10 total
School board's request for reconsideration of a discrimination finding denied as alleged errors would not alter outcome.
The respondent school board requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that found it had discriminated against a student with a disability by reducing his Educational Assistant support, failing to provide a behaviour management plan, and excluding him from school.
The respondent alleged several factual errors in the original decision.
The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the alleged errors, even if corrected, would not alter the outcome of the decision and that the respondent was attempting to re-argue matters already decided.
School board discriminated against student with disabilities by reducing support, failing to implement behaviour plan, and excluding him.
The applicant, a student with multiple exceptionalities including a mild intellectual disability and ADHD, alleged discrimination by the respondent school board.
The Tribunal found that the respondent failed to accommodate the applicant's disability-related needs by significantly reducing his educational assistant support without an objective assessment, failing to implement a timely behaviour management plan, and excluding him from school for an extended period without adequate educational programming.
The Tribunal also found that the respondent's imposition of a permanent communication ban on the applicant's mother hindered the accommodation process.
The respondent failed to establish that accommodating the applicant would cause undue hardship.
The Tribunal ordered the respondent to pay $35,000 in compensation for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect, and directed the implementation of specific accommodations and the lifting of the communication ban.
Requests to alter interim order regarding student's return to school and communication restrictions dismissed.
The respondent school board sought an order relieving it from complying with a previous interim order requiring it to return the applicant student to school, alleging the student's mother breached communication restrictions.
The applicant cross-moved to amend the interim order to permit direct communication and remove a trespass notice.
The Tribunal found that communication by the mother's legal counsel regarding an alleged incident did not breach the interim order.
The Tribunal dismissed both requests, maintaining the original interim order and communication restrictions pending the final hearing.
Hearing dates vacated and rescheduled due to applicant counsel's scheduling conflict.
The applicant requested to reschedule the hearing dates of March 20-22, 2013, because their counsel was required to appear before the British Columbia Court of Appeal.
The respondent opposed the request.
The Tribunal granted the request, vacated the March dates, and rescheduled the hearing to June 2013, with alternative dates offered in April.
Interim remedy granted ordering school board to transition excluded student with disabilities back to school.
The applicant, a nine-year-old student with disabilities, was excluded from school due to behavioural issues.
He sought an interim remedy to be transitioned back to school with a full-time Educational Assistant.
The Tribunal found that excluding the child for an entire school year would cause irreparable harm.
The Tribunal ordered the respondent to implement its psychologist's transition plan and return the applicant to school, provided the applicant's mother agreed to the plan's terms.
The Tribunal also ordered the production of relevant documents.
Court fixes reasonable partial indemnity costs after failed partial summary judgment motion.
Following the dismissal of a motion effectively seeking partial summary judgment, the court determined the appropriate costs award.
The responding party sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis under Rule 20.06 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, alleging unreasonable conduct in bringing the motion.
The court found the motion was not brought in bad faith or for delay, but that costs should follow the event on a partial indemnity scale.
Applying the reasonableness principles from appellate authority on costs, the court reduced the amount claimed due to excessive research time and fixed costs at a reasonable amount.
Human rights application dismissed after applicant failed to attend the scheduled hearing.
The applicant failed to attend the scheduled hearing of his human rights application.
The respondents requested a dismissal on the basis of abandonment and abuse of process.
The adjudicator granted the dismissal.
A late email requesting an adjournment was subsequently discovered, but the adjudicator declined to reconsider the dismissal, noting the lack of exceptional circumstances and the applicant's failure to follow case management directions.
Appeal dismissed; s. 33 of the Human Rights Code does not require an investigator to author a report.
The appellant appealed a decision regarding the interpretation of s. 33 of the Ontario Human Rights Code.
The appellant argued that the provision should be interpreted to require an investigator to prepare and submit a report of their findings to the Commission, relying on the Supreme Court of Canada's decision in University of British Columbia v. Berg.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no basis to read such a requirement into the statute, as there is no uniformity across Canadian human rights legislation regarding investigator reports.
Special Education Tribunal upholds home instruction placement for autistic student due to lack of local alternatives.
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.
Board has jurisdiction over tree seedling nursery employees as they are employed in silviculture, not horticulture.
The applicants filed unfair labour practice complaints against the responding party, a tree seedling nursery.
The employer raised a preliminary objection that the Board lacked jurisdiction because the applicants were employed in horticulture, which is excluded under section 3(c) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.
The applicants argued they were employed in silviculture, an exception to the horticulture exclusion.
After reviewing expert evidence and caselaw, the Board concluded that the employer's primary business was producing tree seedlings for reforestation efforts and that the employees performing that work were employed in silviculture.
Consequently, the Act applied, and the Board had jurisdiction to entertain the applications.
