Special Education M3: Catching up on "Ontario Legislation Pt.2"

Required Reading:
https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onset/
http://www.sjto.gov.on.ca/
You are to read a decision from either link above CANLII or the Social Justice Tribunal of Ontario (related to special education).
If you have never read a legal document before this can be quite confusing. Make sure you are not reading the “Supplementary Decision” but the full case.
Here is an example of one you can use that was posted in CANLII
https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onset/doc/2011/2011onset4/2011onset4.html

Module Task:

Choose a Special Education Tribunal Decision using one of the two sources above CANLII or the Social Justice Tribunal of Ontario.  It is strongly suggested that you look at the Decisions carefully before choosing. If you are in an elementary panel, you should chose a Decision related to elementary students. If you are in a rural area, you should find a Decision related to issues close or near to your board.   

•   Write a two-page summary of the decision.  Make sure to include the URL link to the decision in case one of your classmates wants to read the entire docket.
•   Outline and list the legislation or policies that are being contested.
•   Outline and summarize the major issues of the parents and the school board.
•   In your opinion, do you agree with the Tribunal’s decision?  What would you have done differently?  What suggestions do you have?

~ Post your summary
~ Read all posts made by your colleagues
~ Respond to at least TWO of your classmates' posts
_________________________________________________________________________________
https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onset/doc/2018/2018onset1/2018onset1.html

This case is a more recent case (2019), a parent disagreed with the exceptionality/learning difficulty that their child was said to have based on the school board's (TDSB) documentations. It seemed that this whole process was drawn out due to a lack there of effective communication in the end. Parents were able to provide their own documentations to prove otherwise/further discussion. The fact that the OSET (as represented by Eva Nichols) was willing to hear the appeal says that there is likely some important information that needs to be mediated as well as a process that needs to be rectified.

To begin I agree with the tribunal's decision because although "lazy" and "negligent" attitudes to a situation like this are overbearing and unwarranted, they seem fitting on some level. It is important to note that the tribunal is not mean't to be the father figure between two children; they are mediators and also the level playing field in which recognizes that sometimes a party may get their head full of steam and simply see red or be unwilling to cooperate with the other party due to some bias/misunderstanding. In this case, the appeal is being made because there was no follow up to the decision and the school board is making a parent nervous with their "inaction". At some point the school board respondent must think to themselves that it would be better off allowing this to be appealed and argued than admittedly "taking no further actions". I think that the respondent had not intended this going to OSET, and was hoping to solve it in house first. However on the wiser side of the table the appellant (parent) decided that this is not an acceptable means to and end "allowing it to fester and then settling when the tribunal is getting involved". When the tribunal takes a step back and corrects the processing of paperwork that parents are normally drowning within as a part of this process; and then direct that the respondent and parent resolve on their own basis says that the OSET doesn't seek to punish but rectify a system that may have weak links within it. The idea would be that the respondent reflects on the process set out for parents and faculty members in a way that will help them ask the question of "what can we do to avoid this in the future?".

In regards to background sec.11, it was stated that the respondent had not shared any disagreement or misunderstandings with the respondent. I believe this is what characterizes the purpose of the tribunal. This is where the whole process falls apart in regards to IPRC; and other situations that take place over email based communications with the general public/parents. Step 1: Decision is made; Step 2: agree or disagree with decision; Step 3: Resolve after a second hearing; Step 4: Move on. This is how effective the process could be. Although it is regularly a timely process because of the number of individuals involved-there needs to be case processing banks that allow invested parties to refer to (case managers/process banks). If not, there are situations like this where a parent will hire a representative and the representative understands the meaning of timely. In which case, timely here is what becomes the folly of this due process. If the school boards were transparent with parents at the beginning and allowed for immediate actions to be taken (yes, there might be more IPRC meetings/appeals) but it would stay relatively in house rather than moving on to OSET which sets a bit of a negative reputation for a respondent.

In summary, the parent met with the IPRC and disagreed with the decision on the identification of the respondents, but agree on the placement for the student. After email communications the appeal was not processed and was left unresolved. The appeal didn't move on to SEAB, therefore the process was directed by the appellant into the path of OSET. In the end OSET decides to have the appellant correctly fill in noted forms and then resolve the dispute immediately with the respondent which likely came down to adjusting the identification of the child's exceptionality.

This particular case is a recent one (which is why I chose it) that had parents appealing a decision made by the TDSB. It demonstrates the need for an indepth look at case by case scenarios in which the school board may feel one way but a parent may feel they know better. It seems that further documentation was required to provide an accurate decision on the exceptionalities of a student. This could be that the parent wanted to see the school board doing more/less based on the recommendation/decision that was made by the school board. It is important to note that the parents in all cases are being notified that they may appeal their case if they are dissatisfied with the decision of a school board because that is how our government works to appeal to the people, by allowing everyone to have a voice. This freedom is what essentially makes this the Canadian system.