(Re) 1707-02288, 2018 ONCICB 19

CRIMINAL INJURIES COMPENSATION BOARD

Adjudicator: Jo-Anne Hughes

Date: April 03, 2018

Indexed as: (Re) 1707-02288

ORDER

Introduction

1The Applicant asks the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board (CICB) to compensate him for injuries resulting from a crime of violence which occurred while he was working as a court security officer on [date], 2016, in accordance with the Compensation for Victims of Crime Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.24, as amended (the “Act”).

Issue

2In this case, the CICB is required to determine whether a crime of violence has occurred as per section 5(a) of the Act; what injury, if any, rose from it; and the relevant circumstances affecting whether or not compensation should be awarded and if so, the amount.

Evidence

Incident

3In his submission to the CICB, the Applicant wrote that while working as a uniformed special constable at a courthouse where he was moving prisoners into a transportation van and incident occurred. After he put the last prisoner (the Offender) into the van and closed the door, the Offender spat through the door’s vent hole into the Applicant’s face.

Police Report

4The CICB received a Police Report which confirmed the incident as described by the Applicant. Police noted that the Offender’s spittle hit the Applicant’s glasses, forehead and left arm. Also, this Report noted that two other constables were on the scene to witness this incident. As a result, the Offender was charged and convicted of assault peace officer and sentenced to jail time.

Injuries

5In his submission to the CICB, the Applicant wrote that as a result of this incident he felt psychologically injured, feeling revolted, unclean and he was concerned about how his family felt about this incident. In sworn testimony in the hearing, the Applicant said that he did not seek any treatment for his injuries and as a result, he had no medical documentation to support his injury claim. He said he thinks about the incident often, he could still feel the spittle on his face and now he is hyper-vigilant towards the client base that he works with in the courthouse. As soon as the incident occurred, the Applicant became worried about the possibility of contracting a communicable disease but within a short time he learned this was no longer a concern for him.

Analysis and Decision

6Section 11 of the Act states that proof of conviction shall be taken as conclusive evidence that the offence has been committed. While, the CICB finds that the offence of assault peace officer was committed within the meaning of section 5(a) of the Act, the CICB must also have sufficient credible evidence to establish that an injury amounting to bodily harm was suffered as a direct result of that crime in order to award compensation.

7In this case, the CICB is not disputing that the Applicant was negatively affected by this incident. Although, the Applicant was fearful of having contracted a communicable disease, the Applicant learned shortly after the incident that the Offender did not have any communicable disease and as such, the Applicant did not require medical attention. Additionally, the CICB notes that fear of possibly contracting a communicable disease is not a compensable injury under the Act.

8Given that the Applicant suffered no physical injury and that he did not provide any medical documentation to support his psychological injury claims, the CICB finds, on a balance of probabilities, that his injuries were minor and transient in nature and therefore do not warrant compensation as they do not amount to bodily harm. The Applicant’s claim is therefore denied.