Other Tribunals - OSET

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 appellants appealed to the Ontario Special Education (English) Tribunal regarding the identification and placement of a pupil.

The respondent school board argued the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction because the appellants had not exhausted their appeal remedies, specifically the Special Education Appeal Board (SEAB) process, which was delayed due to the Covid-19 pandemic.

The Tribunal found that the failure to hold the SEAB meeting was due to the extraordinary circumstances of the pandemic and did not deprive the appellants of their substantive right to the process.

The appeal was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction as the appellants had not exhausted their appeal rights under section 57(3) of the Education Act.

The respondent school board requested an extension of time until October 23, 2020, to file its response to a notice of appeal regarding a special education placement, citing summer vacations and COVID-19 disruptions.

The appellants opposed the length of the extension, arguing it was unreasonable and prejudicial.

The Tribunal noted that while an emergency order suspended limitation periods, the requested delay was excessive.

The Tribunal granted the extension in part, ordering the respondent to file its response by September 11, 2020, balancing the administrative disruptions with the appellants' interest in a timely process.

The appellant appealed the placement of her gifted child, seeking access to the Advanced Placement (AP) program and transportation to the school.

The Ontario Special Education (English) Tribunal found that the appellant was not actually dissatisfied with the placement itself, as the child already had access to the AP program and did not require transportation to attend.

Because dissatisfaction with placement is a statutory precondition for jurisdiction under the Education Act, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

The parents of a student with autism appealed to the Ontario Special Education (English) Tribunal regarding the student's special education programs and services, specifically requesting a 1:1 assistant and a safety plan.

The school board had already agreed to the parents' requested identification (autism) and placement (regular class with resource assistance).

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, holding that under section 57(3) of the Education Act, the Tribunal only has jurisdiction to hear appeals regarding identification and placement, not programs and services, when the school board has agreed to the requested identification and placement.

The appellant filed an appeal with the Ontario Special Education Tribunal challenging the identification of her son's exceptionalities.

The respondent school board argued the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction because the appellant had not exhausted her rights of appeal, as no Special Education Appeal Board (SEAB) hearing had occurred.

The Tribunal found that the appellant had clearly requested an appeal and the respondent had failed to convene a SEAB in a timely manner, instead attempting to substitute a series of follow-up IPRC meetings.

The Tribunal assumed jurisdiction, holding that a school board cannot deny parents their due process rights by failing to establish a SEAB.

The appellants appealed their child's special education placement to the Ontario Special Education (English) Tribunal.

In this interim decision, the Tribunal addressed three preliminary issues.

First, the parties agreed on a process for disclosing the child's Ontario Student Record to the respondent.

Second, the Tribunal dismissed the appellants' allegation that the respondent's counsel had a conflict of interest, finding no evidence that the appellant was a client of the counsel's firm or that the bright line rule was breached.

Third, the Tribunal dismissed the appellants' claim that the respondent had an unfair advantage through access to unpublished decisions, noting that all Tribunal decisions are public and confidential settlements cannot be relied upon.

The appellant requested that the Tribunal reopen its file regarding a previous decision, claiming he had not received correspondence indicating the file would be closed.

The school board opposed the request, noting that an IPRC had already confirmed the student's identification and placement in accordance with the Tribunal's prior orders.

The Tribunal found that the additional issues raised by the appellant were unrelated to the implementation of its previous orders and that it lacked jurisdiction to address them.

The request to reopen the file was dismissed.

The appellants requested that the Tribunal no longer remain seized of the appeal regarding the implementation of its previous orders concerning their child's special education placement and assessment.

The respondent school board opposed the request, noting the appellants had not permitted the ordered psycho-educational assessment and the student was not attending school.

The Tribunal granted the appellants' request and closed its file, finding that its orders remain final and binding but it has no further jurisdiction to compel the student's attendance at school, which is a process governed by the Education Act outside the Tribunal's role.

