CRIMINAL INJURIES COMPENSATION BOARD
Adjudicator: Christine McGoey
Indexed as: (Re) 1702-00538
DECISION
Introduction
1The Applicant applied to the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board (CICB) seeking compensation for injuries resulting from a crime of violence. The Applicant is seeking the following forms of compensation: pain and suffering and loss of income.
Decision
2In accordance with section 5(c) of the Compensation for Victims of Crime Act, RSO 1990, c.C24, as amended (CVCA), the CICB grants the Application and awards the Applicant $2,000.00 for pain and suffering and $2,000.00 for loss of income. The reasons for this Decision follow below.
Hearing
3The Applicant appeared by teleconference and provided oral testimony and submissions.
Evidence
4The Applicant testified that in the early morning hours of […] he was on duty as a police officer and was dispatched to a Tim Horton’s restaurant located in an isolated industrial area. The report related to a disturbance by two males and possible damage to property. He arrived on scene and was advised by the lone female employee working there that the two men had left the scene. Another officer was on scene. Both officers left separately to check the area.
5A short time later the Applicant was advised by his fellow officer that one of the men had returned to the store. The Applicant returned to assist him. He observed the officer near the service counter with a male who appeared angry and agitated. The Alleged Offender had a strong odour of alcohol on his breath and glassy bloodshot eyes. He appeared irate and irrational, referring to cameras. The employee advised the officers that he was one of the men who had been causing a disturbance earlier. The officers asked him to step outside to discuss his concern. According to the Applicant they hoped to calm him down and arrange safe transport to his home.
6The employee working there wanted him to leave. Under the authority of the Trespass to Property Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. T.21, the officers made repeated requests for the Alleged Offender to leave the store. He refused, and clenching his fists moved toward the officers.
7The Applicant testified that he placed his hand on the Alleged Offender and advised him he was under arrest for failing to leave as directed. According to the Applicant the Alleged Offender pushed both officers; and began to swing his fists and struggle. The officers attempted to gain physical control of him using striking and grabbing movements. He continued to resist. In the course of the struggle they moved outside. The Applicant testified that he repeatedly told the Alleged Offender to stop resisting and used pepper spray in an attempt to gain control of him but it was ineffective. At one point the Alleged Offender grabbed the Applicant’s duty belt and contacted the holster although the officer did not believe it was an attempt to get his gun.
8The Applicant testified that other officers arrived to assist and the Alleged Offender was handcuffed. The officers got water from the restaurant to decontaminate him and called for an ambulance. Once the Alleged Offender was medically cleared he was taken to the police detachment. According the Applicant, he did not believe that the Alleged Offender complained of any injuries when he was paraded before the attending officer at the detachment.
9The Alleged Offender was charged with assaulting a police officer and causing bodily harm but ultimately the charge was withdrawn by the Crown. The Applicant was questioned about the video evidence available to the Crown as well as other statements from witnesses. According to the Applicant, there was a video and other statements. A portion of the video showed both officers on top of the Alleged Offender outside the restaurant and the Crown decided not to continue the prosecution in light of that portion of the video.
10I did not have the benefit of the video evidence or other statements including the evidence of the Alleged Offender. The only evidence on the hearing was that of the Applicant.
11The Applicant testified that in the course of the struggle his dominant hand was injured. The medical records indicate that there was concern about undisplaced fractures of metacarpal necks in the Applicant’s right hand. There was significant soft tissue damage and pain with movement. The Applicant was provided with a splint. He experienced significant pain and used ice packs and pain medication. His sleep was disturbed as a result of the pain. On follow up three weeks later there was swelling but full extension of the hands and normal function. The opinion after reviewing x-rays was that there was no evidence of fracture or dislocation and that the injury was most likely a soft tissue injury of digits D2, D3 and D4. It was recommended that the Applicant perform only light duties for the next two weeks.
12The Applicant agreed that the medical information was mixed. He testified that he was sent to a fracture clinic and had a full cast on his hand for a few weeks. He had to cancel travel plans to attend follow-up appointments and had a Velcro splint on his hand for a month. According to the Applicant he experienced sporadic pain in his hand for several months but has now fully recovered. He missed a short period of work as a police officer but was compensated for that time through benefits. The Applicant testified he also worked part time at a car detailing business and was unable to perform those duties for a period of time. At the time of the hearing he requests compensation for a period of three weeks.
13The Applicant described the impact of not being able to use his dominant hand during the holiday season, missing out on previously scheduled travel plans, and being removed from front line duties of police work for a period of time. It was a difficult time for him.
Analysis
Crime of Violence
14There was no conviction relating to the incident. Section 16(1) of the [CVCA](https://www.canlii.org/en/on/laws/stat/rso-199