The Appeal CommissionThe Workers Compensation Act of Manitoba

Appellant's Position

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

The appellant advised that she was assaulted by her boyfriend on August 27, 2006. She noted that she was just 18 years of age at that time. She submitted that she took all necessary precautions after the incident including notifying police, giving a statement and obtaining medical attention. She also attended domestic violence counseling. She advised that that neither the police nor her counsellor informed her of the CVCP and her right to apply for benefits.

The appellant advised that she first learned about the CVCP in 2010, at which time she applied for benefits. She said that she would have applied to the program in 2007 if she would have been informed about the program.

The worker acknowledged that she told her counsellor that she did not want charges against the assailant to proceed. She said she was still in a relationship with the assailant and that he asked her not to proceed with charges. She said she agreed with his request because she was afraid of him. She also advised that she did not attend court as she was requested to do.

In answer to a question, the appellant advised that she remained in a relationship with the assailant until 2010 and that she now has a protective order against the assailant. When asked about file information which indicated that she denied the assault occurred, the appellant advised that she did not recall this.

The appellant submitted that she is a victim of a criminal act and should be entitled to assistance.

Analysis

Issue 1: Whether or not the time for making an application for compensation should be extended?

The appellant's position on this issue is that she was not informed of the program and accordingly was not aware of the program. In considering the request for extension of time to file an application, the panel must apply subsections 51(1) and 51(2) of the Bill.

Authority for granting an extension of time is found under the current legislation. Subsection 51(2) of the Bill 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 the role as the Compensation Appeal Board under the Bill, the panel follows the practice that decisions are to be made in accordance with both the Bill and with program policy. It is open to the panel to interpret provisions of both the Bill and policy.

Although subsection 51(2) allows the panel to grant an extension of time where the panel considers it appropriate, the panel is of the view that this should be done in rare cases, with very compelling reasons to do so.

In the present case, the panel sympathizes with the appellant, who has sadly suffered abuse. 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 the panel is unable to identify any other compelling reason which might justify the granting of an extension in this case.

The appeal on this issue is therefore denied.

Issue 2: Whether or not the application for compensation is acceptable?

The second issue before the panel was whether the appellant’s application for compensation is acceptable. The panel notes that subsection 54(b) of the Bill provides that compensation may be refused or reduced where the applicant has not assisted law enforcement authorities to apprehend or prosecute the persons responsible for the applicant’s injuries.