the term “inclusive education” represents much more than mere placement as to
where the child is accessing education services. In a Report titled “Special
Education Transformation”, the authors Dr. Sheila Bennett, and the Honourable
Kathleen Wynne, then Parliamentary Assistant to the Minister of Education
(currently Ontario’s Premier) underscore the importance of applying a variety of
practices in the regular classroom such as differentiated instruction and universal
design in supporting all learners of all abilities. Although the authors state that the
typical or regular class is the starting point, they recommend that if other
placement options are required for a particular student outside of the regular
class, that such placements be “duration-specific” and “intervention focused” and
that such placements are “subject to regular reviews”.^64 Regulation^65 provides
that a regular class placement is the starting consideration when conducting
placement decision-making in Ontario.^66
The Supreme Court of Canada in its seminal decision in Eaton v Brant County
Board of Education^67 underscored the importance of “integration” notwithstanding
its decision on the merits. The Court disagreed with Justice Arbour’s Court of
Appeal Decision^68 and found that there is no legal presumption to inclusion. In
the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Moore v. British Columbia (Education),^69
Justice Abella articulated the need to ensure that all students are provided
meaningful access to education. Jurisprudence from the Special Education
Tribunal acknowledges the importance for students to be with their age-
appropriate peers within their communities.^70
(^64) Dr. Sheila Bennett & Kathleen Wynne, Special Education Transformation: The Report of the
Co-Chairs with the Recommendations of the Working Table on Special Education, (Toronto:
Ontario Ministry of Education, 2006) at 8. 65
66 IPRC Reg., supra note 9, s 17.^
But see Kozak v Toronto District School Board, 2010 ONSC 2588 (Ont Div Ct),
67 the Ontario Divisional Court applied a limiting interpretation of section 17.
68 [1997] 1 SCR 241 [Eaton].
69 Eaton v Brant County Board of Education^ 22 OR (3d) 1; 123 DLR (4th) 43 (ON CA).^
70 2012 SCC 61, [2012] 3 S.C.R. 360 [Moore].
See e.g. Ms. I. v The Toronto District School Board, OSET (English) File #46c at 17, but the
OSET did not order a fully inclusive placement. The OSET’s Decision was upheld by the Ontario
Divisional Court in Ismail v. Toronto District School Board, 2006 CanLII 20687 (ON SCDC).