Court File and Parties
DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: 569/14
DATE: 20150526
ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE DIVISIONAL COURT
SACHS, R. J. SMITH AND HARVISON YOUNG JJ.
BETWEEN:
VLADISLAV GOLOUBEV
Appellant
– and –
CRIMINAL INJURIES COMPENSATION BOARD
Respondent
In Person
David E. Fine, for the Respondent
HEARD at Toronto: May 26, 2015
Oral Reasons for Judgment
SACHS J. (ORALLY)
1The appellant seeks to file before us several reports (including police reports) that were not before the Board at the time that it made its decision. The test for receiving fresh evidence is set out in R. v. Palmer, 1979 8 (SCC), [1980] 1 S.C.R. 759 and was recently applied by the Court of Appeal in Centre City Auto Sales Inc. v. Lasatos, 2013 ONCA 373. The test can be summarized as a three part test where the Court asks itself the following questions: Is the evidence credible? Could the evidence have been obtained prior to trial through the exercise of reasonable diligence? If the evidence were admitted, would it likely be conclusive of an issue in the appeal?
2In this case, the reports in question were either available to the appellant or could have been obtained prior to the Board hearing. The appellant submits that he did not file the reports because he was suffering from post-traumatic stress syndrome, was afraid of the police and was concentrating on protecting himself from further injury from the people in his neighbourhood. While this might explain why the appellant did not obtain the reports he did not have, it does not explain why he did not file the reports he did have and, more importantly, it does not explain why in both his applications for compensation before the Board, he told the Board that he did not report the incidents that formed the basis for his applications to the police because he feared for his safety. This is significant as the Board’s practice is to obtain police reports if they are told they exist.
3Section 23 of the Compensation for Victims of Crime Act (“the Act”) provides that Board decisions are final with one exception – an appeal likes to the Divisional Court on a question of law. To admit fresh evidence at this stage that could have been available before the Board would be to do exactly the opposite of what the Legislature intended, namely, encourage the use of appeals as a forum for retrying cases, which would in turn would have the effect of undermining the finality of the Board’s proceedings.
4For these reasons the motion to adduce fresh evidence is dismissed.
SACHS J.
R. J. SMITH J.
HARVISON YOUNG J.
Date of Reasons for Judgment: May 26, 2015
Date of Release: May 27, 2015
CITATION: Goloubev v. Criminal Injuries Compensation Board, 2015 ONSC 3377
DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: 569/14
DATE: 20150526
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
DIVISIONAL COURT
SACHS, R. J. SMITH AND
HARVISON YOUNG JJ.
BETWEEN:
VLADISLAV GOLOUBEV
Appellants
– and –
CRIMINAL INJURIES COMPENSATION BOARD
Respondents
ORAL REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
SACHS J.
Date of Reasons for Judgment: May 26, 2015
Date of Release: May 27, 2015