CRIMINAL INJURIES COMPENSATION BOARD
Adjudicators: Keith Forde
Kevin Cleghorn
Indexed as: (Re) 1403-95155
SECTION 10 REVIEW ORDER
Introduction
1The Applicant has requested a review of the Order denying his request to the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board (CICB) for a Section 25 variation, on November 14, 2018, in accordance with Section 10(1) of the Compensation for Victims of Crime Act, RSO 1990 c.24, as amended, (CVCA).
2The relevant portions of section 10 read as follows:
10 (1) Where an application is heard by a single member of the CICB under section 9, the Applicant or the Minister may, within fifteen days after service of the decision of the member, require a hearing and review by the CICB and the CICB 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 CICB shall be exercised by at least two members of the CICB and the member whose decision is being reviewed shall not sit on the review.
(4) After a hearing and review by the CICB under this section, the CICB shall make its order in accordance with this Act and its order supersedes the order of a 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:
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 sole issue before the panel is whether the CICB’s decision dated November 14, 2018, denying the Applicant’s request for an additional $10,000.00 to cover further dental expenses was an error in law or an improper exercise of discretion. It is noted, however, that despite the applicant’s request for an additional $10,000.00 for dental expenses, his dentist advises that the sum required to complete his dental work is $3,416.00.
Applicant’s Evidence for Review
5In the Request to Review, the Applicant asked the CICB to review the Single Member’s decision and award him the additional sum of $10,000.00 for further dental expenses. The Applicant maintains that serious issues with his teeth remain to be resolved. The Applicant links the need for such dental work to the assault he endured on […].
6In his dental report of October 5, 2018, the Applicant’s dentist states that the additional work involves “Removal of broken bridge 14-17. Implant placement in 14 and 17 areas with sinus lift and grafting. For implants temp removable appliance (denture). Final appliance fixed bridge placement from 14-17 with a periodontal splint.” The Applicant’s dentist advises that the sum required to complete his dental work is $3,416.00. The report was available and considered by the single member. No further dental reports or additional evidence of any nature was provided by the Applicant for this Section 10 review.
Summary of Previous Decisions
7The Applicant originally applied to the CICB for compensation relating to a single incident of assault which occurred in [..]. The CICB found that the Applicant was a victim of a crime of violence and awarded him compensation in the amount of $5,000.00 for pain and suffering, $915.00 for dental expenses and $50.00 for a medical report by Order dated February 22, 2016.
8On one previous occasion, the Applicant made a request for a Section 25 variation of the original order. He received an additional $10,000.00 as a contribution to his dental expenses by order dated August 12, 2016. The contribution was limited to $10,000.00 despite an over-all request for the amount of $20,425.00 for additional dental expenses. The Applicant has now incurred further dental expenses which he attributes to the assault which occurred in 2013.
9On August 29, 2018, the Applicant sent in a request to further vary the Order dated February 22, 2016 requesting the additional sum of $10,000.00 for dental expenses. As previously noted, the Applicant’s dentist indicated the additional amount needed to complete the work totals $3,416.00. This was denied and is the subject of this review.
10The Applicant provided the same details to the CICB about the basis for his request to vary the order dated February 22, 2016. There was no new evidence submitted in support of his request for variation in the course of this Section 10 review.
Analysis and Decision
11The Order denying the most recent variation will not be interfered with unless the Applicant demonstrates a failure of the Single Member to properly exercise his discretion or there is an error in law.
12The Review Panel reviewed and considered all of the documents in the Applicant’s CICB file, including the report which the Single Member referred to and which he relied on in denying the claim for additional dental expenses.
13The Denial Order considered the dental report and the totality of the compensation received by the Applicant to date (a total of $15,964.00). This request for variation arises approximately five years after the incident of assault for which the Applicant was first compensated in February of 2016. The Single Member notes that an applicant, generally speaking, is entitled to some compensation but not necessarily to be made whole in all respects following a crime or crimes of violence inflicted upon him. In particular, the Single Member states that the decision to award the additional amount of $10,000.00 on the first Section 25 variation was made notwithstanding the estimate of $20,425.00 for dental work recommended to the Applicant by his dentist. The Single Member suggests that while the cost of the dental work may have changed, the injuries that arose from the incident of assault have not. He also notes that the Applicant had pre-existing issues with his dental condition prior to the crime of violence in August of 2013.
14In the CICB’s view, the Single Member did not neglect any evidence that he ought to have considered. While the award may not have been sufficient to cover all of the dental costs claimed, as the Single Member’s decision indicates, an Applicant is not necessarily entitled to be made completely whole. The decision to deny the variation is not an error in law nor is it an unreasonable exercise of his discretion.
15Accordingly, the Review Hearing panel finds no reason to disturb the findings in the decision of the Single Member and the application for additional dental expenses is therefore denied. The February 22, 2016 Order, as varied by the Order dated August 12, 2016, remains in effect.
DATED at Toronto this 28th day of February 2019.
________________________________
Keith Forde, Member
________________________________
Kevin Cleghorn, Member