Campus Conduct And The Courts: University Discipline And Charter Challenges In BC

Overview

The Supreme Court of British Columbia recently dismissed a petition for judicial review brought by a student against Vancouver Island University (“VIU”) in Kishawi v. Vancouver Island University, 2025 BCSC 2487. The case concerned disciplinary actions taken by VIU, including a two-year suspension for breaches of its Student Conduct Code. The student alleged procedural unfairness, unreasonable exercise of discretion, and violations of her Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (the “Charter”) protected right to freedom of expression. The Court upheld VIU's decisions, finding they were reasonable, procedurally fair, and within its statutory authority under the University Act. The Court also ruled the Charter  does not apply to VIU's disciplinary process.

Facts

The student engaged in multiple acts of “expressive conduct supporting Palestinian rights” on VIU's Nanaimo campus during the summer of 2024. These acts included unsafe rooftop access, disruptive protests, vandalism, and targeted harassment of university staff. An independent investigation substantiated several allegations of misconduct.

VIU's Associate Vice-President of Student Affairs suspended the student for two years, citing a pattern of wilful disregard for university policies (the “Suspension”). The student subsequently appealed the Suspension (the “Appeal”), but the VIU appeal committee upheld the decision.

The student sought judicial review to quash the Suspension and the Appeal, arguing:

• Procedural fairness was not afforded, specifically in relation to delays in constituting the appeal committee and restrictions on advocate participation during the hearing;
• The decisions were ultra vires exercises of VIU's authority under the University Act;
• VIU improperly fettered its discretion by relying on a “Conduct and Care Decision Matrix” (the “Decision Matrix”) without considering the full factual record; and
• The suspension disproportionately infringed her freedom of expression protected under section 2(b) of the Charter.

The Court's Decision

The petition was dismissed.

The Court rejected allegations of procedural unfairness, finding that delays in appointing the appeal committee were not inordinate and did not prejudice the student. Similarly, the student's advocate was present at the hearing and prepared submissions on her behalf, even though the advocate was not permitted to speak.

As for jurisdiction, the Court concluded VIU's disciplinary actions were authorized under sections 27 and 35.2(6)(j) of the University Act, which allow VIU's board to regulate student conduct and establish adjudication procedures. The Court found the suspension did not require presidential authority under section 61 of the University Act, nor did it trigger the right of appeal to VIU's Senate.

The Court considered the use of the Decision Matrix, and concluded it provided a reasonable framework for consistent decision-making. The Decision Matrix preserved discretion for decision-makers to assess qualitative factors and adjust ratings. The Court rejected arguments that its use improperly fettered VIU's discretion.

The Court concluded VIU's disciplinary process does not attract Charter  scrutiny. The Court dismissed arguments that VIU's actions infringed the student's Charter-protected freedom of expression. Universities are not subject to the Charter  in implementing all programs and policies related to education. The student's actions occurred on VIU property, which the university has authority to govern.

Key Takeaways

• Autonomy of universities: The decision underscores the broad autonomy of BC universities under the University Act to regulate student conduct and discipline. Disciplinary decisions are unlikely to attract Charter  scrutiny.
• Procedural fairness: Universities must ensure procedural fairness in disciplinary proceedings, but minor delays or restrictions on advocate participation may not invalidate decisions if the process remains substantively fair.
• Decision-making frameworks: Tools like VIU's Decision Matrix can provide consistency in disciplinary decisions but must allow for discretion to account for specific circumstances.
• Charter  protections: Expressive conduct on university property is not automatically protected under the Charter, particularly if it contravenes university policies. Students should be aware that universities can regulate conduct on their premises without triggering Charter  scrutiny.

Conclusion

This decision provides important guidance for universities and students navigating non-academic disciplinary matters. Universities can rely on clear policies and frameworks to enforce conduct standards. The ruling affirms the independence of post-secondary institutions in BC and limits the scope of Charter  challenges in disciplinary contexts.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.