The Appeal CommissionThe Workers Compensation Act of Manitoba

Preamble

The claimant appealed the Manitoba Compensation for Victims of Crime Program (the "Program") decision that they are not entitled to compensation for past and future tuition costs for their children to attend private school. The appeal panel considered the appeal at a hearing held on December 10, 2025.

Issue

Is there entitlement to compensation for past and future tuition costs for the claimant's children to attend private school?

Decision

There is not entitlement to compensation for past and future tuition costs for the claimant's children to attend private school.

Background

The claimant applied to the Compensation for Victims of Crime Program on July 14, 2022 for benefits relating to an incident that took place in Manitoba on May 18, 2022. The Program determined the claimant was not eligible for compensation as the evidence did not establish that the claimant was the victim of an eligible Criminal Code (Canada) offence as required under the provisions of I (the "VBR"). On July 18, 2023, the claimant requested reconsideration of this decision and on July 31, 2023, the Director of the Program (the "Director") confirmed the initial decision. The claimant appealed the reconsideration decision to the Appeal Commission on September 11, 2023. In Appeal Commission Decision No. VR01/25, provided March 20, 2025, the panel found the claimant's application acceptable and returned the claim to the Program to decide entitlement to benefits.

On June 6, 2025, the Program advised the claimant they were eligible for counselling and wage loss benefits, but that they were not eligible for the requested reimbursement of other expenses, including tuition expenses for their children, as these were not eligible expenses under the VBR. On June 13, 2025, the claimant requested the Director reconsider that decision. The Director advised the claimant on July 7, 2025 that the claim for reimbursement of their children's past and future tuition expenses was not eligible for compensation, noting the children did not meet the definition of a victim, witness or eligible family member under the VBR. The claimant appealed to the Appeal Commission on October 5, 2025 and a hearing took place on December 10, 2025.

Reasons

Applicable Legislation

The panel is bound to apply the provisions of The Victims’ Bill of Rights (the “VBR”) and the regulations under that law. The VBR sets out in s 46(1) that for purposes of determining compensation, a person is a victim if they are injured or die because of an incident that occurs in Manitoba that is caused by an act or omission of another person that is an offence under the Criminal Code (Canada) as specified in the regulations. Section 47 of the VBR provides that a victim who is injured as a result of such an incident is entitled to reimbursement for certain expenses as set out in the regulation if incurred as a result of the injury, as well as to compensation for related counselling services, compensation for loss of wages if the victim is disabled by the injury and compensation for impairment if the victim is permanently impaired by the injury. A claimant can appeal a reconsideration decision by the Director under s 60(1) and the appeal panel hearing that appeal can confirm, vary, or rescind that decision under s 64(1).

Victims' Rights Regulation, M.R. 214/98 (the "Regulation") provides in s 3(2) that when an act or omission of an offender results in death or injury of more than one victim, the Director must treat each victim as if their death or injury was caused by a separate incident. The Regulation outlines the nature of compensation that can be paid to a victim under the VBR and limits the extent of compensation that can be provided to any individual victim. The Regulation provides for the following kinds of compensation: loss of wages or earnings (s 8(1)); rehabilitation program participation (s 8.1); retraining when a victim is unable to return to work as a direct result of their injury (s 8.2); compensation for permanent impairment (s 9); loss or damage to items that occurred in an incident (s 11); medical and dental treatment (s 11.1); counselling (s 11.1(3)); travel and accommodation to receive medical, dental or counselling (s. 11.1(4)); attendant expenses (s 11.2); home or vehicle modifications (s 11.3); and compensation for a child born due to an offence (s 11.4). Additional compensation may be provided to family members of a deceased victim in specified circumstances, as outlined in ss 13 - 14.1, to witnesses as outlined in s 15.1, and for funeral expenses as outlined in s 16.

Claimant's Position

The claimant appeared in the hearing accompanied by their spouse. Both the claimant and their spouse made presentations in support of the appeal and offered testimony through their submissions and the answers provided to questions posed by the appeal panel.

