OSET 2025

The appellant parent brought a pre-hearing motion requesting that the school board be ordered to pay for four assessments of the student and that certain documents be pre-emptively accepted as evidence.

The Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding that the request for assessments was late, inconsistent with the appellant's prior actions, and would delay the hearing.

The Tribunal also declined to pre-emptively accept documents into evidence, noting that exhibits are evaluated during the hearing.

The self-represented appellant brought a motion requesting that the adjudicator recuse herself due to a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The appellant alleged unfair treatment during a pre-hearing and disagreed with various case management directions, including the adjudicator's refusal to make a final placement order prior to a hearing on the merits.

The Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding that an informed person would not conclude that the adjudicator's active case management, control of the pre-hearing process, or refusal to act outside the Tribunal's jurisdiction gave rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The appellant requested a stay of their special education appeal proceedings pending the outcome of a proposed application for judicial review of an earlier interim decision that dismissed a bias motion.

The Tribunal denied the request for a stay, noting that no judicial review application had yet been filed and that delaying the proceedings would prejudice the child, who was currently being home-schooled, by delaying a final determination on their placement.

The self-represented appellant brought a motion requesting that the hearing panel recuse themselves due to a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The appellant alleged bias after the panel chair directed that written submissions might be required on whether the Tribunal had jurisdiction to order the requested placement, and because the chair was cross-appointed to another tribunal.

The Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding that an informed person would not conclude that the panel's actions, which included attempting to assist the appellant in focusing on relevant evidence and exercising its authority to determine a jurisdictional issue, demonstrated a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The appellants appealed the identification and placement of their child by an Identification, Placement and Review Committee (IPRC).

Following a subsequent IPRC meeting, the child's identification and placement were changed to match the appellants' request.

The respondent argued the appeal was moot.

The Tribunal agreed, finding no substantive dispute remained to be resolved, and declined to exercise its discretion to hear the jurisdictional issues raised by the respondent.

The appeal was dismissed.