Noel Williams

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 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 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 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.