Skip to main content
Become a Member
OBA Logo
search
menu

S.R. v Matthews Hall Case Summary

March 17, 2026 | Tania Kengatharan, Articling Student, Filion Wakely Thorup Angeletti LLP

Facts

In Matthews Hall, the Applicants alleged discrimination in the provision of services (namely education) on the grounds of race, colour, ancestry, place of origin, ethnic origin, and creed, contrary to the Code. The Applicants are a family of South Asian and Hindi descent. S.R. and R.B. are the parents (collectively, the “Applicant Parents” or “Applicant Father” and “Applicant Mother”) of S.R. and V.R., who were students at the School. The Respondents included Matthews Hall, a private school in London, Ontario and Ric Anderson, the Head of the School.

The Applicants asserted that:

  1. They were subject to discriminatory treatment when they did not receive a re-enrolment package from the School for the subsequent academic year and were denied a meeting with the school administration concerning the same; and
  2. The School’s programming increasingly promoted Christian traditions and practices to the exclusion of other racial, ethnic, or religious groups, and that the School adopted policies that minimized the discussion or dissent regarding these changes.

The Applicants sought:

  1. Damages for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect;
  2. Costs resulting from the children’s therapy; and
  3. Public interest remedies, including substantial human rights training for Mr. Anderson.

Scheduling the Re-Enrolment Meeting

Every academic year, parents must complete a re-enrolment package for the upcoming year. In January 2020, the Applicants did not receive a package. The Applicant Mother called the School and spoke to Mr. Anderson’s assistant, who advised that she would have to meet with Mr. Anderson and that she would be contacted with dates for the meeting. After a short delay, the meeting was scheduled for February 4, 2020. Unfortunately, Mr. Anderson’s wife passed away on February 4, 2020. Mr. Anderson went on leave until March 4, 2020 and was off work at various other times in March. The Applicants asked whether a meeting could be held with the Assistant Head, Mrs. MacKay, but Mrs. MacKay would not meet without Mr. Anderson. On March 4th, when Mr. Anderson returned, the Applicant Parents wrote to the Board of Matthews Hall about scheduling a meeting and noted that their daughter S.R. was having difficulty coping with the uncertainty around returning to Matthews Hall. The Chair of the Board advised that the meeting would be rescheduled and the issue would be dealt with by the School’s administration. The Applicant Parents wrote to Mrs. MacKay urging that a meeting be held as soon as possible. Mr. Anderson responded to this message. He stated that he would lead the meeting after March break. The meeting was scheduled for March 31, 2020.

On March 17, 2020, Ontario declared a state of emergency pertaining to the COVID-19 pandemic. Due to the restrictions, Matthews Hall was closed and the March 31st meeting was cancelled. In or around April 2020, the School re-opened and provided online classes. On April 16, 2020, the Applicant Mother wrote to Mrs. MacKay and inquired about rescheduling the re-enrolment meeting using an alternative to an in-person meeting. The Applicant Parents wrote to the Chair again to request that the meeting be rescheduled. Mr. Anderson responded by letter dated May 19, 2020, advising that a meeting would be held once pandemic restrictions were lifted. The Applicant Parents again wrote to the School two more times requesting a meeting. By letter dated June 22, 2020, Mr. Anderson and Mrs. MacKay advised that a meeting with the Applicant Parents would not take place.

Parental Conduct

It was the School’s position that the decision not to provide a re-enrolment package to the Applicants was due to an irreconcilable breakdown in the school-parent relationship and infringements of the Parent Code of Conduct. Some of the issues raised by Mr. Anderson and Mrs. MacKay included:

  • The Applicant Parents were intrusive in the classroom and overly proud of their children, making it difficult to raise minor concerns;
  • The Applicant Father would behave inappropriately by monopolizing teachers’ time in the morning or loiter outside the classroom door at the end of the school day;
  • The Applicant Mother requested that S.R. not be assigned to a class with another student who had been disruptive and regularly poked S.R.;
  • The Applicant Mother expressed concern that S.R. would not be allowed on-stage during a school play, even though she was attending early morning rehearsals before school;
  • At the 2017 annual general meeting, several changes were proposed to the School’s bylaws and the Applicant Father was the only one who voted against the amendments. Mr. Anderson testified that the Applicant Father had asked excessive questions and prolonged the meeting unnecessarily;
  • The Applicant Father sent an email to 16 families in August 2018 highlighting changes made to the School Handbook; and
  • On August 8, 2019, an anonymous email was sent to every family at the School. The email was critical of the School’s administration and its financial management. Both Mr. Anderson and Mrs. MacKay concluded the anonymous email was sent by the Applicant Father.

The Decision

The Tribunal noted that the Tribunal’s role in relation to school discipline matters was not to second guess disciplinary decisions made by school staff, but rather to determine whether a protected ground under the Code factored into the decision-making. After considering the evidence, she found that the Applicants’ Code-protected characteristics were a factor in the differential and adverse treatment they received.

The Respondents continuously delayed and ultimately failed to allow the Applicant Parents to meet with a school official regarding re-enrolment. Despite unexpected events like Mr. Anderson’s wife’s death and the COVID-19 pandemic, the Tribunal found that there was no credible explanation for the refusal to meet with the Applicant Parents, in contravention of the School’s policy that required a meeting be held between parents and the School before refusing re-enrolment.

The Tribunal found that the complaints against the Applicant Parents did not appear to breach the Parent Code of Conduct. Moreover, the Applicant Parents were never provided with an opportunity to meet, learn about or respond to the allegations that they had infringed the Parent Code of Conduct. The Tribunal contrasted this with the School’s processes and decision-making when dealing with non-racialized families.

Both Mr. Anderson and Mrs. MacKay testified that the anonymous email was a significant factor in the decision not to provide a re-enrolment package; however, the Tribunal noted that they arbitrarily concluded the Applicant Father had sent the email without speaking to him about it and without any verifiable information or proof. Mr. Anderson described relying on his “intuition” in determining that the Applicant Father had sent the email.

The Tribunal also found that the Respondents’ acted in a manner that was “cavalier and insensitive” to the educational needs of the Applicant children, and to the health needs of S.R. They waited more than six months after re-enrolment packages were distributed to other families to provide the Applicants with any information about their decision, despite clear and repeated communication about the impact of the uncertainty on S.R. and the other Applicants.

In contrast, the Tribunal found that the Applicants had failed to discharge their burden of proof for the allegations that the Respondents promoted or favoured Christian religious practices through programming and events at the School.

The Tribunal ordered the following remedies:

  • Matthews Hall pay the Applicants $75,000, and Mr. Anderson pay the Applicants $20,000, as damages for injury to dignity, feelings and self-respect;
  • Matthews Hall must hire, at its own expense, a human rights expert to conduct an audit and provide human rights and DEI training to various staff/officials; and
  • Matthews Hall must hire, at its own expense, an independent expert in leadership and communication skills to provide leadership, conflict resolution and communication skills training to various staff/officials.

Conclusion

The combined general damages award of $95,000 appears to be the highest that the Tribunal has awarded for discrimination in the provision of educational services.

The Tribunal found that the objective seriousness of the Respondents’ conduct and its effect on the Applicants merited a significant award of monetary compensation for injury to dignity, feelings and self-respect.

The Respondents’ repeated refusals to meet and to follow due process, as well their lack of a credible non-discriminatory explanation for their actions, appear to have been determinative factors in this decision.

Any article or other information or content expressed or made available in this Section is that of the respective author(s) and not of the OBA.