OSET 2005

The appellant parent appealed to the Ontario Special Education (English) Tribunal regarding the special education placement of their deaf child, seeking the provision of an American Sign Language (ASL) interpreter in a regular classroom.

The respondent school board brought a preliminary motion arguing the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction, asserting that the provision of additional services falls outside the statutory meaning of 'placement'.

The Tribunal dismissed the board's motion, finding that under subsection 57(4) of the Education Act, its mandate includes hearing appeals where a parent has exhausted all rights of appeal and remains dissatisfied with the placement.

The Tribunal held that placement implies the delivery of appropriate special education programs and services, giving it jurisdiction to hear the appeal on its merits.

The parent of a 14-year-old child with Down syndrome appealed an IPRC decision identifying the child with a Developmental Disability and placing the child in a Special Education Class (Home School Comprehensive).

The parent sought an identification of Exceptional with no category named (or Multiple Exceptionality) and a full-time regular class placement with a dedicated educational assistant.

The Tribunal ordered the child identified as Exceptional Intellectual pending further psychological assessment, finding previous assessments outdated or unreliable.

The Tribunal ordered a mixed placement: a regular Grade 8 class for at least 50% of the time with special needs assistant support, combined with resource withdrawal assistance for mathematics and language in the Home School program, concluding that full-time regular class placement without specific skill instruction was not in the child's best interests.

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 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 parent appealed a 2002 Identification, Placement and Review Committee (IPRC) decision to the Ontario Special Education Tribunal.

Before the hearing, the parties entered into a private agreement placing the child in a special education class for autism, and subsequently implemented a transition plan to a secondary school.

The Tribunal held a preliminary hearing to determine if it still had jurisdiction over the original appeal.

The Tribunal found that its jurisdiction ended when the parties entered into the private agreement and noted that two subsequent IPRCs had since been held.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction and recommended the parent proceed with a new appeal regarding the most recent IPRC decision.

The parent appealed directly to the Special Education Tribunal regarding the identification and placement of her child, bypassing the Special Education Appeal Board.

The school board consented to the Tribunal hearing the appeal despite the procedural defect.

The Tribunal held that it lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal because the parent had not exhausted all rights of appeal as required by section 57(3) of the Education Act.

The Tribunal declined to assume jurisdiction by consent and recommended mediation or following the statutory appeal process.

The applicant mother appealed the school board's placement decision for her child, who has Down syndrome.

The child was absent from school for an indeterminate period due to obstructive sleep apnea.

The school board argued the appeal was moot due to the absence.

The Tribunal held it had jurisdiction, finding the issue was not moot as the placement dispute remained unresolved.

The Tribunal ordered temporary home instruction until the child's sleep apnea is controlled, deferred the psycho-educational evaluation until the child is ready to return to class, and ordered partial disclosure of relevant medical documents while denying the board's request for the complete medical file.