Decision #00/26 - Type: Victims' Rights
Preamble
The claimant is appealing the decision by the Manitoba Compensation for Victims of Crime Program (the "Program") that:
1. The incidents occurring subsequent to April 11, 2021, should not be adjudicated as separate claims; and
2. They are not entitled to coverage for further counselling services.
A hearing was held on August 27, 2025 and reconvened on November 24, 2025 to consider the claimant's appeal.
Issue
1. Whether or not the incidents occurring subsequent to April 11, 2021, should be adjudicated as separate claims; and
2. Whether or not the claimant is entitled to coverage for further counselling services.
Decision
1. The incidents occurring subsequent to April 11, 2021 should be adjudicated as separate claims; and
2. The claimant is not entitled to coverage for further counselling services.
Background
The claimant filed an application for compensation under the Program on April 28, 2021, for an incident which took place on April 11, 2021, when the claimant was assaulted. The claimant indicated the incident had been reported to the local police service.
On August 24, 2021, the Program advised the claimant their application was accepted and the payment of various benefits commenced, including counselling services. On February 14, 2024, the Program advised the claimant that additional applications they had submitted would not be accepted and benefits would only apply to the application for the incident occurring on April 11, 2021 as other incidents detailed by the claimant were not eligible offences. As well, the Program advised the claimant they had reached the maximum amount payable by the Program for counselling services.
The claimant requested reconsideration to the Program on May 30, 2024, noting the incidents had a dramatic impact on their life and should be considered as separate claims. As such, the claimant further submitted they required further counselling services.
On February 28, 2025, the Director of the Program confirmed the prior decisions to deny the claimant's applications related to the ineligible Criminal Code incidents and the decision the claimant was not entitled to further counselling services.
The claimant appealed the decision to the Appeal Commission on March 28, 2025, and a hearing was arranged.
Reasons
Applicable Legislation
The panel is bound to apply the provisions of The Victims’ Bill of Rights (the “VBR”) and the regulations under that legislation.
The VBR provides at Section 46(1) that for the purpose of determining compensation under the legislation, a person is a victim if he or she is injured or dies as a result 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 because of such an incident is entitled to reimbursement for expenses prescribed in the regulation if incurred as a result of the injury, as well as 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.
The Victims’ Rights Regulation, MR 214/98 (the “Regulation”) sets out in Section 3(1) that for the purposes of subsection 46(1) of the Act the director may deem more than one act or omission to be a single incident if the director is of the opinion that the acts or omissions are of a similar nature and involve the same offender and victim.
The Regulation also sets out in Section 11.1(3) that compensation is payable in respect of counselling services, to a maximum of $2,000, unless the director is satisfied that exceptional circumstances exist and a reasonable treatment plan is in place, in which case the director may approve additional counselling to a further maximum of $2,000.
Claimant’s Position
The claimant appeared in the hearing on their own behalf, with a support person present. They made a submission in support of their appeal and provided testimony in response to questions posed by members of the appeal panel.
The claimant submits that each act was separate, created distinct harms, and should be treated individually under the VBR and the Regulation. The claimant states that while the acts involve the same person, the nature and context of each incident are entirely different.
The evidence of the claimant is that the April 11, 2021 incident was physically violent and involved direct assault and physical and emotional harm, whereas the incidents on June 4, 2021 and October 15, 2023 were not physical in nature. The claimant states that the June 4, 2021 incident involved a deliberate violation of safety measures, and the October 15th incident was an intentional refusal to follow conditions meant for the claimant’s safety. The claimant states that actions of the accused and the length of time the accused was in their presence differentiates the two latter incidents.
The claimant submits that each of the three events are different and produced three different kinds of harm at different periods, under different circumstances.
The claimant submits that each incident created additional and new traumas and argues that had there only been one incident their trauma would not be at the level it is at this point.
With regard to the claimant’s entitlement to further coverage for counselling services, they state that they require additional counselling and trauma-focused support as they continue to experience symptoms as a result of the incidents. The claimant submits that the harms did not stop in 2021 and each new incident impacted their mental health. The claimant’s position is that they are entitled to further coverage for counselling services.
Analysis
Issue 1 – Whether the incidents occurring subsequent to April 11, 2021 should be adjudicated as separate claims
The claimant submits that the incidents which occurred after April 11, 2021 were distinct events that had a significant impact on their life and therefore should be adjudicated as separate claims under the Program. The panel accepts, on a balance of probabilities, that the incidents described by the claimant following April 11, 2021 were separate in time and circumstance from the original assault. They were not part of a single, continuous transaction and were not merely extensions of the April 11, 2021 event.
Accordingly, the panel finds that the incidents occurring subsequent to April 11, 2021 should properly be considered as separate claims for adjudicative purposes.
However, this determination does not, in and of itself, establish entitlement to compensation under the Program. Section 46(1) of the VBR requires that the injury arise from an act or omission that is an offence under the Criminal Code as specified in the Regulation. The panel notes that the Program would not only consider whether the incidents are separate, but whether they meet the statutory definition of an eligible offence.
Based on the evidence before the panel, the incidents occurring after April 11, 2021 do not constitute offences under the Criminal Code that are prescribed as compensable under the Regulation. While the panel does not minimize the impact these events had on the claimant, the Program’s jurisdiction is limited to those incidents that meet the specific legislative criteria. On a balance of probabilities, the later incidents fall outside the scope of allowable offences under the Program.
As such, even though the panel finds that the subsequent incidents should be adjudicated as separate claims, the panel is of the view that the result of that adjudication will be the same: the claims arising from those incidents would not be eligible for compensation because they do not arise from offences specified in the Regulation.
Issue 2 – Whether the claimant is entitled to coverage for further counselling services
The claimant seeks additional counselling benefits beyond the maximum amount normally payable under the Regulation. Section 11.1(3) of the Victims’ Rights Regulation in effect at the time of the incident under the accepted claim provides that compensation for counselling services is payable to a maximum of $2,000, unless the director is satisfied that exceptional circumstances exist and a reasonable treatment plan is in place, in which case additional counselling may be approved to a further maximum of $2,000.
The evidence before the panel is that the claimant was provided $2,000 of counselling funding in connection with the initial claim related to the incident of April 11, 2021. The appellant also received an additional $2,000 upon receipt of the second claim.
The panel notes that the memorandum from the Program dated April 30, 2025 indicates that the appellant received funding to the legislated maximum of $4,000.
The claimant testified that they continue to experience psychological symptoms arising from the April 11, 2021 assault and subsequent incidents and that further counselling is necessary for their recovery. The panel accepts this evidence as credible and consistent.
The panel finds that the psychological effects of the April 11, 2021 incident have been significant and persistent despite the counselling already received. The claimant’s ongoing symptoms demonstrate that their recovery has not yet been achieved within the standard funding limit. Nevertheless, the panel is bound by the legislation, including the Regulation, in effect at the time of the incident and is satisfied that the claimant received the maximum amount of funding under the Regulation.
Accordingly, the panel finds that the claimant is not entitled to coverage for further counselling services beyond the $4,000 maximum.
The appeal is denied.
Panel Members
R. Lemieux Howard, Presiding Officer
J. Peterson, Commissioner
S. Magian, Commissioner
Recording Secretary, J. Lee
R. Lemieux Howard - Presiding Officer
(on behalf of the panel)
Signed at Winnipeg this 23rd day of January, 2026