Re 0811-74588, 2019 ONCICB 24

CRIMINAL INJURIES COMPENSATION BOARD

Adjudicator: Keith Forde, Kevin Cleghorn Date: February 06, 2019 Indexed as: (Re) 0811-74588

S10 DECISION

Introduction

1The Applicant requested a review of the Decision issued July 13, 2018 (original Decision) in accordance with section 10(1) of the Compensation for Victims of Crime Act, RSO 1990, c. C24, as amended (CVCA).

2Section 10 provides:

(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 the CICB’s Rules 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 asked the CICB to review the original Decision and award her the additional sum of $2,680.00 for further dental expenses. The Applicant maintains that serious issues with her teeth require extensive additional dental work, including work on her upper denture and extractions. The Applicant links the need for such dental work with the assault she endured in 2008.

5In his dental report of July 5, 2018, the dentist cites the need for the Applicant to have work involving “Immediate complete upper denture, re line 3-6 months after insertion, extractions.” The report was available to, and considered by the single member. No further dental reports or additional evidence was provided by the Applicant for this Section 10 review.

6The Panel must decide whether the Applicant has identified a serious error of law or an unreasonable exercise of discretion in the original Decision.

BACKGROUND

7The Applicant originally applied to the CICB for compensation relating to a single incident of assault which occurred in 2008. 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 $4,000.00 for her pain and suffering and $6,000.00 for future dental expenses by order dated March 26, 2012.

8Next, the Applicant made a request for a Section 25 variation. She provided an up-dated estimate for dental work which resulted in a new award for future dental expenses of $1,806.00 by order dated April 22, 2014 (the March 26, 2012 award of $6,000.00 for future dental expenses was rescinded in light of the new estimate being provided and by virtue of the original amount having been unused).

9On June 25, 2018, the Applicant sent in another request to further vary the Order dated March 26, 2012 requesting the additional sum of $2,680.00 for dental expenses. In July 13, 2018 the CICB issued a decision which denied the request.

10The Applicant requested a review of this original Decision. 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.

11There was no new evidence submitted in support of her request for this Section 10 review. The Applicant simply reiterates her belief that the dental work she requires is linked to the assault of […].

DECISION

12The Panel finds the Applicant has not met the test for review.

13The purpose of this review hearing is to review the original Decision dated July 13, 2018. The decision 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.

14The 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.

15The original Order considered the dental report and the total amount of compensation received by the Applicant to date (a total of $5,806.00). It was noted that the request for variation arose approximately ten years after the incident of assault for which the Applicant was first compensated in March of 2012. 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 her. In particular, the single member states that the dental report does not link the crime of violence from 2008 with the Applicant’s recent dental issues arising in 2018. He maintains, following a review of the evidence, that her new dental issues cannot be tied solely or exclusively to the crime of violence.

16The evidence at the time of the original hearing was that the damage to teeth #21 and 22 of the Applicant arose from the assault but no mention was made of teeth #16 and 18, the area of current concern.

17In 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. This Panel can find no error in the single member’s decision and no unreasonable exercise of his discretion.

18Accordingly, the Review Hearing panel finds no reason to disturb the findings in the decision of the single member.

19For these reasons the request is denied and the original Decision dated July 13, 2018 is confirmed.