OG v. Toronto District School Board, 2025 ONSET 5

ONTARIO SPECIAL EDUCATION (ENGLISH) TRIBUNAL

B E T W E E N:

OG Appellant

-and-

Toronto District School Board Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicators: Catherine Bickley Date: November 6, 2025 Citation: 2025 ONSET 5 Indexed as: OG v. Toronto District School Board

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

OG, Appellant Self-represented

Toronto District School Board, Respondent Katherine Georgious, Counsel

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 identification and placement of the Appellant’s child, EG.

2This decision decides the Appellant’s October 23, 2025 motion (“The Motion”). requesting that the Tribunal order the Respondent to pay for four assessments of EG and requesting that certain documents be pre-emptively accepted as evidence in advance of the hearing on the merits.

3The Motion also requested that the Tribunal direct the Respondent to disclose certain documents. In an October 24, 2025 Case Management Direction (“the CMD”), I noted that since the Tribunal has already directed both parties to disclose all arguably relevant material to each other, no other direction was currently required regarding disclosure.

ISSUES

4The issues are:

• Should the Tribunal direct the Respondent to pay for four assessments of EG in advance of the hearing?
• Should the Tribunal pre-emptively accept documents as evidence in advance of the hearing?

RESULT

5The Tribunal should not direct the Respondent to pay for the requested assessments in advance of the hearing. Nor should the Tribunal pre-emptively accept documents into evidence in advance of the hearing. The Motion is dismissed.

BACKGROUND

6The Appeal was filed in May 2025. The hearing on the merits is scheduled to start on November 19, 2025. The deadline for the parties to disclose all arguably relevant documents to each other has passed. The Tribunal has directed the parties to file witness statements or affidavits, and documents on which they intend to rely, no later than November 12, 2025.

ANALYSIS

The Respondent is not required to pay for assessments prior to the hearing

7The Appellant seeks an order requiring the Respondent to pay for the following assessments of EG: a psycho-educational assessment, a speech-language assessment, an occupational therapy assessment, and a psychological assessment. He wants the assessments to be conducted by professionals of his choice. He argues that Ontario Regulation 181/98: Identification and Placement of Exceptional Pupils (“the Regulation”) requires a school board to obtain assessments at the time of an Identification, Placement and Review Committee (“IPRC”) and that the Respondent failed to do so. He states that he provided the Respondent in September 2024 with a March 7, 2024 letter from EG’s developmental pediatrician recommending a psycho-educational assessment for EG. He does not provide any explanation for not providing the Respondent with the letter closer to the time he obtained it.

8The Respondent submits that the Appellant has frustrated the Respondent’s attempts to assess EG by not bringing EG to school regularly. As a result, the Respondent says that it was not able to have its staff “observe and assess [EG’s] learning abilities and needs, to then recommend further supports as needed.” The Appellant has also refused to provide consent for Respondent staff to speak with EG’s “private educators and supports to gather this information about [EG’s] development, learning abilities, and needs.” The Respondent further argues that the Regulation does not make assessments at the time of an IPRC mandatory but rather “conditional on the committee first determining that an assessment is required.” Finally, the Respondent submits, the Appellant refuses to permit the Respondent to share with the Tribunal records from a psychologist and an occupational therapist who have provided services to EG.

9I make no finding regarding whether the Regulation requires assessments to be obtained at the time of the IPRC. The Tribunal does not sit in review of the IPRC process. The Tribunal’s task is to decide, based on the evidence and arguments presented by the parties at the hearing, whether it is appropriate to identify EG as having one or more exceptionalities and, if so, the appropriate placement in his best interests.

10This late request is inconsistent with the Appellant’s actions since he filed this Appeal in May 2025. Despite direction from the Tribunal, he has refused to reveal where and how EG has been receiving an education, other than to state that EG repeated kindergarten in a private preschool. The Appellant has stated he will not call EG’s private educators as witnesses. He has refused to permit TDSB staff to observe EG to obtain updated information about EG’s strengths and weaknesses.

11If I were to grant the Motion which was filed less than a month before the hearing on the merits is scheduled to start and less than three weeks before the parties’ materials are to be filed with the Tribunal, the hearing would inevitably be delayed. When he filed the Appeal in early May 2025, the Appellant requested an expedited hearing. Since then, however, his actions in filing frequent motions and requests, including regarding matters outside the Tribunal’s jurisdiction, have served to delay the hearing on the merits.

12The Appellant could have filed this motion much earlier. Alternatively, he could have cooperated with the Respondent in obtaining assessments of EG by Respondent staff or could have shared information gathered by EG’s private educators. It is still open to the Appellant to call as witnesses those private educators or other professionals who have provided services to EG. If he decides to do so, he is required to file witness statements summarizing their anticipated testimony.

13For these reasons, I decline to grant the Appellant’s request that four assessments of EG be arranged in advance of the hearing and that the Respondent be required to pay for those assessments.

Documents will be evaluated as possible exhibits during the hearing and established deadlines remain in place

14The Appellant attached to his submissions on the Motion three documents from EG’s developmental pediatrician. He requests that the Tribunal consider these documents to be exhibits consisting of “current and valid medical evidence and, in the absence of new assessments, confirm that they will be given probative weight.” He also requests that he be allowed to file new documents outside the disclosure timelines that have already been set.

15I decline to pre-emptively accept documents into evidence in advance of the hearing. The Tribunal will mark a document as an exhibit only after a party requests the document be made an exhibit and if the Tribunal determines it is appropriate to mark the document as an exhibit, after considering any objections from the opposing party. It is not possible to determine the weight that may be given a particular document outside the context of testimony and submissions from the parties.

16I also decline to rule in advance whether late-filed documents will be permitted into evidence. Such a ruling is more appropriately made at the time any late document is proffered, taking into account any prejudice the lateness may cause the other party. The previously set deadline of November 12, 2025 for both parties to file their hearing materials remains in effect.

ORDER

17The Motion is dismissed.