A London private school and its principal must pay two parents $95,000 under a human rights tribunal ruling over racial discrimination.
A London private school and its principal must pay two parents $95,000 and all staff must undertake equity and diversity training under a damning human rights tribunal ruling over racial discrimination.
Matthews Hall and principal Ric Anderson discriminated against the parents by refusing to re-enrol their children in 2020 and by refusing even to meet over the matter, the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal found.
Advertisement 2
Article content
Article content
The school leadership blamed the parents, referring to complaints the parents had made in the past, and with no proof, believing the couple were behind a widely distributed anonymous email criticizing Matthews Hall.
In stark contrast, children of “non-racialized” parents who had complained about the school in emails were granted re-enrolment, the tribunal noted.
“The voices, concerns, needs and interests of non-racialized members of the school community were amplified while the voices, needs, interests and concerns of the applicants as racialized members were minimized or silenced,” the tribunal ruled.
The ruling paints a picture of a private school where parents’ complaints were met with a “my way or the highway” attitude from an administration that exhibited a “cavalier and insensitive” approach “with little regard” for the impact of decisions on children.
The parents suffered embarrassment and isolation from the school community, loss of friendships and “were forced to operate under a veil of suspicion and allegations of misconduct,” the tribunal ruled.
Noon News Roundup
Article content
Advertisement 3
Article content
Being kicked out as she headed into Grade 7, in the only school she’d known and loved, filled her with anxiety and self-doubt, their daughter said in an interview with The London Free Press Wednesday.
“We had no reason why. I began wondering what actions I could have done wrong for this to happen,” she said. “It was a community that was very dear to me.”
In testimony at tribunal hearings, she described feeling worthless and suicidal, wondering why she wasn’t good enough for Matthews Hall.
The tribunal decision was validating but bittersweet, the father and mother said.
“I was embarrassed by not having re-enrolment. It was humiliating,” the mother said.
“It was just an awful period of time,” the father said. “It’s a real vindication to have our concerns that the tribunal found there was violation of the Ontario Human Rights Code.”
The school hasn’t made any decisions on an appeal, Nate Fehrman, the chair of the board of governors, said in an email.
“This is not the result we expected from the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario. Matthews Hall welcomes students and families from dozens of countries of origin and many faiths. We have a welcoming and respectful school environment,” he wrote.
Advertisement 4
Article content
“We are also always thinking about how we can do better, and will continue to look for opportunities to improve our processes. We are still reviewing the (tribunal) decision to determine next steps.”
Recommended from Editorial
The decision should serve as a warning for principals of private and public schools across Ontario, said Spero Law lawyer Andrew Camman, who led the case.
“I would be very surprised if this case wasn’t brought up at training for teachers and educators in the public system as well. This sends a message to the education field, that they have responsibilities to the children, and to be culturally sensitive,” he said. “There is lots of freedom in private school, but the rules of natural justice apply.”
Founded in 1918, Matthews Hall offers classes from junior kindergarten to Grade 8 with a faculty of about 25, the tribunal noted.
Parents of the roughly 200 students there pay from $15,000 to $20,000 an academic year for tuition.
Advertisement 5
Article content
The two parents in this case are both doctors of South Asian origin and Hindu. Their names and their children’s names are covered by a publication ban to protect the children’s identity.
The eldest child, a daughter, was enrolled in September 2012 at age four. Her younger brother was enrolled in 2016.
The parents testified at hearings that the school “fostered a close sense of community and after enrolment, Matthews Hall became a big part of the family’s lives.”
Each year, parents had to re-apply for enrolment and notices usually went out by January.
But January 2020 came and the parents in this case hadn’t received their enrolment package. That prompted a months-long exchange between the parents and school officials, complicated by the death of Anderson’s wife, the serious illness of the children’s grandparent and the start of the pandemic.
The parents kept trying to arrange a meeting guaranteed by their contract with the school. Instead on June 22, 2020, they received a letter from Matthews Hall saying there would be no meeting.
“As parents, your vocal distrust of the school’s leadership undermines the efforts of the administration, who work hard to promote an effective and positive learning environment for everyone,” the letter said. “You have made your lack of trust and dissatisfaction clear on a number of occasions. For these reasons, we believe that you will be happier at a different school.”
Advertisement 6
Article content
The parents had sent emails in 2015 with concerns about chess club membership and a school play, and the father had asked questions at a 2017 annual meeting that Anderson and assistant head Jennifer MacKay considered “excessive” in number, the tribunal ruling said.
The father sent an email to some parents in 2018 about concerns over changes to the parent code of conduct. Anderson learned about it and called a meeting with the parents, where the matter was settled, the tribunal found.
In August, 2019, an anonymous email critical of school administration and its financial management was sent to every family at the school.
Anderson and MacKay believed the father had sent the email, though a search of IT couldn’t determine the sender and the parents denied sending it.
In January 2020, a white parent sent an email to all school families about reduced transparency over school finances and management and concerns about the code of conduct suppressing dissent, the tribunal noted.
That email led to a meeting with the parent on Jan. 30. The white parent was offered re-enrolment for his child after a meeting that resolved the issues and because he “agreed to support the School’s values,” Anderson testified, the tribunal ruling said.
Advertisement 7
Article content
Meanwhile, the parents in this case couldn’t get a meeting with Anderson to talk about why they weren’t sent a re-enrolment package.
The school’s approach to the parents was typical of the discrimination and gaslighting racialized people experience, said lawyer Susan Toth, a woman of colour who also worked on the case.
“We’re told if there’s a problem that must be you. These parents were told the problem is you, you speak too loud, we don’t like how you speak to us,” Toth said.
“And for four or five years, they thought it was their fault that these children were uprooted, and their lives changed in a way that we had a very negative impact on them.”
The parents also filed a complaint that the school’s programming and events have increasingly emphasized and promoted Christian traditions and religious practices to the exclusion of other racial, ethnic or religious groups.
The tribunal said that complaint had not been proven.
Ontario Human Rights Tribunal ruled:
Article content