The appellants and the respondent school board both requested that the Ontario Special Education (English) Tribunal remain seized of an appeal regarding a student's special education placement and programming.

The Tribunal had previously ordered the board to provide gifted programming and accommodations for the student's learning disability.

After reviewing the parties' submissions and the board's compliance with previous orders, the Tribunal found no ongoing issues requiring its continued involvement.

The Tribunal noted that it cannot undertake a facilitating or supervisory role and closed the file.

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 student with dual exceptionalities (Giftedness and Learning Disability - Dyslexia) appealed to the Tribunal, alleging that the Halton Catholic District School Board failed to implement the Tribunal's previous orders regarding the student's special education programming.

The Tribunal found that the board had not provided the required gifted programming and ordered the board to either provide an appropriate gifted program for Grade 12 or enter into an agreement to purchase such programming from another school board.

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

The student had been excluded from school since January 2010.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision to facilitate the student's return to school, granting the appeal of the specific exceptionality identification and dismissing the placement appeal at this time.

The Tribunal ordered the school board to arrange a full psycho-educational assessment, convene an Identification Placement Review Committee meeting, and arrange an interim self-contained special education class placement.

The parents of a student with a dual exceptionality (Communication – Learning Disability and Intellectual – Giftedness) alleged that the school board failed to implement the Tribunal's previous orders regarding the student's special education placement and programming.

The Tribunal found that the school board had accepted and implemented four of the five orders, as the student's exceptionality and exemptions were accurately recorded in the Individual Education Plan.

However, the Tribunal noted that the programming and accommodations offered to meet the student's gifted identification did not fully reflect its recommendations.

The Tribunal upheld its previous decision and declined to issue additional orders, urging the parties to focus on the student's best interests.

The parents of a 15-year-old student appealed the school board's decisions regarding the student's special education identification and placement.

The parents sought to have the term 'dyslexia' included in the student's identification of Communication – Learning Disability and Intellectual – Giftedness, and requested a placement of Regular Classroom with Withdrawal Assistance with intensive one-to-one remedial programming.

The school board argued for Regular Class with Resource Support and a focus on compensatory strategies rather than remediation.

The Tribunal granted the appeal, ordering that the identification include 'Dyslexia' and that the placement be Regular Class with Withdrawal Assistance.

However, the Tribunal agreed with the school board's expert witnesses that the student was beyond the developmental stage for intensive remediation and ordered that programming focus on accommodations, compensatory strategies, and enrichment for the student's giftedness.

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 appellant appealed the identification and placement of her child to the Ontario Special Education (English) Tribunal after abandoning the Special Education Appeal Board (SEAB) process.

The Toronto District School Board challenged the Tribunal's jurisdiction on the basis that the appellant had not exhausted all rights of appeal as required by section 57(3) of the Education Act.

The Tribunal found that the appellant prematurely abandoned the SEAB process on the advice of her advocate.

Consequently, the Tribunal concluded it lacked jurisdiction to hear the merits of the case because the statutory prerequisite of exhausting all appeal rights had not been met.

The parent of a child identified as an exceptional pupil appealed the child's special education placement to the Ontario Special Education (English) Tribunal.

The school board brought a motion to dismiss the appeal on the basis that the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction.

The Tribunal found that the parent was not actually dissatisfied with the placement decision of 'Regular Class with Withdrawal Assistance', but rather with the specific programming, services, and accommodations provided within that placement.

Because the Tribunal's jurisdiction under section 57(3) of the Education Act is limited to appeals regarding identification and placement, and does not extend to programming details, the Tribunal concluded it lacked jurisdiction and dismissed the appeal.

The appellant brought a series of preliminary motions at the outset of an appeal regarding her child's special education placement.

In one motion, she requested that the Tribunal order the respondent school board to provide legal counsel for her child.

The Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding that it lacked the jurisdiction to order the school board to provide legal representation for the child.

Reasons for the decision were to be released at a later date.