acquire it (as the appellant alleged). He noted that none of the
committee members filed an affidavit on the motion.
 The appellant completed his master’s thesis through
a successful defence in August 2014, but alleges he was required
during the master’s program to take outside employment and has
not been able to resume his studies toward a Ph.D. or obtain his
desired lab-based research employment due to his treatment by
The Action and the Summary Judgment Motion
 The appellant commenced his action in September 2014.
The statement of claim was the subject of two motions by the
University to strike it and was amended twice as a result of the
disposition of those motions: see Lam v. University of Western
Ontario Board of Governors,  O.J. No. 1232, 2015 ONSC
1642 (S.C.J.) and Lam v. University of Western Ontario Board
of Governors,  O.J. No. 4460, 2015 ONSC 5281 (S.C.J.). As
finally constituted, the appellant’s second fresh as amended
statement of claim alleges that the conduct of the University
constituted breach of contract and breach of fiduciary duty.1 The
particulars he alleges are the University’s lack of good faith
efforts to ensure an adequate alternate supervisor after Professor
Davey died, the new supervisory committee members’ lack of
expertise and their unwillingness to acquire it, their failure to
inform him accurately about funding and their pressuring him
into transferring out of the Ph.D. program. He claims monetary
relief — damages and equitable compensation.
 The University defended the action denying the appellant’s main allegations as well as the existence of any breach or
damages. The University then moved for summary judgment.
The principal basis for its motion was that the claim relates to
decisions about teaching, mentoring, supervising and administering the Ph.D. program and thus to matters that are “purely
academic” in nature, and therefore the claim fails to disclose
a reasonable cause of action.
The Motion Judge’s Decision
 As noted above, the motion judge granted summary judg-
ment dismissing the action. He found there were genuine issues
1 In my view, this appeal may be disposed of on the basis of the appellant’s
breach of contract claim alone. It is not necessary to address the appellant’s
claim for breach of fiduciary duty, as partial summary judgment was not
sought nor would it be appropriate.