Decision #02/06 - Type: Victims' Rights

Preamble

A file review was held on February 2, 2005, at the claimant's request.

Issue

Whether or not the claim is acceptable.

Decision

That the claim for benefits is not acceptable.

Decision: Unanimous

Background

In August 2005, the claimant filed a claim with the Manitoba Compensation for Victims of Crime Program (the program) for an unprovoked assault that occurred on August 12, 2005. The injuries reported by the claimant were multiple stab wounds to his anterior and posterior chest and multiple hematoma to the head.

The Stonewall Royal Canadian Mounted Police advised that the claimant had not cooperated in providing information. A claims adjudicator with the program then denied the claim for compensation based on section 54(b) of The Victims' Bill of Rights (the Bill) which stated,
"b) the applicant has not assisted law enforcement authorities to apprehend or prosecute a person whose actions resulted in the victim's injury or death."
On September 8, 2005, the claimant requested reconsideration of the above decision. The claimant explained that he was walking with other inmates in the yard when he was hit in the back of his head by someone he did not see. He was knocked out. The claimant stated that when he awoke, he was in a pool of blood and didn't know what happened to him. This was the reason why he could not provide any information to the police.

In a response to the claimant dated October 2, 2005, the program's director stated that he had reviewed the hospital records and there was no indication that the claimant had been knocked out during the altercation. Based on this information, the director agreed with the original decision to deny the claim pursuant to section 54(b) of the Bill. On October 19, 2005, the claimant appealed the director's decision and a file review was arranged.

Reasons

This case involves an appeal of the decision of the program director, upholding an earlier decision to refuse to award compensation because the claimant has not assisted law enforcement authorities to apprehend or prosecute a person whose actions resulted in the claimant's injury. The panel has considered all the evidence and finds that the worker did not assist law enforcement authorities as required and accordingly the claim for benefits should be refused.

Claimant's Submission

In support of the appeal, the claimant provided the following written explanation of the assault which occurred on August 12, 2005 while in custody at a penal institution:
"Well I had been going out to the yard with these same guys for at least a month before I got stabed (sic). I had no ideal (sic) that this was going to happen to me. I was walking with 3 guys an (sic) all of a sudden I was hit in the head an (sic) the first thing I did was cover up. I rolled up into a ball an (sic) I was getting kicked an (sic) punched an stabed (sic). I wasn't realy (sic) concernd (sic) about letting down my gard (sic) to look who was doing ths to me. After it was done I looked up an (sic) the guys were on the other side of the yard so that's why I couldn't tell the police who it was did this to me."
The claimant also completed a Request for Appeal of Victims Compensation form. In this form the claimant wrote:
"In my last appeal wen (sic) I said I was knocked out I ment (sic) that I was knocked to the ground. Wen (sic) you have people stabeing (sic) you, you do not take the time to try and look at them. I was more concernd (sic) about getting hurt."
Analysis

The panel finds, on a balance of probabilities, that the claimant did not assist law enforcement authorities as required by subsection 54(b) of the Bill and that the claim for benefits should be refused.

In making this decision the panel notes that the Stonewall Royal Canadian Mounted Police have advised the Program that the claimant is not cooperating with the police in the investigation of this matter.

The claimant has provided an explanation as to why he has not assisted law enforcement officers. The claimant first explained that "…I did not see an (sic) I was knocked out wen (sic) I woke up I was in a pool of blood an (sic) I didn't even know what happened to me. That's why I could not provide information to the police.…" It was pointed out that the emergency records from the treating hospital did not confirm that the claimant was knocked out. The claimant then explained that he was not knocked out but was knocked to the ground. The claimant also explained that he rolled up into a ball and did not look to see who was assaulting him.

The panel is not able to attach any weight to the explanation offered by the claimant. The explanation has changed and is not consistent with the medical evidence which indicates that the claimant received multiple stab wounds to his chest and abdomen. The panel finds that the claimant's evidence is not credible.

Subsection 54(b) of the Bill provides that the director may refuse to award compensation if he or she is of the opinion that the claimant has not assisted law enforcement authorities to apprehend or prosecute a person whose actions resulted in the claimant's injury or death.

The panel finds this section is applicable and that the claimant did not assist law enforcement authorities and that the claimant's application for benefits should be refused. The appeal is denied.

Panel Members

A. Scramstad, Presiding Officer
A. Finkel, Commissioner
M. Day, Commissioner

Recording Secretary, B. Miller

A. Scramstad - Presiding Officer
(on behalf of the panel)

Signed at Winnipeg this 22nd day of March, 2006

Back