J. C.A. No. 110144 NOVA SCOTIA COURT OF APPEAL Clarke, C.J.N.S.; Chipman and Pugsley, JJ.A. BETWEEN: ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NOVA SCOTIA and STACY GLASGOW Respondent John D. Wood for the Appellant The Respondent in Person Appeal Heard: February 8, 1995 Judgment Delivered: February 8, 1995 THE COURT: Appeal dismissed from decision of Nova Scotia Utility and Review Board concerning an award of compensation pursuant to the Victims\' Rights and Services Act, per oral reasons for judgment delivered by Clarke, C.J.N.S.; Chipman and Pugsley, JJ.A. concurring. The reasons for judgment of the Court were delivered orally by: CLARKE, C.J.N.S.: Mr. Glasgow applied for criminal injuries compensation pursuant to the Victims\' Rights and Services Act, S.N.S. 1989, c. 14, as amended. He alleged that he was wrongly assaulted and as result he was entitled to compensation for the losses he suffered. On September 10, 1993, Mr. Glasgow was involved in an angry exchange of words with Mr. Johnson. He asked Mr. Johnson if he wanted to fight. No fight ensued. As Mr. Glasgow turned away Mr. Johnson delivered "sucker‑punch" which broke Mr. Glasgow's jaw. Mr. Glasgow ended up in hospital. He incurred dental expenses and lost wages. In response to his application, the Victims' Services Division wrote Mr. Glasgow in part as follows: The police investigation has indicated that they will not be proceeding with criminal charges. The investigation did not provide evidence that criminal offence occurred. Because the program is unable to confirm through the criminal justice system that you are a victim of crime, we are unable to make a compensation award. Mr. Glasgow appealed to the Nova Scotia Utility and Review Board. The Board held de novo hearing which it is entitled to do under the Act. In decision dated September 20, 1994, the Vice‑Chair of the Board allowed the appeal. She found Mr. Glasgow was "victim" in the meaning of s. 2(e) which provides: (e) "victim" means an individual who has suffered bodily harm, mental or nervous shock, pain, suffering, economic loss or deprivation of property as the result of an act or omission that forms the basis of an offence and includes, where the individual is dead, ill or otherwise incapable of exercising the rights granted by this Act, the spouse or next of kin of that person or anyone who has, in law or in fact, the custody or guardianship of that person or who is responsible for the care or support of that person. In this respect, the Board wrote: There is nothing ln the Act which suggests that a person is not a victim because the police failed to lay a charge. In some instances the victim will not know his attacker and despite investigation the police will be unable to determine who to charge. In the Board's opinion, Mr. Glasgow does qualify as victim within the meaning of s. 2(e) of the Act. The Board then considered an application of 11A(1)(a) and (d) and 11L(3) of this Act. Of these sections the Vice Chair wrote: Section 11A(1)(a) and (d) of the Act states as follows: 11A(1) Where person is injured or killed by an Act or omission in the Province of another person occurring in or resulting from (a) the commission of an offence within the description of any criminal offence mentioned in the Schedule to this Act; the Director, on application to the Director in accordance with the regulations and on consideration of such evidence as the Director may require, may, as the Director considers proper, award compensation to (d) the person injured or killed or that person's estate; The offence of causing bodily harm is listed in the Schedule to the Act. The Board notes that the s. 11A does not use the term "victim" in describing who has been injured or killed. The Board also notes that Cst. Johnston referred to Mr. Glasgow as victim. The Director should use the terminology in s. 11(A) when deciding whether or not to award compensation. Section 11D(1) of the Act allows the Director to take into account the circumstances and any behaviour of the injured person that directly or indirectly contributed to the injury. It states as follows: 11 D(1) In determining whether to award compensation and the amount thereof, the Director shall consider and take into account all such circumstances as the Director considers relevant to the making of the award and, without limiting the generality of the foregoing, the Director shall consider and take into account any behaviour of the person injured or killed that directly or indirectly contributed to that person's injury or death. Under s. 11 L(3) of the Act the Board may make any decision that the Director could have made. After reviewing the evidence and determining Mr. Glasgow "was injured as result of the commission of an offence of causing bodily harm", the Board applied s. 11D(1) which is quoted above. In doing so it determined that based on the evidence, the behaviour of Mr. Glasgow in the series of events contributed to his loss. Accordingly the Board reduced his claim for dental costs and lost wages by 50%. The appellant has now appealed from the decision and award of the Board contending that lt misapprehended the evidence, misinterpreted the relevant law and erred first, by awarding compensation to Mr. Glasgow and second, by reducing lt by 50%. The appeal provisions are set forth in s. 11 L(3) and (4). They state: (3) The person or tribunal hearing the appeal may make any decision that the Director could have made; (4) decision made upon appeal is final except that an appeal lies therefrom to the Appeal Division of the Supreme Court on any question of law. In our opinion the Board correctly interpreted its jurisdiction. Thereafter it made findings of fact that were within its jurisdiction. The record reveals there was ample evidence arising from the de novo hearing to support its findings. We find no error in law was committed by the Board. In these circumstances the decision of the Board is protected by the finality provision the Legislature has impressed upon lt. Accordingly the appeal is dismissed. The respondent is awarded costs of $100.00. C.J.N.S. Concurred in: Chipman, J.A. Pugsley, J.A. CR‑94‑03 NOVA SCOTIA UTILITY AND REVIEW BOARD IN THE MATTER OF THE VICTIMS' RIGHTS AND SERVICES ACT and IN THE MATTER OF AN APPEAL by STACY GLASGOW from decision of the DIRECTOR OF VICTIM SERVICES, made May 13, 1994, which denied compensation. BEFORE: Linda D. Garber, Vice‑chair COUNSEL: STACY GLASGOW Stacy Glasgow and Terry Slauenwhite ATTORNEY GENERAL John D. Wood, L.L.B. HEARING DATE: August 25, 1994 DECISION DATE: September 20, 1994 DECISION: Appeal allowed This page contained graphical images which may only be viewed in the original decision. Document 12161 C.A. No. 110144 NOVA SCOTIA COURT OF APPEAL BETWEEN: ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NOVA SCOTIA and STACY GLASGOW Respondent REASONS FOR JUDGMENT BY: CLARKE, C.J.N.S. (Orally)
This was an appeal from the decision of the Nova Scotia Utility and Review Board allowing an appeal from the decision of the Victims' Services Division denying compensation to the respondent on the basis the police had not proceeded with criminal charges for an assault which had occurred. Dismissing the appeal, that the Board had correctly interpreted its jurisdiction and made findings amply supported by the evidence arising from the de novo hearing. Failure of the police to lay a charge against the attacker did not disqualify the applicant from compensation if it was otherwise supported by the evidence.