Z.G. v. Waterloo Region District School Board, 2010 HRTO 903

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

B E T W E E N:

Z. G. by his Next Friend J. G.

Applicant

-and-

Waterloo Region District School Board

Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Sherry Liang

Date: April 26, 2010

Citation: 2010 HRTO 903

Indexed as: Z.G. v. Waterloo Region District School Board

1This is an Application filed on March 19, 2010 under section 34 of Part IV of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19 as amended (the “Code”). The Application alleges discrimination in educational services on the basis of disability. The applicant, who is a ten year old student at an elementary school within the Waterloo Region District School Board (the Board), is represented by his father in this matter. The Application alleges that during the school year 2009-2010, the Board has failed to provide appropriate accommodation of the applicant’s needs as a student diagnosed with a disability under the autism spectrum disorder. The applicant alleges that the support that he receives from Educational Assistants has been inadequate since the beginning of the school year and has thus received less in the way of programming and services than in previous years.

2As remedy, the applicant requests, among other things, “appropriate accommodations” and cites specifically, “supports, programming and services…proven ABA techniques, ABA/IBI resources …dyslexia assistance…and occupational therapy”. Further the applicant requests as remedy, “direct individualized support and small group settings done by the EA and SERT” and, if it is appropriate placement in a special education program.

3The Application was accompanied by a Request to Expedite Proceedings. The applicant states, in describing the urgent circumstances that may affect the fair and just resolution of the merits of the Application, he is “unable to access the school curriculum and participate fully in the education environment…” The applicant has not specified the specific manner or time frame in which he wishes the Application to proceed.

4The Board has filed a Response to the Request, objecting to an expedited process.

DECISION

5The desirability of dealing expeditiously with a claim that a student is not receiving proper education services is self-evident. However, whether such a claim warrants expediting the Tribunal’s regular processes must be assessed on a case-by-case basis.

6In this case, without diminishing the seriousness of the applicant’s concerns and the sincerity of the applicant’s parents’ desire to address their son’s situation, the factors described as supporting an expedited process are not meaningfully different from those described in many other applications before the Tribunal, particularly those concerning students with special needs.

7It is apparent that the Application concerns disputes about the applicant’s education that have accumulated throughout the course of the 2009-2010 school year. The issues are complex and the Tribunal does not find it appropriate to require the respondents to prepare their Responses in an abridged timeframe. The applicant continues to attend school and the parties are also engaged in an ongoing process under the Education Act to review and amend the applicant’s Individual Education Plan and to determine the most appropriate placement for the applicant for the upcoming school year. The respondent states that it is prepared to expedite an IPRC for the purpose of implementing an alternative special education placement for the next school year.

8The Tribunal is not satisfied that there are any circumstances that would prevent it from conducting a fair and just hearing of the merits of the Application or to provide a just result if the matter is not expedited. The Tribunal accordingly declines the Request to Expedite.

9Before concluding, the Tribunal notes that the nature of the applicant’s disabilities and other personal information about him will be an important part of the issues in the proceeding. In the circumstances, and having regard to the fact that the applicant is a minor, I am satisfied that the protection of the applicant’s personal information and the potential stigma of disclosing it outweigh the principle of open justice. The Tribunal will therefore refer to the applicant and his next friend by their initials in decisions and correspondence on this Application.

10The respondent has indicated a willingness to attend mediation. If the applicant consents to mediation of the Application, the Tribunal will schedule mediation. If the Tribunal does not receive the applicant’s consent within one week of this Interim Decision, the Tribunal will proceed to schedule a hearing.

11I am not seized of this matter.