Uma Madan

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 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.