The following are examples of actual CAP cases. Names have been changed to maintain confidentiality.

Case 1: Human Rights Complaint

A child reported to her mother that a classmate named Dylan, was being tied to a chair with a skipping rope by the teacher in class (the child was found imitating the behaviour with her doll). The mother complained to the Principal of the school who refused to address the issue and insinuated the parent complicit in the behaviour. The parent contacted Children's Aid Society. Dylan's mother was unaware of (let alone complicit in) the teacher's actions.The teacherlater admitted to the actions saying the child was misbehaving. Following CAS involvement, the teacher was suspended and a school board investigation launched. A settlement was discussedwith themother requesting that the teacher be terminated, that her child receive paid counseling, and that counseling be provided to the entire class. In the end, settlement demands were not met and the teacher was returned to work.The school advised the family tochange schools.CAP will be assisting the family with preparation of a complaint to the Ontario Human Rights Commission.

Case 2: Special Education Identification

Eight-year old Jeremy is autistic and suffers from seizures. Jeremy receives daily withdrawal support by an Educational Assistant (EA) in his school. Since Kindergarten, the school and Jeremy's parents have communicated daily regarding regarding his medical condition and behaviour.The EA who had been providing the updates to Jeremy's parents suddenly complained to her union and was advised that she was not required to provide daily communications. Jeremy's parents suggested alternative modes of communication, none of which was implemented. They believed stopping ongoing communication could jeopardize their son's medical management, and requested CAP legal assistance to advocate for some form of ongoing communication with the school.

Case 3: Special Education Identification

Jennifer is a four-year old student with Down Syndrome who was placed in a regular Kindergarten classroom forone hour a day. At Jennifer's IPRC meeting, her parents advised the panel that they would like their daughter to attend the class for the full half-day session. The IPRC panel agreed. Jennifer'sparents were then contacted by the school to attend another meeting where they were advised by the Principal that their daughter had some behavioural issues and was disruptive in class. The Principal strongly suggested that because of these issues Jennifer be placed in a diagnostic class the following year. However, her parents were surprised that their daughter's behaviour had not been mentioned at the IPRC meeting and made it clear that they did not want her placement changed. They felt that ongoing EA support would assist Jennifer with any behavioural problems she was having. The Principal agreed that a regular class with an EA would be the best placement for Jennifer but, due to a lack of funds, would be unableto accommodate her with this arrangement. Jennifer's parents maintained their daughter's entitlement to these services and requested the assistance of a CAP lawyer to advocate on their daughter's behalf.

Case 4: Special Education Identification and Human Rights Complaint

Melissa is eight years old and identified as exceptional with both physical (cerebral palsy) and learning disabilities. At Melissa's most recent IPRC, it was agreed that her IEP would provide for 255 minutes each week with an EA. In reality, this allocation provided Melissa with little more than an escort to the washroom twice daily, leaving little room for academic support. The school recommended a special class but her family did not believe this to be an acceptable placement.The family feltthe school to be extremely uncooperative and unwilling to make even the most basic accommodations for Melissa. CAP assisted the family in filing a human rights complaint. An Ontario Human Rights Commission mediation resulted in an agreement with the school board that addressed the family's concerns.

Case 5: Suspension/Expulsion

Matthew is a 15-year old boy who was the victim of ongoing bullying at school by several classmates. Matthew wrote out a list of the perpetrators' names with the title "Death Wish List." The list was discovered at school and Matthew received a 20-day suspension. While suspendedMatthew underwent a psychological assessment that concluded he had no intention of causing harm to any of the students on the list and that the list was a means of coping with the bullying he had been forced to endure. The family felt the school did very little to stop the bullying taking place on school property despite the "zero tolerance" approach in place. A school hearingwas held to decide whether Matthew's 20-day suspension should lead to a full expulsion. Matthew's family came to CAP seeking legal representation for Matthew at the hearing.The decision made by the board was to allow Matthew to return to school. Efforts are still ongoing to expunge the 20-day suspension from Matthew's official school record.

Case 6: Special Education Identification

Robert is a 20-year old high school student with severe quadriplegic cerebral palsy. Robert's IEPhad been very effective for six years and the family was satisfied with his placement, which included an excellent relationship with his educational assistant. Thanks to this EA's thorough understanding of Robert's medical, communication and physical safety issues, Robert's parents agreed to forego a full-time one-on-one nurse for their son.Recently, the school suddenly and unilaterally decided to move Robert to another placement.When Robert's family complained to the school, they felt the Principal retaliated by threatening to remove his EA permanently. When Robert's mother subsequently made another complaint his cafeteria privileges were revoked. Robert's mother feared that communicating her concerns to the school directly would result in the loss of his EA. She came to CAP for assistance in advocating for her son and getting his placement changed.