Frank Desmoulin Case Study

Background:
The case focuses on an appeal formed by the decision of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board based on the applicant Frank Desmoulin. Desmoulin is an aboriginal man who resided in St. Joseph’s Training School in Alfred for a duration of 11 months from 1965-1966, where he endured physical and mental abuse. Desmoulin had been severely beaten on several occasions, forced to kneel all day, handcuffed while forced to face the wall, and was a victim of countless other abusive treatment while attending St. Joseph’s Training School. Following up into his adult years, Desmoulin has had multiple run ins with the law, forming a lengthy criminal record. His negative engagements with the law have accumulated to 38 different charges withdrawn

This hearing made their final decision on whether Frank Desmoulin would be compensated by weighting the suffering faced as a result of the mistreatment and abuse exhibited by the school to the suffering Desmoulin inflicted on the victims involved in his criminal activities of more recent years. The board came to the conclusion that it would not be sensible to compensate Frank Desmoulin for his pain and suffering due to the degree of suffering he imposed on others, thus his application was denied.

It is vital to consider the legal grounds the appeal lies on by analyzing section 5 of the Compensation for Victims of Crime Act, which details the criteria and limitations bound to an application. The sections goes to state : “Where any person is injured…by any act or omission in Ontario of any other person occurring in or resulting from,
(a) the commission of a crime of violence constituting an offence against the Criminal Code (Canada), including poisoning, arson, criminal negligence and an offence under section 86 of that Act but not including an offence involving the use or operation of a motor vehicle other than assault by means of a motor

. . (d) Pain and suffering;”
Following section 17 that highlights “(1)In determining whether to make an order for compensation and the amount thereof, the Board shall have regard to all relevant circumstances, including any behaviour of the victim that may have directly or indirectly contributed to his or her injury or death.”
Issues:
The issues presented in this case are regarding whether it is fair that the decisions are reviewed on a standard of correctness rather than a standard of review of reasonableness deemed appropriate for a tribunal’s applicant. Thus, the issue arising from this is the arguable interpretation and application of section 17 of the Compensation for Victims of Crime Act. Question remains as to whether the board exercised within its discretion or choose to not incorporate all relevant circumstances including his aboriginal status and whether Gladue principles were factored in the decision making