before [the] court to begin with”. He granted summary judgment
and dismissed the action.
 In my view, the motion judge erred in law. The genuine
issues of fact he identified as requiring a trial could, if resolved in
favour of the appellant, result in a legally cognizable claim. There
was nothing in law that required the Superior Court to decline
to deal with such a claim or to refuse remedies such as damages,
in favour of an internal University complaint process in which
such remedies would not be available.
 Accordingly, I would allow the appeal, set aside the judgment dismissing the action and direct that the matter proceed
 The appellant received two bachelor of science degrees from
the University of Alberta in 2005 and 2007, and another from
the respondent University in 2009. Thereafter, he enrolled in
a master’s program in biochemistry at the University. In 2011,
and before completing a master’s degree, he was allowed to trans-
fer to the Ph.D. program in biochemistry.
 At the time of his transfer to the Ph.D. program, the appellant’s supervisor was Professor Megan Davey. According to the
appellant, in June 2012 Professor Davey advised him that CIHR
had approved a grant to fund her research and that of her doctoral students, including the appellant, and that he would receive
funding from the CIHR grant until completion of his Ph.D.
 In August 2012, Professor Davey unexpectedly died.
According to the appellant, this created uncertainties for him as
to who would supervise his research, where the research would
be done (it had been done at Professor Davey’s lab) and about the
continued availability of the CIHR grant, which had been funding
the appellant’s Ph.D.
 A new supervisory committee was then formed consisting
of Professors Chris Brandl, David Edgell and Brian Shilton. They
met formally with the appellant in November 2012, and April and
 Although the supervisory committee noted in November
2012 that the appellant’s work was satisfactory, in April 2013 it
was critical of his work habits and of the pace of his work. The
appellant deposed that at this meeting the committee told him it
would be in his best interest to transfer out of the Ph.D. program
to a master’s program.
 At a further meeting in May 2013 (which was recorded by
the appellant and later transcribed), there were discussions about
whether the appellant should remain in the Ph.D. program or