Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Whether the counterclaim constitutes an impermissible collateral attack on the administrative process available through the Private Training Institutions Regulatory Unit (PTIRU), formerly the Private Training Institutions Branch (PTIB).

• Credibility of the plaintiff's account of the September 19, 2022 incident at Cloud Nine that led to her dismissal.

• Whether Cloud Nine breached its student dismissal policy and the Enrolment Contract in terminating the plaintiff's enrolment.

• Availability of a civil cause of action for alleged breaches of procedural fairness by a private training institution.

• Actionability of negligent misrepresentation claims based on future outcomes described in a recruitment brochure (transfer to University of Law; in-person class hours).

• Recoverability of general damages for mental distress and punitive damages in a breach of contract claim against an educational institution.

Background and facts of the case
Saki Takatsuki, who was born and raised in Japan, first learned about Concordia International College of Asia and the Pacific Inc. ("Concordia") and Cloud Nine College Ltd. ("Cloud Nine") around the summer of 2021 through a Japan-based agent called "Vesper," which provided her with a Japanese-language brochure describing Concordia as an online college established in the Philippines in 2002 with an affiliation to Cloud Nine in Vancouver. Based on the brochure and discussions with Vesper, she understood the program to be a joint offering that would allow her to obtain a bachelor's degree in two years and transition to a list of universities including the University of Law in the U.K., with classes held in Canada, in person, for six hours a day, five days a week, for six months. She paid over ¥4,000,000 to Vesper, received an invoice and receipt from "Concordia Japan" dated August 27, 2021 for ¥3,082,800 (US$27,525), received an invoice from Cloud Nine dated November 8, 2021 showing an applied payment of $9,375, and signed a Student Enrolment Contract with Cloud Nine on November 13, 2021. The Enrolment Contract contained a "Statement of Student Rights," including the right to access the institution's dispute resolution process and the right to make a claim to the PTIB for a tuition refund, together with a link to the PTIB website and Cloud Nine's refund policy. She took an English class in Japan in November 2021 and arrived in Canada in December 2021 to attend in-person and online classes at Cloud Nine's downtown Vancouver campus, with online assignments through Concordia.

The September 19, 2022 incident and dismissal
On September 19, 2022, Ms. Takatsuki accompanied her friend Yuki Sugino to Cloud Nine, where Ms. Sugino sought an explanation from School Director Peter Lee regarding a probation letter. After Ms. Sugino's initial meeting with Mr. Lee (which Ms. Takatsuki estimated lasted about 30 minutes), Ms. Takatsuki asked Mr. Lee to explain the letter again; Mr. Lee asked them to leave, later threatened to call the police, and eventually shouted at them to "get out." Ms. Takatsuki testified they remained at Cloud Nine for approximately three hours, leaving around 2:00 p.m. On September 20, 2022, Ms. Takatsuki received a dismissal letter from Cloud Nine's president, Zarah De Vera, describing the violation as "conduct which included verbal abuse towards school staff, failure to comply with the Director's direct instruction to leave the campus and caused interruption of school operations and caused emotionally damages to other students and staff members." Ms. Takatsuki appealed by letter dated September 26, 2022, stating she had no plans of returning and requesting a "release not a dismissal" and a refund of her tuition fees. By email dated October 6, 2022, Mr. Lee denied the appeal; on October 13, 2022, he responded that because she had completed more than 50% of her co-op program, she was not entitled to a refund under the school's refund policy (a fact she conceded in cross-examination). She did not pursue a remedy through the PTIB, instead deciding to hire a lawyer after receiving a letter from Concordia's lawyer dated October 14, 2022 alleging defamatory statements.

Litigation history
Concordia filed a notice of civil claim against Ms. Takatsuki for defamation in November 2022; she filed a response and counterclaim in December 2022. The defamation trial was scheduled for April 15, 2023, but no one appeared on Concordia's behalf, the defamation claim was dismissed, and the counterclaim trial was adjourned. On September 3, 2024, Ms. Takatsuki applied to amend the counterclaim to add Cloud Nine as a defendant; the application was granted and Cloud Nine filed its response on October 15, 2024. Cloud Nine retained counsel in June 2025 but filed a notice of intention to act in person on August 20, 2025, when its counsel withdrew. The trial on the counterclaim commenced August 20, 2025 and concluded October 27, 2025. Concordia did not participate in the trial. The counterclaim advanced three causes of action — breach of contract, breach of procedural fairness, and negligent misrepresentation — with Ms. Takatsuki seeking over $136,000 in damages consisting of her tuition refund, general damages for mental suffering, and punitive damages.

