formally identified by an IPRC, a student may nonetheless be found to have a
disability pursuant to the Code.
A. Jurisdiction and Role of HRTO
The HRTO clearly does have jurisdiction in matters related to accommodation
and discrimination with the education context, however, the Tribunal also found
that the OSET has exclusive jurisdiction in matters related to the identification
and placement of students.^125 Thus, careful consideration must be placed on
identifying the core issues when framing the case to ensure that the proper forum
is chosen and that appeal rights are preserved.
The HRTO described its role in education service cases as follows:
[71] The Human Rights Tribunal is not an alternative or substitute body to
monitor and regulate the special education scheme under the Education Act.
Generally the Tribunal will not second guess the IPRC placement and
recommended accommodations and will not supervise a school’s implementation
of an IEP. In order to establish discrimination under the Code, the evidence must
demonstrate that the accommodations provided were significantly inappropriate
or inadequate.
[72] Similarly, the Tribunal is not an alternative or appeal body from decisions
under the Safe Schools scheme under the Education Act. In order to establish
discrimination under the Code, the evidence must demonstrate that the school
failed to appreciate or accommodate the impact of the student’s learning
disabilities in assessing culpability or in choosing a penalty.^126
(^125) See Sigrist (Litigation guardian of) v. London District Catholic School Board, 2010 HRTO 1062
at paras 22 - 57; Schafer v. Toronto District School Board, 2009 HRTO 785 at paras 27 - 40 ;
Campbell v. Toronto District School Board, 126 2008 HRTO 62 at paras 28 - 70.
Schafer v Toronto District School Board, 2010 HRTO 403, at paras 71, 72.