Citation and Court Information
CITATION: Wright v. Criminal Injuries Compensation Board, 2010 ONSC 3315
DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: 479/09
DATE: 20100604
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
DIVISIONAL COURT
GREER, MCCOMBS AND SACHS JJ.
BETWEEN:
ANGELETA WRIGHT Appellant
– and –
CRIMINAL INJURIES COMPENSATION BOARD Respondent
No One Appearing
Bryan Skolnik, for the Respondent
HEARD at Toronto: June 4, 2010
Oral Reasons for Judgment
SACHS J. (ORALLY)
[1] This matter comes before us by way of a request for a consent order.
[2] This is an appeal from the decision of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board (the “Board”) dated September 8, 2009. In that decision the Board made the following findings:
(i) that the appellant’s son was a victim of the crime of murder and was therefore a victim within the meaning of s.5(a) of the Compensation for Victims of Crime Act (the “Act”);
(ii) that the appellant suffered the injury known as mental or nervous shock as a result of the crime of violence committed against her son;
(iii) that by virtue of s.17(1) of the Act, the Board was precluded from awarding the appellant compensation for her injury.
[3] On this appeal, the appellant submitted that the Board made an error of law in finding, on the evidence before them, that s.17(1) of the Act operated to deprive her of compensation. The Board, as the respondent on this appeal, agrees that the panel in question committed an error in law in finding that s.17(1) of the Act applied on the facts of this case. Furthermore, this is the second time that a panel of the Board has erroneously applied s.17(1) to the facts of this case.
[4] We agree with the parties that in the decision under appeal the Board made an error in law when it found that by virtue of s.17(1) of the Act the Board was precluded from awarding the appellant compensation for the injuries that they accepted that she suffered.
[5] We agree with the Board’s findings that the appellant’s son was a victim of crime and that the appellant suffered the injury of mental or nervous shock. We would not disturb those findings. Given this, we make the following order.
(i) the parties, on consent, have agreed that the appellant shall be awarded funeral and internment expenses in the amount of $10,783.60 and it is so ordered;
(ii) the findings of the Board that the appellant was a victim of crime and that the appellant suffered the injury known as mental or nervous shock, are hereby confirmed. She is therefore entitled to compensation under s.5 of the Act;
(iii) the matter is remitted to a newly constituted panel of the Board for a hearing to assess the quantum of compensation to be awarded to the appellant for the injury of nervous shock only and that on this hearing the panel shall not take into account any consideration of s.17(1) of the Act.
[6] On the consent of the parties, there shall be no order as to costs.
GREER J.
[7] This appeal is set aside in the oral reasons delivered by Sachs J., with a Draft Order to follow that this panel is prepared to sign.
SACHS J.
GREER J.
MCCOMBS J.
Date of Reasons for Judgment: June 4, 2010
Date of Release: June 28, 2010
CITATION: Wright v. Criminal Injuries Compensation Board, 2010 ONSC 3315
DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: 479/09
DATE: 20100604
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
DIVISIONAL COURT
GREER, MCCOMBS AND SACHS JJ.
BETWEEN:
ANGELETA WRIGHT Appellant
– and –
CRIMINAL INJURIES COMPENSATION BOARD Respondent
ORAL REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
SACHS J.
Date of Reasons for Judgment: June 4, 2010
Date of Release: June 28, 2010