Kimberly Rogers Inquest Alerts

Kimberly Rogers Inquest - Mon. Dec. 2, 2002 - Day 27
Ontario Social Safety NetWork (OSSN) Summary

Bruce Porter, former Executive Director of the Centre for Equality Rights in Accommodation, was called by the coalition of the Canadian Association of Elizabeth Fry Societies, National Anti-Poverty Organization, Women's Legal Education and Action Fund, and the National Association of Women and the Law. Last seek the Ontario Divisional Court released its decision on the CAEFS coalition's judicial review concerning the scope of the evidence Mr. Porter was allowed to give. The Court upheld the coroner's ruling that he is not allowed to testify on systemic discrimination, or how the Human Rights code, the Charter of Rights and international covenants should be considered in formulating policy on the prosecution and sentencing of welfare fraud.

The area Mr. Porter was left with was to present the results of research he had done looking at how welfare fraud is prosecuted and sentenced in comparison with similar types of fraud, such as Employment Insurance (he was excluded from dealing with income tax fraud). He obtained statistics from the Centre for Justice Stats, a branch of Stats Can, which compiles information on all criminal cases across the country. In Ontario, there were 837 Criminal code convictions for all types of fraud over $5000 in 1999-2000. There were 761 convictions which could be fraud over or under $5000 as this was not specified. Of these, about 42% were women (as compared to the average percentage of women convicted under other federal statutes, which is only 14%).

Mr. Porter looked at the sentences given, including conditional sentences. 57% of those convicted received either prison or conditional sentences, ie. they were given some form of incarceration. The data were similar, but in slightly lesser numbers for the year 2000/2001.

The only information that Mr. Porter was able to get on specifically welfare frauds, was obtained from the Ministry web site, where they state that 557 people were convicted of welfare fraud in 99/2000, and 430 in 2000/01. The ministry refused to give any information about sentencing or breakdown by gender, or any other statistics. Given that most of the time only welfare fraud over 5000 is prosecuted, Mr. Porter made the point that some significant portion of the Criminal Code frauds listed in the Centre for Justice statistics of fraud over 5000 (837) must be welfare fraud. Therefore we can see that quite a high proportion of people convicted of welfare fraud get some form of incarceration.

Mr. Porter then sought data on fraud related to Workers Compensation and Employment Insurance. The Workplace Safety and Insurance Board would not release information on their investigations and prosecutions to him, other than the fact that they never prosecute under the criminal code.

The Employment Insurance Commission did provide Ontario data. They too, never prosecute under the Criminal Code, and rarely if ever even prosecute under their own Act. Instead, they deal with instances where someone dishonestly obtains benefits administratively, by imposing a penalty in addition to an overpayment. In those cases, the recipient can appeal the penalty, and the Commission has been directed by the higher appeal levels to consider the circumstances of the person when imposing a penalty. For example, they must consider things like the ability of the person to pay the penalty, whether they will be able to live and support their dependents, any mitigating circumstances in the commission of the offense, disability or illness, etc. There is a provision to make it more difficult for an offender to get benefits in the future, but no lifetime ban.

Mr. Porter suggested that welfare fraud should be dealt with in the way EI fraud is treated: administratively, not criminally. People on welfare in general are a more vulnerable group than those on EI. They usually have multiple barriers including health problems, survival of abuse, which led them to this system of last resort. The stress of trying to survive, especially just of trying to keep a home, is immense. They cope with the stigma of being on welfare. When a single mother on welfare tries to obtain an apartment, she is often refused by a landlord because he won't rent to someone on welfare. If she makes a complaint to the Human Rights Commission, the landlord will lie. If caught, the landlord in rare cases may have to pay a small amount of compensation. He will certainly not go to jail for that. However, if the recipient obtains some income to pay the rent and does not report that, she will go to jail.

Mr. Porter mentioned that courts have been given some guidelines on sentencing aboriginal people. The historical and cultural disadvantages which have resulted in a disproportionate amount of aboriginal people in our jails must be considered. Similarly, he suggested, there should be clear guidelines applied to the sentencing of poor people. It must be recognized that house arrest is a far different thing if you are middle class, employed (and then can go out every day to work), in a comfortable air-conditioned home, than if you are alone in a tiny apartment in a heat wave.

Cross examination of Mr. Porter continues tomorrow, and then Kim Pate, Executive Director of CAEFS, will testify.