Nadya Tymochenko

The appellant appealed the Peel District School Board's decision to expel her 17-year-old son from all schools of the board following two incidents of physical assault and online threats against peers.

The appellant argued that the board failed to consider mitigating factors, including the pupil's recent ADHD diagnosis and allegations of a school culture unsupportive of racialized students.

The Child and Family Services Review Board found that the pupil engaged in premeditated physical assault causing bodily harm and threatening behaviour.

The Board reviewed the mitigating factors under sections 2 and 3 of Ontario Regulation 472/07 and concluded that none applied, noting the pupil's ability to control his behaviour, the unacceptable risk to the safety of others, and his success in the board's Fresh Start Program.

The expulsion was confirmed.

The applicant, a non-Catholic student at a Catholic high school, challenged a school board policy requiring student trustees to be Roman Catholic.

The Divisional Court held that the policy was not protected by the denominational school rights in s. 93(1) of the Constitution Act, 1867, because the role of student trustee did not exist at Confederation and does not involve governance.

The court found the policy violated the equality rights of non-Catholic students under s. 15(1) of the Charter and could not be justified under s. 1.

Furthermore, the policy was found to be ultra vires the school board as it conflicted with provincial regulations.

The policy was quashed.

The court issued case management directions for an upcoming virtual hearing of an application for judicial review before a three-judge panel of the Divisional Court.

The endorsement outlines the procedures for the Zoom video conference, attire requirements, and detailed instructions for the electronic filing of documents, factums, and compendiums via a password-protected drop box.

The appellant appealed the placement of her gifted child, seeking access to the Advanced Placement (AP) program and transportation to the school.

The Ontario Special Education (English) Tribunal found that the appellant was not actually dissatisfied with the placement itself, as the child already had access to the AP program and did not require transportation to attend.

Because dissatisfaction with placement is a statutory precondition for jurisdiction under the Education Act, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

The appellant appealed the school board's decision to expel her son for alleged sexual assault, sexual harassment, and bullying.

At the hearing, the school board relied entirely on hearsay evidence from administrators who had no direct knowledge of the incidents, declining to call the complainant or any student witnesses.

The Child and Family Services Review Board found the hearsay evidence unreliable and insufficient to prove the allegations on a balance of probabilities.

The expulsion was quashed and the student's record was ordered expunged.

The applicants sought judicial review of a school board's decision to involuntarily transfer a Grade 12 student to a new school under its Fresh Start Policy following his involvement in an assault on another student.

The applicants argued the transfer was an unauthorized disciplinary measure, that they were denied procedural fairness, and that the decision was unreasonable.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the transfer was an administrative measure aimed at protecting the victim's well-being, not a disciplinary sanction.

The court also held that the procedural fairness owed was met and the superintendent's decision was reasonable.

The applicant, a student with Autism Spectrum Disorder, alleged discrimination on the basis of disability when the respondent school board denied his request to have his autism assistance guide dog accompany him in class.

The respondent had conducted a behavioural assessment and concluded the dog was not necessary for the applicant to access the curriculum, as he was already achieving academic success and had other effective supports in place.

The Tribunal found that the respondent fulfilled its procedural duty to accommodate by conducting a timely and thorough individualized assessment.

The Tribunal further held that the respondent did not breach its substantive duty to accommodate, as the applicant failed to demonstrate that the denial of the guide dog resulted in an adverse impact on his meaningful access to educational services.

The applicant, a kindergarten student with autism spectrum disorder, alleged discrimination by the respondent school board for failing to provide ABA/IBI therapy at school.

In this interim decision, the Tribunal addressed two requests for orders during proceedings.

The Tribunal ordered the applicant to disclose medical and therapy records to the respondent, finding them arguably relevant to the issues of the severity of the disability and appropriate accommodations.

The Tribunal also ordered the respondent to answer specific questions posed by the applicant's proposed experts, as agreed upon by the parties.

The applicant requested an order during proceedings to amend his human rights application to change the non-monetary and public interest remedies sought regarding autism supports in schools.

The respondent took no position on the request.

The Tribunal granted the request to amend the application, noting that no hearing date had been set, recent government announcements potentially altered the background facts, and the respondent did not oppose the amendment.

The applicant, a student with Autism Spectrum Disorder, sought an interim remedy requiring the respondent school board to allow him to attend school with his Autism Service Dog and to assign an Educational Assistant as the dog's handler.

The Tribunal found that while the application had merit, the balance of convenience did not favour granting the interim remedy.

