a breach of contract, he examined whether the dispute arose
out of an academic matter and concluded the court could and
should not deal with it.
(d) A claim by a student against a university will fail if it is
an indirect attempt to appeal an academic decision for which
judicial review would be the remedy, or if insufficient detail
is given in the pleadings to show that the university’s actions
go beyond the broad discretion it enjoys: Gauthier, at
para. 50; and Jaffer, at para. 28. These points do not invite
a court to decline to entertain a legal claim for damages for
breach of contract in favour of an internal university complaint process. Rather, they flow from the points above.
A claim that does not allege conduct outside of the university’s broad discretion does not allege a breach of contract.
It alleges conduct the university may engage in without
breaching its contract, because it has been given a discretion
by the agreement between the parties to act as it has.
A claim that is an indirect appeal of an academic decision
suffers the same fate. It is not really a claim that the university breached its agreement, but rather a claim that it should
have exercised its discretion differently.
 Therefore, the correct approach is not to ask whether the
complaint falls on the academic or legal end of a spectrum and
then determine the answer by considering which, as between
a court and an internal university process, is the more desirable
forum from the standpoint of efficiency, policy and practicality.
Rather, the correct approach flowing from Gauthier and Jaffer is
to ask whether the complaint is one for damages for breach of
contract or tort, as opposed to an assertion that what the university did was something it had a discretion to do.
 The divergence between the motion judge’s approach and
that required by Gauthier and Jaffer is made clear by the follow-
ing passages from Jaffer [at paras. 29 and 31]:
The Superior Court’s jurisdiction over the action in this case is thus not
ousted by the raising of issues relating to the university’s academic function.
As in Gauthier, the action is not simply an indirect attempt at judicial review,
as the appellant does not seek to reverse decisions with respect to his grades
or compel the university to readmit him. His claim is that the university
owed him various obligations in both contract and in tort, and that its failure
to meet those obligations has caused him pecuniary and non-pecuniary dam-
ages. Such claims fall within the jurisdiction of the Superior Court and may
proceed if they are properly pleaded and tenable in law and disclose a reason-
able cause of action.