CRIMINAL INJURIES COMPENSATION BOARD
Adjudicator: M. Saleem Akhtar Janet MacEachen
Indexed as: (Re) 1707-02410
SECTION 10 REVIEW
ORDER
Introduction
1The Applicant has requested a review of the Order issued on January 30, 2018 by a single Member of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board (CICB) in accordance with section 10(1) of the Compensation for Victims of Crime Act, RSO 1990, c. C.24, as amended (the “Act”).
2The relevant portions of section 10 of the Act read as follows:
(1) Where an application is heard by a single member of the Board under section 9, the applicant or the Minister may, within fifteen days after the service of the decision of the member, require a hearing and review by the Board and the Board shall fix a time and place for the hearing and shall at least ten days before the day fixed cause notice thereof to be served upon the parties to the proceeding.
(3) The hearing shall be conducted and the jurisdiction of the Board shall be exercised by at least two members of the Board and the member whose decision is being reviewed shall not sit on the review.
(4) After a hearing and review by the Board under this section, the Board shall make its order in accordance with this Act and its order supersedes the order of the single member made under section 9 that is the subject of the hearing and review.
3Rule 19.2 of CICB’s Rules of Procedure states that:
An applicant may request a review of the decision of a single member on the grounds that the decision contains a serious error of law or an unreasonable exercise of discretion.
Issue
4The Applicant is seeking additional compensation for pain and suffering from the Board. In his letter dated February 28, 2018, the Applicant requests a review of the single Member decision and adds
I feel that the medical findings overwhelmingly show that these injuries are a continuation of my original injury. I do not see any medical advice put forth or identified that would support the conclusion of being remote.
5This Panel must determine whether the Applicant’s concerns amount to a serious error of law or an unreasonable exercise of discretion.
Decision
6For the reasons set out below, the Panel denies the Review and upholds the decision made by the single Member on January 30, 2018.
Summary of the Previous Decisions
7On April 14, 1977 in the original Order, the Applicant was found to be a victim of a crime of violence, and was awarded $4,500.00 as compensation for pain and suffering for the injuries that he sustained as a result of an assault committed against him on [date], 1975.
8The Applicant filed a request for a variation of the original Order on July 26, 2017 under section 25 of the Act, requesting additional compensation for pain and suffering because, as per his claim, his injuries and general health had further deteriorated due to the original injuries that he had sustained on [date], 1975. In support of his claim, the Applicant submitted his Family Physician’s letter/report dated [date], 2018 advising that the Applicant developed severe osteoarthritis in the left knee to a point that knee replacement surgery was required.
9The single Member accepted the medical advice and was satisfied that the Original Panel while making the decision on April 14, 1977 could not and did not contemplate the need to surgically replace the left knee. Hence, the single Member allowed the variation request on January 30, 2018, and awarded the Applicant additional compensation for pain and suffering in the amount of $3,000.00.
10The single Member also considered the Applicant’s request with regards to the injuries that he claimed he sustained years after the left knee replacement surgery (right shoulder cuff, hip and right knee) and determined those injuries to be too remote to be directly tied to the original crime of violence. Hence, the Applicant’s request to vary the original order to provide him additional compensation for pain and suffering based on those injuries was denied.
Hearing
11The Review Hearing was conducted by a two Member Panel on May 2, 2018.
Applicant’s Oral Testimony:
12In his sworn oral testimony on May 2, 2018, the Applicant advised the CICB that, in the beginning, he did not realise the impact of the assault and that of its resultant injuries. He was too young to have understood the