The Appeal CommissionThe Workers Compensation Act of Manitoba

Preamble

The appellant is appealing the decision made by the Manitoba Compensation for Victims of Crime Program (the Program) for an assault that occurred on February 1, 2010. The appellant's application was denied in accordance with Subsection 54(b) of The Victims' Bill of Rights (the Bill). The appellant disagreed with the decision and an appeal was filed with the Appeal Commission. A file review was held on October 18, 2010 to consider the matter.

Issue

Whether or not the application for compensation is acceptable.

Decision

That the application for compensation is not acceptable.

Decision: Unanimous

Background

On March 12, 2010, the appellant filed a claim with the Program for an assault take took place on February 1, 2010. The appellant stated that the police called an ambulance and she was taken to hospital and was treated for a cut to the forehead.

On March 24, 2010, the appellant was advised that her claim for benefits did not meet the criteria of Subsection 54(b) of the Bill as she was uncooperative with the police officers and she declined to provide a statement as she did not want charges laid against the accused. The Program indicated that applicants were expected to fully cooperate in the apprehension and prosecution of an accused person through the provision of information or evidence and/or witness statements and by providing testimony in court. Failure to carry out these responsibilities can result in the denial or revocation of the application.

The appellant asked for a reconsideration of the decision made on March 24, 2010. The appellant stated:

"Since the Winnipeg Police apprehended & charged [the accused] I felt that it was not necessary for me to do also. I went to court on March 31 and there was no court. I was not called again to testify. I live on 500 a month to pay mortgage & bills and have no extra money".

On May 19, 2010, the Program advised the appellant that no change would be made to the original decision. The letter stated:

"Your claim was denied pursuant to Section 54(b) of Victims' Bill of Rights, as you told the police that you did not want the accused prosecuted for the assault against you of February 1, 2010. You were also contacted by a domestic violence worker on several occasions, however, you declined service from them. The charges against the offender were subsequently stayed in court due to the inconsistencies in your statements to the police and your reluctance to testify against the accused. Accordingly, based on the above information, your claim does not meet the program's eligibility criteria and cannot be approved".

On August 31, 2010, the appellant appealed the above decision to the Appeal Commission and a file review was arranged.

Reasons

Appellant's Submission

In support of the appeal, the appellant wrote that "The police called the paramedics I went. The police charged [alleged assailant], I went to court to testify on March 31/ there was no court". She also wrote that "I did everything the police asked for. I only get 500 a month to live on."

Analysis

The panel finds, on a balance of probabilities, that the appellant 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 appellant refused to provide a statement when asked to do so by the City of Winnipeg Police and indicated a number of times that she did not want to press charges. The appellant indicated at one point that she was hit with a cane by the alleged assailant and later that she was hit by a knife or bat. The appellant was not sure of the time of the day that the assault occurred. On the other hand the alleged assailant denied that he assaulted the appellant and indicated that she had fallen. Both the appellant and alleged assailant were noted to be intoxicated.

While the alleged assailant was initially charged with an offence, file information indicates that the Crown stayed charges because the appellant's story was not consistent and she did not make a formal statement to police.

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 based on the evidence before it, the appellant did not assist law enforcement authorities. Accordingly the appellant's application for benefits should be refused. The appeal is denied.

Panel Members

A. Scramstad, Presiding Officer
A. Finkel, Commissioner
P. Walker, Commissioner

Recording Secretary, B. Kosc

A. Scramstad - Presiding Officer

Signed at Winnipeg this 22nd day of October, 2010