N. Tymochenko

The applicant, a student with disabilities, sought judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (HRTO) decision that deferred his request to state a case for contempt against the respondent school board.

The applicant alleged the school board failed to comply with an interim accommodation order.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding it premature as the HRTO proceeding had not concluded.

The court also dismissed the applicant's motion to adduce fresh evidence and held that the HRTO's decision to defer the contempt issue to the merits hearing was reasonable.

The appellant appealed to the Ontario Special Education (English) Tribunal regarding the identification and special education placement of her child.

Following a pre-hearing teleconference, the appellant's advocate refused to comply with the agreed disclosure schedule and raised several preliminary issues, including challenging the Tribunal's composition and the application of its Rules of Procedure.

The respondent school board requested an adjournment due to the lack of disclosure and indicated its intent to bring a motion regarding jurisdiction.

The Tribunal adjourned the hearing on the merits to allow the preliminary motions from both parties to be heard.

The applicant school board sought an interim order under s. 4 of the Judicial Review Procedure Act to prohibit the Special Education Tribunal from proceeding with an appeal regarding a student's special education placement.

The student's mother, who was also a trustee of the school board, brought the appeal.

The school board argued the mother was in a conflict of interest and that the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to order a placement not in the board's special education plan.

The Divisional Court found there were serious issues to be tried, that proceeding would cause irreparable harm by poisoning the atmosphere at the school board, and that the balance of convenience favoured a stay.

The motion for an interim order of prohibition was granted pending the outcome of the judicial review.

The parents of a gifted student appealed the school board's placement decision to the Special Education Tribunal.

The school board brought a preliminary motion to set aside the appeal, arguing that the appeal rights were not exhausted, that the mother's recent election as a school board trustee created a conflict of interest, and that the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to order a placement not in the board's Special Education Plan.

The Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding that the board failed to meet the 30-day statutory timeline to issue a decision, that a trustee retains parental rights to appeal under the Education Act, and that the Tribunal has statutory authority to order appropriate placements regardless of the board's existing plan.

The parents of an eight-year-old student with Autism Spectrum Disorder appealed a school board's decision regarding their child's special education placement.

The parents sought an integrated placement that would provide Intensive Behaviour Intervention (IBI) therapy in a regular class setting.

The school board argued that IBI is a therapeutic service, not an educational service, and therefore falls outside the Tribunal's jurisdiction over identification and placement.

The Tribunal agreed with the school board, finding that IBI is a specific therapy delivered by trained therapists under psychological supervision, rather than an educational program developed by teachers.

The Tribunal concluded it lacked jurisdiction to hear an appeal based on a requested learning style or therapy, and dismissed the appeal while offering recommendations for the child's educational programming.