Human Rights - OSET

The respondent school board brought a preliminary motion to dismiss the appellant's appeal regarding the special education placement of their child.

The appellant sought 1:1 support, an issue previously decided by the Tribunal to be outside its jurisdiction.

The appellant had also filed multiple applications with the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario seeking the same relief.

The Tribunal found the appeal to be an abuse of process due to re-litigation and seeking remedies outside its jurisdiction.

The appeal was dismissed, and the appellant was declared a vexatious litigant.

The appellant appealed a school board decision confirming a Special Education Appeal Board (SEAB) placement of 'Regular Class with Resource Assistance' for a student with Autism Spectrum Disorder.

The appellant sought specific programs and services, including 1:1 support.

The Ontario Special Education Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding it lacked jurisdiction because the school board had already agreed to the requested placement, and the Tribunal's mandate under the Education Act does not extend to ordering specific programs or services.

The Tribunal also declined the respondent's request to declare the appellant a vexatious litigant.

The appellant parent appealed the school board's decision regarding the special education placement of his 17-year-old child, who is identified with autism and a developmental disability.

The student had not attended school for over two years.

While both parties agreed that a Senior Education for Community Living (ECL) class was appropriate, they disagreed on the location, the transition plan, and the partial integration component.

The Tribunal found it had jurisdiction to hear the appeal despite the lack of a Special Education Appeal Board decision, as the school board had failed to convene one.

The Tribunal ordered that the student be placed in a full-time congregated special education class (either ECL or Developmental Education) without mandatory partial integration at this time, following an expedited transition process.

The parents of a 16-year-old student appealed the school board's decisions regarding the student's special education identification and placement.

The parents sought to remove the student's identification as an exceptional student and requested a regular academic program placement without educational assistant support.

The school board maintained the student's identification as having an Intellectual – Developmental Disability and placed the student in a full-time self-contained special education class.

The Tribunal found that the student had significant learning, behavioural, and communication needs, but noted the lack of a recent psycho-educational assessment.

The Tribunal ordered the school board to maintain the exceptional student identification, arrange a full psycho-educational assessment, and provide an interim self-contained special education class placement pending the assessment results.

The appellant parent appealed a school board's decision to place her child, who has autism and significant behavioural needs, in a Special Education Class (Intensive Support Program).

The parent sought a placement in a Regular Class with Resource Withdrawal.

The Tribunal found that the student's aggressive behaviours posed a safety risk and that the student had not made noticeable gains in a Regular Class setting.

The Tribunal concluded that a full-time Intensive Support Program placement was in the student's best interests to provide a structured environment, reduce anxiety, and address behavioural and academic needs, and dismissed the appeal.

The parents of a 15-year-old student appealed a school board's decision to remove the student's exceptionality identification.

The parents sought a dual identification of Communication - Learning Disabilities and Behaviour, along with a regular class placement with supports.

The school board argued the student did not meet the criteria for either identification and could receive necessary accommodations without being formally identified.

The Tribunal granted the appeal, ordering the board to identify the student as exceptional with Communication - Learning Disabilities, maintain the regular class placement with supports, and develop an appropriate transition plan including a commitment for a psycho-educational assessment in Grade 12.

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.

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 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 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 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 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 13-year-old student with Down Syndrome appealed the school board's Identification, Placement, and Review Committee (IPRC) decision.

The IPRC identified the student as multi-exceptional and recommended placement in a life skills class with integration into a regular class.

The parents argued the student had only a communications exceptionality and should be fully integrated into a regular grade 8 classroom.

The Tribunal applied the principles from E. v. Brant (County) Board of Education, finding that the school board had made all reasonable efforts to integrate the student and that the segregated placement was justified as a last resort.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal and affirmed the IPRC's identification and placement decisions.

The parents of a student with cerebral palsy appealed an Identification, Placement, and Review Committee (IPRC) determination that placed the student in a special education class.

The parents requested full-time placement in a regular, age-appropriate class at the neighbourhood school with a full-time educational assistant.

The Tribunal reviewed extensive evidence regarding the student's intellectual, communication, social, and physical needs, as well as the student's three-year experience in a regular classroom.

The Tribunal concluded that the student's profound needs were not being met in the regular class and that the level of adult intervention required had the counter-productive effect of isolating the student.

The Tribunal affirmed the IPRC's determination for a special class placement, finding no violation of the Charter or the Human Rights Code.

The appellants appealed the Identification, Placement and Review Committee (IPRC) decisions regarding their two children, born in 1983 and 1985.

The appellants sought to have the older child identified as an exceptional pupil and the younger child identified with a multihandicap designation, both based on environmental hypersensitivity, and requested specific accommodations including the removal of carpets from their classrooms.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals, finding insufficient evidence that the children's environmental hypersensitivity significantly interfered with their ability to learn or function in school.

The Tribunal noted the younger child's significant academic and social progress in the current placement.

However, the Tribunal ordered that the younger child's Individual Education Plan include a statement noting the physician's description of environmental hypersensitivity to ensure it is considered in future reviews.

The parents of a child with Down syndrome appealed an Identification, Placement and Review Committee (IPRC) decision recommending the child be placed in a primary self-contained class for slow learners.

The parents sought placement in an age-appropriate regular class at their neighbourhood school with resource/withdrawal assistance, arguing for the benefits of integration and peer modelling.

The Special Education Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the child's academic and social needs required direct teaching in a small pupil/adult ratio.

The Tribunal concluded that the self-contained class would provide the most effective placement, offering a specialized program while still allowing for integration in non-direct teaching activities.