Court File and Parties

CITATION: Heath-Engel v. Criminal Injuries Compensation Board, 2025 ONSC 3283

DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: 087/22

DATE: 20250603

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE – ONTARIO DIVISIONAL COURT

RE: Emma Heath-Engel, Moving Party

AND:

Criminal Injuries Compensation Board, Responding Party

BEFORE: Justice S. Nakatsuru

COUNSEL: Emma Heath-Engel, for the Moving Party Morgana Kellythorne, for Tribunals Ontario

HEARD: May 20, 2025, in writing

Endorsement

[1] Ms. Emma Heath-Engel brings a motion for an extension of time to bring a judicial review application of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board (“CICB”) decision dated May 4, 2021.

[2] The test to be applied on this motion requires me to consider s. 5(2) of the Judicial Review Procedure Act and the factors that guide the exercise of its discretion under that section, including the length of the delay, explanation for the delay, if any, and the merits of the intended application (“apparent grounds for relief”): Judicial Review Procedure Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. J. 1, s. 5(1), (2).

[3] The delay here is very long. It is now over four years from the date of the decision. I will accept that Ms. Heath-Engel intended to judicially review the decision within 30 days although she does not say so in her affidavit.

[4] There is no good explanation for the delay. Ms. Heath-Engel received the decision on May 4, 2021, but initially did nothing to judicially review it. She states she was not aware she could until July 21, 2021, when counsel for the CICB told her she could. However, a reasonable applicant in her shoes should have made inquiries before then about her avenues of review and the time requirements to do so. There is an onus on any litigant to comply with the rules and the laws. In addition, while I have every sympathy for the challenges faced by an unrepresented litigant, Ms. Heath-Engel did not serve her notice of application for judicial review until December 19, 2021, nearly five months after being advised by the CICB. Finally, this motion to seek an extension of time was not perfected by her until February of 2025. The length and nature of the delay and the lack of a good explanation for it supports dismissal of the motion.

[5] While it is not Ms. Heath-Engel’s fault, there is prejudice to the responding party caused by the delay. The CICB no longer exists and may not be able to respond to the judicial review.

[6] An important consideration here is an examination of the judicial review’s merit. Looking at the merits of the case, while Ms. Heath-Engel alleges she has been a victim of horrendous multiple sexual crimes over her lifetime, based on the record provided, I cannot say that the judicial review is strong.

[7] Looking at all the relevant factors, the motion for an extension of time to bring a judicial review application is dismissed.

Justice S. Nakatsuru

Released: June 3, 2025.