CRIMINAL INJURIES COMPENSATION BOARD
Adjudicators: Christie Jefferson and Veda Rangan
Indexed as: (Re) 1509-00706
RECONSIDERATION DECISION
Introduction
1The Criminal Injuries Compensation Board (CICB) heard this Application and issued its Decision on June 4, 2018. The Applicant requested reconsideration of the Decision.
2The reconsideration was conducted in writing based on the materials in the file.
Decision
3The CICB denies the reconsideration. Our reasons follow below.
Test for Reconsideration
4Rule 19.3 states
Any party may make a written request for reconsideration of a final decision made by a panel of two or more members in writing 30 days from the date of the decision.
A request for reconsideration filed more than 30 days after the date of the decision must provide reasons for the delay.
5Rule 19.3 provides the CICB with the discretion to reconsider its decisions where it is satisfied that:
a. There are new facts or evidence that could potentially be determinative of the application and that could not reasonably have been obtained earlier; or
b. The party seeking reconsideration was entitled to but, through no fault of its own, did not receive notice of the proceeding or a hearing; or
c. The decision is in conflict with established jurisprudence or CICB procedure and the proposed reconsideration involves a matter of general or public importance; or
d. Other factors exist that, in the opinion of the CICB, outweigh the public interest in the finality of CICB decisions.
6Reconsideration is a discretionary remedy; there is no right to have a decision reconsidered. Reconsideration is not an appeal or an opportunity for a party to repair deficiencies in the presentation of its case. The CICB's decisions are final and are subject to appeal only on questions of law. Therefore, the CICB will only reconsider a decision where it is satisfied the tests in Rule 19.3 are met and where these circumstances outweigh the public interest in finality of orders and decisions.
Request Denied
7The Decision was issued on June 4, 2018 and the Request for Reconsideration was filed on January 22, 2019, well beyond the 30 day period following the date of the Decision. The Applicant relies on Rule 19.3(a).
Timeliness of Request
8The Fact Sheet mailed with the Decision informed the Applicant that she could seek reconsideration or appeal the Decision if she disagreed with the result. The Fact Sheet made clear that she must do this within 30 days.
9On November 26, 2018 the CICB received a letter, dated June 5, 2018, from the Applicant. In that letter, the Applicant indicated that she would like to appeal the Decision.
10The CICB responded to the Applicant by letter dated November 28, 2018 reminding her that she could either seek reconsideration or appeal the Decision. She was also advised that, if she sought reconsideration, she would have to provide reasons why her request was being made after the 30 day time period had passed.
11The Applicant responded on December 10, 2018 stating:
About my letter dated June 5, 2018 & being received November 26, 2018, I can’t explain. It is possible that maybe there is a backlog of letters? (I don’t mean to sound rude but I’ve wondering maybe your short-staffed). 5 months is a long time. Maybe it got caught in the filing system? Different city? Wrong address? I remember reading at the courthouse about the 30 day response period. I believe one of the officers even gave me a pamphlet.
12In her Request for Reconsideration, the Applicant writes :
I did mail my request 6 months earlier!!! I live in an apt complex which houses over 250 people. Our mailbox is right outside the building. There is a lot of mail. There was also a mail strike going on at the time. I’m guessing it obviously got lost somewhere, somehow. It isn’t/wasn’t my fault.
13The Request for Reconsideration was not received by the CICB until seven months after the Decision was issued. That is a significant delay.
14We acknowledge the Applicant was not represented at the hearing, and as such, we will consider the fact that her initial letter disagreeing with the Decision was received on November 26, 2018 five months after the Decision was issued. This is still a significant delay.
15We do not find that the Applicant has provided a credible explanation for the delay, nor do we find that the delay was incurred in good faith. The Fact Sheet attached to the Decision provided the Applicant with instructions along with a specific mailing address for the CICB and clearly set out the time for making the Request. The Applicant did not take any steps to contact the CICB between June 5 and November 26 if she was concerned about a mail strike or receipt.
16However, even if the Request for Reconsideration had been made in a timely manner, we would still deny the Reconsideration as we are not satisfied that the Request presents any new evidence that meets the requirements of Rule 19.3(a). She simply repeats information that was already provided in the original Application. A reconsideration is not an opportunity to reargue the original case.
17Further, we do not find that there are any factors present that outweigh the public interest in the finality of the CICB's decisions.
18For these reasons the request is denied and the original Decision is confirmed
Dated at Toronto on March 4, 2019
_______________________________
Christie Jefferson, Vice Chair
_______________________________
Veda Rangan, Member