OSET 2008

The appellant appealed the identification and placement of her child to the Ontario Special Education (English) Tribunal after abandoning the Special Education Appeal Board (SEAB) process.

The Toronto District School Board challenged the Tribunal's jurisdiction on the basis that the appellant had not exhausted all rights of appeal as required by section 57(3) of the Education Act.

The Tribunal found that the appellant prematurely abandoned the SEAB process on the advice of her advocate.

Consequently, the Tribunal concluded it lacked jurisdiction to hear the merits of the case because the statutory prerequisite of exhausting all appeal rights had not been met.

The parent of a child identified as an exceptional pupil appealed the child's special education placement to the Ontario Special Education (English) Tribunal.

The school board brought a motion to dismiss the appeal on the basis that the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction.

The Tribunal found that the parent was not actually dissatisfied with the placement decision of 'Regular Class with Withdrawal Assistance', but rather with the specific programming, services, and accommodations provided within that placement.

Because the Tribunal's jurisdiction under section 57(3) of the Education Act is limited to appeals regarding identification and placement, and does not extend to programming details, the Tribunal concluded it lacked jurisdiction and dismissed the appeal.

The appellant appealed the special education placement of her child, who was identified with autism.

The appellant brought several preliminary motions regarding procedural fairness, including requests for the Tribunal to order the school board or the Tribunal itself to provide legal counsel for the child, and to require the use of collaborative lawyers.

The school board brought a motion arguing the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal because the appellant had agreed with the Special Education Appeal Board's placement decision.

The Tribunal dismissed all of the appellant's motions, finding it lacked jurisdiction to order legal representation or dictate the choice of counsel.

The Tribunal upheld the school board's motion, concluding it had no jurisdiction to hear the merits of the appeal because the appellant had not demonstrated dissatisfaction with the placement decision as required by section 57(3) of the Education Act.

The Ottawa Catholic District School Board brought a motion to dismiss an appeal regarding the special education placement of a ten-year-old student.

The parent had appealed the school board's decision to uphold the Identification Placement Review Committee's placement of the child in a regular class with withdrawal assistance.

The school board argued the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to hear the case.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision unanimously finding that it did not have jurisdiction to hear the merits of the appeal, with full reasons to follow.

The appellant brought a series of preliminary motions at the outset of an appeal regarding her child's special education placement.

In one motion, she requested that the Tribunal order the respondent school board to provide legal counsel for her child.

The Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding that it lacked the jurisdiction to order the school board to provide legal representation for the child.

Reasons for the decision were to be released at a later date.