The appellant appealed a decision of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board awarding her $5,000 for loss of income and $1,200 for future therapy following assaults by her former husband.
She argued the Board erred in attributing her psychological condition and inability to work to factors other than the assaults, and in failing to apply the 'thin skull' rule.
The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the Board reasonably concluded that pre-existing and subsequent stressors contributed to her inability to work, akin to the 'crumbling skull' doctrine, and that the award fell within a range of reasonable outcomes.