1. Ali Oncel
Evania Afaganis
Kimtaj Mohar
Shbeg Grewal
Timothy Ulidan
LEGL 210 (Section 550)
June 13, 2010
Assignment #2: Case Analysis - Mabel Hardluck v. College of Northern
South Alberta (CNSA

2. 2
)Background Summary
Post-secondary student Mabel Hardluck began her studies in the 2-year university
transfer program at the College of Northern South Alberta (CNSA). Her ultimate goal
was to complete her Bachelor of Arts degree (with a major in sociological entomology
and a minor in bingo hall management) at the University of Southern North Alberta
(USNA), located in Rosebud Alberta. In conversation with other students, Mabel soon
learned that “transfers to other institutions could be tricky.” She wanted to ensure her
course of study and the academic transition to USNA would go smoothly. Her limited
savings meant that she would have only enough to cover 2 years of study at CNSA and an
additional 2 years at USNA. Careful course planning would be crucial.
Early in her program, Mabel met with Ima Bbusy, a CNSA Student Advisor known for
her kind-hearted ways. Ima asked Mabel to complete a ‘student worksheet’ form, which
included the following statement in large bold red letters: “You are responsible to
complete this form accurately. Check the Transfer Guide (available on our website –
www.alltheanswersatCNSA.org/obscurepages) and make sure the receiving institution
knows about you.” When Mabel revealed to Ima that she didn’t understand the meaning
of this statement, Ima’s response was “Don’t worry, be happy; I’ll help you every step of
the way.” Ima recommended Mabel take 5 courses in entomology (starting with BUGS
101 and ending to BUGS 402). She also advised her to fulfill her minor course
requirements, beginning with CARD 101 and progressing to BING 399. Mabel followed
Ima’s recommendations, using the suggested courses to fill out the course planning
worksheet. She continued to meet with Ima throughout her program, consulting with her
after each mid-term period and final examination period. Mabel’s dedication to her

3. 3
studies resulted in a cumulative GPA of 3.5 and a lucrative job offer from the New
Arachnid Spider Ranch and Bingo Resort. Recognizing the “rare combination” of her
skill set, they offered her a starting annual salary of $80,000, a company car and health
benefits. She planned to transfer to USNA, complete the remaining 2 years of her
program, and begin working for the New Arachnid Spider Ranch and Bingo Resort
immediately after graduation.
When Mabel applied to the USNA, she received written correspondence informing her
that she was missing 5 important courses. Additionally, the CARD 101 course she had
taken on Ima’s recommendation had been decertified by the professional association 3
years earlier. In it’s place, Mabel should have completed CARD 111, which CSNA began
offering 3 years ago. USNA’s letter stated that she could be admitted into the program on
the condition that she complete a qualifying year to complete the missing courses. The
additional year of study would result in her graduating 1 year later than previously
planned. When Mabel confronted Ima with the news, Ima responded by saying she “had
tried her best” and added, “No one can understand The Transfer Guide.” Ima told Mabel
her only recourse would be to appeal to CNSA’s Appeal Committee. In an oral
submission to the committee, Mabel stated that she trusted Ima and had relied on her
completely. She requested a refund of all of her tuition money in order to pay for the
additional expenses she would incur during her qualifying year at USNA. She finished by
stating that she was upset because she would graduate 1 year later than expected, which
would result in a 1 year delay in starting her promised $80,000 per year job. The
committee did not allow Mabel to question Ima or any of the other College officials

4. 4
present. Following a closed-door discussion in a private room, the committee concluded
they did not have the jurisdiction to return her tuition or award damages for the additional
qualifying year. She would be required to find additional funds on her own. Mabel wants
to sue.
Objective
In this paper, we will examine the impending case Mabel Hardluck v. College of
Northern South Alberta (CNSA) in order to determine if CSNA is in breach of contract
with Mabel. We will analyze the case through both tort and contract law, showing that
there are a number of issues involved. These issues include negligence, breach of trust
and fiduciary duty, professional and economic liability, misrepresentation and undue
influence. As we explore the issues and possible remedies available, we will look at the
case from a variety of perspective and refer to precedents that have recently been set by
relevant cases within the Canadian Judicial System.
Tort Law Analysis
There is no indication that Ima was malicious or intended to harm Mabel, however there
is much evidence to show that she has been negligent. Acting on behalf of CNSA, the
organization hired her for the purpose of assisting students in all matters related to the
program. As a student advisor, she serves as first point of contact and is regarded as an
important source of information to current and prospective students. The student advisor
role includes assisting students with the interpretation of policy, course planning,

