Decision #06/07 - Type: Victims' Rights
Preamble
On January 12, 2007, the appellant filed a claim for benefits from the Manitoba Victims of Crime Program (the Program) for a left eye injury that occurred on June 22, 2003 when she was struck in the face with a tree branch. Her claim was denied by the Program based on subsection 51(1) of The Victims’ Bill of Rights (the VBR) which requires that applications for benefits be received within one year. The appellant appealed this decision to the Appeal Commission and a file review took place on November 8, 2007.
Issue
Whether or not the time for making an application for compensation should be extended.
Decision
That the time for making an application for compensation should not be extended.
Decision: Unanimous
Background
The appellant filed a claim with the Program in January 2007 for an incident that took place on June 23, 2003. Her claim for compensation was denied on the grounds that her application for benefits was received beyond the legislated one year time frame for applying to the program.
On March 2, 2007, the appellant asked the Program to reconsider their decision. The appellant indicated that neither the police nor her doctor advised her of the Program’s existence or that assistance was available. She noted that the Supreme Court overturns decisions due to not knowing or having knowledge of the facts.
On May 22, 2007, a Program representative met with the appellant. The appellant was asked why the charges against the accused were stayed. The appellant responded that she did not attend the trial to testify as she had some outstanding warrants and did not want to get arrested.
On May 24, 2007, the Program’s acting director confirmed that the claim for compensation was not acceptable. The acting director stated that not being aware of the Program’s existence at the time of the assault was not sufficient reason for the Program to provide an extension of time. She also referred to section 54 of the VBR and stated that the claim was denied based on the fact that the appellant did not assist the Crown in the prosecution of the person who caused her injury. On June 23, 2007, the appellant appealed the decision to the Appeal Commission and a file review was arranged for November 8, 2007.
Reasons
For this appeal to be successful, the panel would need to find there were circumstances to allow the appellant extended time to file her application for compensation. The panel did not find there was any basis to allow for an extension of time. Factors that may approve an extension include situations where the applicant was a minor or mentally incompetent or was medically or psychologically incapable of filing. These factors are not relevant in this case as the appellant was capable of applying when she was injured in 2003.
Appellants Argument:
The appellant in her claim described an assault that occurred in 2003 leaving her left eye permanently damaged along with resulting migraines. She raised a concern about potential issues that could occur with the right eye which could leave her blinded.
In her appeal, the appellant noted that she was not aware of the process to file a compensation claim under the VBR program until 2007. She feels her lack of knowledge of the program warrants reconsideration of her case.
Analysis:
In considering this case the panel referred to subsections 51(1) and 51(2) of the VBR along with the policy to be applied to those sections.
Subsection 51(1) of the VBR provides:
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.
Subsection 51(2) provides:
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.
Subsection 51(2) provides the director with the authority to extend the time limit for applying but the authority is discretionary in circumstances where “he or she considers it appropriate”. There is no obligation to extend the time limit for applying the circumstances where the victim knew the extent of his or her injury but simply was not aware of their right to seek redress under the VBR.
The program has developed a policy which sets out practices for implementing subsection 51(2). The policy provides:
“Policy:
An application must be made within one year after the date of the event that resulted in the injury or death, or within one year after the date when the victim first became aware of or ought to be aware of the nature of the nature of the injury and its impact.”
The panel notes the procedure section of the policy which provides in part:
“Lack of Awareness:
An extension will not be granted based solely on the fact that the applicant was unaware of the program.”
In summary, the clear legislative intent is that once victims become aware of the nature and extent of their injuries, they have an obligation to inform themselves of their rights and to avail themselves of their rights in a reasonable period. The incident took place on June 22, 2003 and the applicant filed her claim in February 2007. The panel notes the appellant was assessed in 2003 by appropriate medical practitioners who diagnosed the extent of her injuries. The panel therefore finds she was aware of the impact of her injury at that time.
The panel finds that while the applicant may not have been aware of the program, this does not provide a compelling reason to justify an extension of time for her to file an application. Her appeal is denied.
Panel Members
A. Scramstad, Presiding OfficerA. Finkel, Commissioner
M. Day, Commissioner
Recording Secretary, B. Kosc
A. Scramstad - Presiding Officer
Signed at Winnipeg this 27th day of November, 2007