Re 1904-01602, 2020 ONCICB 30

CRIMINAL INJURIES COMPENSATION BOARD

Adjudicator: Guy Savoie Date: December 1, 2020 Indexed as: (Re) 1904-01602

RECONSIDERATION DECISION

Introduction

1The Criminal Injuries Compensation Board (CICB) had scheduled this Application to be heard on April 21, 2020. At the electronic hearing, the Applicant advised the Member that he did not wish to proceed with this Application and was subsequently dismissed.

2The Applicant requests the CICB use its discretion to initiate a reconsideration of the Decision because he was not aware of consequences of his decision and requests that he be provided an opportunity to present his case.

3Rule 19.4 of the CICB’s Rules of Procedure provides that the CICB may initiate a reconsideration of a decision of a single member or a panel where it considers it advisable and appropriate to do so.

Decision

4I do not find it advisable or appropriate to initiate a reconsideration of the Decision dismissing the Application. My reasons follow below.

5On the day of the hearing, the Applicant failed to join the electronic hearing at the appointed time. As is the practice of the CICB, the CICB contacted Applicant to ascertain if he was running late, having difficultly connecting, etc. The Applicant’s father spoke with the CICB and the Applicant could be heard in the background. The Applicant’s father advised the CICB that the Applicant did not wish to participate in the hearing. The staff informed them that the Application would then be dismissed as abandoned if the Applicant did not participate. The father relayed the message to the Applicant who replied he understood. Shortly thereafter, the Applicant called the CICB to advise that he did not understand what would happen if he did not participate in the hearing.

6The Member explained the various options available to the Applicant if he did not want to participate in the scheduled hearing including an adjournment and the ramifications if he did not participate, including dismissal. After receiving the information, the Applicant advised the Member that he wanted his matter to be dismissed. The Decision dismissing the Application was issued on April 21, 2020.

7The Applicant now requests the CICB use its discretion to initiate a reconsideration of the Decision because he claims he was not aware of the consequences of the dismissal.

8In determining whether to grant or deny a reconsideration upon initiating the reconsideration process, the CICB must be satisfied that there are new facts or evidence that could potentially be determinative of the application and that could not reasonably have been obtained earlier, or 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 the decision is in conflict with established jurisprudence or CICB procedure and the proposed reconsideration involves a matter of general or public importance, or other factors exist that, in the opinion of the CICB, outweigh the public interest in the finality of CICB decisions.

9I am satisfied that the Applicant was made fully aware of the consequences of the dismissal including being barred from having this same matter heard in the future when he made the request. Even if he was not aware, this is not a sufficient basis for which a reconsideration should be initiated. Applicants have a responsibility to ensure that their applications are heard, and in this case, the Applicant did not even attend his hearing or reschedule the matter.

10There are no factors present that outweigh the public interest in the finality of the CICB's decisions.