On Sept. 18, the Ontario Divisional Court rejected a request from three Trent University faculty members for a judicial review of the Trent board of governor's decision to close the university's two downtown colleges after the senate had rejected the proposal.

But, the professors say they will seek leave to appeal the ruling.

"The court seems to have set aside the whole framework of academic governance we have been operating with for the last 30 years," said Ian McLachlan, one of the faculty members involved in the case. "What is at stake is whether we can still have a university that decides its direction in a democratic way."

CAUT has pledged its full financial support for an appeal.

"The court ruling last month has frightening implications for the quality of university education throughout Canada," said CAUT president Tom Booth. "Upholding the rights of elected academic senates is essential to ensure that universities maintain academic excellence. We feel the judges took a very narrow view of the powers the Trent Act gives the senate."

"Leave to appeal is being sought because of the broad implications of this decision and because we believe the judges made an error in law," said Andrew Wernick, another of the Trent faculty that sought a judicial review. "We have retained John Laskin, a prominent Toronto lawyer from the international law firm Torys, to continue on with the case in collaboration with CAUT."

Wernick and McLachlan wanted a court order quashing a plan to close Peter Robinson and Catharine Parr Traill colleges in downtown Peterborough. Trent's board voted last November to close the colleges even though the university's senate had voted against the proposal because the downtown colleges -- and the college system -- are an integral aspect of Trent's academic vision and provided the framework for a unique educational program.

In the ruling, the judges accepted the administration's argument that the colleges did not fall into the senate's powers under the Act to "control, regulate and determine educational policy" and that closure of the colleges was entirely a matter for the board. They also ruled the board has "exclusive jurisdiction over management and control" of the university's property, revenues and expenditures.