Eva Nichols

The parents of a 16-year-old student appealed the school board's decisions regarding the student's special education identification and placement.

The parents sought to remove the student's identification as an exceptional student and requested a regular academic program placement without educational assistant support.

The school board maintained the student's identification as having an Intellectual – Developmental Disability and placed the student in a full-time self-contained special education class.

The Tribunal found that the student had significant learning, behavioural, and communication needs, but noted the lack of a recent psycho-educational assessment.

The Tribunal ordered the school board to maintain the exceptional student identification, arrange a full psycho-educational assessment, and provide an interim self-contained special education class placement pending the assessment results.

The parents of a 16-year-old student appealed the school board's decisions regarding the student's special education identification and placement.

The student had been excluded from school since January 2010.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision to facilitate the student's return to school, granting the appeal of the specific exceptionality identification and dismissing the placement appeal at this time.

The Tribunal ordered the school board to arrange a full psycho-educational assessment, convene an Identification Placement Review Committee meeting, and arrange an interim self-contained special education class placement.

The parents of a student with a dual exceptionality (Communication – Learning Disability and Intellectual – Giftedness) alleged that the school board failed to implement the Tribunal's previous orders regarding the student's special education placement and programming.

The Tribunal found that the school board had accepted and implemented four of the five orders, as the student's exceptionality and exemptions were accurately recorded in the Individual Education Plan.

However, the Tribunal noted that the programming and accommodations offered to meet the student's gifted identification did not fully reflect its recommendations.

The Tribunal upheld its previous decision and declined to issue additional orders, urging the parties to focus on the student's best interests.

The parents of a 15-year-old student appealed the school board's decisions regarding the student's special education identification and placement.

The parents sought to have the term 'dyslexia' included in the student's identification of Communication – Learning Disability and Intellectual – Giftedness, and requested a placement of Regular Classroom with Withdrawal Assistance with intensive one-to-one remedial programming.

The school board argued for Regular Class with Resource Support and a focus on compensatory strategies rather than remediation.

The Tribunal granted the appeal, ordering that the identification include 'Dyslexia' and that the placement be Regular Class with Withdrawal Assistance.

However, the Tribunal agreed with the school board's expert witnesses that the student was beyond the developmental stage for intensive remediation and ordered that programming focus on accommodations, compensatory strategies, and enrichment for the student's giftedness.

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 parent of a child identified as an exceptional pupil appealed the child's special education placement to the Ontario Special Education (English) Tribunal.

The school board brought a motion to dismiss the appeal on the basis that the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction.

The Tribunal found that the parent was not actually dissatisfied with the placement decision of 'Regular Class with Withdrawal Assistance', but rather with the specific programming, services, and accommodations provided within that placement.

Because the Tribunal's jurisdiction under section 57(3) of the Education Act is limited to appeals regarding identification and placement, and does not extend to programming details, the Tribunal concluded it lacked jurisdiction and dismissed the appeal.

The appellant appealed the special education placement of her child, who was identified with autism.

The appellant brought several preliminary motions regarding procedural fairness, including requests for the Tribunal to order the school board or the Tribunal itself to provide legal counsel for the child, and to require the use of collaborative lawyers.

The school board brought a motion arguing the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal because the appellant had agreed with the Special Education Appeal Board's placement decision.

The Tribunal dismissed all of the appellant's motions, finding it lacked jurisdiction to order legal representation or dictate the choice of counsel.

The Tribunal upheld the school board's motion, concluding it had no jurisdiction to hear the merits of the appeal because the appellant had not demonstrated dissatisfaction with the placement decision as required by section 57(3) of the Education Act.

The Ottawa Catholic District School Board brought a motion to dismiss an appeal regarding the special education placement of a ten-year-old student.

The parent had appealed the school board's decision to uphold the Identification Placement Review Committee's placement of the child in a regular class with withdrawal assistance.

The school board argued the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to hear the case.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision unanimously finding that it did not have jurisdiction to hear the merits of the appeal, with full reasons to follow.

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 parent of a 12-year-old student with Autism/PDD appealed the school board's Identification, Placement and Review Committee decision.

The parent sought to have the student identified as an exceptional student with Communication - Autism/PDD and placed in a self-contained Learning Strategies class.

The school board agreed with the identification but argued for a Regular Class with Resource Assistance placement.

The Tribunal ordered that the student continue to be identified as an exceptional pupil with Communication - Autism/PDD and ordered a placement of Regular Class with Withdrawal Assistance, allowing the student to remain with peers while receiving intensive help from a special education teacher for less than 50% of the day.

The Tribunal also ordered amendments to the student's Individual Education Plan.

The parents of a 15-year-old student appealed a school board's decision to remove the student's exceptionality identification.

The parents sought a dual identification of Communication - Learning Disabilities and Behaviour, along with a regular class placement with supports.

The school board argued the student did not meet the criteria for either identification and could receive necessary accommodations without being formally identified.

The Tribunal granted the appeal, ordering the board to identify the student as exceptional with Communication - Learning Disabilities, maintain the regular class placement with supports, and develop an appropriate transition plan including a commitment for a psycho-educational assessment in Grade 12.

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 the special education identification and placement of their child to the Ontario Special Education (English) Tribunal.

The school board brought a motion to dismiss the appeal on the basis that there was no disagreement between the parties regarding the child's identification or placement.

The Tribunal found that the parent agreed with the child's identification and that the school board had offered the specific placement location requested by the parent.

As the requested placement was implemented for the start of the school year, the Tribunal concluded the appeal was moot and dismissed it for lack of jurisdiction.

The appellant parent appealed the identification and placement of her child, who has Autism/PDD, to the Ontario Special Education (English) Tribunal.

The respondent school board brought a motion to dismiss the appeal, arguing the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction because there was no disagreement between the parties regarding the student's identification or placement.

The Tribunal found that the appellant had exhausted all rights of appeal under the regulations and remained dissatisfied with both the identification and placement decisions.

Consequently, 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 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.

The parent appealed directly to the Special Education Tribunal regarding the identification and placement of her child, bypassing the Special Education Appeal Board.

The school board consented to the Tribunal hearing the appeal despite the procedural defect.

The Tribunal held that it lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal because the parent had not exhausted all rights of appeal as required by section 57(3) of the Education Act.

The Tribunal declined to assume jurisdiction by consent and recommended mediation or following the statutory appeal process.

The appellants appealed the Identification, Placement and Review Committee (IPRC) decisions regarding their two children, born in 1983 and 1985.

The appellants sought to have the older child identified as an exceptional pupil and the younger child identified with a multihandicap designation, both based on environmental hypersensitivity, and requested specific accommodations including the removal of carpets from their classrooms.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals, finding insufficient evidence that the children's environmental hypersensitivity significantly interfered with their ability to learn or function in school.

The Tribunal noted the younger child's significant academic and social progress in the current placement.

However, the Tribunal ordered that the younger child's Individual Education Plan include a statement noting the physician's description of environmental hypersensitivity to ensure it is considered in future reviews.

The appellants applied for leave to appeal to a Regional Special Education Tribunal regarding the Carleton Board of Education's identification of their child.

The parents argued the child should have been identified as gifted, while the Board maintained its Identification, Placement, Review Committee (IPRC) and Special Education Appeal Board acted properly.

The Tribunal granted leave to appeal, finding that the Board's reliance almost exclusively on a WISC-R test was too narrow, that there were procedural variations warranting re-examination, and that the Appeal Board improperly restricted the presentation of relevant information.