OSET 1993

The parents of a student with cerebral palsy appealed an Identification, Placement, and Review Committee (IPRC) determination that placed the student in a special education class.

The parents requested full-time placement in a regular, age-appropriate class at the neighbourhood school with a full-time educational assistant.

The Tribunal reviewed extensive evidence regarding the student's intellectual, communication, social, and physical needs, as well as the student's three-year experience in a regular classroom.

The Tribunal concluded that the student's profound needs were not being met in the regular class and that the level of adult intervention required had the counter-productive effect of isolating the student.

The Tribunal affirmed the IPRC's determination for a special class placement, finding no violation of the Charter or the Human Rights Code.

The appellants appealed the Identification, Placement and Review Committee (IPRC) decisions regarding their two children, born in 1983 and 1985.

The appellants sought to have the older child identified as an exceptional pupil and the younger child identified with a multihandicap designation, both based on environmental hypersensitivity, and requested specific accommodations including the removal of carpets from their classrooms.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals, finding insufficient evidence that the children's environmental hypersensitivity significantly interfered with their ability to learn or function in school.

The Tribunal noted the younger child's significant academic and social progress in the current placement.

However, the Tribunal ordered that the younger child's Individual Education Plan include a statement noting the physician's description of environmental hypersensitivity to ensure it is considered in future reviews.

The parents of a child with a learning disability sought leave to appeal the child's identification and placement to a Special Education (Regional) Tribunal.

The parents raised concerns regarding procedural variations, financial motivations, communication breakdown, and the adequacy of the child's current placement.

The Ontario Special Education Tribunal denied leave to appeal, finding that the child's current placement was in their best interests and that there was no evidence that would cause a further tribunal to change the placement.