H.C. v. Toronto District School Board, 2026 ONSET 4

ONTARIO SPECIAL EDUCATION (ENGLISH) TRIBUNAL

B E T W E E N:

H.C.

Appellant

-and-

Toronto District School Board

Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicators: Robert Patchett; Catherine Bickley

Date: April 22, 2026

Citation: 2026 ONSET 4

Indexed as: H.C. 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. This decision deals with the Appellant’s failure to attend two consecutive scheduled events and his request for an indefinite adjournment of the proceeding.

Background

2On March 20, 2025, the Tribunal issued a Notice of Hearing scheduling eight hearing days between May 6, 2025 and June 24 2025. On the first day of hearing, the Appellant requested that the hearing be deferred until the completion of his judicial review of the decision of a different tribunal. In an oral ruling denying the deferral request, the Tribunal noted that the other decision was against a different respondent and involved different issues than those in the Appeal. Further, the Divisional Court had not ordered a stay. On the second day of hearing, the Appellant again asked the Tribunal to delay the hearing. The Tribunal denied the request.

3When a jurisdictional issue arose on the second day of hearing, the Appellant brought a motion requesting that the panel recuse themselves due to a reasonable apprehension of bias. Following consideration of submissions from both parties, the Tribunal dismissed the bias motion: HC v. Toronto District School Board, 2025 ONSET 2. The Appellant then requested a stay of the Tribunal proceedings while he sought a judicial review of that decision. The Tribunal denied the stay request: HC v. Toronto District School Board, 2025 ONSET 3. On October 6, 2025, the Divisional Court dismissed the judicial review as “patently premature.” The Appellant is seeking leave to appeal the Divisional Court’s decision to the Court of Appeal for Ontario. On November 21, 2025, the Court of Appeal declined to order a stay in related Divisional Court proceedings, commenting “there is no merit to his potential appeal.”

4On January 14, 2026, the Tribunal decided the jurisdictional issue and directed the parties to provide their availability for April 2026 hearing dates. The Respondent provided its availability. The Appellant did not. Instead, he brought a motion to stay the Tribunal’s proceedings pending the outcome of the multiple court proceedings which he has initiated.

5On January 22, 2026, the Tribunal issued a Notice of Hearing, scheduling five hearing dates starting on April 14, 2026. The Tribunal advised the parties that the dates would be cancelled if the Appellant was successful on his motion to stay the proceedings. The Tribunal dismissed the stay motion on February 12, 2026.

6On March 13, 2026, the Tribunal scheduled a case management conference to be held by videoconference on April 9, 2026. On April 6 and April 7, 2026, the Appellant wrote to the Tribunal requesting an adjournment of the April 9, 2026 Case Management Videoconference. He repeated at length his previous arguments as to why in his view the Tribunal should stay the proceeding. In addition, he stated that he could not attend on April 9, 2026 due to one of his children having a hospital appointment. He provided no details as to the timing of the appointment. Nor did he propose another time or date when he could attend. On April 7, 2026, the Tribunal advised the Appellant that he was required to attend the April 9, 2026 Case Management Videoconference and could request an adjournment at that time. The Tribunal warned the Appellant that failure to attend on April 9 could lead to dismissal of the Appeal.

7The Respondent attended the Case Management Videoconference. The Appellant did not. Instead, he sent an email April 9, 2026 at 9:00 am, confirming he would not attend, referring to “medical needs of the children” and raising new allegations against the Respondent. Given the Appellant’s absence, the Case Management Videoconference did not proceed and the Respondent made no submissions regarding the next step.

8In response to the Appellant’s failure to attend, the Tribunal issued a Case Management Direction on April 9, 2026 which directed the parties as follows:

The morning of April 14, 2026 will be used to discuss the various procedural matters the Tribunal had intended to discuss with the parties today, including the potential impact of Furgasa.

The parties must be prepared to proceed with the hearing on the merits on the afternoon of April 14, 2026, and the subsequent scheduled dates on April 15-16, 2026 and on April 20-21, 2026.

If the Appellant does not attend on April 14, 2026, and subsequent scheduled hearing dates, the Appeal may be dismissed as deemed abandoned.

9On April 14, 2026, an hour before the hearing was scheduled to start, the Appellant filed a motion seeking an indefinite adjournment. He did not attend the hearing to request the adjournment. The Respondent chose not to make any submissions as to what decisions the Tribunal ought to take as a result of the Appellant’s failure to attend.

ISSUES

10The issues are:

1. Should the Tribunal grant the Appellant’s motion to adjourn these proceedings indefinitely?

2. Has the Appellant abandoned his Appeal?

3. Should the interim publication ban and sealing order be confirmed?

Result

11The Appellant’s adjournment motion is dismissed.

12The Appeal is dismissed as abandoned.

13The publication ban and sealing order are confirmed.

ANALYSIS

The Appellant’s motion to adjourn the hearing is denied

14In his motion, the Appellant requests that all scheduled hearing dates be adjourned sine die and that there be no further steps in the Tribunal proceeding until his various court proceedings have concluded.

