Christine McGoey

The applicant sought compensation from the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board for injuries sustained during a physical altercation over a parking dispute.

The Board found significant inconsistencies in the applicant's evidence regarding the sequence of events, including when he pushed and bear-hugged the alleged offender.

The Board concluded that the applicant failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that the alleged offender was not acting in lawful self-defence when he punched the applicant.

Furthermore, the Board held that the applicant's own behaviour contributed to his injuries, warranting a denial of compensation under s. 17(1) of the Compensation for Victims of Crime Act.

The Applicant sought compensation from the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board for injuries sustained during a physical altercation with the Alleged Offender over a parking dispute.

The Applicant gave inconsistent accounts of the incident, but evidence indicated he initiated physical contact by pushing and bear-hugging the Alleged Offender.

The Board found the Applicant failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that the Alleged Offender was not acting in lawful self-defence when he punched the Applicant.

Furthermore, the Board held that even if self-defence did not apply, compensation would be denied under section 17(1) of the CVCA because the Applicant's behaviour directly contributed to his injuries.

The applicant sought a review of a previous Criminal Injuries Compensation Board order that awarded monthly periodic payments for medical marijuana.

The applicant requested to cancel the periodic award in exchange for a lump sum payment of $5,000 for pain and suffering.

Based on new medical evidence indicating the applicant's chronic pain is permanent, the Board found a change in circumstances justifying the variation.

The Board cancelled the periodic payments and awarded the requested $5,000 lump sum, bringing the applicant to the maximum amount payable for a single incident.

The applicant applied to the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board for compensation for nervous shock, future counseling, and loss of income following the murder of his sister.

The applicant attended the scene shortly after the murder and subsequently took custody of his traumatized niece.

The Board found that the applicant suffered nervous shock due to the relational and locational proximity to the crime.

The Board awarded $7,000 for pain and suffering, $2,000 for income loss, and $2,400 for future counseling.

The applicant sought compensation from the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board for the support of her minor grandchild, whose father was killed in a homicide.

The applicant had been awarded full custody of the child.

The Board found that the deceased died as a result of a crime of violence and that his behavior did not contribute to his death.

The Board granted the application, awarding $500.71 per month for dependency expenses, along with retroactive payments, after deducting the federal child tax credit.

The applicant requested a review of a single member's decision denying a variation of a 2005 compensation award for pain and suffering.

The applicant sought additional compensation based on new medical evidence regarding a 1998 incident where she was struck in the head by a frozen object.

The review panel found that the single member appropriately exercised his discretion in concluding that the applicant's ongoing symptoms were not solely tied to the 1998 incident, noting subsequent injuries and other life events.

The request for review was denied and the original decision was confirmed.

The applicant requested a review of a single member's decision refusing to vary an original compensation order to cover the cost of prescribed medical marijuana.

The applicant suffered from PTSD following the murder of his father and testified that medical marijuana significantly reduced his symptoms, allowing him to stop taking other medication.

The review panel found that the denial of the variation request was unreasonable, given the contemplated need for future treatment in the original order and the demonstrated benefits of the new treatment.

The panel authorized a six-month supply of medical marijuana at a maximum cost of $960.

The Applicant, a police officer, applied to the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board for compensation for injuries sustained during a lawful arrest.

The Applicant injured his dominant hand while struggling with an individual who was resisting arrest for trespassing.

The Board found that the Applicant was a victim of a crime of violence and awarded $2,000 for pain and suffering and $2,000 for loss of income.

The applicant requested a review of a single member's decision which ordered the continuation of periodic payments but noted that the statutory maximum award of $365,000 would be reached in February 2023, after which no further payments would be made.

The applicant, who suffered severe permanent injuries from a violent attack and is unable to work, argued he would be left destitute.

The panel confirmed the original decision, finding no serious error of law or unreasonable exercise of discretion, as section 19(2) of the Compensation for Victims of Crime Act strictly limits total periodic payments to $365,000 per occurrence.

The Applicant sought to vary a previous decision of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board that awarded compensation for injuries resulting from a crime of violence.

The Applicant required a second surgery and incurred further travel expenses for treatment.

The Board found that the complications and additional treatments constituted a change in circumstances under section 25 of the Compensation for Victims of Crime Act.

The Board varied the original award, increasing the contribution for travel to treatment from $400.00 to $1,000.00, resulting in a total current award of $11,388.09.

The applicant sought compensation from the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board for psychological injuries and income loss after witnessing the drive-by shooting murder of a friend and neighbor.

The applicant administered CPR to the victim, who died at the scene.

The Board found that the applicant suffered nervous shock and psychological injuries from witnessing the crime and coming to the victim's immediate aid.

The Board awarded $7,000 for pain and suffering, $200 for income loss, and pre-authorized $1,200 for future counseling.

The Applicant sought compensation from the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board following the homicide of his sister.

The Applicant incurred expenses for her funeral, took an unpaid bereavement leave, and liquidated investments and took out loans to cover the mortgage and taxes on the deceased's properties while she was missing and before her estate could be administered.

The Board granted the application, awarding compensation for funeral costs, future counselling, lost income during bereavement leave, and interest on the loans required to carry the properties, totalling $4,696.82.

The Criminal Injuries Compensation Board conducted a review of the applicant's monthly periodic payments, which were awarded following the murder of her husband.

The Board considered the applicant's current financial situation, including her employment status, her sons' financial contributions, and her investment income.

The Board concluded that there was no change in circumstances requiring a variation of the order and directed that the monthly payments of $706.66 continue, subject to a future review.

The Applicant sought financial compensation from the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board for physical and psychological injuries sustained during multiple assaults by three offenders.

Two offenders were convicted of assault, while the third entered into a peace bond.

The Board found that the Applicant was a victim of crimes of violence and awarded compensation for pain and suffering, dental expenses, physiotherapy, and counselling.

The applicant sought reconsideration of a decision denying compensation for an alleged assault, claiming new evidence in the form of a police supplemental report.

The Criminal Injuries Compensation Board conducted the reconsideration in writing.

The Board found that the new evidence, which detailed the police investigation, did not clarify whether the applicant's injury resulted from a crime of violence or a fall, and thus was not potentially determinative of the application.

The request for reconsideration was dismissed.

The applicant sought compensation from the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board for physical and psychological injuries allegedly sustained during an arrest by two police officers.

The applicant was stopped for riding a bicycle without a light, refused to provide his name, and fled the scene, resulting in a physical altercation when officers apprehended him.

The Board found that the arrest was technically unlawful because the officer failed to specifically ask for the applicant's address, meaning the subsequent use of force constituted an assault.

However, the Board denied compensation under section 17(1) of the Compensation for Victims of Crime Act, concluding that the applicant's behaviour in refusing to identify himself and fleeing directly contributed to his minor injuries.

The Applicant sought financial compensation from the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board for injuries allegedly sustained from an assault and for criminal harassment related to a perceived organized crime conspiracy to murder him.

The Applicant claimed his ankle was broken by a golf club wielded by a former associate, and that he was subsequently stalked by individuals in suspicious vehicles.

The Board found insufficient clear, convincing, and cogent evidence to establish on a balance of probabilities that the Applicant's injuries were caused by a crime of violence or that he was the target of a criminal conspiracy.

The application for compensation was denied.

The applicant sought a review of a single member's decision denying a request to vary an original compensation order for pain and suffering arising from a knife assault.

The applicant argued that he only recently understood his hand injury was permanent.

The review panel upheld the single member's decision, finding that the original award already accounted for the permanent nature of the injury.

However, based on new medical information provided at the review hearing, the panel authorized up to $1,250 for further rehabilitative treatments for the applicant's hand.