Decision #08/03 - Type: Victims' Rights

Preamble

A non-oral file review was held on September 24, 2003, at the request of the claimant.

Issue

Whether or not the one year limitation for filing an application for compensation should be extended.

Decision

That the one year limitation for filing an application for compensation should not be extended.

Decision: Unanimous

Background

On April 23, 2003, the Manitoba Compensation for Victims of Crime Program received an "Application for Compensation" form filed by the clamant for a crime that took place on October 27, 2001. On this date, the claimant indicated that her face was cut with a glass bottle which left her with a big scar.

Following an investigation into the claim, a case manager advised the claimant on May 27, 2003 that her claim had been denied as the program had received her application beyond the one-year time limit and there did not appear to be any extenuating circumstances that would have prevented her from applying at or around the time of the incident originally occurred.

On June 19, 2003, a "Request for Reconsideration" was filed by the claimant. The claimant contended that she was not aware that the program existed at the time of the incident which was why she did not file a claim until now.

In a letter dated June 27, 2003, the Director advised the claimant that her appeal had been denied. The Director indicated that Section 51(2) did allow her to extend the time. However, the policy only allowed for extensions where the applicant was a minor or was mentally or physically unable to file the application. In July 2003, the claimant disagreed with this decision and a non-oral file review was arranged.

Following discussion of the case, the Appeal Panel requested additional information from Winnipeg Police Service prior to rendering a decision on the issue under appeal. A response from Winnipeg Police Service was later received dated October 26, 2003 and was forwarded to the interested parties for comment. On October 29, 2003, the Panel met to further discuss the case and render its final decision.

Reasons

This case involves an appeal of a decision of the Program Director, upholding an earlier decision not to accept an application for compensation, as it was filed after the time for application had expired. For the appeal to succeed, the Appeal Panel would have to find grounds to justify such an extension. We were not able to do so.

This case falls under The Victims' Bill of Rights. The following sections of this statute apply to this case:

51(1) Subject to subsection (2), an application for compensation must be made within one year after the date of the event that results in the victim's injury or death, or within one year after the date when the victim becomes aware of or knows or ought to know the nature of the injuries and recognizes the effects of the injuries.

51(2) The director may, before or after the expiry of the one year period, extend the time for making an application if he or she considers it appropriate.

The program has developed a policy which sets out practice and procedures for implementing these clauses. The policy provides that an extension may be given where the applicant was a minor at the time of the crime. As well, where she was medically incapacitated, an extension of 30 days may be granted.

The claimant was nineteen years old at the time of the crime and, thus, not a minor. While she was hospitalized, it was only for a few days. Her application was made eighteen months after the crime, six months after the end of the time limitation.

The Appeal Panel was concerned that there might not be any systems in place to ensure that victims of crime are made aware of the compensation program. To that end, we wrote to the Winnipeg Police Service inquiring as to its policies and procedures in this regard. The Police Service responded that, while it is not a formal policy, it is standard practice to have volunteers in the Victim Service Unit provide such information to crime victims. While we are satisfied that this is a good practice, as a rule, we would urge the program to work with police departments throughout the province to ensure that program information is always given to victims.

We also note that the program policy contains the following sections which are particularly relevant to this appeal:
  • An extension will not be granted based solely on the fact that the applicant was unaware of the program.
  • An exception may be made if the delay was not longer than 90 days.
In fulfilling our role as the Appeal Board, under The Victims Bill of Rights, we follow the practice that our decisions are to be made in accordance with both the act and with program policy. It is open to us to interpret provisions of both the act and policy.

Subsection 51(2) does allow us to extend the time period for application, where we deem it appropriate. However, we are of the view that this should be done in rare cases, with very compelling reasons to do so. This is not such a case. Other than a lack of knowledge about the program, there are no other relevant factors which would justify an extension.

We sympathize with the victim, who has clearly suffered a grievous injury, which will stay with her for life. But, there is no basis in law or policy to allow us to grant her appeal.

Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.

Panel Members

T. Sargeant, Presiding Officer
A. Finkel, Commissioner
M. Day, Commissioner
Recording Secretary, B. Miller

T. Sargeant - Presiding Officer
(on behalf of the panel)

Signed at Winnipeg this 2nd day of December, 2003

Back