Decision #02/08 - Type: Victims' Rights
Preamble
A file review was held on February 12, 2008 at the appellant’s request.
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 for compensation with the Compensation for Victims of Crime Program (the “Program”) on October 9, 2007 for an altercation that occurred on or about May 15, 1991. The appellant stated that she awoke on May 15 to go to the bathroom and found a man in her 14 year old daughter’s bed. She then grabbed a baseball bat and struck the man’s arm. The man jumped out of bed and assaulted her with the bat. The appellant noted that she recently became aware of the Program from the Winnipeg Police and the Crown Attorney’s office.
On November 1, 2007, the appellant’s claim for compensation was denied by the Program on the grounds that her application for benefits was received beyond the legislated one year time frame for applying to the Program. Subsection 51(1) of The Victims’ Bill of Rights was quoted in the decision. On November 6, 2007, the appellant appealed the decision and provided rationale for not filing her claim sooner. She indicated that she never knew she could receive compensation for injuries through a crime until she was told to do so by the crown and the police after they caught the accused.
In a letter dated November 8, 2007, the Program’s acting director confirmed the original decision to deny the claim. With respect to the appellant’s argument that that she did not file a claim sooner because she was not aware of the Program, the acting director notes that the Program’s records showed that the appellant had two previous claims for compensation which had been filed in 1997 and 2001. This supported the previous decision that the appellant did not meet the legislative requirement when requesting compensation for an incident that occurred in 1991.
On November 27, 2007, the appellant appealed the Program’s decision to the Appeal Commission and a file review was arranged.
Reasons
This case involves an appeal of a decision of the Program’s Acting Director, upholding an earlier decision to refuse an application for compensation due to late filing beyond the time limit set out in the legislation. For the appeal to succeed, the panel would have to find it is appropriate to extend the time. We are not able to do so.
Appellant’s submission:
In her Request for Appeal, the appellant submits that she did not know that she was eligible to be compensated every time someone hurt her. She also states that she has memory problems and that she needs help with matters such as this She claims to have little knowledge of earlier applications as she states that someone else had made phone calls and she had simply signed the forms.
Analysis:
As the incident occurred on May 15, 1991, the legislation governing the time limit to apply for compensation is the legislation as it existed in 1991. The relevant provision is subsection 6(2)(a) of The Criminal Injuries Compensation Act. This provision provides as follows:
Limitation period
6(2) Except as may be otherwise permitted by this Act, the board shall not make an order for compensation
(a) where the application for compensation is made after the expiration of two years from the date of injury or death, as the case may be.
The appellant’s claim for compensation was not received until October 9, 2007. Accordingly, the two year time limit for making an application has clearly expired.
The question then becomes whether the time for filing an application ought to be extended. Authority for granting an extension of time is found under the current legislation. Subsection 51(2) of The Victims’ Bill of Rights provides:
Extension of time
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 practices and procedures for granting an extension of time. Factors which may support the granting of an extension include cases where the applicant was a minor or mentally incompetent, or where the applicant was medically or psychologically incapable. In the latter case where the applicant is medically/psychologically incapacitated, the extension is generally limited to an extension of up to 30 days.
The policy also specifically addresses the issue of lack of awareness and provides:
Lack of awareness
An extension will not be granted based solely on the fact that the applicant was unaware of the program.
In fulfilling our role as the Compensation 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.
Although subsection 51(2) allows the panel to grant an extension of time where the panel considers it appropriate, we are of the view that this should be done in rare cases, with very compelling reasons to do so.
In the present case, we sympathize with the appellant, who has sadly suffered much abuse in her lifetime. Unfortunately, the Program policy specifically provides that an extension will not be granted based solely on the fact that the appellant was unaware of the Program, and we were unable to identify any other compelling reason which might justify the granting of an extension in this case.
The appeal is therefore denied.
Panel Members
L. Choy, Presiding OfficerB. Simoneau, Commissioner
M. Day, Commissioner
Recording Secretary, B. Kosc
L. Choy - Presiding Officer
Signed at Winnipeg this 14th day of February, 2008