ZARNETT J.A.: —
 The appellant, Simon Lam, appeals from the decision of the
motion judge granting summary judgment dismissing his action
against the respondent, the University of Western Ontario Board
of Governors (the “University”). The appellant’s action claims
damages for loss of income, pain and suffering, and out-of-pocket
expenses resulting from his having been deprived of the oppor-
tunity to complete a Ph.D. degree.
 The appellant enrolled, in 2011, in a Ph.D. program at the
University’s faculty of science. His thesis research focused on
a highly specialized area of biochemistry. He had funding for his
research through a grant obtained by his thesis supervisor from
the Canadian Institute of Health Research (“CIHR”).
 In 2012, the appellant’s thesis supervisor died. As a result,
a new supervisory committee was formed. After various meetings
and discussions with the new supervisory committee, the appellant
transferred out of the Ph.D. program into a master’s program.
 The appellant founds his action on the allegation that he
was pressured by the new supervisory committee to transfer out
of the Ph.D. program, in a manner that involved breaches of obligations the University owed to him. He says the members of the
supervisory committee lacked, and were unwilling to acquire, the
necessary expertise in his area of research, and misled and provided knowingly incorrect information to him about the availability and security of his funding.
 The motion judge, after carefully reviewing the evidence,
found there were genuine issues of fact that would require a trial
to resolve, including
(a) whether the supervisory committee recommended the appel-
lant’s transfer out of the Ph.D. program because it genuinely
believed there were problems with the appellant’s work
(as the University contended) or because the members of the
committee were unwilling to familiarize themselves with his
research (as the appellant contended); and
(b) what the appellant was told about funding by the supervisory
committee and whether those statements were justified.
 The motion judge held, however, that it was not necessary
for those issues to proceed to trial, because [at para. 6] “as a matter of law” the appellant’s action should have been brought as
a complaint to the University and [at para. 25] “should not be