EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Submitted by the Committee to Remember Kimberly Rogers
And by the Sudbury Community Legal Clinic

February 21, 2002

 

"In the unique circumstances of this case, if [Ms Rogers] is exposed to the full three months suspension of her benefits, a member of our community carrying an unborn child may well be homeless and deprived of basic sustenance. Such a situation would jeopardize the health of Ms Rogers and the fetus, thereby adversely affecting not only mother and child but also the public - its dignity, its human rights commitments and its health care resources. For many reasons there is overwhelming public interest in protecting a pregnant woman in our community from being destitute."

Justice Epstein, Ontario Superior Court of Justice
May 31, 2001

1. The members of the Committee to Remember Kimberly Rogers respectfully wish to bring this Brief to the attention of the City of Greater Sudbury Council, out of our profound concern. From a detailed study of Ms Rogers' case, it is clear to us that it is impossible for an Ontario municipality to implement the current Regulations on welfare fraud without incurring the risk of more similar tragic cases in the future.

2. Several other municipalities in Ontario share this view and have passed resolutions and written to the provincial government to that effect. (See Appendix 2 of the Brief)

3. When a person is convicted of fraud in relation to receipt of Ontario public assistance benefits for a period preceding April 1 2000, that person is automatically cut off from receiving any benefits for 3 months on a first conviction, and 6 months on a subsequent conviction, regardless of need. (See Appendix 1 of the Brief)

4. When a person is convicted of fraud in relation to the receipt of public assistance benefits for a period in whole or in part after April 1, 2000, that person is automatically cut off from receiving any benefits for life, regardless of need. (See Appendix 1 of the Brief)

5. Kimberly Rogers, born July 20, 1961, was in receipt of social assistance benefits under Ontario Works Sudbury when those benefits were cancelled for three months after her plea of guilt on April 25, 2001. Between 1996 and 2000 she attended Cambrian College in Sudbury and obtained a diploma in Social Services in the hope of earning her own living and leaving the social assistance roles.

6. While attending college, Ms Rogers received social assistance in the amount of $520 per month, the maximum entitlement for a single person, consisting of $325 for rent and $195 for all other needs.

7. She also received Ontario and Canada student loans, which she used to cover routine school expenses and living costs to support herself adequately at school during this time. She did not report her student loans to Ontario Works.

8. Under public assistance regulations, that part of student loan funds which is not provided for tuition, compulsory fees, books, instructional supplies and prescribed transportation costs is deemed to be "income" and is deducted from social assistance entitlement.

9. When the living allowance portion of the student loans was discovered in the fall of 1999, Ontario Works Sudbury declare an overpayment of $13,468.31 for the period she attended school between 1996 and 1999 and cancelled her benefits. Ms Rogers managed to stay in school with no further assistance from Ontario Works Sudbury or the Ontario Student Assistance Program and graduated in April 2000 as one of the top students in her class.

10. Ontario Works Sudbury referred the matter to the Sudbury Regional Police Service and Ms Rogers was charged with fraud in September of 2000.

11. After graduating from College Ms Rogers could not find steady employment and occasionally continued to receive Ontario Works benefits which were being reduced by 10% each month to collect the overpayment.

12. Ms Rogers pled guilty to fraud in the Ontario Court of Justice on April 25, 2001. Although she had no criminal record and was five months pregnant at the time, Ms Rogers was sentenced to 6 months house arrest and an additional 18 months of probation. She was ordered to make restitution to Ontario Works Sudbury and her social assistance benefits were automatically cut off for three months even though she had absolutely no means of subsistence. The automatic suspension also meant cancellation of her Ontario Works drug card even though Ms Rogers required prescribed medication for a variety of medical conditions.

12. It must also be noted that because of the fraud, Ms Rogers was required to repay the whole sum of her student loans. In view of her success in completing her course, part of these loans would normally have been forgiven.

13. Ms Rogers was the first person in Ontario, and the only person to date, to challenge the constitutional validity of the Ontario Works Regulations that resulted in the cancellation of her benefits. In the material filed with the court, the evidence was clear that Ms Rogers had no means of support and that even with the assistance of a variety of community organizations, she was still in dire need of assistance. It is impossible for the service agencies in this community to supply adequate assistance for the health and wellbeing of any citizen who is completely cut off from the basic means of survival.

