses to Leave to Appeal Argument

MOTION to Adduce New Evidence

REPLY TO MOTION to Adduce New Evidence

Key Issues

A Christian Student’s Academic Freedom to Pursue “Fruitful Avenues” of Biblical Inquiry in Response to A Professor’s Atheist Critique of the Bible in Class Material:

Supervising students away from responding to Biblical research presented in class.

Academic Assessments Based on a Student’s Known, or Suspected, Christian Beliefs

A Professor’s Academic Freedom to Assess Christian Students in Academic Assessments on the Basis of the Student’s Religious Beliefs as:

having an “agenda of resistance”

having “religiosity” and “religious scruples” (as appealed) delineated from religious freedom

being academically “impaired” by their religious beliefs

An Individual Professor’s Authority to Decide if a Christian Student’s Sincerity of Christian Belief is Sufficient to Qualify Them For a Sunday Class Abstention:

university oversight of professors judging the sincerity of “practicing Christians’ “religious beliefs

whether the student can legitimately abstain from a Sunday class

are a regular church attendee

proof of religious beliefs

Ad Hoc scheduling of classes on Sunday by individual professors Contrary to the University Calendar and the Published Syllabus on which Students Enrolled

scheduling a class(es) on Sunday after a course has begun precluding students from withdrawing without penalty.

The obligation of universities to require fulfilment or a remedy for a professors’ failure or refusal to fulfill a Written Sunday Class Accommodation Agreement Made With a Student University Senate Appeals Committees and “Officious Bystander” Faculty “Attacking” Students at a Grade Appeal:

University Senate identified as quasi-judicial after the fact thereby allowing for “officious bystander” faculty at a student’s grade appeal:

to “attack” the student in letters to the Senate Committee in response to the student’s “Holy Day Observance without Penalty” grade appeal, without providing for:

a confidentiality policy to protect the student

a remedy for the student

Cynthia Maughan LEAVE TO APPEAL TO THE SUPREME COURT OF CANADA

LEAVE TO APPEAL that the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms apply to The University Act to:

guarantee equal academic freedom and free speech rights to students of faith; and,

eliminate ad hoc university discretion and interferences with student religious expression and practice by allowing university bureaucracy to pick and choose from the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

[Cynthia Maughan] ARGUMENT

Argument: Leave to Appeal Argument

The lower courts erred:

by not considering the key evidence of the Plaintiff’s sworn testimony and evidence that she is a “practicing Christian” and the admission by the defendants that she is a “practicing Christian” both in the Admissions of Truth and in their Statement of Defence.
by not considering that key evidence the lower courts erred by concluding the Plaintiff-student was a Christian with only “religious scruples” and “religiosity” thereby finding finding in favour of the respondent university and faculty.

in not finding against the Canadian Association of University Teachers’ conclusion permitting faculty to assess the sincerity of the plaintiff-students’ religious beliefs

excluding from consideration the professor-student power imbalance.

failing to find for the plaintiff-students’ religious freedom to:

absent herself from the Sunday Classes without penalty; and,

pursue fruitful avenues of religious inquiry and expression

PDF Argument – Appeal to be Heard at the Supreme Court of Canada HTML Argument – Appeal to be Heard at the Supreme Court of Canada PART III

FACTS

KEY FACTS: The “practicing Christian” [Cynthia Maughan] Plaintiff student:

was academically assessed by faculty in the written academic assessment based on faculty’s suspicions of her religious motivations which faculty identified as her “agenda of resistance”

abstained from a Sunday Class following university procedure that permits students to abstain without penalty, but the Plaintiff-Student was not accommodated with a review of her draft by the professor as were the other students thereby breaking the written accommodation agreement

was criticized in writing by faculty for writing a linguistically researched paper that proved Derrida misquoted the Bible in his disparagement of the Holy Communion in assigned reading

made numerous efforts over a prolonged period of time to all levels of the university to amicably resolve the matter by simply having the accommodation agreement fulfilled

was “attacked” in a manner that “descended well beneath Charter values” according to the Senate Appeals Committee in written letters by colleagues of the faculty member who were effectively unknown to the plaintiff-student and/or had brief or no knowledge of the matter before the Senate Committee.

was refused her request to disallow the above “Senate letters” attacking her prior to the Senate hearing despite the Senate not having a confidentiality policy to protect her, and no remedy for the harm done to her.

was denied consideration of the fiduciary duty to protect fee paying students

denied consideration of the the teacher-student power imbalance

PDF Facts – Appeal to be Head at the Supreme Court of Canada Part I HTML Facts – Appeal to be Heard at the Supreme Court of Canada Part I

[Cynthia Maughan] LEGAL QUESTIONS ASKED OF SCC

Key QUESTIONS Asked to be Resolved by the Supreme Court of Canada:

are University Acts above Charter scrutiny and interpretation?

do faculties’ academic freedom rights trump a student’s right to religious freedom so that faculty may assess a student based on faculty’s knowledge or speculation about the student’s religious motivations or beliefs?

do universities and lower courts have the right to judge an individuals religious beliefs as merely, or derogatorily, “religious scruples” or “religious conduct” but which does not meet the measure of religious freedom protection?

does a trial judge have the discretion to exclude key Admissions of Truth

PDF Questions Asked – Appeal to be Heard at the Supreme Court of Canada Part II HTML Questions – Appeal to be Heard at the Supreme Court of Canada.Parts I-III Above Scanned Originals

REPLIES to Respondent University and Faculty

[Cynthia Maughan] REPLY to the University and Faculty’s SCC submissions

The Appellant-Student is on the Dean’s List and in Top 15% of UBC Students

Specific References to Distinctions Between “Religion” v “Religiousity”

“Religious Scruples” Made in Lower Courts Outlined (Scanned)

Reply to UBC and Faculty Responses (Scanned)

[Cynthia Maughan] MOTION TO ADDUCE NEW EVIDENCE

MOTION to Adduce New Evidence: Pattern of Faculty Association Contriving Complaints to Garner Faculty and Legal Resources Against Practising Christians