Nadya Tymochenko

The parents of a 15-year-old student appealed the school board's decisions regarding the student's special education identification and placement.

The parents sought to have the term 'dyslexia' included in the student's identification of Communication – Learning Disability and Intellectual – Giftedness, and requested a placement of Regular Classroom with Withdrawal Assistance with intensive one-to-one remedial programming.

The school board argued for Regular Class with Resource Support and a focus on compensatory strategies rather than remediation.

The Tribunal granted the appeal, ordering that the identification include 'Dyslexia' and that the placement be Regular Class with Withdrawal Assistance.

However, the Tribunal agreed with the school board's expert witnesses that the student was beyond the developmental stage for intensive remediation and ordered that programming focus on accommodations, compensatory strategies, and enrichment for the student's giftedness.

In a human rights application against a school board and two individuals, the applicant requested an order for the disclosure of report cards of other students, teacher performance appraisals, and particulars regarding the training of the school administrators who investigated the complaint.

The Tribunal denied the request for the report cards, finding they were protected by statutory privilege under section 266(2) of the Education Act.

The Tribunal ordered the respondents to provide further particulars regarding the training and credentials of the administrators who conducted the internal investigation.

In an interim decision regarding a human rights complaint, the Tribunal determined the class of persons entitled to access youth records released by a Youth Court Judge's order.

The Tribunal defined the class broadly to include the Tribunal, parties, counsel, and necessary witnesses or experts, rejecting requests to restrict access further.

The Tribunal also ordered the Peel Regional Police Services Board and the Chief of Police to make full production and disclosure of all arguably relevant documents to facilitate mediation.

The complainant, a minor at the time of the events, brought a motion for a publication ban on his name.

The complainant alleged discrimination and reprisal by the school board and police services following an incident on school property that led to his expulsion and criminal charges.

Because the complainant was charged as a minor, the Youth Criminal Justice Act applied, which prohibits publishing the name of a young person dealt with under the Act.

The Tribunal granted a temporary publication ban on the complainant's name, noting the principles underlying the legislation, to remain in effect until mediation or further submissions.

The parents of a 15-year-old student appealed a school board's decision to remove the student's exceptionality identification.

The parents sought a dual identification of Communication - Learning Disabilities and Behaviour, along with a regular class placement with supports.

The school board argued the student did not meet the criteria for either identification and could receive necessary accommodations without being formally identified.

The Tribunal granted the appeal, ordering the board to identify the student as exceptional with Communication - Learning Disabilities, maintain the regular class placement with supports, and develop an appropriate transition plan including a commitment for a psycho-educational assessment in Grade 12.

The appellant appealed a 2003 Identification, Placement and Review Committee (IPRC) decision regarding her child's special education placement.

Over three years, the hearing was repeatedly delayed and adjourned at the appellant's request.

The school board brought a motion to dismiss the appeal as moot, noting the student was now in their fourth year of secondary school and close to graduation.

The Tribunal granted the motion and dismissed the appeal, finding it was moot due to the numerous delays caused by the appellant and the availability of subsequent annual IPRC reviews.

The parents of a 15-year-old student appealed the school board's Identification, Placement and Review Committee (IPRC) decision regarding their child's special education identification and placement.

The school board brought a motion to dismiss the appeal, arguing it was moot because the board had subsequently agreed to grant the identification and placement requested by the parents.

The Tribunal found that the parents had exhausted all rights of appeal under the regulations and remained dissatisfied with the identification and placement, as the board's concessions were made outside the formal IPRC process without parental consultation.

The Tribunal dismissed the board's motion and assumed jurisdiction to hear the merits of the appeal.

The parents of an exceptional pupil appealed the identification and placement decisions of two Identification, Placement, and Review Committee (IPRC) meetings to the Ontario Special Education (English) Tribunal.

The school board argued the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction because the parents had not exhausted their rights of appeal and had missed statutory deadlines.

The Tribunal found it lacked jurisdiction over the April 2004 IPRC decision because the parents had signed the statement of decision and missed the appeal deadline.

However, the Tribunal assumed jurisdiction over the May 2005 IPRC decision because the school board failed to comply with the statutory timelines for establishing a Special Education Appeal Board.

The Tribunal ordered the board to implement the previously agreed-upon placement pending the resolution of the appeal.

The parents of a 14-year-old student identified with autism appealed the school board's decision to place the student in a Developmental Education Program (DEP).

The parents argued the DEP was inappropriate and requested placement in an Autism Class, which did not exist in the board's Special Education Plan.

The board challenged the Tribunal's jurisdiction to order a placement not in its plan.

The Tribunal held it had jurisdiction under the Education Act to order an appropriate placement regardless of the board's plan.

The Tribunal found the DEP was inappropriate for the student, who is highly verbal and does not have a developmental disability.

The Tribunal ordered the board to place the student in a small, separate 'Communication' class focused on language development and social interaction.

The appellant submitted the lowest acceptable bid in response to a Request for Proposals for a computer cabling project.

Due to a budget reduction, the respondent school board negotiated with the three lowest bidders instead of solely with the appellant, ultimately awarding the contract to another bidder.

The appellant sued for breach of the duty of fairness and good faith.

The trial judge dismissed the action, finding the board was permitted to conduct wider negotiations and that any differing treatment during negotiations did not affect the outcome.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's decision and dismissed the appeal.

The parent appealed the school board's decision to place her learning-disabled child in a mixed exceptionality class, seeking a self-contained learning disability class.

At a preliminary hearing, the school board challenged the Tribunal's jurisdiction, arguing that under the new funding model and Regulation 181/98, the specific makeup of a self-contained class is a matter of the board's Special Education Plan and outside the Tribunal's authority.

The Tribunal ruled that it has jurisdiction to hear the placement appeal, finding that Regulations 298 and 181 remain in full force and are not superseded by the funding model.