Bernicky v. Criminal Injuries Compensation Board, 2007 CanLII 51697 (ON SCDC)

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE – ONTARIO (DIVISIONAL COURT)

RE: CAMELLA BERNICKY and CRIMINAL INJURIES COMPENSATION BOARD

BEFORE: Cusinato J., Valin J., and Shaw J.

COUNSEL: Linda E. Tranter for the Appellant

David E. Fine for the Respondent

E N D O R S E M E N T

1This is an appeal from a decision of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board. The standard of review is correctness.

2It cannot be said that the Board acted arbitrarily or capriciously. It is not alleged that the Board failed to observe the principles of natural justice.

3The decision of the Board, comprised of lay persons, is not to be subjected to the same scrutiny as is given to the reasons of judges. Lischka v. Ontario (Criminal Injuries Compensation Board) (1982), 27 O.R. (2d) 134 (Div. Ct.).

4The appellant has the right to have reasons given which explain the basis for the Board’s decision. Although the reasons given by the Board in this case are not perfect, we are of the view that test has been met. The Board, taking into account all relevant circumstances, made a factual finding that there was insufficient evidence to prove that the family members named in the appellant’s application had committed the acts of physical and sexual abuse which she described. The Board stated its concern about the lack of corroborative evidence and noted inconsistencies between persons who the appellant listed as offenders in her application, but who she failed to describe in her psychiatric assessment.

5We find the Board made no clear error in law. The application is therefore dismissed without costs.