Policy terms and clauses at issue
Two sets of policy/contractual provisions were central. First, Cloud Nine's dismissal policy listed grounds for immediate dismissal including sexual assault, physical assault, possession or use of dangerous substances or weapons, cheating, forgery, "verbal abuse, assault, or threats," vandalism, theft, and "any conduct which is determined to be detrimental or damaging to other students, staff members or the college." Second, Cloud Nine's refund policy denied refunds to students who had completed more than 50% of their program. The court also examined the statutory framework under the Private Training Act, S.B.C. 2015, c. 5 (PTA), the Private Training Regulation, B.C. Reg. 153/2016 (PTR), and the Fees and Student Tuition Protection Fund Regulation, B.C. Reg. 140/2016, which establish the PTIRU's regulatory role, the Student Tuition Protection Fund under s. 20 of the PTA, a mandatory internal dispute resolution process requiring a final written decision within 30 days (PTA s. 19; PTR s. 62), and a complaint mechanism for tuition refunds where an institution misled a student about a significant aspect of their approved program (PTA s. 23(1)(b)). PTR s. 47 requires designated institutions to maintain a fair and reasonable written dismissal policy.

Credibility findings
Justice Laurie found Ms. Takatsuki's evidence mixed, with significant difficulty accepting her account of the September 19, 2022 incident. The Court noted she admitted in cross-examination that she confronted Mr. Lee and raised her voice (though she denied yelling), that her Appeal Letter revealed she and Ms. Sugino were also seeking reconsideration of a failing mark (described as "4.37% lacking out of 60% passing mark"), and that the tone and language of the Appeal Letter — including her questioning of Mr. Lee's and Ms. De Vera's positions based on their attendance, Mr. Lee's casual dress, and his bringing a dog on occasion — were not inconsistent with the allegations in the Dismissal Letter. Her denial of the allegations was not found credible.

Collateral attack analysis
The Court held that the essence of Ms. Takatsuki's claims was a complaint that her dismissal from Cloud Nine and the denial of her tuition fee refund were unfair — matters within the administrative jurisdiction established by the PTA and its regulations. Applying Willow v. Chong, 2013 BCSC 1083, together with Canada (Attorney General) v. TeleZone Inc., 2010 SCC 62, and related authorities, the Court found the legislature intended to confer jurisdiction over such disputes on statutory actors authorized by the PTA, with judicial review available only after the administrative process was exhausted. Because Ms. Takatsuki bypassed that process, her claims were an impermissible collateral attack on the governing administrative process and an abuse of the Court's process, warranting dismissal on that basis alone.

Merits analysis
In the alternative, the Court addressed the merits. The breach of contract claim failed because, assuming Cloud Nine's dismissal policy could be treated as an implied contractual term, Ms. Takatsuki did not establish on a balance of probabilities that Cloud Nine breached it; the grounds cited fell within the listed categories, including the catch-all of conduct detrimental or damaging to other students or staff. The breach of procedural fairness claim failed because there is no action in law for breaches of natural justice or duties of procedural fairness, citing Roeder v. Lang Michener Lawrence & Shaw, 2007 BCCA 152, McGregor v. Holyrood, 2014 BCSC 679, and Bajwa v. British Columbia Veterinary Medical Association, 2012 BCSC 878; the proper avenue was a complaint to the PTIRU and subsequent judicial review. The negligent misrepresentation claim, assessed under Queen v. Cognos Inc., [1993] 1 S.C.R. 87, failed both legally and factually: representations about future events (transfer to University of Law; six months of in-person lectures for six hours, five days per week) are not actionable per PD Management Ltd. v. Chemposite Inc., 2006 BCCA 489; the text-message evidence from Mishio did not categorically foreclose transfer to the University of Law (a prior message from Mr. Kang indicated admission was possible if prerequisites were met); a more likely explanation for her inability to transfer was that she stopped attending Concordia after being dismissed from Cloud Nine, even though Concordia and Cloud Nine are separate entities and she was never dismissed from Concordia; and any reliance on the brochure's instruction hours was unreasonable once she signed the Enrolment Contract, which accurately disclosed the program hours.

Ruling and outcome
Justice Laurie dismissed Ms. Takatsuki's counterclaim in its entirety, primarily on the ground that it constituted an impermissible collateral attack and an abuse of process, and alternatively on the merits of each cause of action. The Court further observed that even if liability had been established, general damages for mental distress (per Fidler v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Canada, 2006 SCC 30) and punitive damages (distinguishing Ojanen v. Acumen Law Corporation, 2021 BCCA 189) were not supported in fact and in law. The successful parties were the defendants by counterclaim, Concordia and Cloud Nine. The reasons did not quantify any damages award in favour of the defendants; on costs, the Court directed that if the parties are unable to agree, they may submit written submissions (not exceeding three pages per party) within 30 days of the release of the judgment — no exact amount of costs can be determined from the decision.