S.C. v. Criminal Injuries Review Board (Alta.), 2014 ABQB 277

• Judge: Marceau, J.
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta (Canada)
• Case Date: April 04, 2014
• Citations: 2014 ABQB 277;[2014] A.R. TBEd. MY.053

S.C. v. Criminal Injuries Review Bd., [2014] A.R. TBEd. MY.053

MLB being edited

Currently being edited for A.R. - judgment temporarily in rough form.

Temp. Cite: [2014] A.R. TBEd. MY.053

S.C. (applicant) v. Alberta Criminal Injuries Review Board (respondent)

(1303 12940; 2014 ABQB 277)

Indexed As: S.C. v. Criminal Injuries Review Board (Alta.)

Alberta Court of Queen's Bench

Judicial District of Edmonton

Marceau, J.

May 6, 2014.

Summary:

The applicant claimed that he had suffered sexual and physical abuse in two different foster homes when he was between seven and 15 years old. One of the abusers had been convicted and sentenced for abusing the applicant. In 2011, the applicant applied for compensation under the Victims of Crime Act. The designate of the Director denied the application on the basis that the applicant was aware of the nature and effect of his psychological injuries by 2004 at the latest, and had thus missed the limitation period set out in s. 12(2)(a) of the Act. The Chair of the Criminal Injuries Review Board dismissed the applicant's request for a review. The applicant applied for judicial review.

The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench allowed the application and directed that the applicant's application for benefits be heard by the Board.

Editor's Note: Certain names in the following case have been initialized or the case otherwise edited to prevent the disclosure of identities where required by law, publication ban, Maritime Law Book's editorial policy or otherwise.

Crime Victims' Compensation - Topic 2204

Bars - Limitation period (incl. extension of) - An applicant's claim for compensation under the Victims of Crime Act was dismissed on the basis that he had filed his application outside of the limitation period provided for in s. 12(2)(a) of the Act - On judicial review, the applicant argued that the Act was social welfare legislation and should therefore be interpreted in favour of the victim - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench rejected this argument - The onus was squarely on the applicant to adduce positive evidence to explain the late discovery of his injuries - Section 2(1) of the Act identified the principles that drove the legislation, but did not state that the interests or benefits of victims were the sole driving factor - The existence of limitation periods, in themselves, indicated that victims did not have an unlimited or absolute priority interest - The applicant's argument would render the limitations regime meaningless, because it would never be in the victim's interest for the Director to deny a limitations period extension - See paragraphs 16 to 24.

Crime Victims' Compensation - Topic 2204

Bars - Limitation period (incl. extension of) - S.C. claimed that he suffered sexual and physical abuse in two different foster homes when he was between seven and 15 years old - One of the abusers had been convicted and sentenced for the abuse - In 2011, S.C. applied for compensation under the Victims of Crime Act - Based on the reports of an addictions counselor and psychiatrist that S.C. saw in 2004, the designate of the Director found that S.C. "recognized, at least in part, the nature and effect" of his psychological injuries by 2004 at the latest, and had thus missed the limitation period set out in s. 12(2)(a) of the Act - The Chair of the Criminal Injuries Review Board dismissed S.C.'s request for a review, concluding that S.C. "was well aware of the childhood abuse he suffered and the impact it had on his life" - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench allowed S.C.'s application for judicial review and directed that his application for benefits be heard by the Board - The counselor's conclusion in 2004 was that S.C. appeared "ready to begin dealing with his childhood issues", and that he "carries a lot of shame and guilt" - To begin dealing with abuse was hardly "being well aware of" that misconduct and its effect - The psychiatrist stated that S.C. had "multiple unresolved issues" and was not mentally capable of engaging in psychotherapy to address his abusive childhood - The Chair's decision was unreasonable in that the evidence adduced did not support his conclusion that there were no grounds to send the matter on to a hearing by the Board - See paragraphs 27 to 49.

Limitation of Actions - Topic 9305

Postponement or suspension of statute - Discoverability rule - [See both Crime Victims' Compensation - Topic 2204 ].

Cases Noticed:

Alberta (Solicitor General and Minister of Public Security) et al. v. C.J. et al. (2011), 511 A.R. 288; 2011 ABQB 192, refd to. [para. 8].

Ma v. Criminal Injuries Review Board (Alta.) (2011), 517 A.R. 130; 2011 ABQB 300, refd to. [para. 8].

Johnson v. Criminal Injuries Review Board (Alta.), [2012] A.R. Uned. 852; 2012 ABQB 578, refd to. [para. 8].

New Brunswick (Board of Management) v. Dunsmuir, [2008] 1 S.C.R. 190; 372 N.R. 1; 329 N.B.R.(2d) 1; 844 A.P.R. 1; 2008 SCC 9, refd to. [para. 9].

Alberta Teachers' Association v. Information and Privacy Commissioner (Alta.) et al., [2011] 3 S.C.R. 654; 424 N.R. 70; 519 A.R. 1; 539 W.A.C. 1; 2011 SCC 61, refd to. [para. 11].

Ontario (Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services) v. Information and Privacy Commissioner (Ont.) et al. (2014), 457 N.R. 2; 320 O.A.C. 1; 2014 SCC 31, refd to. [para. 11].

Mis v. Human Rights and Citizenship Commission (Alta.) (2001), 293 A.R. 391; 257 W.A.C. 391; 2001 ABCA 212, refd to. [para. 12].

Newfoundland and Labrador Nurses' Union v. Newfoundland and Labrador (Treasury Board) et al., [2011] 3 S.C.R. 708; 424 N.R. 220; 317 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 340; 986 A.P.R. 340; 2011 SCC 62, refd to. [para. 13].

Inter Pipeline Fund v. Energy Resources Conservation Board (Alta.) et al. (2012), 533 A.R. 331; 557 W.A.C. 331; 2012 ABCA 208, leave to appeal refused (2013), 446 N.R. 395 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 14].

Irving Pulp & Paper Ltd. v. Communications, Energy and Paperworkers Union of Canada, Local 30, [2013] 2 S.C.R. 458; 445 N.R. 1; 404 N.B.R.(2d) 1; 1048 A.P.R. 1; 2013 SCC 34, refd to. [para. 15].

M.P. v. Criminal Injuries Review Board (Alta.) (2013), 561 A.R. 163; 594 W.A.C. 163; 2013 ABCA 352, refd to. [para. 16].

P.A.L. v. Criminal Injuries Review Board (Alta.) (2012), 533 A.R. 86; 557 W.A.C. 86; 2012 ABCA 177, refd to. [para. 17].

T.R. v. Criminal Injuries Review Board (Alta.) (2006), 417 A.R. 163; 410 W.A.C. 163; 2006 ABCA 306, refd to. [para. 27].

K.M. v. H.M., [1992] 3 S.C.R. 6; 142 N.R. 321; 57 O.A.C. 321; 96 D.L.R.(4th) 289, refd to. [para. 29].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Lamm, Jocelyn B., Easing Access to the Courts for Incest Victims: Toward an Equitable Application of the Delayed Discovery Rule (1991), 100 Yale L.J. 2189, pp. 2194, 2195 [para. 31].

Counsel:

Robert P. Lee (Old Strathcona Law Offices), for the applicant;

David N. Jardine (Shores Jardine LLP), for the respondent.

This application for judicial review was heard on April 4, 2014, before Marceau, J., of the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, Judicial District of Edmonton, who delivered the following reasons for judgment on May 6, 2014.