The evidence indicated the applicant was making progress at school and his behaviour was successfully regulated without the dog, whereas introducing the dog and requiring the board to train and assign a handler would create a new state of affairs with potential adverse effects on others.

The request for an interim remedy was denied.

The applicant sought to amend a human rights application alleging discrimination and reprisal by the respondent school board.

The respondent did not oppose the amendment but requested the application be dismissed under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing the matter was previously determined by the Ontario College of Teachers.

The Tribunal granted the amendment and denied the request to dismiss, finding that the College proceeding had a substantially different purpose and did not fully address the substance of the human rights application.

The applicant requested an adjournment of the scheduled hearing dates, providing a brief medical note stating she needed to be off work for medical reasons.

The respondents objected, noting a previous adjournment had been granted with a warning that future requests would require detailed medical documentation.

The Tribunal denied the adjournment request, finding that the applicant failed to provide the required medical information or demonstrate exceptional circumstances as required by the Tribunal's Practice Direction.

The applicant's litigation guardian requested an adjournment of the scheduled hearing, initially citing personal business and later providing a vague medical note indicating an inability to work or study.

The respondents opposed the request, noting the timing and vagueness of the medical note.

The Tribunal accepted the medical documentation as establishing an inability to attend the scheduled dates and granted the adjournment, but directed the parties to schedule new dates in February 2015 and ordered the applicant to provide a witness list.

The applicant's litigation guardian requested an adjournment of the scheduled hearing due to personal business.

The request was made less than two weeks prior to the hearing dates and outside the 14-day period specified in the Notice of Confirmation of Hearing.

The respondents objected.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the applicant failed to disclose any extraordinary circumstances to justify an adjournment as required by the Tribunal's Practice Direction.

The applicant, a special education resource teacher, filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability and reprisal by the respondent school board.

The respondent requested a summary hearing to dismiss the application for having no reasonable prospect of success, and the applicant's union requested intervenor status.

The Tribunal granted the union's request to intervene.

Following a written summary hearing, the Tribunal dismissed several of the applicant's allegations, including claims of reprisal and certain comments by staff, for having no reasonable prospect of success.

However, the Tribunal allowed other allegations to proceed, including comments made by the principal and the requirement to undergo an independent medical examination.

The applicants failed to appear at a scheduled case management conference call.

The respondent requested that the applications be dismissed as abandoned.

The Tribunal found that while the applicants' mother was aware of the date and time of the call, she may not have received the notice containing the connection instructions due to a mailing error.

The Tribunal declined to dismiss the applications as abandoned but ordered the applicants to confirm their intention to proceed within 14 days.

The respondent school board brought a request for an order during proceedings to dismiss a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability, arguing it was duplicative of a separate application alleging breach of a prior settlement agreement.

The applicant, a student acting through his litigation guardian, opposed the dismissal but agreed to consolidation.

The Tribunal found that the terms of the settlement were sufficiently general that the applicant could potentially prove a breach of the Human Rights Code without proving a breach of the settlement.

Accordingly, the Tribunal denied the request to dismiss the discrimination application but granted the request to consolidate the two applications to be heard together.

The appellants and the respondent school board both requested that the Ontario Special Education (English) Tribunal remain seized of an appeal regarding a student's special education placement and programming.

The Tribunal had previously ordered the board to provide gifted programming and accommodations for the student's learning disability.

After reviewing the parties' submissions and the board's compliance with previous orders, the Tribunal found no ongoing issues requiring its continued involvement.

The Tribunal noted that it cannot undertake a facilitating or supervisory role and closed the file.

The parents of a student with dual exceptionalities (Giftedness and Learning Disability - Dyslexia) appealed to the Tribunal, alleging that the Halton Catholic District School Board failed to implement the Tribunal's previous orders regarding the student's special education programming.

The Tribunal found that the board had not provided the required gifted programming and ordered the board to either provide an appropriate gifted program for Grade 12 or enter into an agreement to purchase such programming from another school board.

The parents of a student with a dual exceptionality (Communication – Learning Disability and Intellectual – Giftedness) alleged that the school board failed to implement the Tribunal's previous orders regarding the student's special education placement and programming.

The Tribunal found that the school board had accepted and implemented four of the five orders, as the student's exceptionality and exemptions were accurately recorded in the Individual Education Plan.

However, the Tribunal noted that the programming and accommodations offered to meet the student's gifted identification did not fully reflect its recommendations.

The Tribunal upheld its previous decision and declined to issue additional orders, urging the parties to focus on the student's best interests.