Practice Direction on Requests for Review

Practice Directions support the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board (CICB) Rules of Procedure and provide guidance about what the CICB expects of the parties and, in turn, what the parties can expect from the CICB. They assist in understanding the Rules.


What is a Request for Review?

Section 10(1) of the Compensation for Victims of Crime Act provides that, where the merits of an application is decided by a single member of the CICB, either the applicant or the Minister may ask the CICB to hold a review hearing. You cannot request a review of a decision made by a panel of two or more CICB members.

What is the Test for a Review Hearing?

The CICB must be satisfied that the decision contains either:

  1. a serious error of law; or
  2. an unreasonable exercise of discretion.

The following are some examples of a serious error of law:

  1. the single member decided an issue which he or she did not have authority to decide; or
  2. the applicant did not have an opportunity to respond to an important piece of evidence.

The following are some examples of what might be an unreasonable exercise of discretion:

  1. the single member refused an urgent request to adjourn and the applicant therefore was unable to participate in the hearing; or
  2. the single member's conduct of the hearing was inconsistent with the CICB's Rules of Procedure and the applicant believes this affected the fairness of the hearing.

How to Ask for a Review

If the order does not contain reasons you must write to the CICB and ask for reasons for the decision before asking for a review. Do this as soon as possible after getting the order and, in any event, within 14 days from the date of the order.

Once you receive the reasons, or where the reasons were part of the order, complete the Request for Review form and file it with the CICB within 15 days of receiving the written reasons.

The CICB may accept a late request for review if you provide a good reason for the delay and the late request will not disadvantage another person.

Who Decides the Request?

Requests for review hearings are considered by the Associate Chair or a Vice-Chair. The Associate Chair or Vice-Chair will also decide whether the review hearing is in writing or in person and the scope of the review. Most review hearings are in writing.

Who Decides the Review Hearing?

Unless the CICB directs otherwise the review will be decided by a panel of two or more new adjudicators.

The panel will consider the evidence presented at the original hearing. The review hearing is not an opportunity to make different arguments or fix flaws in your case. The panel may confirm the original decision or may decide to increase or decrease the award.

What Happens to the Cheque for the Award?

If the original decision ordered compensation, you must return the compensation cheque to the CICB before we will schedule the review hearing.

When Will New Evidence Be Considered in a Review Hearing?

Review hearings normally are based on the submissions of the parties and the evidence which was before the single member. However there are circumstances when new evidence may be accepted. If you wish to introduce new evidence at the review hearing, you must satisfy the adjudicators that:

All three of these criteria must be satisfied before the panel will consider the new evidence. If you want the panel to consider new evidence you must file it with the CICB at least 14 days prior to the hearing date.




Effective as of June 19, 2018
sjto.ca/cicb