Paul Howard

The applicant school board sought judicial review of a decision by the Child and Family Services Review Board that quashed the expulsion of a student for off-school marijuana use.

The Tribunal had found insufficient evidence of a nexus between the student's off-school activities and the school climate.

The Divisional Court exercised its discretion to hear the moot application, determined the standard of review was reasonableness, and upheld the Tribunal's decision, finding it reasonable and correct in its interpretation of the Education Act.

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 special education placement of her child, who was identified with autism.

The appellant brought several preliminary motions regarding procedural fairness, including requests for the Tribunal to order the school board or the Tribunal itself to provide legal counsel for the child, and to require the use of collaborative lawyers.

The school board brought a motion arguing the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal because the appellant had agreed with the Special Education Appeal Board's placement decision.

The Tribunal dismissed all of the appellant's motions, finding it lacked jurisdiction to order legal representation or dictate the choice of counsel.

The Tribunal upheld the school board's motion, concluding it had no jurisdiction to hear the merits of the appeal because the appellant had not demonstrated dissatisfaction with the placement decision as required by section 57(3) of the Education Act.

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.

During a remedy hearing following a finding of discrimination, counsel for the Ontario Human Rights Commission withdrew after reaching a settlement with the respondents that the complainant rejected.

The respondents argued that the Board of Inquiry lost jurisdiction to continue based on the Divisional Court's ruling in Tilberg.

The Board distinguished Tilberg, noting the Commission had carried the complaint through the liability phase and made a purposive decision to allow the complainant to seek greater compensation.

The Board ruled it retained jurisdiction and ordered the hearing to proceed, with Commission counsel agreeing to attend the remainder of the hearing.