Kimberly Rogers Inquest Alerts

Kimberly Rogers Inquest - Dec. 11 - 12, 2002
Final Submissions

Ontario Social Safety NetWork (OSSN)
Steering Committee on Social Assistance (SCSA)
Summary

To View Recommendations, follow this link

On December 11th and 12th, 2002, closing arguments and recommendations were presented to the jury. The Coroner's counsel handed a list of 21 suggested recommendations to the jury, and counsel for the other parties were free to support, vary or oppose those, and to add other recommendations. OSSN/SCSA were very pleased that ending the lifetime ban was #1, and that many other recommendations that we had proposed were also included (especially adequacy).

The Sudbury police commented on only one recommendation: end the lifetime ban. Their counsel stated that the ban can place people into desperate circumstances. Having desperate people with no income or resources does not promote a safe community.

Don Kuyek, for the Sudbury Social Planning Council, reviewed what we had learned about Kimberly Rogers. She was a complex person, whose life took twists and turns. Highly intelligent, hard working and compassionate when she did her social work placement, she also made mistakes and had second thoughts about some choices. She found herself on social assistance like a significant portion of our community. We heard about the stigma and stereotyping that brings on policies like the lifetime ban and the low rates. This jury has had a chance to learn much about the real life of people forced to rely on assistance. He urged the jury to accept all the coroner's suggested recommendations, but particularly to give a strong message to end the lifetime ban, not to just "consider" ending it (as recommendation #1 was worded by coroner's counsel). Mr. Kuyak also recommended to the jury that they not make a distinction between the lifetime and temporary welfare ban as each has a devastating impact, whether it's for 3 months, 6 months, or lifetime. He also urged the jury adopt all recommendations by the OSSN/SCSA and the CAEFS coalition.

The lawyer for the Ministry of Public Safety and Security reviewed portions of the evidence related to whether or not Ms. Rogers committed suicide, emphasizing those facts which tended to indicate it was an accidental overdose. He then addressed what he called the rumour in the community that Ms. Rogers was not allowed to leave her home other than 3 hours on Wednesdays: He claimed "that rumour can be laid to rest." He stated that she could easily get a letter from her probation officer to leave for any reason; on two occasions she did get a letter (to go to the OW office to pick up a cheque, and to see her lawyer). His general comments on the recommendations related to probation and parole, (#12-15), were that they already do make referrals to community agencies where necessary, and they do carefully explain the conditional sentences, but if the jury feels this message needs to be reinforced, that's fine.

The lawyer for the Attorney General painted a very different picture of the evidence given than the other parties, the media or most observers had heard. She stated there was no evidence that Kimberly Rogers was in need at the time she committed fraud. Not only two crowns, but also two judges and her own defence lawyer all felt her sentence was appropriate given the very serious offence that she committed over a period of 3 ½ years. Her circumstances were taken into account when sentencing; the court knew she was pregnant and on social assistance. Her defence lawyer said that she got by with help from her family and friends; therefore that shows that she would be fine even when it was learned that her welfare would be cut off. She stated that Kimberly Rogers had an "army of lawyers" and community agencies helping her in those last few months. She had a window that opened in her apartment, and there was a breeze. If she did not go out it was because she didn't want to. The system functioned well and treated Ms. Rogers fairly; therefore no recommendations really need to be made.

The City of Sudbury lawyer suggested that the evidence points more toward "accidental" rather than suicide as the cause of death, despite the opinion of the expert psychiatrist, Dr. Sakinofsky, who never met Kimberly Rogers. His comments on the first resolution were that if the ban is not eliminated, the City did not think it would be a good idea to allow local discretion to the OW administrator to impose it or not. There would be too many practical problems; if you exempted someone but circumstances changed, then would the administration have to impose the ban? Regarding recommendation #3, the city proposed a slight change and suggested that OMSSA, MCFCS, and OSSN/SCSA should jointly develop a committee process to deal with potential criminal referrals. (SCSA/OSSN agreed with their proposal). Regarding the rates, (#9), the City supports the principles there but it should be clear that any increase in rates should be the sole responsibility of the province). The City generally supported most of the other recommendations of the coroner.