5. 5
registration and advising on other program matters based on the merit documents.
Helping students like Mabel is Ima’s primary duty. Students in a transfer program often
experience difficulties with the interpretation of post-secondary policies and appropriate
course planning. It is reasonably foreseeable that if a student were misinformed, errors
could be made in course planning resulting in significant program deficiencies. Through
the reasonably foreseeable test, we conclude that Ima owed a duty of care to Mabel
because she could easily predict that carelessness in her advice would cause Mabel harm.
As a student advisor, Ima is regarded as an expert. She is a source of information to
interpret available transfer guide and students rely on her advice. The competent advisor
possesses a specialized knowledge of the post-secondary programs offered, anticipates
common pitfalls and warns students about them. A skilled advisor is adept at making
students aware of policies, program guidelines and their implications. When unsure of
any aspect of a program, the prudent advisor does research, seeking to gain a solid
understanding of the point in question by consulting relevant publications, online
resources or by dialoguing with internal/external staff. A reasonable advisor knows the
stakes are high; in a transfer program, there is no room for program planning mistakes
because the additional costs in time and money are far too high. As an expert, Ima is held
to a high standard of care. If she truly did not understand the Alberta Transfer Guide, she
should have requested training from her employer because the Guide is an essential
resource used by all accredited post-secondary institutions throughout the province.
Incompetence does not absolve her of her obligation to Mabel. There is a serious breach
of standard of care present. By telling Mabel not to worry and adding that she would be

6. 6
with her “every step of the way”, she gives Mabel a false sense of assurance that she
knows what she is doing. Ima’s lack of skill and her substandard job performance is a
liability to the College. Due to the complexity of transfer agreements and her limited
experience with post-secondary programs, it was not unreasonable for Mabel to place her
trust in Ima. Mabel does not possess the required knowledge to do program planning on
her own.
As a direct result of planning errors based on Ima’s recommendation, Mabel experienced
a measurable loss. She lost 1 year of time her life because five of her courses were not
recognized. She lost 1 year of salary and benefits. She will be required to pay additional
tuition fees, books and supply costs to fulfill the outstanding transfer agreement course
requirements. She will also need to find money for living costs and incidentals. Mabel’s
losses are a direct result of following Ima’s advice. Mabel is experiencing a high level of
anxiety due to the monetary shortage and she will likely have to incur the cost of a
student loan or be required to take on part-time employment in order to make ends meet.
Her high GPA could be compromised if she has to find employment to cover her
unexpected costs. In a remarkably similar case, Crerar v. Grande Prairie College (2004),
heard by the Alberta Provincial Court, a student in a 2-year transfer program required an
extra year to complete her degree due to not taking the proper courses based. This
occurred despite consultation with a student advisor. The initial ruling was in favour of
the student. The advisor was held responsible due to negligence and the student was to be
awarded damages (I need specifics here. Does anyone have the case to add this in???) by
provincial court due to a couple of facts against the university as in the following:

7. 7
 Page 78 of the appeal book: “...there is an agreement between the parties that if
certain academic services are provided to the student . . . those services will be
sufficient to enable her to transfer to another like institution.”
 Pages 254-255: “We agree that it is the student’s responsibility to do many things,
but they should be something within the student’s expertise. After all, they have
just completed Grade 12, they are wandering into the university atmosphere for
the first time, what is to be expected of a student?”.
As a result of the detail for the appeal court, Judge Marshall (JM) criticised the
perspectives of the trial Judge as, “ These and other statements clearly show he held the
College to a very high standard of care to ensure the Respondent obtained transfer to the
U of L.”. JM underlined the important information of the website as well as on the top
of the application form that is major claim by University as to student did not read the
important information on the Alberta Transfer Guide stated as: First identify the
receiving institution, the one to which you are planning to transfer. Carefully read its
admission and transfer information in section 2 of this guide, then contact the
institution directly for specific admission and program requirements. The telephone
numbers and addresses are noted in section 2. Thus, JM noted that University claimed
that she could expect the adviser to take all the responsibility for guiding her to a smooth
transfer to another university. JM admitted that the student advisor made a mistake on
her advice, but she interpreted as a reasonable evidence that shows the intricacies of the
transfer guide; therefore, excused the misguidance of the student advisor as to that the
accuracy of her advice is not being warranted. She connected inefficiency of student
advisor to the important advisor on the College Calendar that states, the student must

8. 8
consult the Calendar of their chosen institution and verify the transferability of courses
taken. Judge Marshall commented the decision of the trial court on her final statement
as, “The trial Judge imposed too high a duty on the College and failed to adequately
measure the role of the student. The student must act reasonably to succeed in actions of
negligent misstatement, and it is certainly a factor in weighing negligence. The implied
terms formulated by the Court also failed to accurately consider the student’s role.”
According to the decision of JM, we can address that iIt is important to note that Mabel
also owes a duty of care to herself. The transfer process is complex. When speaking
became aware of the fact that transfer agreements can be “tricky”. She saw the red letters
on the form warning her to make sure the other institution “knows all about her” and yet
she failed to heed the warning, allowing Ima to convince her that it was not a concern. It
would be reasonable for Mabel to check things over with the receiving institution USNA
so she could be ensure a seamless transfer. A prudent learner would not wait 2 years to
verify the appropriateness of her course of selections with the receiving institution. Had
she contacted USNA mid-program, she would have had sufficient time to revise her
schedule and complete the appropriate courses within the timelines she had anticipated.
There could be contributory negligence on Mabel’s part. In Crocker v. Sundance
Northwest Resorts Ltd. (1998), the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that due to his
actions, Crocker was responsible for 25% for his loss. In the appeal of the Grande
Prairie v. Crerar case, the Alberta Queen’s Bench also supported the notion of shared
liability with the statement “a program advisor helps a student to plan and fill out a

