Administrative Law - OSET

The applicant mother appealed the school board's placement decision for her child, who has Down syndrome.

The child was absent from school for an indeterminate period due to obstructive sleep apnea.

The school board argued the appeal was moot due to the absence.

The Tribunal held it had jurisdiction, finding the issue was not moot as the placement dispute remained unresolved.

The Tribunal ordered temporary home instruction until the child's sleep apnea is controlled, deferred the psycho-educational evaluation until the child is ready to return to class, and ordered partial disclosure of relevant medical documents while denying the board's request for the complete medical file.

The parent appealed directly to the Special Education Tribunal regarding the identification and placement of her child, bypassing the Special Education Appeal Board.

The school board consented to the Tribunal hearing the appeal despite the procedural defect.

The Tribunal held that it lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal because the parent had not exhausted all rights of appeal as required by section 57(3) of the Education Act.

The Tribunal declined to assume jurisdiction by consent and recommended mediation or following the statutory appeal process.

The parent appealed an Identification Placement and Review Committee (IPRC) decision regarding her child's special education placement.

The school board argued the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction because the parent had not exhausted all rights of appeal to a Special Education Appeal Board.

The Tribunal found that the parent had properly requested an appeal, but the school board failed to follow the statutory timelines under Regulation 181/98 to convene the appeal board.

Consequently, the parent was denied the opportunity to be heard at the lower level, and the Tribunal assumed jurisdiction to hear the appeal on its merits.

The parties jointly requested clarification of a previous Tribunal decision regarding the appropriate special education placement for a student with Autism.

The parents questioned whether the Tribunal had ordered placement in a mixed exceptionalities class of sixteen or an Autism class of six.

The Tribunal clarified that it ordered a small, separate class focusing on communication and social interaction, which was not strictly limited to six students but was not to be as large as sixteen, and was based on student learning needs rather than specific exceptionality categories.

Parents appealed special education placement decisions maintaining that the child with severe autism required a placement consisting of intensive behavioural intervention rather than the Board's ASD/PDD classroom.

The Tribunal held that it could hear the placement appeal, but drew a distinction between educational placement and therapeutic programming, concluding that IBI was therapy rather than education and could not be ordered in lieu of an educational program.

After reviewing expert and lay evidence, the Tribunal found the Board's placement developmentally appropriate, comprehensive, and supported by qualified staff and interdisciplinary resources.

The Tribunal further found that the parents had not proven regression or shown that the proposed IBI-based placement was superior.

The appeal was denied and the IPRC placement decisions were affirmed.

The parent appealed the school board's special education placement decision to the Special Education Tribunal.

The school board brought a preliminary motion arguing the appeal was moot because it had already agreed to provide the specific placement requested by the parent (Special Class with Partial Integration) and had attempted to convene an IPRC meeting to implement it, which the parent refused to attend.

The Tribunal agreed with the school board, finding that since the requested placement had been offered, there was no live issue to decide.

The Tribunal declined jurisdiction to hear the appeal on the basis of mootness.

The parents of a gifted student appealed the school board's placement decision to the Special Education Tribunal.

The school board brought a preliminary motion to set aside the appeal, arguing that the appeal rights were not exhausted, that the mother's recent election as a school board trustee created a conflict of interest, and that the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to order a placement not in the board's Special Education Plan.

The Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding that the board failed to meet the 30-day statutory timeline to issue a decision, that a trustee retains parental rights to appeal under the Education Act, and that the Tribunal has statutory authority to order appropriate placements regardless of the board's existing plan.

The parents of a child with multiple exceptionalities appealed a school board's placement decision of 'Regular Class with Resource Assistance'.

The parents argued the placement lacked sufficient detail regarding programs and services to determine if it met the child's needs, and requested an intensive academic program.

The school board challenged the Tribunal's jurisdiction, arguing the appeal concerned programming rather than placement.

The Tribunal affirmed its jurisdiction, holding that programming is an integral part of a placement.

On the merits, the Tribunal found the regular class placement insufficient for the child's intensive language arts and mathematics needs, and ordered a change in placement to 'Regular Class with Resource Withdrawal' for 50% of the day with a special education teacher.

The parents of a 14-year-old student identified with autism appealed the school board's decision to place the student in a Developmental Education Program (DEP).

The parents argued the DEP was inappropriate and requested placement in an Autism Class, which did not exist in the board's Special Education Plan.

The board challenged the Tribunal's jurisdiction to order a placement not in its plan.

The Tribunal held it had jurisdiction under the Education Act to order an appropriate placement regardless of the board's plan.

The Tribunal found the DEP was inappropriate for the student, who is highly verbal and does not have a developmental disability.

The Tribunal ordered the board to place the student in a small, separate 'Communication' class focused on language development and social interaction.

The parents of an eight-year-old student with Autism Spectrum Disorder appealed a school board's decision regarding their child's special education placement.

The parents sought an integrated placement that would provide Intensive Behaviour Intervention (IBI) therapy in a regular class setting.

The school board argued that IBI is a therapeutic service, not an educational service, and therefore falls outside the Tribunal's jurisdiction over identification and placement.

The Tribunal agreed with the school board, finding that IBI is a specific therapy delivered by trained therapists under psychological supervision, rather than an educational program developed by teachers.

The Tribunal concluded it lacked jurisdiction to hear an appeal based on a requested learning style or therapy, and dismissed the appeal while offering recommendations for the child's educational programming.

