OSET 2004

The parent appealed an Identification Placement and Review Committee (IPRC) decision regarding her child's special education placement.

The school board argued the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction because the parent had not exhausted all rights of appeal to a Special Education Appeal Board.

The Tribunal found that the parent had properly requested an appeal, but the school board failed to follow the statutory timelines under Regulation 181/98 to convene the appeal board.

Consequently, the parent was denied the opportunity to be heard at the lower level, and the Tribunal assumed jurisdiction to hear the appeal on its merits.

The parties jointly requested clarification of a previous Tribunal decision regarding the appropriate special education placement for a student with Autism.

The parents questioned whether the Tribunal had ordered placement in a mixed exceptionalities class of sixteen or an Autism class of six.

The Tribunal clarified that it ordered a small, separate class focusing on communication and social interaction, which was not strictly limited to six students but was not to be as large as sixteen, and was based on student learning needs rather than specific exceptionality categories.

Parents appealed special education placement decisions maintaining that the child with severe autism required a placement consisting of intensive behavioural intervention rather than the Board's ASD/PDD classroom.

The Tribunal held that it could hear the placement appeal, but drew a distinction between educational placement and therapeutic programming, concluding that IBI was therapy rather than education and could not be ordered in lieu of an educational program.

After reviewing expert and lay evidence, the Tribunal found the Board's placement developmentally appropriate, comprehensive, and supported by qualified staff and interdisciplinary resources.

The Tribunal further found that the parents had not proven regression or shown that the proposed IBI-based placement was superior.

The appeal was denied and the IPRC placement decisions were affirmed.

The parents of an eight-year-old student with autism appealed the school board's decision to place the student in an Elementary Special Education Class.

The parents argued that the placement was inappropriate because it did not include Intensive Behavioural Intervention (IBI) therapy, which they believed was necessary for the student to reach their full potential.

The school board maintained that IBI is a therapy, not an educational program, and that the Special Education Class provided an appropriate educational placement with staff trained in autism and applied behavioural analysis (ABA) principles.

The Special Education Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that IBI is a therapy and that the tribunal lacks the authority to order a school board to provide therapy.

The Tribunal concluded that the Special Education Class was the appropriate placement, as it met the student's educational, social, and communication needs in a generalized setting with appropriately trained staff.

The parent appealed the school board's special education placement decision to the Special Education Tribunal.

The school board brought a preliminary motion arguing the appeal was moot because it had already agreed to provide the specific placement requested by the parent (Special Class with Partial Integration) and had attempted to convene an IPRC meeting to implement it, which the parent refused to attend.

The Tribunal agreed with the school board, finding that since the requested placement had been offered, there was no live issue to decide.

The Tribunal declined jurisdiction to hear the appeal on the basis of mootness.

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.