transfer to a master’s program. The motion judge summarized
his conclusion about this meeting [at paras. 13-15]:
Mr. Lam submits that numerous passages of the latter portion of the tran-
script show the committee admitting that they did not have and were unwill-
ing to acquire the required degree [of] expertise to supervise his Ph.D.
Mr. Lam submits that the transcript also shows that the committee had made
up its mind to transfer Mr. Lam to the Master’s program immediately after
his first supervisor passed away.
Western points to other passages of the transcript which it says are consistent with the committee providing an adequate degree of supervision.
In my view, the transcript has portions that support both Mr. Lam’s and
Western’s characterization of events.
 The appellant also gave evidence that, prior to the April
and May 2013 meetings, he was told by a supervisory committee
member that the CIHR grant could be cancelled due to Professor
Davey’s death, and that funding for his research was “somewhat
up-in-the-air”. He deposed that during the April and May 2013
meetings he was told “my funding was not available to complete
my PhD research and that I should transfer back to the Master’s
 The motion judge noted that when various statements
were made to the appellant that funding was up in the air
or might be cancelled, the funding had in fact already been
extended, with one of the approved cost items being financial
support for the appellant. He also noted that after the appellant
transferred out of the Ph.D. program one of the supervisory
committee members began to use the CIHR grant money that
had been ascribed to the appellant, “for other purposes”.
 The appellant applied to transfer back to a master’s program on May 6, 2013. He deposed that he felt after his meetings
with the supervisory committee that he had no alternative. He
specifically stated that he relied on their statements about there
being no funding available and that if he had known there was
such funding he would not have transferred.
 In the formal request for the transfer, one of the supervi-
sory committee members stated:
The advisory committee cannot provide the level of supervision necessary for
Simon to complete a PhD. There is also no other faculty member in the Bio-
chemistry or other program that can act as supervisor.
 The motion judge stated that it was unclear from the form
whether the committee was unable to provide the level of supervision because the appellant required “too much handholding”
(as the University alleged) or because the committee members
did not have the necessary expertise and were unwilling to