Wayne Tompkins

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has jurisdiction to hear the placement appeal, finding that Regulations 298 and 181 remain in full force and are not superseded by the funding model.

The parents of an 18-year-old student with autism appealed a decision of the Appeal Board that upheld an Identification, Placement and Review Committee (IPRC) recommendation placing the student in a home instruction program for seven hours per week.

The parents argued the placement was inappropriate and sought a more flexible, full-time day placement.

The school board maintained that the student's aggressive behaviour necessitated a controlled environment and that no local agencies could provide the requested support.

The Special Education Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the IPRC and Appeal Board decisions met legal requirements and that the home instruction placement was appropriate given the lack of available alternatives, though it strongly urged the parties to obtain a comprehensive assessment from the Geneva Centre for Autistic Persons.

The parents of a 14-year-old developmentally handicapped student appealed the school board's decision to place the student in a segregated Junior Developmentally Handicapped program.

The parents sought full integration in a regular classroom with a full-time teaching assistant.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the student's significant developmental delays and need for specialized life skills instruction could not be adequately addressed in a regular classroom, and that the board's proposed placement offered the most appropriate environment for the student's educational and social development.

The parents of a 13-year-old student with Down Syndrome appealed the school board's Identification, Placement, and Review Committee (IPRC) decision.

The IPRC identified the student as multi-exceptional and recommended placement in a life skills class with integration into a regular class.

The parents argued the student had only a communications exceptionality and should be fully integrated into a regular grade 8 classroom.

The Tribunal applied the principles from E. v. Brant (County) Board of Education, finding that the school board had made all reasonable efforts to integrate the student and that the segregated placement was justified as a last resort.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal and affirmed the IPRC's identification and placement decisions.