Paul Matthews

The appellant filed an appeal with the Ontario Special Education Tribunal challenging the identification of her son's exceptionalities.

The respondent school board argued the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction because the appellant had not exhausted her rights of appeal, as no Special Education Appeal Board (SEAB) hearing had occurred.

The Tribunal found that the appellant had clearly requested an appeal and the respondent had failed to convene a SEAB in a timely manner, instead attempting to substitute a series of follow-up IPRC meetings.

The Tribunal assumed jurisdiction, holding that a school board cannot deny parents their due process rights by failing to establish a SEAB.

The applicant's father, acting as litigation guardian, filed a human rights application alleging the respondent school board failed to accommodate his daughter's learning disability.

The respondent sought to dismiss the application, arguing the issues were already addressed in a family court custody proceeding.

The Tribunal found that the father had previously consented to a family court order establishing a process to determine the applicant's educational supports and school placement.

The Tribunal dismissed the application as an abuse of process, concluding it was an impermissible collateral attack on the family court order.

The applicant filed a human rights application but failed to attend the scheduled summary hearing despite having notice.

The Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it, noting the significant resources expended by the respondents and the Tribunal, and the duty to dispose of applications fairly, justly, and expeditiously.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination based on race and colour against the respondent school board, a school principal, and a teacher.

The respondents requested the removal of the personal respondents, which the Tribunal granted, finding no compelling reason to continue the proceeding against them personally as the school board assumed liability for their actions.

The Tribunal also granted the teachers' union leave to intervene, as the remedies sought could affect its members.

The applicant's request for document production was deferred as premature.

The Tribunal set out issues of delay and reasonable prospect of success to be addressed at the upcoming hearing.

The applicant, a black teacher, alleged that workplace violence complaints filed against him by several co-workers were motivated by racial discrimination.

The respondents requested a summary hearing to dismiss the application for having no reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal dismissed the application against several individual respondents, finding no evidence linking their actions to the applicant's race.

However, the Tribunal allowed the application to proceed against the school board and two individuals regarding the initial incident, as the applicant's allegations of disproportionate reaction could potentially support an inference of discrimination.

The applicant filed a human rights application against the Toronto Catholic District School Board more than a year after the last alleged incident of discrimination.

The applicant argued that the delay was incurred in good faith because her mother, acting as litigation guardian, was focused on settling her in a new school, temporarily lost custody, and faced criminal charges.

The Tribunal found that the mother made a conscious choice not to seek redress initially, and that neither the loss of custody nor the pending criminal charges legally precluded her from filing an application or a declaration as litigation guardian.

The Tribunal concluded the delay was not incurred in good faith and dismissed the application against the Toronto Catholic District School Board for delay.

The applicant filed 14 separate human rights applications against various respondents, alleging discrimination on multiple grounds.

The Tribunal held a joint summary hearing to determine whether the applications should be dismissed for delay or for having no reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal dismissed the majority of the applications, finding that the applicant failed to demonstrate good faith for the delay or failed to plead facts that could reasonably lead to a finding of discrimination.

Portions of the applications against Ryerson University, the Toronto Catholic District School Board, and Metroland were permitted to proceed, with the applicant ordered to provide further particulars.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging age discrimination after the respondent school board failed to hire him for a permanent teaching position.

The respondent requested that the application be deferred pending the outcome of a grievance filed by the applicant's union on the same issue.

The Tribunal granted the deferral, finding it to be the most fair, just, and expeditious way to proceed, while also ordering the respondent to produce certain hiring data if the application is eventually brought back on for a hearing.