The claimant's position is that because of the offender's act, their children also sustained injuries to their mental health, which necessitated a therapeutic intervention. The claimant described that the children became withdrawn, fearful, anxious, dependent, emotionally fragile and had difficulty with concentration. The claimant testified that they decided that their minor children needed to be in the same school community despite their age gap and that they needed additional supports that could be provided in the private school environment. The claimant relied on the October 25, 2025 letter from their family physician in relation to treatment of the elder child and noted that the same physician also provided treatment to the younger child. The claimant noted the children also receive counselling-type supports through staff of their school. The claimant submitted that their children's attendance at private school is a trauma response and therefore the tuition is a necessary expense arising out of the injury caused by the criminal incident.

The claimant relied on s 3(2) of the Regulation which allows for compensation to be paid to multiple victims of the same incident and submitted the panel should apply these provisions to find that the minor children are also victims of the same incident that gave rise to this claim.

Analysis

The question in this appeal is whether the claimant is entitled to compensation for tuition for private school education paid in relation to their two children after the date of the incident, beginning with the 2022/2023 school year and ongoing until completion of that education. For the appeal to succeed, the panel would have to find that the VBR and Regulation permit such compensation to be paid to a victim and that the claimant is entitled to such compensation. As detailed below, the panel is unable to make such a finding and therefore the claimant's appeal is denied, and the decision of the Director is confirmed.

The panel considered the definition of victim for purposes of claims for compensation. Section 45(1) of the VBR defines a victim as a person other than a witness who is injured or dies because of an incident described in s 46(1), which states that a person is a victim if they are injured or die as a result of an incident that occurs in Manitoba caused by an act or omission of another person that is an offence under the Criminal Code (Canada). As noted above, the appeal panel in Decision VR 01/25 determined the claimant is a victim under this definition. We are bound by that finding.

The claimant submitted that their minor children are also victims of the same incident as they were negatively affected by the claimant's injury and that s 3(2) of the Regulation supports this position. The panel does not agree. While s 3(2) of the Regulation requires that each victim of an act or omission of an offender must be considered separately by the Director in deciding entitlement to compensation, we note that the definition of victim remains that set out under the VBR, which requires a causal relationship between an individual's injury or death and the alleged criminal act. Here, the evidence before the panel is that the claimant's minor children were not present as witnesses of the incident giving rise to this claim, nor were they directly injured by the action of the offender. Rather, the evidence is that the minor children were exposed to the claimant's mental health symptoms and presentation following the incident, and subsequently, the children also developed symptoms of anxiety and fear. The evidence further confirms the claimant, and their spouse shared information about the incident with the minor children as explanation of the claimant's symptoms and presentation. While the children's mental health response to these circumstances could be an indirect effect of the injury sustained by the claimant because of the incident, we do not find any evidence that the offender's act caused direct injury to the children. In making this finding, the panel acknowledges that the claimant's children may have been affected by the chain of events triggered by the offender's actions and by the claimant's response to that incident, including the impact of the incident on the claimant's mental health. However, we find that this possible indirect injury or impact does not place the claimant's children within the scope of the definition of victim in this case.

The panel also considered whether the VBR and regulation contain any provision that could allow the Program to compensate the claimant for tuition costs of their children, arising directly or indirectly out of the claimant's injury. We note the VBR allows for reimbursement for expenses "prescribed by regulation that were incurred as a result of the injury" as well as for counselling services, compensation for loss of wages and permanent impairment, as applicable. The expenses that the Regulation prescribes are as outlined above. The Regulation does not additionally provide any discretion for the Program to reimburse expenses to an injured victim beyond those categories noted in ss 11 - 11.4, and the panel is satisfied that these categories would not include reimbursement of expenses related to the private school education of a claimant's children. We are satisfied that the VBR and the Regulation contain no allowance to compensate the claimant for these tuition costs in the present circumstances.

Based on the evidence before the panel, and on the standard of a balance of probabilities, we are satisfied that there is no entitlement to compensation for past and future tuition costs for the victim's children to attend private school. The appeal is therefore denied, and the decision of the Director is confirmed.

Panel Members

K. Dyck, Presiding Officer
J. Peterson, Commissioner
M. Kernaghan, Commissioner

Recording Secretary, J. Lee

K. Dyck - Presiding Officer
(on behalf of the panel)

Signed at Winnipeg this 5th day of January, 2026