Marilyn Thain

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 special education placement of her child, an eight-year-old student with autism, to the Ontario Special Education (English) Tribunal.

The school board raised a preliminary objection that the issue was moot because the parties had already reached an agreement on the placement (Regular Class with Resource Assistance) following a Special Education Appeal Board recommendation.

The Tribunal found that the parent had already received all the remedies sought in her Notice of Appeal and that there was no actual disagreement between the parties regarding identification or placement.

As the statutory precondition of a disagreement under s. 57(3) of the Education Act was not met, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

The parent of a 12-year-old child with autism and a developmental disability appealed the school board's decision to place the child in a self-contained special education class.

The parent sought an integrated placement in a regular Grade 6 classroom with supports.

The Tribunal found that the child's complex needs, including being non-verbal, requiring intensive habit training, and needing a calm environment, could not be met in a regular middle school classroom.

The Tribunal ordered placement in a self-contained special education class with opportunities for integration during non-academic activities.

The parent of a 14-year-old child with Down syndrome appealed an IPRC decision identifying the child with a Developmental Disability and placing the child in a Special Education Class (Home School Comprehensive).

The parent sought an identification of Exceptional with no category named (or Multiple Exceptionality) and a full-time regular class placement with a dedicated educational assistant.

The Tribunal ordered the child identified as Exceptional Intellectual pending further psychological assessment, finding previous assessments outdated or unreliable.

The Tribunal ordered a mixed placement: a regular Grade 8 class for at least 50% of the time with special needs assistant support, combined with resource withdrawal assistance for mathematics and language in the Home School program, concluding that full-time regular class placement without specific skill instruction was not in the child's best interests.

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.

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 parent appealed the school board's decision to place her learning-disabled child in a mixed exceptionality class, seeking a self-contained learning disability class.

At a preliminary hearing, the school board challenged the Tribunal's jurisdiction, arguing that under the new funding model and Regulation 181/98, the specific makeup of a self-contained class is a matter of the board's Special Education Plan and outside the Tribunal's authority.

The Tribunal ruled that it has jurisdiction to hear the placement appeal, finding that Regulations 298 and 181 remain in full force and are not superseded by the funding model.