M.R. v. Halton District School Board, 2010 HRTO 2211

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

B E T W E E N:

M.R. by his next friend C.R. Applicant

-and-

Halton District School Board Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Sherry Liang Date: November 4, 2010 Citation: 2010 HRTO 2211 Indexed as: M.R. v. Halton District School Board

1This is an Application filed on March 9, 2010 under section 34 of Part IV of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19 as amended (the “Code”).

2As the applicant is under the age of 18, he and his next friend will be identified by initials in the Tribunal’s decisions.

3The applicant, who is represented in these proceedings by his mother, alleges the Halton District School Board (the “Board”) has discriminated against him by denying him appropriate education services on the ground of a disability or perceived disability. He disagrees with the Board’s identification of him as a student with a developmental disability, and its decision to place him in a self-contained special education class.

4The Board filed a Response in which it asks the Tribunal to dismiss the Application on the basis that the appeals process set out in the Education Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. E.2 provides a complete procedure to deal with the issues contained in this Application. The Board takes the position that the Identification, Placement and Review Committee (“IPRC”), the Special Education Appeal Board (“SEB”) and the Special Education Tribunal (“SET”) have exclusive jurisdiction over the matters raised in the Application.

5The Tribunal requested information from the parties about the status of the proceedings under the Education Act. It appears that on September 8, 2010, a SEB hearing was held and a decision issued on September 9. The SEB agreed with the identification and placement decisions of the IPRC. The parents state that they have appealed the SEB decision to the SET. The applicant’s parents indicate that if the SET does not remove the applicant’s identification and placement, they will request a hearing through the Tribunal.

6In the circumstances, the Tribunal indicated to the parties that it appears that it is appropriate to defer this Application pending the completion of the appeal to the SET and invited them to indicate whether they object to deferral of the Application. No objection was received within the time for making submissions.

7It is clear that the SET will be dealing with the same issues that the applicant raises before the Tribunal. In the circumstances, the Tribunal finds it appropriate to defer this Application pending the completion of the SET process. The respondent’s request to dismiss will be considered if the Application is re-activated.

8The Tribunal’s Rule 14 sets out the procedure if a party wishes to proceed with an Application that has been deferred pending the conclusion of another proceeding.

9I am not seized of this matter.