David Baker

Transportation Action Now Inc. (TAN) brought a motion by way of written submissions seeking intervenor status in human rights complaints regarding accessible transportation.

TAN sought to make written submissions on issues including equal levels of public transportation service and the application of accommodation principles.

The Board of Inquiry denied the motion, finding that TAN's positions overlapped with those of the Commission and the complainants, and that TAN did not offer a different perspective that would assist the Board as amicus curiae.

The 73-year-old complainant, who has a severe visual impairment, applied for financial assistance under the Ministry of Health's Assistive Devices Program to purchase a closed circuit television magnifier.

He was denied funding because the program restricted visual aids to persons 22 years of age and under.

The Board of Inquiry found that while the age restriction violated the right to equal treatment under section 1 of the Human Rights Code, the program was protected under section 13 as a special program designed to assist disadvantaged persons.

The complaint was dismissed.

The appellants appealed the identification and placement of their child by the school board's Identification, Placement and Review Committee.

The board had identified the child as trainable retarded and placed the child in a segregated school for the trainable retarded.

The appellants sought an identification of multihandicapped and placement in a regular kindergarten class with support staff.

The Tribunal found that the child's severe physical and communication limitations met the definition of multihandicapped.

However, the Tribunal rejected placement in a regular classroom, finding it would not meet the child's intensive needs and would likely result in the teacher's aide becoming the primary caregiver.

The Tribunal ordered the child placed in a class for the multihandicapped with an appropriately modified program.

The applicants sought leave to appeal the special education placement of their child, who was identified as a multihandicapped pupil.

The parents argued the placement in a class for trainable retarded pupils was inappropriate and requested a total communication program with a teacher fluent in sign language.

The Board agreed to provide a total communication program but maintained the current placement was appropriate for the balance of the school year.

The Tribunal denied leave to appeal, finding that the parents' requests regarding teaching methodology and teacher qualifications were outside its scope, and that the Board had made a public commitment to provide an appropriate placement by the next school year.