 |
| John L. Hill |
Malik was a Saskatoon taxi driver who was violently assaulted and robbed on May 4, 2021. The incident left him with a broken hip. He applied under Saskatchewan’s Victims of Crime Act, 1995, for compensation, including lost wages. He is yet to receive payment.
Malik’s application to the provincial minister of Justice included a spreadsheet detailing his gross income based on the fares he received. When the minister compared the losses claimed by Malik with the earnings reported from the cab company that employed Malik, the figures did not match. The minister decided, following policy, to base the wage loss claim on Malik’s 2020 tax filing.
Compensation of $5,172.93 was allowed, with Malik’s right to seek additional funding if his 2021 filing indicated additional compensation was owed. Malik was dissatisfied and appealed to the committee established under the Act to review such decisions. The committee dismissed Malik’s appeal. Instead of bringing a judicial review of that dismissal, Malik returned to the minister seeking a revision to the original decision.
Iryna Minhirova: ISTOCKPHOTO.COM
This time, Malik asked for judicial review. The chambers judge dismissed the application. In the reasons for dismissal, the chambers judge noted that there is broad ministerial discretion in determining how a victim’s lost earnings are to be calculated. Although the manual that sets out how decisions ought to be made does not have the force of law, it provides consistency and transparency in the decision-making process. That discretion, the chambers judge found, is entitled to deference.
Malik appealed the chambers judge's decision to the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal. The court's judgment was released on Oct. 11, 2024 (Malik v. Saskatchewan (Victim Services), [2024] S.J. No. 299). In bringing his appeal, Malik not only challenged the decision of the chambers judge, but he also brought a motion for the admission of fresh evidence claiming that his 2021 tax filing had been done improperly and needed to be corrected. That motion was dismissed as violating the principle set out in R. v. Palmer, [1980] 1 SCR 759, which provides that evidence should not generally be admitted if, by due diligence, it could have been adduced at trial. The same principle was more recently approved in Barendregt v. Grebliunas, [2021] S.C.J. No. 101.
In reviewing the chambers judge’s decision, the Court of Appeal identified the appropriate standard of review as reasonableness, as dictated in the Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Vavilov, 2019 SCC 65 decision. Instead of providing the material the minister required to determine the quantum of compensation payable, Malik demanded payment of the sum he felt was owed to him. The chambers judge reviewed the dispute in the context of the legislation's framework and the statutory powers afforded to the Minister. The chambers judge did not act unfairly and there was no need to impose a correctness standard on his decision.
The Court of Appeal set out in the judgment a series of requests by the minister to provide additional information that Malik refused to deliver. He knew the case he had to meet, and the minister was correct in ensuring that public funds are paid out only when documented records show that the law justifies any such payment.
The Court of Appeal found no merit in Malik’s appeal. The chambers judge identified the correct standard of review and applied it correctly. Malik had been given ample opportunity to address the minister’s concerns. He applied for and had his claim considered twice.
The almost five-year delay in receiving the compensation owed was not a right denied by the state. It was a delay incurred solely by Malik in providing crucial information to the minister.
John L. Hill practised and taught prison law until his retirement. He holds a J.D. from Queen’s and an LL.M. in constitutional law from Osgoode Hall. He is also the author of Pine Box Parole: Terry Fitzsimmons and the Quest to End Solitary Confinement (Durvile & UpRoute Books) and The Rest of the (True Crime) Story (AOS Publishing). Contact him at johnlornehill@hotmail.com.
The opinions expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the author’s firm, its clients, Law360 Canada, LexisNexis Canada or any of its or their respective affiliates. This article is for general information purposes and is not intended to be and should not be taken as legal advice.
Interested in writing for us? To learn more about how you can add your voice to Law360 Canada, contact Analysis Editor Peter Carter at peter.carter@lexisnexis.ca or call 647-776-6740.