14. The Judge hearing Ms Rogers application for interim reinstatement of her Ontario Works benefits stated:

"In the unique circumstances of this case, if [Ms Rogers] is exposed to the full three months suspension of her benefits, a member of our community carrying an unborn child may well be homeless and deprived of basic sustenance. Such a situation would jeopardize the health of Ms Rogers and the fetus, thereby adversely affecting not only mother and child but also the public - its dignity, its human rights commitments and its health care resources. For many reasons there is overwhelming public interest in protecting a pregnant woman in our community from being destitute."

15. The legislation provides discretion to the Administrator of Ontario Works and staff to reduce the rate of collection of any overpayment in cases of financial hardship. But from early June 2001 when Ms Rogers' benefits were reinstated, Ontario Works Sudbury reduced her entitlement by $52 each month, leaving her $468. After paying her rent, Ms Rogers had $18 to cover all her other monthly expenses, including food, transportation costs and telephone.

16. The Sudbury Public Health Report of June 2001 entitled "The Cost of Eating Well Within Manitoulin and Sudbury District" states that in the City of Greater Sudbury, a woman 25-49 years of age, in her second and third trimester of pregnancy needs $30.15 per week to eat healthily. (See Appendix 3 of the Brief)

17. Ontario Works Sudbury has a special, discretionary pregnancy diet supplement available to pregnant recipients, but did not advise Ms Rogers of this. She could have received an extra $43 per month to help buy food.

18. In early August of 2001 Ms Rogers, eight months pregnant at the time, was found dead in her apartment. A Coroner's Inquest has been called, but no date has yet been set.

19. We believe it is incumbent on City Council to take consideration of the many issues that have been raised and immediately take steps to make changes in the interim with a view to preventing any similar tragedies. If this happened to someone facing a three-month suspension, imagine how profound the effects of a lifetime ban could be.

20. Convicted murderers and others convicted of violent crimes are guaranteed food, clothing and medical attention while incarcerated. The Ontario Works Regulations add penalties to criminal offences that other convicted persons do not face. How are the men, women and children affected by this law supposed to survive? What are they to eat? Where will they find it? How are they to live? How are they to obtain prescribed medication? How are they to provide clothing for themselves and their children?

21. Article 25 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that "Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well being of himself and of his family including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services". In addition, "Motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance".

22. Having reviewed the tragic details of Ms Rogers' case, we urge the City of Greater Sudbury to be at the forefront of reform on this issue, and we present the following recommendations for consideration by Members of Council:

Recommendations:

I. That the City of Greater Sudbury make representations to the Provincial Government and to the Association of Ontario Municipalities stating that the Regulations providing for automatic suspension in cases of fraud be rescinded because:

(i) they place men, women and children in peril;

(ii) they are contrary to International and Canadian Charter rights;

(iii) they lay a burden on community charitable resources that most are in no way equipped to provide; and

(iv) it is impossible to implement these Regulations without causing undue harm and danger to the health and lives of those affected.

II. That the City of Greater Sudbury direct Ontario Works Sudbury not to refer any other matters to the police in the period up until the Coroner's Inquest into the death of Kimberly Rogers.

III. That, in the alternative, Ontario Works Sudbury implement a process that allows caseworkers to take extenuating circumstances into consideration when deciding whether or not to refer matters to the police.

IV. That if the Ontario Works Sudbury chooses to continue to pursue fraud charges, and that if as a result the benefits of a Sudbury recipient of Ontario Works are cancelled, the City of Greater Sudbury continue to pay benefits to that recipient and his or her family from municipal funds.

V. That Ontario Works Sudbury be required to advise pregnant Ontario Works recipients of the pregnancy diet supplement currently available.

VI. That the Committee for Health and Social Services be re-instituted, include community representatives and be open to hearing community views on cases in those areas where difficulties arise.

Brief to City Council
Introduction
Background Facts
Submission
Recommendations
Appendix 1
Appendix 2