Ontario Superior Court of Justice – Divisional Court

Nii v. Ontario (Criminal Injuries Compensation Board)

Date: 2001-04-05

Counsel: Kirkor A. Apel, for the applicant; David Fine, for the respondent.

(Court File No. 283/99)

Reasons for Decision

[1] McCombs, J. [orally]: The appellant, Francis Nii, was injured in a vicious home invasion on September 15, 1995. He sought and obtained a compensation award from the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board. That Board has broad authority, under the Compensation for Victims of Crime Act, to award compensation.

[2] The Board found that the appellant was the victim of a serious crime and awarded compensation of $7,000. In arriving at that figure, the Board rejected the appellant's submissions that he had been completely disabled.

[3] The appellant appeals, arguing that the Board erred in law in concluding that the appellant was not completely disabled.

[4] The appellant raises two additional issues on this appeal. The first of these has to do with the Board's failure to require that the evidence of the proceedings be recorded. The second involves an application to adduce fresh evidence. I will address these two issues first.

[5] There was no obligation under the statute to have the evidence recorded, and in our view, recording was not required. See, Blake, Administrative Law in Canada, at p. 58; and see for example, Blagdon v. Canada (Public Service Commission Appeal Board), [1976] 1 F.C. 615 (F.C.A.), at 619.

[6] The fresh evidence sought to be introduced is an affidavit of the appellant himself, which counsel for the appellant submits is admissible as a substitute for a transcript of the evidence.

[7] In our view, the proposed fresh evidence is, in essence, argument attempting to justify the appellant's position respecting the merits of his case. The application to introduce this evidence is misconceived. We reject the fresh evidence.

[8] I turn now to the merits of the assertion that the Board erred in law in concluding that the appellant was not completely disabled.

[9] The standard of review on the appeal is that this court ought not to interfere with the decision of the Board, unless an error in law is plainly demonstrated. We see no such error.

[10] At the conclusion of the hearing, the Board raised the question of whether the medical evidence of the family doctor was sufficient and, very fairly, the Board gave the appellant an adjournment to allow him the opportunity to file further medical evidence. This led to the production of two reports of Dr. Kirwin. The Board analysed these reports and found that:

"There was a lack of credible evidence to establish that the injuries incurred by the applicant during the assault have rendered him completely disabled".

[11] We are all of the view that the Board's conclusions were supported by the evidence. We see no error in law, nor any denial of principles of natural justice.

[12] As a result, the appeal is dismissed.

Appeal dismissed.