Eva Nichols

The appellant filed motions with the Child and Family Services Review Board appealing a school board's decision to expel a student.

The appellant argued the expulsion should be overturned because the decision was not made within the 20-day statutory timeline and notice was not provided promptly.

The Board dismissed the timeliness motion, finding the decision was made on the twentieth day and notice was provided promptly the following day.

The Board granted the appellant's motions to expedite the hearing on the merits and ordered the school board to disclose written and videotaped evidence to ensure procedural fairness.

The appellant appealed the school board's decision to redesignate her daughter to a different secondary school following a 20-day suspension for an altercation with a vice-principal.

The appellant argued the redesignation amounted to a de facto expulsion.

The Child and Family Services Review Board found that it lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal because the student was not formally expelled or excluded from an educational program, as the transfer was an administrative safe schools transfer under progressive discipline policies.

The appeal was denied.

The appellants requested that the Child and Family Services Review Board waive its standard confidentiality requirement to allow them to disclose a previous decision quashing their child's school expulsion.

The disclosure was sought for the limited purpose of appealing a decision by a local hockey association to suspend the child from playing hockey.

The Board granted the request, finding that the parents were seeking the release of the information to benefit the child and that the hockey association's confidentiality rules would adequately protect the child's privacy.

The appellants appealed a 'safe schools transfer' decision by the respondent school board, arguing it amounted to a de facto expulsion.

The Child and Family Services Review Board found that because the students were suspended and transferred rather than expelled, the Board lacked jurisdiction under the Education Act to hear the appeal.

The Board made no order on the merits.

The applicant mother filed a complaint against the respondent children's aid society under section 120(4) of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, alleging a failure to provide reasons for decisions affecting her interests.

The dispute centered on the society's continued involvement with the family and a subsequent investigation after the applicant's child visited the hospital.

The Child and Family Services Review Board found that while the society provided adequate reasons for its earlier involvement, it failed to inform the applicant or provide reasons for contacting the child's paediatrician during an intake process in June 2021.

The Board ordered the society to provide a written explanation of its intake and investigation processes.

The applicants, foster parents to three young children, applied to adopt them.

The adoption process was halted and the respondent Society decided to remove the children and refuse the adoption application after the foster father disclosed a historical incident of sexual abuse from when he was 20 years old.

The foster father moved out of the home, underwent a sexual offender risk assessment which found him to be at low risk, and engaged in counselling.

The Child and Family Services Review Board rescinded the Society's decisions, finding that the risk of harm from breaking the children's strong attachments to the applicants outweighed the low risk of future abuse, and ordered that the adoption homestudy proceed.

The appellant appealed the school board's decision to expel her 15-year-old son from all schools of the board after he posted a vulgar and threatening 'diss-rap' video on YouTube naming students and a teacher.

The Child and Family Services Review Board quashed the expulsion, finding that the school board failed to adequately consider mitigating factors, including the pupil's recent diagnosis of Autism Spectrum Disorder, his limited ability to control his behaviour or foresee consequences, the history of racial bullying he faced, and the lack of progressive discipline or psychological assessment prior to the incident.

The parents of a student with autism appealed to the Ontario Special Education (English) Tribunal regarding the student's special education programs and services, specifically requesting a 1:1 assistant and a safety plan.

The school board had already agreed to the parents' requested identification (autism) and placement (regular class with resource assistance).

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, holding that under section 57(3) of the Education Act, the Tribunal only has jurisdiction to hear appeals regarding identification and placement, not programs and services, when the school board has agreed to the requested identification and placement.

The appellant filed an appeal with the Ontario Special Education Tribunal challenging the identification of her son's exceptionalities.

The respondent school board argued the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction because the appellant had not exhausted her rights of appeal, as no Special Education Appeal Board (SEAB) hearing had occurred.

The Tribunal found that the appellant had clearly requested an appeal and the respondent had failed to convene a SEAB in a timely manner, instead attempting to substitute a series of follow-up IPRC meetings.

The Tribunal assumed jurisdiction, holding that a school board cannot deny parents their due process rights by failing to establish a SEAB.

The applicant father, acting as litigation guardian for his two children with Autism Spectrum Disorder, alleged that the respondent school board discriminated against them in the provision of educational services.

The father alleged that the school board excluded the children from school and summer programs, placed them in a special education class against his wishes, and failed to meet their educational needs through inadequate Individual Education Plans.

The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario dismissed the applications, finding that the school board had accommodated the children appropriately and provided meaningful access to education.

The Tribunal noted that the school board had made significant efforts to work with the father and accommodate his numerous requests, and that the children were thriving in their educational placements.

