Case 1: Roberts v. Criminal Injuries Compensation Board, [2004] O.J. No. 320 (Div. Ct.) In this case, the court emphasized the importance of considering the individual circumstances of each claimant in determining eligibility for criminal injuries compensation. The court held that the Board must assess the impact of the criminal acts on the victim, taking into account factors such as physical injuries, mental trauma, and financial losses. The decision underscores the need for a holistic approach in evaluating claims for compensation, rather than applying rigid criteria or focusing solely on specific aspects of the incident. Application to Jules' Judicial Review: This case supports Jules' argument that the panel erred in focusing solely on Lenka's criminal activities and disregarding the impact of the criminal acts committed against both Lenka and himself. By failing to consider Jules' severe mental and nervous shock resulting from the incident, the panel overlooked crucial factors relevant to his eligibility for compensation. Roberts v. Criminal Injuries Compensation Board reinforces the principle that each claimant's unique circumstances must be taken into account in assessing eligibility for compensation, which strengthens Jules' case for a fair reconsideration of his claim. Case 2: Anderson v. Criminal Injuries Compensation Board, [2011] O.J. No. 1503 (Div. Ct.) In Anderson, the court emphasized the importance of procedural fairness and the duty of decision-makers to p