The Tribune

By RASHAD ROLLE

Tribune News Editor

rrolle@tribunemedia.net

A SUPREME Court judge has rejected a mother’s bid to overturn Xavier’s Lower School’s decision to expel her two children, ruling that the dispute arose from a private contractual relationship and could not be challenged through judicial review.

Justice Leif Farquharson dismissed the application despite expressing sympathy for the mother and her children, identified in the judgment only as J and P, and acknowledging that she may still have grounds to pursue a private civil claim against the school.

The dispute erupted after an incident involving J and another student on October 6, 2025, and escalated through weeks of tense exchanges between the mother, principal Deidre Cooper and officials from the Catholic Board of Education.

The board eventually ordered the withdrawal of both children, telling their mother that her relationship with the school had deteriorated to the point where it could no longer be repaired and that the level of trust and collaboration needed for the children’s success and well-being had been “irretrievably compromised”.

However, Justice Farquharson ruled that Xavier’s is an independent private school and that its decision to remove the children was governed by the contractual relationship between the school and their mother rather than public law.

He said the school was not performing a governmental function when it disciplined or excluded students and its decision therefore fell outside the reach of judicial review.

“While it may be of general public concern what decisions are made they do not thereby become amenable to judicial review which is concerned with public law,” the judgment said.

The mother had argued that the decision was unlawful, unreasonable, irrational and procedurally unfair. She also claimed the school failed to give her a fair opportunity to appeal and breached her legitimate expectation that her children would be allowed to remain enrolled.

Justice Farquharson rejected those arguments as grounds for judicial review, finding that the dispute concerned the breakdown of the parent-school relationship and the interpretation of the school’s handbook.

The case stemmed from an October 6 incident in which J was reportedly pushed by another student while the children were lining up for Social Studies class.

According to the mother, school officials initially told her the incident was accidental and convened a meeting between the children and their parents. She later complained about how Ms Cooper handled the matter and said the principal displayed unprofessional conduct.

The mother alleged that, during an exchange at a school assembly on October 20, Ms Cooper behaved aggressively, called security and referred to the mother having a gun.

Ms Cooper denied behaving improperly and said the mother approached her without invitation, sat on her keys and mobile phone and moved a chair beside her.

The principal said she told the mother that the assembly was not the appropriate place to discuss the incident and suggested arranging another meeting.

The judgment said the mother later sent an email to Catholic education officials and copied approximately 30 people, most of whom appeared to be staff members at the Catholic Education Centre.

In that correspondence, she accused Ms Cooper of unprofessional conduct, bias and an inability to address the incident fairly. She also alleged that another parent’s role in the school’s parent-teacher association may have influenced the handling of the matter.

Ms Cooper disputed those allegations and said the mother had engaged in a broader pattern of conduct that caused the parent-school relationship to break down.

The principal referred to previous disagreements over the children’s education, including a dispute about J’s grade placement and the mother’s objections to recommendations concerning her daughter’s academic progression.

School officials relied on a provision in the Catholic school system’s handbook allowing a school to require the immediate withdrawal of a child when the relationship with a parent or guardian has irretrievably broken down.

In a November 12, 2025, letter, the board informed the mother that both children would be excluded from Xavier’s from December 1.

The letter said the relationship between the school and the family had deteriorated to the point where the school could no longer effectively repair it.

The mother challenged the decision, arguing that the school had severed ties with her children without giving her a fair opportunity to answer allegations or appeal.

She also argued that the school and Catholic Board performed public functions because of the regulation of education, government funding, child protection laws and constitutional protections relating to education.

Justice Farquharson rejected that position.

He said the existence of statutory regulation, government assistance or the public importance of education did not transform a private school’s contractual dealings with parents into a public law function.

“It would be surprising if this factor alone rendered them liable to judicial review procedures for actions of a quintessentially private character,” he said.

The judge also rejected the argument that the Catholic Archdiocese’s incorporation under legislation made the school’s disciplinary decisions subject to judicial review.

He said the legislation governing the archdiocese did not confer decision-making authority over the discipline or exclusion of children.

Justice Farquharson also found that the school’s decision was not irrational under the demanding legal test governing such claims.

He said the school had a broad power under its handbook to require withdrawal when the relationship between parents and school officials had broken down.

The judge said the extensive exchanges between the mother, principal and Catholic education officials made it reasonably open to the school to conclude that the relationship was no longer workable.

He referred to the mother’s criticism of Ms Cooper’s professionalism and leadership, her allegation of bias and her decision to circulate complaints widely among Catholic education employees.

The mother had also accused Ms Cooper of failing to safeguard children, displaying personal bias and damaging her family’s relationship with the school.

Justice Farquharson said those exchanges supported the school’s conclusion that the relationship had irretrievably deteriorated.

“The decision to exclude would appear to have been within the range of responses of a reasonable decision-maker in the circumstances,” he said.

The judge was more critical of the process used to remove the children.

The school’s handbook said an appeal could be made, but the judgment said the children were excluded before the mother had a meaningful opportunity to pursue that process.

However, Justice Farquharson said that procedural concern could not rescue the judicial review claim because the school’s decision was not subject to judicial review in the first place.

He said questions of procedural fairness could instead be pursued through ordinary civil proceedings, including a possible claim for breach of contract.

The judge said he could envision a court being reluctant to force the school to continue educating the children if administrators believed the relationship had been irretrievably compromised.

However, he said the possibility of a private law claim strongly suggested that judicial review was misconceived.

The court had earlier allowed J and P to remain at Xavier’s while the challenge was pending because the school year was underway and examinations were approaching.

The children were permitted to continue attending through the end of the 2025–2026 school year without prejudice to the school’s objections.

Justice Farquharson ultimately refused permission for judicial review and dismissed the mother’s application.

“I am not entirely unsympathetic to the plight of the Applicant, and more so J and P,” he said.

“For the reasons stated, the proposed claim is not a suitable case for the grant of permission.”

The judge said he would hear further submissions from the parties on legal costs.