Jacquie Chic, for OSSN/SCSA, reminded the jury of the evidence of Dr. Sutcliffe, Sudbury's medical officer of health, who said that poverty is not only bad for the health of poor people, but it is bad for the community's health. People don't choose to live in poverty. But governments do have a choice in how to address poverty. Ms. Chic asked the jury to consider, "Do the current laws and policies alleviate poverty and assist in moving people off social assistance or do they deepen poverty and prevent people from escaping poverty?" OSSN/SCSA support all 21 of the coroner's recommendations. On the first one, we agree with the SPC that you should send a strong clear message to end the lifetime and any temporary bans and not just say "consider" it. In recommendation #5, we suggest the groups who should be involved in the Social Assistance Advisory Committee. Ms. Chic reviewed some of the evidence in support of recommendation #9, setting the rates to take into account actual costs of housing, food, and other essentials. We have the data available every year to do that, so this is a practical recommendation. This one and ending the ban are the two most critical recommendations for the jury to make. We would just add a stipulation that there be an annual cost of living adjustment. We added some other recommendations, including: exempt loans as income, stop the NCBS clawback; support post-secondary education or other effective skills training.

Jennifer Scott, for the CAEFS/NAPO/LEAF/NAWL coalition, reminded the jury that her client was given standing because they work to make a better society for women and people on social assistance, and particularly were there to make recommendations concerning the criminal justice system. She referred to Kimberly Rogers letter to OSAP on which she expressed remorse, begged for forgiveness, and asked that she not be given a criminal sentence because that would make it more difficult to get a job and repay her debt to society. The ERO clearly indicated that the circumstances of her life were not considered in the decision to refer for criminal prosecution. Nor were they fully considered at any time by the crowns or the court in sentencing. Although it was known there would be a ban, that had no impact on sentencing her to house arrest with no income. In relation to whether Ms. Rogers knew she could get permission to leave her house other than on Wednesdays, look at the letter she was given, which did not state she could do so. Evidence was given that she was told even when she went into labour, she would have to get a letter of permission to go to the hospital. The CAEFS coalition had two overriding recommendations: 1) Overpayments should be dealt with administratively, not criminally. 2) If they are dealt with criminally, then every step of the way you should look at the life circumstances and the impact of prosecution on the accused.

Coroner's counsel Al O'Marra gave a balanced picture of Kimberly Rogers, pointing out some of the positive character qualities that witnesses spoke to (this picture contrasted greatly with that given in the opening summary). He reviewed the evidence which pointed, first to suicide, and then to accident, and also went over the law concerning suicide which the coroner repeated later. He stressed that the jury's recommendations should be reasonable and practical, and tied to the facts of this case. He supported use of the words "consideration be given to" ending the lifetime ban because we don't know all the circumstances that might be involved in other cases of the lifetime ban. He criticized the CAEFS recommendations, saying most of them are already done in appropriate cases; if you make pre-sentence reports mandatory you would turn our adversarial justice system into an inquisitorial system.

The Coroner's charge to the jury explained the law, with particular emphasis on the extra onus of proof that is required for a finding of suicide, because suicide has serious implications for the family and community. It is not a failure for the jury to return a verdict of "undetermined.". He also stressed that their recommendations should be practical, crystal clear, and tied to the evidence given in this case.

Assuming the jury is able to reach its verdict in time, it is expected to be read out at the Sudbury council chambers on the morning of December 19th (at the same time as the Supreme Court will render judgement in the Louise Gosselin appeal).

Nancy Vander Plaats
Barbara Anello
for OSSN/SCSA

Recommendations:
Suggested Recommendations of the Ontario Social Safety NetWork (OSSN) & Steering Committee on Social Assistance (SCSA) (HTML)

External Links
The following links open up in a new browser window & require Acrobat Reader
They are posted on the Income Security Advocacy Centre's website

Coroner's Recommendations (PDF document)

City of Sudbury's Recommendations (PDF document)

Recommendations of the CAEFS Coalition (PDF document)

Sudbury Social Planning Council's Recommendations (PDF document)

Recommendations of Ministry of the Attorney General (PDF document)