Re 1705-01300, 2019 ONCICB 77

CRIMINAL INJURIES COMPENSATION BOARD

Adjudicators: Louise Charette and Veda Rangan

Date: April 25, 2019

Indexed as: (Re) 1705-01300

REVIEW DECISION

Introduction

1The Applicant has requested a review of the Variation Order made by the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board (CICB) dated November 19, 2018 in accordance with section 10 of the Compensation for Victims of Crime Act, RSO 1990 c.24, as amended, (CVCA).

2Section 10 provides:

(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 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 decision dated November 19, 2018 denying the Applicant’s request to have the funds awarded for future counselling converted into pain and suffering contains a serious error of law or an unreasonable exercise in discretion.

Grounds for review

5In her request for review dated March 13, 2019 the Applicant asked the CICB to review the single member’s decision. She requested the CICB convert the $2,400.00 of pre-authorized funds awarded for future counselling to a monetary award payable directly to her as an additional amount for her pain and suffering.

6The Applicant stated that she understood the funds were available to her for therapy however she indicated that she no longer wished to attend. She writes “I know the funds is there for me for any extra therapy but I don’t see the need now for counselling….and I don’t want any further therapy because it was devastating. I’m asking kindly if this remainder of the funds can be granted to me due my pain and suffering.”

7The CICB also received an email dated April 3, 2019 in which the Applicant requested once again that the funds awarded future therapy in the amount of $2,400.00 be given to her directly as a result of her pain and suffering. She further writes that the counselling was very helpful however talking about the incident triggers memories and therefore she does not want to attend further.

Summary of previous decisions

8The Applicant originally applied to the CICB as a result of a crime of violence which occurred at her workplace. The decision dated August 23, 2018 found the Applicant to be a victim pursuant to section 5(a) of the CVCA. She was awarded compensation for pain and suffering in the amount of $9,000.00 and as well, $2,400.00 was awarded for future counselling.

9On November 09, 2018, the Applicant filed a request to vary the award pursuant to section 25 of the CVCA. The Applicant was asking that the funds authorized for future counselling be given to her directly. She argued that her request should be granted based on the fact that she believed that she had the option to “hold back” these funds that were set aside for therapy at the time of the hearing.

10The Applicant’s request was denied on November 19, 2018. The member did not find that there was any change in the Applicant’s circumstances that warranted a variation of the original decision. It was noted that the pre-authorized amount was granted for a specific purpose, for future therapy.

Analysis and Decision

11The purpose of this Section 10 Review is to review the sufficiency of the Variation decision dated November 19, 2018. The Variation Decision will not be interfered with unless the Applicant demonstrates a failure of the single member to properly exercise discretion or an error in law.

12The panel reviewed and considered all of the documents in the Applicant’s CICB’s file, including the information which the single member referred to an which she relied on in denying the claim for conversion of the $2,400.00 pre-authorized funds awarded for future counselling to a monetary award payable to the Applicant directly.

13The panel is of the view that the single member properly drew the Applicant’s attention to the parts of the decision, which state that the pre-authorized amounts were granted for future therapy expenses. It is relevant that the award was granted for a specific purpose, to provide funding for the Applicant to attend treatment to address the emotional injuries she suffered as a result of the crimes of violence against her.

14By contrast, the Applicant’s request, asking the CICB to set aside the specific purposes for which the treatment was pre-authorized because she no longer wishes to attend therapy and to have these funds paid directly to her relates to something wholly different than the specific purpose of treating the injuries suffered as a result of the crime of violence. Rather, she is asking that the pre-authorized funds be converted into cash payments and paid to her directly to be used for other purposes. That is not what the funds were intended for.

15In our view, the single member did not neglect any evidence that she ought to have considered and did not err in denying the claim for conversion of the $2,400.00 pre-authorized funds awarded for future counselling to a monetary award payable to the Applicant directly.

16We can find no error in the single member’s decision and no unreasonable exercise in discretion. Accordingly, the review hearing panel finds no reasons to disturb the findings in the decision of the single member and the application for additional pain and suffering is denied. The November 19, 2018 order remains in effect.