Louise Charette

The applicant child applied to the Child and Family Services Review Board to review her emergency admission to a secure treatment program.

The respondent facility argued that the child's complex mental health issues, history of suicidal ideation, and pattern of evading the facility placed her at risk of serious bodily harm.

The Board found that the criteria for emergency admission under subsection 171(2) of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act were not met, as the evidence did not establish that the child posed a risk of serious bodily harm to herself or others as a result of her mental disorder at the time of admission.

The Board ordered the child's release.

The applicant, a 12-year-old child, applied to the Child and Family Services Review Board to review her emergency admission to a secure treatment program.

The respondent facility argued that the admission was justified due to the child's history of behavioural difficulties and threats of self-harm.

The Board found that the respondent failed to establish that the child had a mental disorder at the time of admission, as required by subsection 171(2) of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act.

The evidence provided was largely historical, hearsay, or from professionals who had not assessed the child at the time of admission.

Consequently, the Board granted the application and ordered the child's release.

The applicant father filed an application with the Child and Family Services Review Board against the respondent children's aid society, alleging he was not given an opportunity to be heard and was not provided reasons for decisions affecting his interests.

The respondent argued the Board lacked jurisdiction because the applicant was a referral source, not a service recipient, and the issues were already before the Family Court.

The Board agreed, finding the applicant did not receive a service under the Act and the substantive issues regarding his disclosure as a referral source were currently before the court.

The application was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

The appellant police officer appealed a hearing officer's decision finding him guilty of misconduct for allegedly making racist and sexually suggestive comments to a civilian employee during a ride-along.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission allowed the appeal and ordered a new hearing, finding that the hearing officer made fundamental errors in his credibility analysis.

Specifically, the hearing officer improperly shifted the burden of proof to the appellant by requiring him to explain why the complainant would fabricate the allegations, and unreasonably failed to consider the impact of subsequent friendly text messages between the parties on the complainant's credibility.

The Applicant applied to the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board for pain and suffering resulting from an assault.

The Applicant intervened to assist a store owner who was being assaulted and was kicked in the knee by the offender.

The Board found on a balance of probabilities that the Applicant was a victim of a crime of violence and sustained physical and psychological injuries.

The Board awarded the Applicant $2,000 for pain and suffering.

The Applicant sought compensation from the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board for pain and suffering resulting from four alleged crimes of violence committed by a fellow condominium tenant.

Following a reconsideration request by the Alleged Offender, a new hearing was held in writing.

The Board found on a balance of probabilities that the Applicant was a victim of assault and threats, despite the Alleged Offender's acquittal in criminal court.

The Board awarded $6,000 for pain and suffering based on the cumulative effect of the incidents.

The applicant sought compensation from the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board for psychological injuries sustained after a stray bullet entered her home during a dispute outside.

The Board found that the incident constituted careless use of a firearm under the Criminal Code, making the applicant eligible for compensation despite no suspect being identified or convicted.

The Board awarded $3,000 for pain and suffering, noting that some of the applicant's psychological issues were pre-existing, and denied additional funds for future therapy as previously awarded funds remained unused.

The applicant sought compensation from the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board for injuries allegedly sustained when an acquaintance entered her apartment, pushed her, and choked her.

The Board found that while a crime of violence occurred, the applicant failed to prove she suffered any physical or psychological injuries.

Furthermore, the Board held that even if injuries were proven, compensation would be denied under section 17 of the Compensation for Victims of Crime Act because the applicant's behavior contributed to the incident and she refused to cooperate with the police investigation.

The application was denied.

The applicant, an inmate serving a sentence for manslaughter, applied to the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board for compensation following an unprovoked assault by another inmate.

The Board found that the applicant was a victim of a crime of violence and sustained minor injuries.

However, applying section 17(1) of the Compensation for Victims of Crime Act, the Board considered the applicant's past criminal history, including convictions for violent crimes, as a relevant circumstance.

The Board concluded that the applicant's history of victimizing others outweighed her minor injuries and denied the claim for compensation out of public funds.

The applicant, a peace officer injured during a workplace assault, sought a review of a single member's decision awarding $5,000 for pain and suffering and denying medical expenses.

The applicant sought to introduce new medical evidence regarding a subsequent shoulder surgery.

