Students appeal tuition ruling

ERIC SMITH | The Students' Society of McGill University is appealing the Quebec Superior Court decision which upheld the province's right to impose differential tuition fees on Canadian students residing outside Quebec. The case, which pitted SSMU and political science and economics student Paul Ruel against the Minister of Education and the University, was found not to have merit by Superior Court Judge Claude Tellier who rendered his decision on February 11. Vice-Principal (Academic) Bill Chan said the ruling was expected, but added, "Obviously, I looked at the decision with mixed feelings. The University administration is on record that we do not think it is a good idea to impose differential fees, but we recognize the Quebec government's right to impose the fees." A spokesperson from the ministry declined to comment on the ruling. "We won, that's it," he said. But the ruling was met with consternation on the part of student plaintiffs. SSMU president Tara Newell said, "The judge bought into the political argument made by the ministry (that Canadian students don't pay more here than they do in their home provinces). But that's not a legal argument." Newell said she is also concerned that the minister's fee schedule "is a directive with a long-term implication. This decision lets the minister do whatever she wants." The court ruling states that there is precedence for the creation of new categories of residence in other Quebec laws, like the law of financial aid to students and the law on health insurance. "The minister had from the National Assembly the authority to impose conditions on university grants and this authority included the possibility of the creation of new categories based on the notion of residence." The suit, according to Newell, "is not about tuition. It's about upholding the constitution and the charter. It's about the principle." In his ruling, Judge Tellier also rejected the charter arguments made by the students. These were: incompatibility with the Quebec Charter's provision of rights irrespective of national or ethnic origin and the equivalent rights in the Canadian Charter, and incompatibility with mobility rights guaranteed in the Canadian Charter. National and ethnic origin is a redundancy, reasoned the judge, and is meant to protect people from discrimination on the basis of origin, not on the basis of current residency. And since Canadian students would pay no more in Quebec than they would in their home provinces, mobility is not restricted. The judge added that Quebec students who wish to study in another province are the ones who would have to pay more for leaving home. For his part, Ruel, the British Columbia student in whose name the suit was launched, said he was very disappointed with the decision. He argued in favour of launching an appeal at last week's SSMU council meeting. "It's frustrating that principles cost money," he said. "It took $25,000 to get where we are now." An appeal will likely cost at least as much again. Ruel says he's very happy with council's decision to spend the money to argue the appeal. Newell is pleased with the decision as well and believes that students will find a more sympathetic ear at an appeals court in Canada. The issue is not likely to fall off the students' agenda either. At next month's elections for the SSMU executive, Ruel will be running for president.