Norton v. Criminal Injuries Compensation Board, 2014 ONSC 2679

Reasons

1The appellant submits that the Board erred in law in accepting hearsay evidence over the appellant’s direct evidence without a specific explanation.

2In our view, the reasons of the Board, when read as a whole, clearly demonstrate that the appellant’s version of events was not accepted because of major discrepancies. Even without recourse to s. 15(1) of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act, the hearsay evidence to the effect that the appellant was injured during a drug transaction may well be admissible as a declaration against penal interest by the offender who was convicted of assaulting the appellant.

3In any event, this evidence was cogent evidence accepted by the Board that the injuries to the appellant resulted from the appellant’s own involvement in criminal activity. Similarly, the appellant’s minimization of his long criminal record reflects adversely on the appellant’s credibility.

4In our view, given the nature and cogency of the hearsay evidence, it is obvious why the Board accepted the hearsay evidence and no specific explanation was required.

5We find no error in law. In the circumstances, the Board properly exercised its discretion under both s. 5 and 17 of the Act.

Disposition

6The appeal is accordingly dismissed.

7I have endorsed the Appeal Book on behalf of the panel, “This appeal is dismissed for oral reasons on behalf of the court by Then J. No costs were sought and none are awarded.”