COURT FILE NO.: 13/2003

DATE: 20040408

ONTARIO

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

DIVISIONAL COURT

O’DRISCOLL, then and ferrier jj.

B E T W E E N:

GERALD MOODIE

Applicant (Appellant)

• and -

ONTARIO (CRIMINAL INJURIES COMPENSATION BOARD)

Respondent

Clem Nabigon, for the Applicant

David E. Fine, for the Respondent Board

HEARD: April 8, 2004

o’DRISCOLL J.: (Orally)

1The appellant/applicant appeals to this Court under the provisions of the Compensation for Victims of Crime Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.C.24, as amended, hereinafter (“the Act”), which states:

s.23 “Subject to section 25, a decision of the Board is final except that an appeal lies to the Divisional Court from any decision of the Board on any question of law.”

Section 25(1):

“The Board may at any time on its own initiative or on the application of the victim, any dependant of the victim, the Minister or the offender, vary an order for payment of compensation in such manner as the Board thinks fit, whether as to terms of the order or by increasing or decreasing the amount ordered to be paid, or otherwise.”

2The members of the Board reviewed the evidence and said in their December 9, 2002 order:

“After a very careful consideration of all evidence, both oral and the documentary, the Panel was unable to establish whether a crime of violence occurred against the Applicant or whether he injured himself as a result of his intoxicated condition and the fact that he had not slept for two days. The Applicant was very vague, evasive and inconsistent in his evidence before the Board. The Panel did not find him a credible witness.”

3In our view, that ended the matter. It is true that the Board had stated at p. 3 of its decision:

“The Police Witness further stated that the Applicant could not or would not provide any information on the events of the day or the details of the incident. The Applicant was un-cooperative and the Police Witness could not establish whether the Applicant had been assaulted or not.”

4In our view, the fact that the Board went on to consider s.17(2) of the Act, is irrelevant. It was superfluous.

5As Osler J. stated in the decision of this Court in Batic v. Ontario (Criminal) Injuries Compensation Board (1984), 1 O.A.C. 68 (Ont. Div. Ct.):

“The jurisdiction given to this Board is a very broad one and this court cannot interfere, unless an error in law is plainly demonstrated.”

6We find no error in law in this record. It should also be borne in mind what Galligan J. said for the Divisional Court in Lischka v. Criminal Injuries Compensation Board (1982), 1982 1840 (ON SC), 37 O.R. (2d) 134, 135:

“I think it worthy remembering two things about the Board and the nature of its duties. The first is that the Board is made up of persons who are not legally trained and I think it is unfair to the members of the Board and to the spirit of this legislation to subject their reasons for judgment to the nice scrutiny to which reasons for judgments of judges are properly subjected.”

7For these reasons, the appeal is dismissed. The Board is not seeking costs; there will be no order as to costs.

O’DRISCOLL J.

THEN J.

FERRIER J.

Date of Reasons for Judgment: April 8, 2004

Date of Release: April 22, 2004

COURT FILE NO.: 13/2003

DATE: 20040408

ONTARIO

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

DIVISIONAL COURT

O’DRISCOLL, then and ferrier jj.