Ontario Special Education (English) Tribunal

The Appellant appealed the special education placement of his child.

After repeatedly seeking to delay the hearing and failing to attend scheduled case management and hearing dates, the Appellant filed a last-minute motion for an indefinite adjournment.

The Tribunal dismissed the adjournment motion, finding no persuasive reason for delay and noting the Appellant's failure to provide supporting medical documentation.

The Tribunal concluded that the Appellant had effectively abandoned the appeal through his non-attendance and dismissed the appeal.

An interim publication ban and sealing order were confirmed to protect the child's identity.

The appellant appealed the special education placement of his child to the Ontario Special Education Tribunal.

He subsequently brought a motion to stay the Tribunal's proceedings while he sought leave to appeal a related Divisional Court decision to the Court of Appeal.

The Tribunal dismissed the motion for a stay, noting that the Court of Appeal had previously found no merit to the potential appeal and emphasizing that it was in the child's best interests for the matter to proceed to a hearing on the merits without delay.

The appellants appealed the school board's decision not to identify their child as Gifted.

The school board raised a preliminary issue, arguing that the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to set aside the criteria for Giftedness set out in its Special Education Plan.

The Tribunal declined to decide the issue as a preliminary matter, finding that the interpretation of the criteria should be determined on a full evidentiary record.

The Tribunal ordered the appeal to proceed to a hearing on the merits.

The appellant parent brought a pre-hearing motion requesting that the school board be ordered to pay for four assessments of the student and that certain documents be pre-emptively accepted as evidence.

The Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding that the request for assessments was late, inconsistent with the appellant's prior actions, and would delay the hearing.

The Tribunal also declined to pre-emptively accept documents into evidence, noting that exhibits are evaluated during the hearing.

The self-represented appellant brought a motion requesting that the adjudicator recuse herself due to a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The appellant alleged unfair treatment during a pre-hearing and disagreed with various case management directions, including the adjudicator's refusal to make a final placement order prior to a hearing on the merits.

The Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding that an informed person would not conclude that the adjudicator's active case management, control of the pre-hearing process, or refusal to act outside the Tribunal's jurisdiction gave rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The appellant requested a stay of their special education appeal proceedings pending the outcome of a proposed application for judicial review of an earlier interim decision that dismissed a bias motion.

The Tribunal denied the request for a stay, noting that no judicial review application had yet been filed and that delaying the proceedings would prejudice the child, who was currently being home-schooled, by delaying a final determination on their placement.

The self-represented appellant brought a motion requesting that the hearing panel recuse themselves due to a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The appellant alleged bias after the panel chair directed that written submissions might be required on whether the Tribunal had jurisdiction to order the requested placement, and because the chair was cross-appointed to another tribunal.

The Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding that an informed person would not conclude that the panel's actions, which included attempting to assist the appellant in focusing on relevant evidence and exercising its authority to determine a jurisdictional issue, demonstrated a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The appellants appealed the identification and placement of their child by an Identification, Placement and Review Committee (IPRC).

Following a subsequent IPRC meeting, the child's identification and placement were changed to match the appellants' request.

The respondent argued the appeal was moot.

The Tribunal agreed, finding no substantive dispute remained to be resolved, and declined to exercise its discretion to hear the jurisdictional issues raised by the respondent.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed the school board's decision to promote her gifted child by only one grade instead of the requested two grades, arguing it constituted a placement decision.

The Ontario Special Education Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that grade promotion is not a 'placement decision' under the Education Act or Regulation 181/98.

As there was no dispute regarding the child's identification or special education placement, the tribunal lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal.

The appellants appealed the school board's decision to promote their child to Grade 7, which required a move to a new school, seeking instead to have the child retained in Grade 6 at his current school.

The school board argued the tribunal lacked jurisdiction because the appellants had not exhausted their appeal rights to the Special Education Appeal Board (SEAB) and because the decision was not an identification or placement decision.

The tribunal found it could take jurisdiction despite the lack of a SEAB appeal because the school principal had provided incorrect information to the appellants.

