ONTARIO SPECIAL EDUCATION (ENGLISH) TRIBUNAL
B E T W E E N:
M.S. Appellant
-and-
OTTAWA CATHOLIC DISTRICT SCHOOL BOARD Respondent
SUPPLEMENTARY DECISION
Tribunal Members: Eva Nichols, Chair Date: April 24, 2012 Citation: 2012 ONSET 1 Indexed as: M.S. v. Ottawa Catholic District School Board
ONTARIO SPECIAL EDUCATION (ENGLISH) TRIBUNAL
File #2009-04 [b]
IN THE MATTER OF the Education Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. E.2, as amended, ss. 57(3),
IN THE MATTER OF Ontario Regulation 181/98,
AND IN THE MATTER OF the minor child born in 1993
BETWEEN
Mr. M. S., Appellant
-and-
Ottawa Catholic District School Board (OCDSB), Respondent
SUPPLEMENTARY DECISION
Tribunal Members: Eva Nichols Chair
BACKGROUND
1On January 30, 2012, the Tribunal wrote to the parties seeking their submissions with respect to remaining seized for the purposes of the implementation of its orders made in the SET Decision 2009-04, dated July 15, 2011, 2011 ONSET 4.
2The appellant did not respond and the school board agreed that the file should be closed. Therefore, on February 14, 2012, the Tribunal advised the parties that the file will be closed, effective February 17, 2012.
3On March 19, 2012, the appellant wrote to the Tribunal and requested that the file be reopened. He stated that he had not received the Tribunal’s correspondence dated January 30, 2012 and February 14, 2012. He provided information about his ongoing dispute with the respondent.
4On March 27, 2012, the appellant made further submissions to the Tribunal.
5On March 28, 2012, the Registrar for OSET forwarded the appellant’s correspondence to counsel for the respondent and invited his submissions in response to be submitted, without legal argument, within 14 days.
6Counsel for the respondent responded on April 10, 2012, opposing the reopening of the file by the Tribunal. He advised the Tribunal that an IPRC had been convened on March 1, 2012, which confirmed the student’s identification and placement, in accordance with the July 15, 2011, tribunal decision.
7On April 12, 2012, the appellant responded to counsel’s submissions, setting out his disagreement with the contents of the respondent’s correspondence and seeking additional orders from the Tribunal. The appellant also provided a quantity of material, including the March 1, 2012, IPRC documentation and his appeal to the OCDSB. These materials are unrelated to the issues in dispute, which the Tribunal considered during its hearing on the merits of the case in April 2011. Counsel for the respondent objected to this submission.
DECISION
8Having carefully considered the parties’ submissions, the Tribunal is satisfied that the additional issues raised by the appellant are not related to the implementation of the orders contained in the July 15, 2011 decision. Therefore, it is not necessary for the Tribunal to make a finding about whether the appellant received the Tribunal’s January 30 and February 14, 2012, correspondence.
9The Tribunal does not have the jurisdiction to address these additional concerns in the context of this appeal. As there are no issues concerning the implementation of the Tribunal’s July 15, 2011, decision, the Tribunal confirms that it is no longer seized and its file is closed.
Original signed by
Eva Nichols, Chair ________________________________
DATE: APRIL 24, 2012