(Re) 1503-98691, 2018 ONCICB 98

Criminal Injuries Compensation Board

Adjudicator: Julie Lassonde and Janet MacEachen
Date: December 07, 2018
Indexed as: (Re) 1503-98691

Order

1The Applicant has requested a review of the Order issued on July 18, 2018 in accordance with section 10(1) of the Compensation for Victims of Crime Act, RSO 1990 c.24, as amended, the "CVCA".

2The relevant portions of section 10 read as follows:

10 (1) Where an application is heard by a single member of the Board under section 9, the applicant or the Minister may, within fifteen days after service of the decision of the member, require a hearing and review by the Board and the Board shall fix a time and place for the hearing and shall at least ten days before the day fixed cause notice thereof to be served upon the parties to the proceeding.

(3) The hearing shall be conducted and the jurisdiction of the Board shall be exercised by at least two members of the Board and the member whose decision is being reviewed shall not sit on the review.

(4) After a hearing and review by the Board under this section, the Board shall make its order in accordance with this Act and its order supersedes the order of a single member made under section 9 that is the subject of the hearing and review.

3Rule 19.2 of CICB's Rules of Procedure states:

An applicant may request a review of the decision of a single member on the grounds that the decision contains a serious error of law or an unreasonable exercise of discretion.

Issue

4The Applicant submits that the July 18, 2018 decision was made without considering her 2016 tax return information, which she had not filed with CICB. The Applicant has now filed a 2016 tax return summary with CICB.

5This panel must decide whether the Applicant's concerns amount to a serious error of law or an unreasonable exercise of discretion.

Decision

6CICB dismisses the request for review for the following reasons.

7In its July 18, 2018 decision, CICB had concluded that the Applicant did not experience a loss of income as a result of her injury, which occurred in 2015. The Applicant's net income for the three years prior to her injury was lower than her net income for 2017, after her injury. CICB also noted that it had not received evidence of her net income for 2016.

8The 2016 tax return summary, which the Applicant has now provided, indicates that her net income for 2016 was $32,981. This is higher than her net income for 2015, the year of her injury, which was $6,000. It is also higher than her net income for years 2012 to 2014, the average of which is $4,366. Based on this new piece of evidence, the Applicant therefore did not experience a loss of income due to her injury.

9The Applicant argued that her 2015 net income of $6,000 was her CICB award, which should not be included in the calculation of her net income for that year. She testified that she had no self-employment in 2015. She also explained that including $6,000 as net income was a mistake in her 2015 tax return. When asked whether the Applicant flagged this mistake to the CRA, the Applicant replied that she did not. In the absence of further documentary evidence to demonstrate that her 2015 net income was lower than her net income of the past three years, in a context where the Applicant could have provided further evidence on this point prior to the July 18, 2018 decision, CICB finds that there is no error of law in this decision. It is up to the Applicant to present all evidence that is relevant to her case.

10In short, the fact that, in its July 18, 2018 decision, CICB did not consider the 2016 tax return summary that she had not filed, and which does not provide evidence of loss of income, does not constitute an error of law.

11In these circumstances, we conclude that the July 18, 2018 decision stands.