This script is based on Eaton v. Brant Board of Education. This photostory portrays a general focus of the case and is not intended as a full account. For an actual account of the decision, read Eaton v. Brant Board of Education, [1997] 1 S.C.R. 241. 142 D.L.R. (4th) 385 found at the Resources tab.
Eaton v. Brant Board of Education
In seeking the best educational opportunities for their children, parents often need to advocate on their children's behalf.
This was the circumstance faced by Emily Eaton, who was born with Cerebral Palsy. Due to her condition, she could walk short distances supported with a walker, but usually relied on a wheelchair. In addition, she could not speak, nor communicate through any other mode, and thus, without knowledge of Emily's actual wishes, it was necessary for her parents to make decisions on her behalf.
At the end of grade 1, after having spent 3 years in a regular classroom with a full-time educational assistant, the school board believed that Emily had not made significant progress towards being able to communicate.
“Emily's communication needs require more intensive instruction than can be provided in her current classroom.”
The school board also had a number of other concerns regarding Emily's safety and social interaction within the classroom.
“The regular class is just too dangerous for Emily”
“Emily's learning program is so modified it is actually isolating more than integrating her with her peers.”
“There is little if any, social interaction between Emily and her peers in the regular class.”
These reasons led the Identification Placement and Review Committee (IPRC) of Emily's school board to decide that a special education class would be in her best interests. Such a setting, the IPRC argued, would be a safe environment where Emily could receive the type of intensive instruction needed to learn how to communicate, while still being able to integrate with peers through regularly shared activities with regular classes within the school.
Emily's parents were strongly opposed to the IPRC decision, believing that placing her in a special education class away from her neighbourhood school would prevent her from being able to integrate with her community later in life.
Her father, Clayton Eaton, said: “"I think our community includes [Emily's] neighbourhood school. And the people who live in our community, the children that she will grow up with and [who] will be part of her community when she's an adult, go to that school. They need to have an understanding of Emily, they need to know Emily, they need to be integrated with Emily now... We can't bring her back at the end of her school career and plug her into that community. She has to be there now and grow up with those children and those children have to grow up with her..."
After several unsuccessful challenges to the IPRC decision, Emily's parents brought the case before the Ontario Court of Justice and later the Ontario Court of Appeal, where they finally received the ruling they had hoped for.
The Ontario Court of Appeal set aside the earlier IPRC decision stating that Emily's placement in a special education class amounted to discrimination under s.15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. According to the Court, not only did the special education placement make a distinction based on Emily's disability, that distinction placed a burden on Emily because of the value that society places on the integration of disabled persons into the mainstream. The Court of Appeal also instructed that, without parental consent to a special education placement, school boards must provide placements that are “least exclusionary from the mainstream and still reasonably capable of meeting the child's special needs.”
This was an important victory for Emily's parents, but the inclusion debate about her educational placement was not to end there. Guided by a an analysis of Emily's unique circumstances, the school board genuinely believed that Emily would have a better chance of learning to communicate in a special education class, and thus appealed the decision in the Supreme Court of Canada.
At the centre of the Supreme Court ruling was whether a special education class, rather than a regular class, would be in Emily's best interests.
In answering this question the Supreme Court referred to idea of the “difference dilemma” with respect to disability. The difference dilemma was that the benefit or harm of an integrated setting can vary greatly from one person to the next depending on their particular circumstances.
Acknowledging that Emily's best interests must be considered from her point of view, and not necessarily from that of her parents, the Supreme Court concluded that a special education placement would be the best way for Emily to achieve an equal opportunity in education. According to the Court, although the decision to place Emily in a special education class was a distinction based on her disability, that decision did not amount to discrimination under s.15 of the Charter because it resulted from careful and thorough consideration of Emily's special interests, including her intellectual, academic, communication, emotional, social, physical and personal safety needs. Furthermore, as an Ontario student, Emily's special education program would be reviewed on an annual basis as required by special education legislation.
With such a significant impact on the way schools decide special education placements, the ruling was naturally met with mixed reactions. Was the Supreme Court correct in stating that distinctions based on disability do not always result in discrimination under s.15 of the Charter? In other words, is “discrimination” always a bad word? Are there situations in which discrimination can work positively?
Are special education placements a burden or benefit to students with special needs?
Should parents or school boards decide what is in the best interests of the child when considering educational placements? Who decides?
Despite all the opposing arguments in the inclusion debate, one fact remained unchallenged: the best interests of the child should be the deciding factor in all education placement considerations.
In following this directive, that is, upholding the best interests of the child, educators and decision making bodies must act within the spirit of the Charter, to protect the rights and freedoms of all students.
