CITATION: King v. Criminal Injuries Compensation Board, 2015 ONSC 357
DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: 284/14 DATE: 20150116
ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE DIVISIONAL COURT
SACHS, J. MACKINNON AND LEDERER JJ.
BETWEEN:
RANDY KING
Appellant
– and –
CRIMINAL INJURIES COMPENSATION BOARD
Respondent
In Person
David E. Fine, for the Respondent
HEARD at Toronto: January 16, 2015
SACHS J. (ORALLY)
[1] Both parties agree that this appeal should be allowed as the hearing panel improperly determined that Mr. King was not a victim of crime. Because of this, the hearing panel failed to conduct the requisite analysis under s. 17(1) of the Act. Under such an analysis, the hearing panel was obliged to consider the proportionality of the injuries allegedly sustained by Mr. King in relation to any conduct on his part which provoked the assault.
[2] The Board takes the position that the matter should be remitted for a new hearing before a differently constituted panel. Mr. King wishes us to substitute our opinion for the opinion of the Board as to the amount of compensation he should receive.
[3] The basis for Mr. King’s argument is that the Board as a whole has been the subject of several criticisms in a 2007 Report prepared by Ontario’s Ombudsman at the time. As a result of his own experience with the Board, which Mr. King states is consistent with the criticisms expressed in the 2007 Ombudsman’s Report, Mr. King does not trust any panel of the Board to treat him fairly or respectfully.
[4] If there are still problems with the way in which the Board treats victims of crime, these are issues that the legislature and government must address. We cannot take them into account in our decisions unless such problems are directly relevant to an issue before us.
[5] In this case, the issue before us is whether we should remit the matter for a hearing before a differently constituted panel. On this issue, the jurisprudence is clear. The Divisional Court is not set up to make the factual findings necessary to determine whether and to what extent Mr. King is entitled to compensation. The appropriate venue for making the necessary findings of fact and for considering s. 17(1) of the Act, is a Board hearing. (See Coote v. Assante Corp. (Div. Ct.) at para. 17; aff’d 2007 CarswellOnt. 6661 (Div. Ct.), leave to appeal to the Ont. C.A. refused 2008 CarswellOnt 3799).
[6] For these reasons, we are allowing the appeal, setting aside the order of the Board and remitting the matter to the Board for a new hearing before a differently constituted panel in accordance with these reasons.
COSTS
[7] I have endorsed the Appeal Book, “The appeal is allowed on consent. For oral reasons given by Sachs J., the decision of the Board is set aside and the matter is remitted to the Board for a new hearing before a differently constituted panel in accordance with the oral reasons given. On the question of costs, Mr. King argues that he was entitled to costs because he prepared his material for this appeal before the Board offered him a new hearing. In our view, any costs incurred by Mr. King prior to the Board’s offer are more than offset by the costs in relation to today’s hearing where, on the remaining issue in dispute, the Board’s position prevailed. For these reasons there shall be no order as to costs.”
___________________________ SACHS J.
J. MACKINNON J.
LEDERER J.
Date of Reasons for Judgment: January 16, 2015
Date of Release: January 26, 2015
CITATION: King v. Criminal Injuries Compensation Board, 2015 ONSC 357
DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: 284/14 DATE: 20150116
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
DIVISIONAL COURT
SACHS, J. MACKINNON AND LEDERER JJ.
BETWEEN:
RANDY KING
Appellant
– and –
CRIMINAL INJURIES COMPENSATION BOARD
Respondent
ORAL REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
SACHS J.
Date of Reasons for Judgment: January 16, 2015
Date of Release: January 26, 2015