CRIMINAL INJURIES COMPENSATION BOARD
Adjudicator: Sara Mintz
Indexed as: (Re) 1901-00072
DECISION
Introduction
1The Applicant applied to the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board (CICB) seeking compensation for an injury resulting from a crime of violence. The Applicant is seeking the following forms of compensation pain and suffering, treatment expenses and loss of employment income.
Decision
2In accordance with the Compensation for Victims of Crime Act, RSO 1990, c.C24, as amended (CVCA), the CICB denies the Application. The reasons for this Decision follow below.
Hearing
3The Applicant appeared by teleconference and provided oral testimony and submissions. Her pastor and doctor were present for support.
4Prior to the commencement of the Hearing, the CIBC advised the Applicant of the potential issues in respect to section 17(1) and section 17(2) of the CVCA, which read as follows:
17(1) In determining whether to make an order for compensation and the amount thereof, the Board shall have regard to all relevant circumstances, including any behaviour of the victim that may have directly or indirectly contributed to his or her injury or death.
17(2) The Board may, in its discretion, refuse to make an order for compensation or ordered a reduced amount of compensation where it is satisfied that the applicant has refused reasonable co-operation with, or failed to report promptly the offence to, a law enforcement agency.
Evidence
5The Applicant testified that the incident took place on […]. She advised that she was coming home during rush hour at 3:30 with groceries. She was in the back of the elevator, coming up from the basement. The AO got onto the elevator when it stopped at store level, along with 5-7 other people getting on. The Applicant was holding groceries and a plant. When the AO was backing up to let people on, he started to crush the plant. The Applicant asked him to be careful. She then testified that the AO turned around and started screaming in her face, swearing at her to put the plant down.
6The Applicant testified that he continued screaming at her for approximately 5 minutes as the elevator went to the lobby. The Applicant advised that the AO’s girlfriend was on the lobby level and yelled at him to stop screaming. The doors opened again on floor two and three, at which point the Applicant explained that she screamed at him to stop screaming and he took his fist and punched her in temple. She first advised he punched her in the left temple, and then she advised the punch had been to the right temple. When the Applicant was asked further about the incident, she changed her evidence to it being either a punch or a slap, and she was not sure if the AO used on open or closed hand.
7The CICB then questioned the Applicant about her actions, and specifically the allegation that she kicked the AO first. The Applicant was dismissive of this evidence, instead advising that she moved her feet because her hands were holding items. She then said she believed she touched the AO with her foot. When asked about the mark the police found on the AO, the Applicant advised that she could not say whether the mark pre-existed or not, and that the AO had quite a few marks on him when she saw him in the courtroom.
8The Applicant then advised that she could not know for sure if she touched the AO with her foot, but finally admitted that it was a possibility since she was scared and he was screaming in her face.
9The Applicant confirmed that the AO hit her just once, and that the elevator doors opened on what she believed to be the 3rd floor and everyone ran off. The Applicant explained that she remained on the elevator with the AO because she had dropped her groceries and the plant. She advised that she was gathering her items that were on the floor and started yelling at the AO repeatedly to “say sorry say sorry” and she was trying to find out where he lived. She told him she was going to contact the police.
10The Applicant explained the elevator doors opened on the 7th floor and the Applicant saw a child who resided in the building. The Applicant threw her items outside the elevator and asked the child to watch them, and told the child not to get on the elevator as the AO had assaulted her.
11The Applicant was questioned why she did not get off the elevator after she had gathered her belongings. She advised that she was determined to know where he lived, and that if she let him go, she would not know a location to tell the police. She further testified that she was determined to follow him because she was not going to let him get away with this incident.
12She testified that she continued to yell at the AO to say sorry because he hit her and “abused” her and that she was angry at him. The AO then told her that he would be advising the police that she kicked him first.
13The Applicant advised that she believes the AO pressed the lobby, but she was not sure, but the elevator went down to the lobby. The Applicant testified that she was yelling at the AO about calling the police, and that his voice was not raised during this communication, where he advised that he would be speaking with management about the incident.
14The Applicant explained that the elevator opened in the lobby, and she went to management and told them she had been hit and that she wanted to call the police. The management offered to call the police for her, and she left the office to wait outside for the police so she could speak to the police first.
15The Applicant then went to her apartment. She advised that the first interaction with the police occurred after she had