The parents of an eleven-year-old student with multiple exceptionalities appealed a school board decision placing the student in a segregated special needs school.

The parents sought full-time placement in a regular class with a total communication package and a one-to-one educational assistant.

The Tribunal found that the student's needs were not being met in the fully integrated primary grade placements due to academic frustration and escalating behaviours, but also found that a fully segregated placement was not required.

The Tribunal ordered a semi-integrated placement, directing that the student be placed in a Grade 7 regular class for non-academic subjects and a Dual Diagnosis class for academic instruction, supported by a comprehensive behaviour management plan.

The appellant parent appealed an Identification Placement and Review Committee (IPRC) decision placing her child, who has a severe learning disability, in a mixed exceptionalities class with a maximum of sixteen students.

The parent argued for a self-contained class with a maximum of eight students under Regulation 298, clause 31(a).

The Tribunal found that while there was a change in placement from a smaller learning disability class to a larger mixed exceptionalities class, the current placement in the Satellite Program at the secondary school was meeting the student's needs and was in the student's best interests.

The appeal was dismissed and the IPRC decision upheld.

The parent of a gifted student appealed the school board's Identification Placement Review Committee decision to change the student's placement from a congregated gifted class to a categorical placement in a regular grade nine class.

The parent argued that the student required a congregated gifted program to meet their needs, which the board claimed it did not offer at the secondary level.

The Tribunal found that the categorical placement was inappropriate and would not provide the necessary intellectual challenge or peer interaction.

The Tribunal ordered the school board to provide the student with a placement in a gifted congregated (clustered) program.

The parents of a minor child appealed the school board's decision not to identify the child as an exceptional pupil (gifted).

The school board relied on a strict criterion requiring an IQ score of 130 or above on a psychological assessment, which the child did not meet in the most recent test, despite previous assessments and other indicators showing very superior intellectual ability.

The Special Education Tribunal granted the appeal, rejecting the board's reliance on a single IQ cut-off score.

The Tribunal found that a multi-faceted approach to identification is required and ordered the board to identify the student as gifted and place the student in a gifted secondary school program.

The appellant parent appealed the Identification, Placement and Review Committee (IPRC) decision regarding her child's special education placement.

The student, who has a severe learning disability, had been moved from a self-contained learning disability class with a maximum of eight students to a satellite program class of mixed exceptionalities with up to sixteen students.

The parent argued this was an inappropriate change in placement and requested a return to the smaller, specialized class.

The school board argued the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction over class size and program details.

The Tribunal found that the move to a mixed exceptionalities class did constitute a change in placement under Regulation 298.

However, the Tribunal concluded that the current satellite program placement was necessary and appropriate to meet the student's needs.

The Tribunal ordered the student to remain in the satellite program, directed the board to utilize the student's specialized computer equipment, and found that the board had failed to properly develop a comprehensive Individual Education Plan (IEP) and Transition Plan as required by Regulation 181/98.

The parent appealed the school board's decision to place her learning-disabled child in a mixed exceptionality class, seeking a self-contained learning disability class.

At a preliminary hearing, the school board challenged the Tribunal's jurisdiction, arguing that under the new funding model and Regulation 181/98, the specific makeup of a self-contained class is a matter of the board's Special Education Plan and outside the Tribunal's authority.

The Tribunal ruled that it has jurisdiction to hear the placement appeal, finding that Regulations 298 and 181 remain in full force and are not superseded by the funding model.

The parents of an 11-year-old autistic child appealed the school board's placement decision, seeking a fully integrated regular classroom placement with a dedicated Applied Behaviour Analysis (ABA) program using the Lovaas method.

The school board proposed a life skills program in a segregated setting with integration as appropriate, arguing that a fully integrated setting was inappropriate due to the child's behavioural issues and that pure ABA was a therapeutic, not educational, program.

The Special Education Tribunal held that its jurisdiction was limited to placement, not program.

The Tribunal recommended placement in a life skills program with appropriate integration, daily language instruction, and that the board utilize the parents' expert's services for staff training.

The appellant appealed the identification and placement of her child by the school board's Identification, Placement and Review Committee (IPRC).

After several days of hearings, the parties reached a mutually satisfactory agreement.

The Tribunal ordered, on consent, that the child be identified as learning disabled/behavioural, placed in a secondary school with appropriate support, and that an Individual Education Plan (IEP) be developed including two hours of daily remedial one-to-one teaching.

The parents of an 18-year-old student with autism appealed a decision of the Appeal Board that upheld an Identification, Placement and Review Committee (IPRC) recommendation placing the student in a home instruction program for seven hours per week.

The parents argued the placement was inappropriate and sought a more flexible, full-time day placement.

The school board maintained that the student's aggressive behaviour necessitated a controlled environment and that no local agencies could provide the requested support.

The Special Education Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the IPRC and Appeal Board decisions met legal requirements and that the home instruction placement was appropriate given the lack of available alternatives, though it strongly urged the parties to obtain a comprehensive assessment from the Geneva Centre for Autistic Persons.

The parents of a 14-year-old developmentally handicapped student appealed the school board's decision to place the student in a segregated Junior Developmentally Handicapped program.

The parents sought full integration in a regular classroom with a full-time teaching assistant.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the student's significant developmental delays and need for specialized life skills instruction could not be adequately addressed in a regular classroom, and that the board's proposed placement offered the most appropriate environment for the student's educational and social development.