OSET 2006

The appellant appealed the identification and placement of their child to the Ontario Special Education (English) Tribunal.

The school board contested the Tribunal's jurisdiction, arguing the appellant had not exhausted all rights of appeal because they abandoned the Special Education Appeal Board (SEAB) process.

The Tribunal found that the school board had met its legislated obligations in setting up the SEAB and that the appellant had not fully exhausted their rights of appeal before applying to the Tribunal.

The appeal was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

The appellant appealed a 2003 Identification, Placement and Review Committee (IPRC) decision regarding her child's special education placement.

Over three years, the hearing was repeatedly delayed and adjourned at the appellant's request.

The school board brought a motion to dismiss the appeal as moot, noting the student was now in their fourth year of secondary school and close to graduation.

The Tribunal granted the motion and dismissed the appeal, finding it was moot due to the numerous delays caused by the appellant and the availability of subsequent annual IPRC reviews.

The appellant parent appealed the special education placement of her child, an eight-year-old student with autism, to the Ontario Special Education (English) Tribunal.

The school board raised a preliminary objection that the issue was moot because the parties had already reached an agreement on the placement (Regular Class with Resource Assistance) following a Special Education Appeal Board recommendation.

The Tribunal found that the parent had already received all the remedies sought in her Notice of Appeal and that there was no actual disagreement between the parties regarding identification or placement.

As the statutory precondition of a disagreement under s. 57(3) of the Education Act was not met, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

The parents of a 15-year-old student appealed the school board's Identification, Placement and Review Committee (IPRC) decision regarding their child's special education identification and placement.

The school board brought a motion to dismiss the appeal, arguing it was moot because the board had subsequently agreed to grant the identification and placement requested by the parents.

The Tribunal found that the parents had exhausted all rights of appeal under the regulations and remained dissatisfied with the identification and placement, as the board's concessions were made outside the formal IPRC process without parental consultation.

The Tribunal dismissed the board's motion and assumed jurisdiction to hear the merits of the appeal.

The parent of a 12-year-old child with autism and a developmental disability appealed the school board's decision to place the child in a self-contained special education class.

The parent sought an integrated placement in a regular Grade 6 classroom with supports.

The Tribunal found that the child's complex needs, including being non-verbal, requiring intensive habit training, and needing a calm environment, could not be met in a regular middle school classroom.

The Tribunal ordered placement in a self-contained special education class with opportunities for integration during non-academic activities.

The appellant parent appealed the identification and placement of her child, who has Autism/PDD, to the Ontario Special Education (English) Tribunal.

The respondent school board brought a motion to dismiss the appeal, arguing the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction because there was no disagreement between the parties regarding the student's identification or placement.

The Tribunal found that the appellant had exhausted all rights of appeal under the regulations and remained dissatisfied with both the identification and placement decisions.

Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the board's motion and assumed jurisdiction to hear the merits of the appeal.

The parent of a 15-year-old student with autism and severe sensory sensitivities appealed the Identification, Placement and Review Committee (IPRC) decision placing the student in a special education class with partial integration.

The student had been suspended from school for autism-related behaviours and the parent sought placement in a well-established autism program, potentially outside the board, with full integration.

The school board brought a preliminary motion arguing the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction because the parent failed to appeal a subsequent identical IPRC decision.

The Tribunal dismissed the jurisdiction motion, finding that failure to sign the decision did not constitute consent.

On the merits, the Tribunal ordered the student placed in a special education class with partial integration at the secondary school's autism program, finding it was the best placement available to meet the student's complex needs.

The Tribunal also ordered the board to develop an appropriate IEP, implement behaviour strategies, provide compensatory speech therapy, and work toward increased integration.

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

The school board brought a motion to dismiss the appeal on the basis that there was no disagreement between the parties regarding the child's identification or placement.

The Tribunal found that the parent agreed with the child's identification and that the school board had offered the specific placement location requested by the parent.

As the requested placement was implemented for the start of the school year, the Tribunal concluded the appeal was moot and dismissed it for lack of jurisdiction.

In a preliminary conference before the Ontario Special Education Tribunal, the parties disputed the temporal scope of evidence admissible for an upcoming appeal regarding a student's placement.

The school board argued the Tribunal's mandate was limited to the date of the July 10, 2003 IPRC decision, while the parents sought to include evidence up to the hearing date.

The Tribunal ruled that to properly determine the child's current needs and make a binding decision on placement, it must consider all relevant evidence from the 2003 IPRC date up to the child's most recent report card.

The appellant appealed to the Ontario Special Education (English) Tribunal regarding the identification and placement of a minor child.

At a preliminary hearing, the Tribunal ruled that it lacked jurisdiction under section 57 of the Education Act to review the school board's conduct regarding due process.

The Tribunal deferred its decision on whether it had jurisdiction over the specific placement requested until after hearing evidence.

The issue of reimbursement for e-learning fees was resolved on consent, with the school board agreeing to pay past and future fees.