Julie Lindhout

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 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 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 appellant appealed a 2003 Identification, Placement and Review Committee (IPRC) decision regarding her child's special education placement.

Over three years, the hearing was repeatedly delayed and adjourned at the appellant's request.

The school board brought a motion to dismiss the appeal as moot, noting the student was now in their fourth year of secondary school and close to graduation.

The Tribunal granted the motion and dismissed the appeal, finding it was moot due to the numerous delays caused by the appellant and the availability of subsequent annual IPRC reviews.

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.