15The Appellant’s motion submissions reiterate his previous arguments as to why the hearing should be adjourned. He also states that he could not attend on April 14, 2026 due to the therapy schedule of one of his children.

16Absent an emergency, a party seeking an adjournment is expected to attend, or send an agent, to request the adjournment. Attendance provides an opportunity for a tribunal or court to explore with a party the reasons for the adjournment request, an opportunity to discuss dates on which a proceeding may continue, and to hear from the other party regarding any prejudice the request may cause them. With respect to both the April 9, 2026 Case Management Videoconference and the April 14, 2026 hearing, the Appellant simply announced that he would not be attending and requested an adjournment.

17When an individual files an appeal with the Tribunal, they start a process which engages the resources of not only the Respondent but also the Tribunal. It is important that appeals proceed in a timely manner. Family and work commitments and medical appointments may need to be rearranged so an appellant can attend scheduled hearing dates.

18In January 2026, The Appellant was invited to provide his availability for April hearing dates. He did not do so. The Tribunal gave the Appellant almost three months’ notice of the April 2026 hearing dates. This was more than enough time for the Appellant to make other arrangements regarding his child’s therapy schedule or to make a timely adjournment request. Instead, he waited until an hour before the hearing was due to start to file his motion seeking an adjournment and failed to attend to present the request.

19The last-minute request for an adjournment on April 14, 2026 is part of a pattern of last-minute requests by the Appellant. For example, he requested an adjournment of the April 9, 2026 Case Management Videoconference only three days in advance even though he was given almost a month’s notice of the event. He first cited a hospital appointment then, more vaguely, children’s health needs. He has provided no documentation to support these reasons. As noted by the Divisional Court in Wang v. Oloo, 2023 ONSC 1028, a party who asserts a medical reason for an adjournment must provide supporting documentation. The Appellant has not done so.

20The Appellant has repeatedly sought a stay of the hearing pending the outcome of various court proceedings that he has initiated. Each time, the Tribunal has considered and rejected the Appellant’s arguments in favour of a stay. The courts have also denied all requests for a stay of this hearing and related proceedings. Despite mentioning health related issues regarding one or more of his children, the Appellant’s submissions each time he has sought an adjournment have focused primarily on his belief that the Tribunal should not proceed to hear his appeal until all his various court proceedings have been exhausted.

21In support of his adjournment request, the Appellant points to the Divisional Court’s comments in Furgasa v. Toronto District School Board, 2026 ONSC 563 (“Furgasa”) on the scope of the Tribunal’s jurisdiction. Furgasa was issued in February 2026, after the Tribunal’s January 14, 2026 jurisdictional decision. The potential impact of Furgasa on the Appeal, however, does not require an adjournment. Indeed, the Tribunal’s April 9, 2026 Case Management Direction explicitly notes that the Tribunal intended to discuss the potential impact of Furgasa with the parties.

22The Appellant has provided no persuasive reason for delaying the hearing of the Appeal. Accordingly, we dismiss his motion to adjourn the hearing.

The Appellant has abandoned the Appeal

23Having dismissed the Appellant’s adjournment motion, we turn our mind to the appropriate next step. For the reasons set out below, we conclude that the Appellant has effectively abandoned the Appeal, and it must therefore be dismissed.

24From the first day of hearings in May 2025, the Appellant has repeatedly sought to delay the hearing of the Appeal through requests for deferral, stay, or adjournment of the proceedings.

25The Appellant is clearly unhappy with the denials by the Tribunal, Divisional Court, and the Court of Appeal for Ontario to grant him a stay, or other relief. It appears that he has unilaterally decided that if neither the Tribunal nor the courts will grant the stay he wants, he will simply refuse to participate in the hearing.

26The Appellant has twice failed to attend scheduled events despite ample notice of the dates. Each time, he has waited until the last minute before requesting an adjournment. He has failed to attend to make the adjournment requests, despite being repeatedly warned that failure to attend could lead to dismissal of the Appeal.

27The Appellant has by his actions effectively abandoned the Appeal.

The interim publication ban and sealing order are confirmed

28At the May 6, 2025 hearing the Appellant requested a confidentiality order. The Tribunal received and considered the submissions of the parties. On May 15, 2025, the Tribunal on an interim basis in an oral ruling, ordered a publication ban and the adjudicative record to be sealed on an interim basis. On January 16, 2026, the Divisional Court confirmed the publication ban.

29This appeal involves the placement of the Appellant’s child R.C. in one of the Respondent’s schools. The child is being home-schooled for reasons that are of an intimate nature and that if disclosed could cause significant harm to the family and the child. There are substantial submissions that can identify the child, the family, and alleged psychological trauma to the family. In our view, given the seriousness of the information in the submissions, there is no less restrictive means to proceed other than by sealing the records. Thus, in order to protect the child and the family and to prevent the inadvertent identification of the child and the family, the interim publication ban and order to seal the adjudicative records are confirmed. The Tribunal is directed to seal the records and not disclose them if requested.

Order

30The Appellant’s motion to adjourn the hearing is dismissed.

31The Appeal is dismissed as abandoned.

32The publication ban is continued and the adjudicative records are sealed. The Tribunal shall not disclose the adjudicative records.