However, the tribunal concluded it lacked jurisdiction over the appeal because promotion to a new grade and the physical location of a school are not 'placement' decisions within its statutory mandate.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant mother filed an appeal to the Ontario Special Education Tribunal regarding her child's special education placement.

The child's father, who held interim sole decision-making authority over education pursuant to a Superior Court order, had previously cancelled the prerequisite Special Education Appeal Board (SEAB) hearing.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, finding that the statutory prerequisite of exhausting all other avenues of appeal, specifically the SEAB process, had not been met.

The respondent school board brought a preliminary motion to dismiss the appellant's appeal regarding the special education placement of their child.

The appellant sought 1:1 support, an issue previously decided by the Tribunal to be outside its jurisdiction.

The appellant had also filed multiple applications with the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario seeking the same relief.

The Tribunal found the appeal to be an abuse of process due to re-litigation and seeking remedies outside its jurisdiction.

The appeal was dismissed, and the appellant was declared a vexatious litigant.

The appellant requested an order compelling the respondent school board to retrieve and produce recordings of a Special Education Appeal Board (SEAB) hearing.

The recordings had been deleted after 120 days in accordance with the respondent's policy, though the appellant's counsel had previously received links to them.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that discussions between counsel and the SEAB were not relevant or admissible evidence for the Tribunal proceeding, and that issues regarding the Health Care Consent Act and Human Rights Code raised by the appellant were outside the Tribunal's jurisdiction.

The appellants filed an appeal with the Ontario Special Education (English) Tribunal regarding the identification and placement of a pupil.

The respondent school board argued the tribunal lacked jurisdiction because the appellants had not exhausted internal appeal remedies, specifically the Identification, Placement and Review Committee (IPRC) and Special Education Appeal Board (SEAB) processes.

The tribunal found that no decision regarding the pupil's identification had yet been made and there was no unreasonable delay by the school board in initiating the IPRC process.

Consequently, the tribunal dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

The appellant appealed a school board decision confirming a Special Education Appeal Board (SEAB) placement of 'Regular Class with Resource Assistance' for a student with Autism Spectrum Disorder.

The appellant sought specific programs and services, including 1:1 support.

The Ontario Special Education Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding it lacked jurisdiction because the school board had already agreed to the requested placement, and the Tribunal's mandate under the Education Act does not extend to ordering specific programs or services.

The Tribunal also declined the respondent's request to declare the appellant a vexatious litigant.

The appellants appealed to the Ontario Special Education (English) Tribunal regarding the identification and placement of a pupil.

The respondent school board argued the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction because the appellants had not exhausted their appeal remedies, specifically the Special Education Appeal Board (SEAB) process, which was delayed due to the Covid-19 pandemic.

The Tribunal found that the failure to hold the SEAB meeting was due to the extraordinary circumstances of the pandemic and did not deprive the appellants of their substantive right to the process.

The appeal was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction as the appellants had not exhausted their appeal rights under section 57(3) of the Education Act.

The respondent school board requested an extension of time until October 23, 2020, to file its response to a notice of appeal regarding a special education placement, citing summer vacations and COVID-19 disruptions.

The appellants opposed the length of the extension, arguing it was unreasonable and prejudicial.

The Tribunal noted that while an emergency order suspended limitation periods, the requested delay was excessive.

The Tribunal granted the extension in part, ordering the respondent to file its response by September 11, 2020, balancing the administrative disruptions with the appellants' interest in a timely process.

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 parents of a student with autism appealed to the Ontario Special Education (English) Tribunal regarding the student's special education programs and services, specifically requesting a 1:1 assistant and a safety plan.

The school board had already agreed to the parents' requested identification (autism) and placement (regular class with resource assistance).

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, holding that under section 57(3) of the Education Act, the Tribunal only has jurisdiction to hear appeals regarding identification and placement, not programs and services, when the school board has agreed to the requested identification and placement.

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.