Re 1708-02622, 2019 ONCICB 39

Criminal Injuries Compensation Board

Adjudicators: Pamela Arnott, Maija Laitinen

Date: March 11, 2019

Reference: (Re) 1708-02622

RECONSIDERATION DECISION

Introduction

1On April 19, 2017, the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board (CICB) dismissed this Application without a hearing pursuant to Rule 5 of the CICB’s Rules of Procedure. The CICB concluded that the facts alleged by the Applicant did not amount to a compensable “crime of violence” under section 5(a) of the Compensation for Victims of Crime Act, RSO 1990, c C24, as amended (CVCA).

2On May 24, 2018, the Applicant requested reconsideration of the CICB’s decision to dismiss. The reconsideration was conducted in writing by a new Panel on the basis of materials in the Applicant’s file.

Decision

3The Panel grants the request for reconsideration. Our reasons follow below.

Test for Reconsideration

4Rule 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.

5Reconsideration 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.

6The Applicant relies on Rule 19(c) in support of the request.

DECISION

7For the following reasons, the reconsideration is granted.

8The Applicant alleges that he was falsely accused of sexual assault by the Offender and imprisoned for three months. The Offender was ultimately convicted of public mischief contrary to section 140(1)(a) of the Criminal Code. The Applicant argues that public mischief can amount to a “crime of violence” under the CVCA. In the alternative, the Applicant argues that the Offender’s actions amount to criminal harassment and the incident is therefore compensable under the CVCA.

9Between the time that the Applicant filed his initial Application with the CICB and the Decision to dismiss, the CICB amended its Rules of Procedure. Former Rule 2.4(b) provided that an application could be dismissed if it “did not disclose a claim under the Act”. New Rule 5.1(d) provides that the CICB may issue a notice of intent to dismiss without hearing if “there is no reasonable prospect that compensation will be ordered.” By the operation of general principles of administrative law, the Applicant is entitled to the most favorable interpretation of these Rules.

10This Application was dismissed on a preliminary basis without a hearing. In light of the change in the Rules, the Applicant may not have had a full opportunity to be heard. This consideration outweighs the CICB's interest in the finality of its decisions.

11The CICB would benefit from hearing additional evidence to properly assess the merits of the Application. In particular, the CICB requires evidence of the circumstances leading up to the Offender’s false accusation as well as evidence about the Applicant’s arrest and incarceration.

12For these reasons, the CICB finds that it is necessary to conduct a fresh hearing on the merits of the Application. The CICB will issue a Notice of Hearing and will process this matter expeditiously.