The Appeal CommissionThe Workers Compensation Act of Manitoba

Appellant’s Evidence at Hearing

The appellant attended the hearing and explained his position to the panel. He also answered questions posed by the panel.

The appellant described the events prior to and subsequent to the assault.

He advised that he had finished work on the day in question and stopped at a local hotel with co-workers. He consumed two or three beers. He then walked to another nearby hotel. He entered this hotel to look for a colleague who was not present. He was in this hotel for 30 seconds to one minute. After leaving this hotel, the appellant was called over to a taxi parked in front of the hotel by a passenger in the taxi. He initially referred to the passenger as a “girl I’ve known through an ex-girlfriend of mine who I’ve had problems with.” He went over to speak to the passenger who inquired about the whereabouts of another person. The appellant stated that the passenger was trouble and so he warned her not to attend at his mother’s residence. He walked away from the taxi and was assaulted a short distance away on the street. He did not see the person who assaulted him. A person standing outside the hotel went inside the hotel and asked that an ambulance be called. The appellant was taken to the hospital by ambulance.

The appellant advised that when police attended at the hospital, he was “in no way ready to be talking to police.” He stated that he had been given painkillers at the hospital. He did not have a clear memory of the police visit to the hospital.

The appellant advised that the next day he went to the hotel and spoke to a hotel staff person. He also contacted a woman who was outside the hotel at the time of the assault. The woman advised that the taxi driver assaulted him. She gave him a description of the taxi driver. The identity of the taxi driver was unknown to the woman but she indicated that the driver worked for a specific company and provided the name of the company.

The appellant advised that he contacted the police the next day and gave them the above information. He advised that he talked to the police “for days on end.” In answer to questions from the panel, the appellant advised that he spoke to the officer who was assigned to the matter on the Monday following the incident and gave him the information that he received.

The appellant disagreed with the information from the assigned officer that the appellant did not contact the assigned officer until several weeks later. He indicated that this information was “totally false.”

The appellant also disagreed with the police information that he was intoxicated when at the hospital.

When asked about the identity of the passenger in the taxi, the appellant advised that he did not know her name but acknowledged that she had attended at his mother’s home on three occasions when he was present and possibly other occasions. He advised that he has seen the passenger since the incident but has not spoken with her.

The appellant indicated that he gave the police all the information that he collected and questioned why he would have to do more when he was a victim of a criminal act. He stated that he innocently walked down a street in broad daylight and he was assaulted and therefore should be entitled to benefits from the program.

Analysis

The issue before the panel was whether the appellant’s claim is eligible for compensation. The panel finds, on a balance of probabilities, that the appellant has not assisted law enforcement authorities to apprehend or prosecute the person whose actions resulted in the appellant’s injuries. The panel concludes that the appellant’s claim is not eligible for compensation and applies subsection 54(b) of the VBR.

In hearing this appeal, the panel was presented with conflicting versions of events surrounding the appellant’s efforts to assist authorities. The panel preferred the evidence of the police over that of the appellant. Specifically the panel accepts the evidence of the officer assigned to the case. He has indicated that the worker refused to cooperate when visited at the hospital and did not contact him until several weeks later. The worker again contacted the assigned officer after the program had denied his claim to obtain verification that he had been assaulted. The assigned officer advised that no follow-up was made by the police as the appellant did not wish to speak to police. He also indicated that they have nothing to indicate that the appellant was the victim of a criminal incident.