The appellant appealed a school board's decision to expel her 13-year-old son from all its schools after he accidentally cut another student with a pocket knife on a school bus.

The Child and Family Services Review Board found that while the student possessed a weapon, there was no intent to harm, and the incident did not negatively impact the school climate to the extent requiring expulsion.

The Board also found the school board failed to properly consider mitigating factors, including the student's age, his history of being bullied, and the lack of progressive discipline.

The expulsion order was quashed and expunged from the student's record.

The respondent requested a reconsideration of the Tribunal's interim decision denying its Request for Summary Hearing.

The Tribunal dismissed the request for reconsideration, finding that it fell outside the scope of the Tribunal's Reconsideration Rules because it addressed an interim decision rather than a final decision.

A case management teleconference was ordered prior to the scheduled hearing dates.

The appellant appealed the school board's decision to expel the pupil from all schools of the board.

The Child and Family Services Review Board quashed the expulsion decision, permitted the pupil to enroll in Grade 9 in any school of the board, and ordered the expulsion record expunged from the Ontario Student Record.

Reasons for the decision were to follow.

The applicants, who were the former foster parents of the child and current foster parents of the child's full sibling, applied to the Child and Family Services Review Board for a review of the respondent society's refusal of their application to adopt the child.

The society had preferred a permanency plan involving the child's paternal uncle.

The Board considered the best interests of the child under the Child and Family Services Act, emphasizing the importance of continuity of care, the child's level of development, and the benefit of the child growing up with her full sibling.

The Board concluded that it was in the best interests of the child to be placed for adoption with the applicants and rescinded the society's decision.

The appellants appealed their child's special education placement to the Ontario Special Education (English) Tribunal.

In this interim decision, the Tribunal addressed three preliminary issues.

First, the parties agreed on a process for disclosing the child's Ontario Student Record to the respondent.

Second, the Tribunal dismissed the appellants' allegation that the respondent's counsel had a conflict of interest, finding no evidence that the appellant was a client of the counsel's firm or that the bright line rule was breached.

Third, the Tribunal dismissed the appellants' claim that the respondent had an unfair advantage through access to unpublished decisions, noting that all Tribunal decisions are public and confidential settlements cannot be relied upon.

The applicant requested an order during proceedings to amend his human rights application to change the non-monetary and public interest remedies sought regarding autism supports in schools.

The respondent took no position on the request.

The Tribunal granted the request to amend the application, noting that no hearing date had been set, recent government announcements potentially altered the background facts, and the respondent did not oppose the amendment.

The self-represented applicant mother filed an application with the Child and Family Services Review Board against the Children's Aid Society of Ottawa.

She alleged the Society failed to listen to her service concerns regarding her assigned worker and failed to provide reasons for cancelling a final access visit with her child, who had been made a Crown ward.

The Board dismissed the applicant's allegations of torture and falsified drug tests.

However, the Board upheld the complaints regarding the Society's failure to adequately respond to her request for a change of worker and its failure to provide sufficient reasons for cancelling the final access visit.

The Board ordered the Society to provide written explanations for these decisions.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that found the respondent school board discriminated against him but denied his request for special damages to cover the $144,559.42 cost of his private residential school education.

The applicant argued the Tribunal's decision conflicted with established jurisprudence and involved a matter of public importance.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding the applicant was attempting to re-argue the case and had not established any new, compelling, or extraordinary facts, nor any conflict with established jurisprudence, to justify reconsideration under Rule 26.5.

The applicant father filed a complaint against the children's aid society alleging that a worker coached his son to refuse a visit and that the society failed to investigate his concerns regarding his son's access to inappropriate emails.

The Child and Family Services Review Board dismissed the coaching allegation, finding the worker appropriately assisted the child in expressing his feelings.

However, the Board upheld the complaint regarding the society's failure to communicate and provide reasons for its decisions regarding the email issue, ordering the society to provide a written explanation of its follow-up actions.

The applicant, a student with multiple disabilities including learning disabilities, ADHD, and anxiety, alleged that the Toronto District School Board discriminated against him by failing to accommodate his disability-related needs to the point of undue hardship.

The applicant sought funding for a private residential school placement with a focus on elite sports, arguing it was necessary for his accommodation.

The Tribunal found that while providing a residential school placement is outside the school board's legislated mandate, the board nevertheless failed to accommodate the applicant during his Grade 9 year by delaying or failing to provide available supports such as social work, attendance counselling, and alternative placement discussions.

The Tribunal awarded $35,000 for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect, but denied compensation for the private school tuition.