Decision #02/02 - Type: Victims' Rights
Preamble
An Appeal Panel hearing was held on September 26, 2001, at the request of the claimant. The Panel discussed this appeal on September 26, 2001 and again on January 29, 2002.Issue
Whether or not responsibility should be accepted for expenses relating to relocation and name change.Decision
That responsibility should be accepted for expenses relating to relocation and name change.Decision: Unanimous
Background
The Victims’ Rights Act was replaced on August 31, 2001 by The Victims’ Bill of Rights. The part of the respective Acts which pertains to compensation is identical, albeit with different section numbering. Although the claim, which forms the basis of this appeal, was commenced under the former statute, the references in this decision are to the Victims’ Bill of Rights.
On March 12, 1999 the claimant was the victim of a sexual assault and filed a claim with the Compensation for Victims of Crime program.
In a letter dated August 25, 2000, the claimant’s mother indicated that due to the nature of the crime it became necessary to change names and phones numbers and to move out of the school district. An itemized list of costs was submitted for reimbursement as a direct result of the assault. This included realtor costs, moving costs, vital statistic costs, etc.
On September 6, 2000, the Victims of Crime program ruled that it did not cover the type of expenditures that were requested on August 25, 2000. This decision was upheld in a further letter dated April 27, 2001. On May 16, 2001, the decision was appealed and an oral hearing was arranged.
Following the oral hearing held on September 26, 2001, the Appeal Panel met to discuss the case and requested additional medical information prior to rendering a final decision. On January 11, 2002, all interested parties were provided with copies of a medical report dated January 9, 2002 and from a therapist dated October 3, 2001 and were asked to provide comment. On January 29, 2002 the Panel met further to discuss the case and took into consideration a letter from the claimant which was received on January 29, 2002.
Reasons
This appeal is pursuant to The Victim's Bill of Rights of Manitoba. The claimant is a minor who incurred injuries as a result of a sexual assault upon her. She has been diagnosed as suffering from Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder. Her mother has brought this action on her behalf.
In the aftermath of the assault, the claimant became the subject of considerable harassment from classmates and others in the neighborhood, who sided with the perpetrator of the crime. As a result, the claimant and her mother were forced to move to different neighborhoods, on two occasions, and to change their names. Their application to be recompensed for the costs associated with the moves and name changes was denied. An appeal to the director of the program was also denied.
For the appeal to this Commission to succeed, the Panel would have to determine that the expenses claimed were reasonably incurred as a result of the crime. We have so determined.
In coming to our decision, we made a thorough review of the file and held an oral hearing, at which we heard testimony from the claimant’s mother.
Subsection 46(1) of The Victims’ Bill of Rights allows for an application for compensation to be made where a person is injured or dies as a result of an offence under the Criminal Code of Canada.
Pursuant to section 47, compensation is payable for expenses incurred by the victim in respect of the injury. Subsection 11(1) of The Victims’ Rights Regulation further stipulates that the expense must be “reasonably incurred … as a result of the victim’s injury …”
Under subsection 50(1), an application for compensation may be made by a person who incurred the expense, where the maintenance of the victim is the responsibility of that person.
In this case, the Panel had to determine whether or not the monies spent on relocation and for name changes were “reasonably incurred as a result of the injury.”
In coming to our finding that they were, we placed considerable weight on the report of a psychiatric assessment conducted in February 2001. The doctors noted that, in the aftermath of the incident, the claimant had shown strong symptoms of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD). They further observed that, at the time of the assessment, two years after the assault, “her symptoms of PTSD seem more related to the reactions of her former classmates rather than to the original incident itself, as demonstrated by her fear of returning to …” her former neighborhood and, in particular, a major mall in that area.
They concluded that she continues to need treatment to deal with the results of the assault.
We have concluded that the two relocations and the name changes are a part of that treatment, being necessary to her successful rehabilitation. Therefore, we find that the expenses claimed in this application and appeal are legitimate and meet the test set out in the legislation.
Accordingly, the appeal is allowed.
Panel Members
T. Sargeant, Presiding OfficerA. Finkel, Commissioner
M. Day, Commissioner
Recording Secretary, B. Miller
T. Sargeant - Presiding Officer
(on behalf of the panel)
Signed at Winnipeg this 11th day of March, 2002