Court File and Parties
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE – ONTARIO
DIVISIONAL COURT
RE: KEVIN MANION, Appellant
AND:
CRIMINAL INJURIES COMPENSATION BOARD, Respondent
BEFORE: Cunningham A.C.J., Valin and Rady JJ.
COUNSEL: Kellie A. Stewart, for the Appellant
David E. Fine, for the Respondent
HEARD: October 5, 2011
ENDORSEMENT
[1]
Overview
The Compensation for Victims of Crime Act1 (the “Act”) provides that a person who is injured in Ontario as a result of a crime of violence may be compensated by the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board (the “Board”). Section 25 of the Act provides that the Board may vary its order at any time.
[2]
Background
Kevin Manion (the “Appellant”) was injured in 1996 when he stopped to assist at the scene of a motor vehicle accident. One of the drivers involved in the accident was intoxicated and swung at the Appellant when he tried to intervene. During the intervention, the Appellant sustained an injury to his lower back. This injury aggravated a pre-existing spinal cord injury that had been surgically treated.
3Since the time of the altercation, the Appellant has experienced chronic pain to the point where he has been unable to continue working at his job in the computer industry.
4As a result of the injury, the Appellant filed a notice for a written hearing with the Board. On August 25, 1997, the Board awarded him compensation in the amount of $7,000 for pain and suffering pursuant to s. 7(1)(d) of the Act.
5On April 17, 2007, the Board awarded an additional amount of $5,500 for pain and suffering and $124,000 for loss of income from August 1996 to December 2006 ($1,000 per month for 124 months). In addition, the Board established periodic payments in the amount of $1,000 per month until the Appellant reached the age of 65, subject to annual review.
6On February 6, 2008, the Board ordered the periodic payments in the amount of $1,000 per month should continue, subject to annual review.
7On April 30, 2010, the Board conducted a review hearing to consider the periodic monthly payments the Appellant was receiving. The Appellant is 53 years old. By the time of the review hearing in April 2010, he had received compensation in the approximate amount of $176,500.
8On June 14, 2010, the Board ordered the periodic payments were to be reduced from $1,000 per month to $500 per month for six months and then cease entirely.
9This is an appeal from that decision. For the reasons that follow, the appeal is dismissed.
[10]
Standard of Review
Section 23 of the Act provides:
- Subject to section 25, the 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.
11The standard of review on questions of law is correctness.2
12At the review hearing conducted on April 30, 2010, the Appellant testified he continued to be affected negatively by his physical difficulties and he required medication for pain. He also testified that:
(i) he can do anything he wants within reason, but only for short periods of time;
(ii) he believes he could work 20 hours per week, but only spread out, and there are no employers who would hire someone like this; and
(iii) if he undertook part-time work, his insurance benefits would be affected.
13In its periodic review order dated June 14, 2010, the Board listed the following reasons for terminating the monthly payments to the Appellant:
14 years had elapsed since the incident;
the Appellant has not made any retraining efforts or any attempts to work;
the Appellant is in receipt of other income replacement benefits from his insurance company and the Canada Pension Plan. In 2009, he received the sum of $41,109 from those two sources;
the amount of compensation paid to date ($176,500) was reasonable in the circumstances;
the Appellant could have enhanced his employment profile with the time and funds that had been provided; and
while there are ongoing medical issues with respect to the incident giving rise to his claim for compensation, there are also additional issues complicating the Appellant’s ability to work, namely his pre-existing spinal cord injury. His current state of chronic pain is not solely attributed to the incident related to the claim for compensation.
[14]
Analysis
Pursuant to s. 25(1) of the Act, the Board is entitled at any time to vary an order for payment of compensation in such a manner as it thinks fit. The purpose of the Act is to compensate victims of crime for injuries they have sustained during the commission of a crime of violence. The Act is not intended to provide compensation for injuries unrelated to the commission of a crime.
15We find that the Board, when making its decision, considered all the factors listed in s. 25(2) of the Act. The reasons advanced by the Board for its decision were supported by the evidence.
16The Board gave detailed reasons for its decision. We find no error in those reasons. We are unable to conclude that the Board’s decision and resulting order were clearly wrong.
17The Board did not commit any error of law in exercising its discretion to reduce the Appellant’s compensation from $1,000 per month to $500 per month for a period of six months and to nil thereafter.
[18]
Disposition
The appeal is therefore dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.
Mr. Associate Chief Justice D. Cunningham
_____________________________
Mr. Justice G. Valin
_____________________________
Madam Justice H. Rady
Date: October 6, 2011
Footnotes
- R.S.O. 1990, c. C.24, as amended, s. 5.
- Trudeau v. Ontario (Criminal Injuries Compensation Board), (2007) CarswellOnt 8330 (Div. Ct.) at para.4; Khoury v. Ontario (Criminal Injuries Compensation Board), supra Note 2 at para. 6.