Jim McCaughey

The appellants requested that the Tribunal no longer remain seized of the appeal regarding the implementation of its previous orders concerning their child's special education placement and assessment.

The respondent school board opposed the request, noting the appellants had not permitted the ordered psycho-educational assessment and the student was not attending school.

The Tribunal granted the appellants' request and closed its file, finding that its orders remain final and binding but it has no further jurisdiction to compel the student's attendance at school, which is a process governed by the Education Act outside the Tribunal's role.

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 appellant parent appealed a school board's decision to place her child, who has autism and significant behavioural needs, in a Special Education Class (Intensive Support Program).

The parent sought a placement in a Regular Class with Resource Withdrawal.

The Tribunal found that the student's aggressive behaviours posed a safety risk and that the student had not made noticeable gains in a Regular Class setting.

The Tribunal concluded that a full-time Intensive Support Program placement was in the student's best interests to provide a structured environment, reduce anxiety, and address behavioural and academic needs, and dismissed 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.