Appeals : Confirmed Referee Decisions : #51 - June 20, 2002

D E C I S I O N

This appeal turns on a very narrow issue. The appellant claims as the Personal Representative of the Estate of her late husband, disclosing that her late husband was the Secondarily Infected Person and her son was the Primarily Infected Person. In order to meet the criteria for compensation under The 86-90 Hepatitis C Settlement Agreement, the Secondarily Infected Person must be either the child or the spouse of the Primarily Infected Person.

"Secondarily Infected Person" is defined in the Settlement Agreement as:

(a) A Spouse of a Primarily-Infected Person or Opted-Out Primarily-Infected Person who is or was infected with HCV by such Primarily-Infected Person or Opted-Out Primarily-Infected Person provided the Claim of the Spouse is made:

…

(c) A Child of a HCV Infected Person or Opted-Out HCV Infected Person who is or was infected with HCV by such HCV Infected Person or Opted-Out HCV Infected Person;

If the positions were different and the son was the Secondarily Infected Person, he would be paid.

It is with regret that I am obliged to apply the strict words of the settlement and dismiss the appeal.

Dated at Toronto, this 20th day of June 2002.

The Honourable Robert S. Montgomery Q.C.
Referee