Re 1510-00925, 2018 ONCICB 35

CRIMINAL INJURIES COMPENSATION BOARD

Adjudicator: John F. Spekkens Noeline Paul

Date: June 25, 2018

Indexed as: (Re) 1510-00925

ORDER

Introduction

1The Applicant is seeking financial compensation from the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board (CICB) in accordance with the Compensation for Victims of Crime Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.24, as amended (the “Act”). The Applicant is seeking compensation for pain and suffering as a result of an incident that occurred on [date], 2013 where he sustained psychological injuries. The incidents were reported to the Police and resulted in the female Offender being convicted of counselling to commit first degree murder.

Issue

2The Applicant is required to prove, on a balance of probabilities, not only that he was a victim of a crime of violence but also that as a result of this crime of violence committed against him, he suffered an injury pursuant to section 5 of the Act.

Decision

3For the reasons below, the CICB denies the Applicant’s claim.

Oral Hearing

The Incident

4The Applicant testified before the CICB by means of teleconference. The Applicant explained that the Offender was his ex-spouse. She was arrested on [date], 2013 on charges of counselling to commit 1st degree murder. She was found guilty on [date], 2017. He stated that the person she had chosen to commit the murder, unbeknownst to her, was an undercover police officer. Thus, the planned murder of the Applicant was never carried out.

5The Applicant’s discovery of his ex-spouse’s plot to kill him was preceded by years of animosity, acrimony, and allegations. These included mutual allegations by the Applicant and his ex-spouse of significant financial theft, misappropriation of funds, and the Applicant being locked out of his home. The Applicant stated that his ex-spouse sold their house, and that he received none of the profits realized from this sale. The Applicant says that the Offender destroyed him financially. He accuses her of having destroyed all of his identification papers, making it impossible to apply for a new OHIP card. They are both of Russian descent, and both had a high profile in the Russian community. All of the issues described above were made known by the Offender to others in the Russian community. The Applicant says this had a serious negative effect on him.

6Much of the documentary evidence the Applicant provided to the CICB dealt with incidents, disputes and alleged frauds that he described orally in his testimony. He wrote that his case has been televised twice on national television, leading to damage to his standing in his community:

She is a dangerous and violent women [sic]. She robbed me of everything I had and then she paid to kill me. Thanks to a police she didn’t succeed in killing me physically, but she has completely crippled me emotionally, mentally and financially, as a result I am now ODSP recipient. She destroyed my life […].

7The Police Records confirm that the Offender initially approached an acquaintance of hers and proposed that this acquaintance kill her ex-husband. The acquaintance informed the police, who then set up the undercover arrangement that eventually led to her arrest. The Police Record states that there were two meetings between the Offender and the undercover officer, on [date] and [date], 2013. The officer received instructions on how to commit the murder, when to do it (specifically on the victim’s birthday), how to avoid prosecution, and the cash payment that he would receive for the crime.

8The Applicant describes his ex-spouse’s plot to have him killed as a “crime of violence”, which has left him with injuries: “just because injuries are not blows that leave scars that are visible, but they are as painful as physical injuries.” He says that he lives in constant fear of her, despite the very stringent conditions of the Offender’s bail arrangements. He reminded the CICB that “she paid money to kill me. That’s as violent as it gets.” The Applicant has had psychiatric counselling, but finds that no one can help. The Applicant states that he now lives in fear for his life. He feels despondent about all the things that have happened between him and his ex-spouse: “My life is reduced, I’m less mobile. If she had succeeded, I might have been better off.”

Injury

9A portion of the Applicant’s Application form is labelled “Details of Injuries”, and provides a full page for the Applicant to submit full details of the injuries he sustained as a result of the crime of violence. This entire page was left blank by the Applicant. In other parts of the Application, in his written narrative about the events leading up to the plot to have him killed, the Applicant has described the following injuries:

• He lives in constant fear for his life and is completely cut off from everybody

• The Offender lied about him and wrote threatening and insulting letters to his friends and family

• He became ostracized by all of Russian community

• The Offender smashed a window in his truck and robbed him of everything

• The Offender has completely crippled him emotionally, mentally and physically, destroying his life

10The Applicant states that he has not had any treatment for the injuries he has described. He attributes his lack of treatment to the fact that he does not have an OHIP card.

Analysis

11In order to be compensable under section 5 of the Act the Applicant is required to prove, on a balance of probabilities, not only that he was a victim of a crime of violence but also that as a result of this crime of violence committed against him, he suffered an injury pursuant to section 5 of the Act. Section 5(a) of the Act reads as follows:

Where any person is injured or killed by any act or omission in Ontario of any other person occurring in or resulting from,

the commission of a crime of violence constituting an offence against the Criminal Code (Canada), including poisoning, arson, criminal negligence and an offence under section 86 of that Act

the Board, on application therefor, may make an order that it, in its discretion exercised in accordance with this Act, considers proper for the payment of compensation to,

(d) the victim;

12The Act sets out the following definitions in section 1:

“injury” means actual bodily harm and includes pregnancy and mental or nervous shock and “injured” has a corresponding meaning;

“victim” means a person injured or killed in the circumstances set out in section 5.

13While the Act does not provide a definition of “crime of violence”, the courts have identified what the CICB is to consider in determining whether a crime of violence occurred. The Divisional Court in the case of Pitters v. CICB, O.J. No. 4339, at paras. 45-46, stated:

The meaning of “a crime of violence” must be ascertained from s. 5(a) of the Act, and the general principles of statutory construction.

A “crime of violence” is a crime of a violent kind. In everyday usage, “violence” connotes the exercise of a physical force so as to inflict injury

(…..) “Violent” includes intense, vehement, very strong or severe. It is characterized by the doing of harm or injury.

14The CICB finds the difficulties in the Applicant’s life cannot be characterized as a crime of violence, as defined by the legislation and jurisprudence. By the time the Offender’s plot was discovered, she had been arrested and incarcerated. Granted, if the plot had been successful in its planning and its execution phase, injury or death could have resulted for the Applicant. However, that did not happen in this case. There was no actual violence or physical harm to the Applicant.

15In addition, the CICB recognizes that the Applicant suffered much distress and potential financial loss as a result of his years-long conflict with his ex-spouse. The CICB appreciates the upset, the fear, and the anger that he felt and continues to feel towards his ex-spouse. However, based on the evidence before the CICB, the Applicant’s emotional injuries seem to be a result of the years of conflict with the Offender and not the result of a crime of violence.

16In light of the definitions given in the Act and in the quoted case law, and the testimony of the Applicant, the CICB finds that the Applicant has failed to prove, on a balance of probabilities, that he was a victim of a crime of violence committed against him by the Offender, and therefore finds that he is ineligible for compensation.

17The Applicant’s claim is denied.