Derryn Gill

The appellant appealed the identification and placement of her child to the Ontario Special Education (English) Tribunal after abandoning the Special Education Appeal Board (SEAB) process.

The Toronto District School Board challenged the Tribunal's jurisdiction on the basis that the appellant had not exhausted all rights of appeal as required by section 57(3) of the Education Act.

The Tribunal found that the appellant prematurely abandoned the SEAB process on the advice of her advocate.

Consequently, the Tribunal concluded it lacked jurisdiction to hear the merits of the case because the statutory prerequisite of exhausting all appeal rights had not been met.

The appellant brought a series of preliminary motions at the outset of an appeal regarding her child's special education placement.

In one motion, she requested that the Tribunal order the respondent school board to provide legal counsel for her child.

The Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding that it lacked the jurisdiction to order the school board to provide legal representation for the child.

Reasons for the decision were to be released at a later date.

The appellant appealed the identification and placement of their child to the Ontario Special Education (English) Tribunal.

The school board contested the Tribunal's jurisdiction, arguing the appellant had not exhausted all rights of appeal because they abandoned the Special Education Appeal Board (SEAB) process.

The Tribunal found that the school board had met its legislated obligations in setting up the SEAB and that the appellant had not fully exhausted their rights of appeal before applying to the Tribunal.

The appeal was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

The parents of a 15-year-old student appealed the school board's Identification, Placement and Review Committee (IPRC) decision regarding their child's special education identification and placement.

The school board brought a motion to dismiss the appeal, arguing it was moot because the board had subsequently agreed to grant the identification and placement requested by the parents.

The Tribunal found that the parents had exhausted all rights of appeal under the regulations and remained dissatisfied with the identification and placement, as the board's concessions were made outside the formal IPRC process without parental consultation.

The Tribunal dismissed the board's motion and assumed jurisdiction to hear the merits of the appeal.

The appellant parent appealed to the Ontario Special Education (English) Tribunal regarding the special education placement of their deaf child, seeking the provision of an American Sign Language (ASL) interpreter in a regular classroom.

The respondent school board brought a preliminary motion arguing the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction, asserting that the provision of additional services falls outside the statutory meaning of 'placement'.

The Tribunal dismissed the board's motion, finding that under subsection 57(4) of the Education Act, its mandate includes hearing appeals where a parent has exhausted all rights of appeal and remains dissatisfied with the placement.

The Tribunal held that placement implies the delivery of appropriate special education programs and services, giving it jurisdiction to hear the appeal on its merits.

The appellant appealed to the Ontario Special Education (English) Tribunal regarding the identification and special education placement of her child.

Following a pre-hearing teleconference, the appellant's advocate refused to comply with the agreed disclosure schedule and raised several preliminary issues, including challenging the Tribunal's composition and the application of its Rules of Procedure.

The respondent school board requested an adjournment due to the lack of disclosure and indicated its intent to bring a motion regarding jurisdiction.

The Tribunal adjourned the hearing on the merits to allow the preliminary motions from both parties to be heard.

The parents of an exceptional pupil appealed the identification and placement decisions of two Identification, Placement, and Review Committee (IPRC) meetings to the Ontario Special Education (English) Tribunal.

The school board argued the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction because the parents had not exhausted their rights of appeal and had missed statutory deadlines.

The Tribunal found it lacked jurisdiction over the April 2004 IPRC decision because the parents had signed the statement of decision and missed the appeal deadline.

However, the Tribunal assumed jurisdiction over the May 2005 IPRC decision because the school board failed to comply with the statutory timelines for establishing a Special Education Appeal Board.

The Tribunal ordered the board to implement the previously agreed-upon placement pending the resolution of the appeal.