Kimberly Rogers Inquest Alerts

End Lifetime Welfare Bans, Inquest Urged

Jury to consider recommendations in Rogers' death

by Bruce Cowan

North Bay Nugget
Osprey Media Group Inc.
Thursday, December 12, 2002

Sudbury - There was widespread support Wednesday to end the zero tolerance lifetime ineligibility for social assistance in cases of welfare fraud at the coroner’s inquest into the death of Kimberly Rogers.

It was the first of 21 recommendations prepared by coroner counsel Al O'Marra during the first day of closing arguments and submissions.

Copies of the recommendations were given to jurors and other counsel before the proceedings began.

Coroner Dr. David Eden reminded jurors they were free to accept, reject or change any or all of the recommendations, as well as those submitted by other counsel.

Jacquie Chic, who represents the Ontario Social Safety Network and the Steering Committee on Social Assistance, said there should be no ban ever on eligibility for social assistance after committing welfare fraud.

“Ontario Works is the income of last resort,” she said. “You yank that away and people are left without any income. They can't access income from somewhere else.”

Rogers 40, died of a lethal overdose of the anti-depressant Amitryptaline in August 2001 in her apartment during a heat wave. She was eight months pregnant and serving a six-month conditional sentence for welfare fraud.

The conditional sentence allowed her to leave her apartment for three hours each week and to attend medical appointments and religious events. She could also request permission from her conditional sentence supervisor to leave the apartment for other reasons.

The coroner’s counsel recommendation went on to suggest that if the permanent or temporary periods of ineligibility were not eliminated, then the provision should be amended to allow the local Ontario Works administrator to exercise discretion in its use.

However, Martin James, representing the City of Greater Sudbury, asked that the jury consider the practical problems of that.

“If the case involves a custodial parent, for example, what do you do when the parent is no longer custodial?” he said. “How do you assess the status of the individual? Do you then exercise discretion by invoking a ban?

“It makes more sense for a welfare administrator to have discretion at the front end when the case is being considered for referral for prosecution. After criminal charges have been laid and a penalty imposed, there are a different set of circumstances in terms of monitoring and assessing.”

Don Kuyek, with the Social Planning Council of Sudbury, said there was overwhelming evidence to justify the elimination of welfare bans.

“If you’re living in poverty, what does it matter if it's three or six months, or a lifetime ban?” he said.

“It has a devastating impact on the family and the individual. You (jurors) should deal a fatal blow to that legislation.”

Another key recommendation called on the Ministry of Community, Family and Children Services and the Ontario Works Program to assess the adequacy of all social assistance rates, with allowances for basic needs and housing based on actual costs within a particular community or region.

Those costs can be calculated using the nutritional food basket prepared each year by the local health unit as well as the average rent data prepared by Canada Mortgage and Housing. Other essential costs, such as personal needs, telephone service, transportation and utilities, should also be considered.

Help people get off welfare

“Of all the recommendations, this one and the ban are the most critical,” said Chic. “The fundamental issue of rates is the nub of all the issues. The rates, as they are, are impossible to live on. Base the rate on the cost of food, housing, utilities and transportation and you enable people to get off welfare.”

Other recommendations focused on the need for a conditional sentence supervisor to inquire about the individual’s financial circumstances if that person is under house arrest, and to fully explain the terms and conditions of the house arrest.

Michele Smith, who represents the Ministry of the Attorney General, asked the jury to make recommendations based on the facts.

She said Rogers was treated fairly throughout her prosecution for fraud and that her own lawyer believed a six-month conditional sentence was appropriate.

“Based on the information that was available, it was not an unduly harsh sentence. Her life circumstances were taken into consideration at trial ... She was pleased not to have to go to jail.”

James reminded jurors that conditions and circumstances in Sudbury may not be the same in other jurisdictions.

“Sudbury is only one of 47 delivery agents across the province,” he said. “It may not be the same in Pembroke or Sarnia. You have to try to achieve consistency with your recommendations.”

Brian Whitehead, counsel for the Ministry of Public Safety and Security, said the recommendations put forward by the coroner's jury will be taken seriously by the provincial government.

Closing arguments and submissions will conclude Thursday.