Academic decisions subject to judicial review but not appeals

Mortazavi v. University of Toronto, 2013 ONCA 655:

[4]          We see no basis for interfering with the motion judge's exercise of discretion in this case.  The original Statement of Claim was long, convoluted, repetitive and confusing.  Crucially, once the 187 pages is pruned to its essential core – not an easy task – what is left is an attack on a series of academic decisions relating to admission, enrolment, leave of absence, grades, and appeals.  In these circumstances, the motion judge had ample justification to conclude, as he did, that "the lawsuit for the tort or the breach of contract is nothing more than an indirect attempt to appeal what is an internal academic decision when the proper procedure is judicial review."  This statement applies with equal force to the other substantive claims advanced by the appellants.