9. 9
course schedule, but the student is ultimately responsible for its accuracy.” As a result,
the initial ruling in favour of the student was overturned. (need more detail here!!!)
Breach of Contract
The Hazanavicious v. McGill University Case (check re: date and which court of law!!)
established the fact that “when a student is admitted and registered into a university
program, a “sui generis or (unique, or one of a kind) contract is formed between himself
and the university.” In the contract between Mabel and the CNSA, Mabel paid tuition,
material, and student fees in exchange for a 2-year program that would qualify her for 3rd
year standing in the Bachelor of Arts program at USNA. Due to improper advice from
Ima, she did not receive 3rd
year standing at the end of her studies. Mabel fulfilled her
obligations – (meeting with an advisor, completing a full course load based on the advice
received by the advisor), but she did not receive all she had paid for. This is a
fundamental breach of contract. As in the Grande Prairie Regional College v. Crerar
case, CNSA is in breach of contract because Mabel received improper advice from the
student advisor causing the consideration of a 2-year block transfer. Since CNSA did not
fulfill all of their obligations, Mabel should be awarded damages as a remedy for the
unmet terms. At minimum, her compensation should include fees for tuition, books,
supplies and student fees to cover the cost of her qualifying year at USNA.

10. 10
Fiduciary Duty
As a student advisor, Ima has a fiduciary duty to act in Mabel’s best interests. This means
that when Ima assisted Mabel in her course planning, she was acting as an agent on her
behalf and was therefore obligated to disclose all of the information to Mabel. Yet, she
failed to explain the disclaimer on the student worksheet form even when Mabel
expressed that she did not know the meaning of the warning. When Ima told Mabel not to
worry about it, she did not fulfill her duty to disclose. By failing to warn Mabel of the
implications of the statement, she was not acting in Mabel’s best interests, and this had a
detrimental effect on Mabel’s program progression. Failure to warn Mabel makes her
liable. This principle is supported by the Fletcher v. Manitoba Public Insurance Corp.
(1990), in which Supreme Court Madam Justice Wilson determined that “businesses or
professionals whose business or profession is to provide information or advice are under
a duty of care to see that their customers receive all relevant information to enable them
to make intelligent decisions.”
Misrepresentation
When Ima first met with Mabel, she led Mabel to believe that she was well versed in
knowledge regarding CNSA’s Bachelor of Arts transfer program. She assured her by
telling her not to worry and promising Mabel that “she would be with [her] every step of
the way,” This gave Mabel a false sense of security; Mabel felt assured that Ima had a
higher level of competency than she actually possessed. There is a significant discrepancy
between Ima’s initial statements to Mabel and her subsequent declaration that “nobody
could understand The Transfer Guide.” She did not intentionally lead Mabel to choose the

11. 11
wrong courses, however, she did lead Mabel to believe that she had an expert
understanding of the program requirements, when in fact she did not. This is an example
of negligent misrepresentation, as such, the remedy should include rescission and
damages.
Undue Influence
As established by Rochdale Credit Union Ltd. v. Barney Case (p. 251 text – add citation
details – year, court, etc), undue influence is presumed due to the nature of the
relationship between Ima and Mabel. Ima has a greater balance of power because she
possesses a more specialized knowledge of post-secondary program and Mabel is new to
the post-secondary environment. Due to her inexperience and limited knowledge, Mabel
trusts Ima with her academic future and is induced to follow her advice. As she stated in
her appeal committee hearing, Mabel “trusted Ima and relied on her.” (remedy???)
Conclusion
We have substantial evidence that Mabel should be compensated. As suggested by the
cases we have explored Though we uunderstand that the student had a duty of care to
herself and as a result she is contributory negligent. Even though we have come across
cases where the student has not been compensated, due to the shared responsility to the
st Once we have supporting details from the research cases added, we could follow
Travis’ recommendation that the principles of the cases seem to support the student
primarily. However the student shares responsibility for her predicament and precedence

12. 12
from other cases seem to be in favour of the institution. (We should give a couple of
specific examples.)
References
Crerar v. Grande Prairie Regional College, [2004] A.J. No. 905 (prov. Ct.), rev’d [2004]
A.J. 905 (Q.B.)
Crocker v. Sundance Northwest Resorts Ltd., [1998] 1S.C.R.1186
Fletcher v. Manitoba Public Insurance Corp. [1990] CarswellOnt 56; 30 M.V.R. (2d)
260, 5 C.C.L.T. (2d) 1, 1 C.C.L.I. (2d) 1, 71 Man. R. (2d) 81, [1990] 3 S.C.R.
Keith Plumbing & Heating Co. v. Newport City Club Ltd., (Micron Construction Ltd. v.
Hong Kong Bank of Canada) [2000] 184 D.L.R. (4th) 75 (B.C.C.A.)
Rochdale Credit Union Ltd. v. Barney [1984], 14 D.L.R. (4th) 116 (Ont.ca)