HC v. Toronto District School Board, 2025 ONSET 3

ONTARIO SPECIAL EDUCATION (ENGLISH) TRIBUNAL

B E T W E E N:

HC

Appellant

-and-

Toronto District School Board

Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicators: Robert Patchett; Catherine Bickley Date: June 26, 2025 Citation: 2025 ONSET 3 Indexed as: HC v. Toronto District School Board

Introduction

1This is an Appeal to the Ontario Special Education Tribunal (English) (“the Tribunal”) pursuant to Section 57 of the Education Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.E.2 (“the Act”), challenging the placement of the Appellant’s child, RC.

background

1On June 20, 2025, the Tribunal issued an Interim Decision dismissing the Appellant’s motion that the hearing panel recuse itself due to a reasonable apprehension of bias.

2On that same date, the Tribunal issued a Case Management Direction (“the CMD”) directing the Appellant to advise the Tribunal by June 25, 2025 whether he intended to proceed with the Appeal. The CMD also directed that, if the Appeal was proceeding, both parties were to make written submissions on a jurisdictional issue by no later than July 4, 2025.

REQUEST

3The Appellant has since advised the Tribunal that he intends to bring an application for judicial review of the June 20, 2025, Interim Decision where the panel denied there was a reasonable apprehension of bias. He requests that the Tribunal stay his Appeal proceedings pending the outcome of the proposed judicial review application.

ANALYSIS

4It would appear that the Appellant intends to seek a judicial review; that no judicial review has been submitted as of the date of this request.

5In the absence of a stay of proceedings that may be issued by a court in any future judicial review proceedings, there is no reason not to proceed. Section 2 of the Statutory Powers Procedures Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.S.22 provides that the Tribunal should secure the most expeditious determination of every proceeding on its merits.

This Act, and any rule made by a tribunal under subsection 17.1 (4) or section 25.1, shall be liberally construed to secure the just, most expeditious and cost-effective determination of every proceeding on its merits.

6As this is an appeal brought by the Appellant, any pause that the Appellant is requesting could be construed as not conferring any prejudice on them. However, in this case, the Appellant is seeking a determination on behalf of their child RC.

7The Respondent has agreed that RC can be and is currently being home-schooled. If the Tribunal is delayed in making a final determination in these proceedings the real prejudice is with the child RC, where the child may not be placed in a school or placement that is in their best interests.

8Therefore, in order to determine an outcome that is in the best interests of RC and to ensure that there is an expeditious resolution, the panel declines to stay these proceedings.

order

9The Appellant’s request for a stay of the Appeal is denied.

10The July 4, 2025 deadline for submissions on the jurisdictional issue, as set out in the CMD, remains in effect.