Criminal Injuries Compensation Board
Adjudicators: Keith Forde and Kevin Cleghorn
Indexed as: (Re) 9205-62474
Section 10 Review
ORDER
Introduction
1The Applicant has requested a review of the denial Order on his request for a Section 25 variation, which Order was made by the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board (CICB) on July 6, 2018, in accordance with Section 10(1) of the Compensation for Victims of Crime Act, RSO 1990 c.24, as amended, (CVCA).
2The relevant portions of section 10 read as follows:
10 (1) Where an application is heard by a single member of the CICB 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 CICB and the CICB 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 CICB shall be exercised by at least two members of the CICB and the member whose decision is being reviewed shall not sit on the review.
(4) After a hearing and review by the CICB under this section, the CICB 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 sole issue before the panel is whether the CICB’s decision dated July 6, 2018, denying the Applicant’s request for an additional 4,350 euros contains a serious error of law or an unreasonable exercise of discretion.
Applicant’s Evidence for Review
5In the Request to Review, the Applicant asked the CICB to review the single member’s decision and award him the additional sum of 4,350 euros for further dental expenses. The Applicant maintains that serious issues with his teeth required extensive dental work, including construction of a lower denture and dental implants, in his now home country of Malta throughout 2017. The Applicant links the need for such dental work with the assault he endured in 1992.
6In his dental report of November 17, 2017, the Applicant’s dentist cites the need for the Applicant’s lower denture as stemming from “advance(d) gum disease and deteriorating natural teeth.” The report was available to, and considered by the single member. No further dental reports nor additional evidence of any nature were/was provided by the Applicant for this Section 10 review.
Summary of Previous Decisions
7The Applicant originally applied to the CICB for pain and suffering relating to a single incident of assault which occurred in 1992. There was a finding made that the Applicant was a victim of a crime of violence. As a result, the Applicant was awarded compensation of $3,000.00 for his pain and suffering by order dated October 6, 1993.
8On two subsequent occasions, the Applicant made requests for Section 25 variations of the original order. He received an additional $42.00 for income loss (arising from attending the first hearing) by order dated April 6, 1994 and a contribution to his dental expenses in the amount of $5,450.00 by order dated April 15, 2008. The Applicant has incurred further dental expenses which he attributes to the assault which occurred in 1992.
9On November 18, 2017, the Applicant sent in a request to further vary the Order dated October 6, 1993 requesting the additional sum of 4,350 euros for dental expenses. This request was denied on July 6, 2018.
10The Applicant has requested a review of the July 6, 2018 decision which denied the request for an additional Section 25 variation. The Associate Chair of the CICB assigned a two member panel to conduct the review in accordance with Section 10 of the CVCA. A written hearing was held on January 7, 2019.
11The Applicant provided the same details to the CICB about the basis for his request to vary the order dated October 6, 1993. There was no new evidence submitted in support of his request for variation in the course of this Section 10 review.
Analysis and Decision
12The purpose of this Section 10 Review Hearing is to review the Denial Order dated July 6, 2018. The Denial Order will not be interfered with unless the Applicant demonstrates a failure of the Single Member to properly exercise his discretion or there is an error in law.
13The Review Panel reviewed and considered all of the documents in the Applicant’s CICB file, including the report which the single member referred to and which he relied on in denying the claim for additional dental expenses.
14The Denial Order considered the dental report and the totality of the compensation received by the Applicant to date (a total of $8,942.00). It was noted that the request for variation arises approximately twenty-five years after the incident of assault for which the Applicant was first compensated in October of 1993. The single member notes that an Applicant, generally speaking, is entitled to some compensation but not necessarily to be made whole in all respects following a crime or crimes of violence inflicted upon him. In particular, the single member states that the dental report does not link the crime of violence from 1992 with the Applicant’s dental issues arising in 2017. The recitation by the Applicant that his dentist has advised him that the two are linked is insufficient to justify any further expenditure of public funds for his ongoing dental needs, particularly in light of the dentist’s report that the denture is needed due to gum disease and the deterioration of his natural teeth.
15In the CICB’s view, the single member did not neglect any evidence that he ought to have considered and did not err in denying the variation request. The two member panel can find no error in the single member’s decision and no unreasonable exercise of his discretion.
16Accordingly, the Review Hearing panel finds no reason to disturb the findings in the decision of the single member and the application for additional dental expenses is therefore denied. The October 6, 1993 Order, as varied by Orders dated April 6, 1994 and April 15, 2008, remains in effect.
DATED at Toronto this 5th day of February 2019.
______________________________ Keith Forde, Member
______________________________ Kevin Cleghorn, Member