The review panel found the new evidence did not meet the test for admission as it would not have an important influence on the result, noting the single member had already considered the likelihood of future surgery.

The panel upheld the pain and suffering award as reasonable and confirmed the denial of medical expenses due to a lack of documentation regarding WSIB coverage.

The original order was confirmed.

The Applicant sought a review of a single member's decision denying reimbursement for therapy expenses related to an assault.

The single member had denied the claim because the Applicant failed to provide receipts.

On review, the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board found that the therapy report provided sufficient evidence of the fees incurred and the Applicant's insurance coverage.

The Board concluded it was an unreasonable exercise of discretion to deny the expenses and awarded $640.00 for past and future therapy sessions.

The applicant requested a review of a single member's decision denying her request to vary a previous compensation award.

The applicant sought to convert $2,400 previously awarded for future counselling into a direct monetary award for pain and suffering, as she no longer wished to attend therapy.

The review panel found that the single member did not err in law or unreasonably exercise discretion in denying the request, noting that the funds were pre-authorized for the specific purpose of treatment and could not be converted into cash payments for other purposes.

The application was denied.

The applicant sought compensation from the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board for injuries sustained after being stabbed five times by an offender.

The Board found that while the applicant was a victim of a crime of violence, his own conduct—including engaging in a text message dispute, agreeing to a consensual fight, and arming himself—contributed to his injuries.

Furthermore, the Board considered the applicant's extensive criminal record for violent offences as a relevant circumstance under section 17(1) of the Compensation for Victims of Crime Act.

The application for compensation was denied.

The applicant, a youth worker at a group home, sought compensation after being physically assaulted by a resident who threw a bowling ball at her and kicked her in the head.

The Criminal Injuries Compensation Board found that the applicant was a victim of a crime of violence and that her injuries, including a concussion and psychological trauma, resulted from the incident.

The Board awarded $6,000 for pain and suffering, $450 for income loss, and additional amounts for expenses and future therapy.

The applicant sought compensation from the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board for physical and psychological injuries sustained during an unprovoked assault by her nephew, as well as for mental and nervous shock from witnessing her husband and daughter being assaulted.

The Board found that the applicant was a victim of a crime of violence and awarded $1,000 for pain and suffering, plus $600 for future counselling.

However, the Board dismissed the claim for mental and nervous shock, finding that her psychological disturbance did not rise to the level of a recognizable psychiatric illness.

The Applicant, a police officer, applied to the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board for compensation for injuries sustained while attempting to arrest a suspect.

The Board found the Applicant was a victim of a crime of violence and was injured while lawfully arresting an offender.

The Board awarded compensation for pain and suffering, expenses, scheduled overtime loss, and future massage therapy, but denied claims for general loss of income and loss of earning capacity at common law because the Applicant was receiving WSIB benefits and remained employed on modified duties.

The applicant sought a review of a single member's decision denying compensation under the Compensation for Victims of Crime Act for an eye injury caused by a paintball.

The original member found insufficient evidence that the injury resulted from an intentional assault rather than an accident.

The review panel held that a review hearing is not an opportunity to present new evidence or re-argue the case.

Finding no serious error of law or unreasonable exercise of discretion in the original decision, the panel dismissed the review and upheld the original order.

The applicant sought compensation from the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board for mental and nervous shock and wage loss after his sister-in-law was killed in a fire set by a young offender at a group home.

The applicant attended the hospital and witnessed the victim's injuries before she passed away.

The Board denied the claim, finding that the applicant did not meet the criteria for mental and nervous shock as he did not sustain a recognized psychiatric or psychological illness directly induced by the shock of the event.

The wage loss claim was also dismissed as the applicant confirmed he did not miss work.

The Applicant sought financial compensation from the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board for physical and psychological injuries sustained during an assault at his workplace.

The offender was convicted of assault causing bodily harm.

The Board found the Applicant was a victim of a crime of violence and awarded compensation for pain and suffering, loss of income, and various medical and treatment expenses, totaling $22,290.00.

The applicant sought compensation from the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board for physical and psychological injuries sustained after being stabbed.

While the Board found the applicant was a victim of a crime of violence, it denied compensation under section 17(1) of the Compensation for Victims of Crime Act.

The Board considered the applicant's extensive criminal record, which included numerous convictions for violent crimes and domestic violence, as a relevant circumstance that outweighed the injuries suffered.