ONTARIO SPECIAL EDUCATION

(ENGLISH) TRIBUNAL

B E T W E E N:

TB and TS Appellants

-and-

Toronto District School Board Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: Catherine Bickley Date: February 7, 2025 Citation: 2025 ONSET 1 Indexed as: TB and TS v. Toronto District School Board

APPEARANCES

TB and TS, Appellants Frances A. Marinic, Counsel

Toronto District School Board, Respondent Jennifer P. Saville, Counsel

Introduction

1This is an Appeal to the Ontario Special Education Tribunal (English) (“OSET”) pursuant to Section 57 of the Education Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.E.2 (“the Act”), challenging the identification and placement of the Appellant’s child, OS, at a March 2024 Identification, Placement and Review Committee (“IPRC”) meeting.

2In the Appeal, the Appellants requested that OS not be identified as exceptional and also requested that OS be placed in a regular classroom with resource assistance.

3In its Response, the Respondent raised several jurisdictional issues. One issue involved the Respondent’s agreement to the Appellant’s request to reconvene the IPRC in the fall of 2024. During a December 9, 2024 videoconference, the parties advised the OSET that a November 21, 2024 IPRC had resulted in OS’s identification and placement being changed to the identification and placement requested by the Appellants in the Appeal.

4The Respondent submits that as there is now no disagreement regarding OS’s identification and placement, the Appeal is moot and should be dismissed. The Appellants disagree. They want the OSET to decide the jurisdictional issues and, potentially, hold a hearing on the merits.

ISSUES

5Is the Appeal moot? If so, should the OSET exercise its discretion to nonetheless decide the jurisdictional issues raised by the Respondent?

result

6I find that the Appeal is moot. I also find that there is no compelling reason for the OSET to exercise its discretion to decide the jurisdictional issues raised by the Respondent. Accordingly, the Appeal is dismissed.

analysis

7The Appellants submit that the Appeal should proceed because there is still some disagreement between the parties. In particular, the Appellants want the school to use a homework diary to keep them informed about OS’s schoolwork. They are also not completely satisfied with the services being provided to support OS in her learning. In addition, the Appellants remain concerned about the process through which the initial identification and placement decisions were made by the Respondent.

8When the OSET hears an appeal, its task is to decide which identification and placement best meet a student’s needs. The OSET’s task is not to provide direction on the method of communication between a school and the parents of a student or the exact services to be provided within a placement. Nor is it the OSET’s task to review the process by which a challenged identification or placement was made. Where, as here, the parties now agree on both identification and placement there is no substantive dispute left for the OSET to resolve. Thus, the Appeal is moot.

9In some exceptional circumstances, a tribunal or court may exercise its discretion to hear a matter despite that matter being moot. I find that there are no exceptional circumstances that would make it appropriate to exercise such discretion in this case. The jurisdictional issues raised by the Respondent in its Response are not unique. They are similar, and to some extent repetitive, of jurisdictional issues that have been considered and decided in previous OSET cases. There is thus no compelling reason to decide those issues and doing so would not be an appropriate use of the resources of the OSET and the parties.

10For these reasons, I conclude that the Appeal must be dismissed.

ORDER

11The Appeal is dismissed.