Kimberly Rogers Inquest Alerts

Rogers Inquest Jury to Deliver Verdict & Recommendations
on same day as
Supreme Court renders judgement on Gosselin Appeal
Commentary by Barbara Anello

Special to DAWN Ontario
December 16, 2002

A year ago, Kimberly Rogers and Louise Gosselin were just names I associated with two important cases regarding social assistance.

Today, I am struck not only by the immense courage of these two women in launching a charter challenge, but also by what their battle has meant to many people living in poverty.

In April 2001 Kimberly Rogers was convicted of welfare fraud for receiving $13,648.31 in student loans while collecting social assistance. She received a conditional sentence of 6 months house arrest and her welfare benefits were suspended for 3 months, leaving her with no source of income to pay her rent or basic needs (food, telephone, utilities, transportation).

In May 2001, Kimberly Rogers launched a charter challenge that, if successful, would have had a major impact on how welfare fraud cases are handled in Ontario. A few weeks later, on appeal of the conviction and sentence, a Toronto judge granted a temporary injunction reinstating Kimberly's benefits.

The monthly benefit for a single person on Ontario Works is $520 a month: $325 for shelter and $195 for basic needs. After a $52 deduction towards the overpayment, and after paying $450 for rent, Kimberly was left with just $18 a month to pay for basic needs.

Kimberly Rogers died during a blistering heat wave, 8 months pregnant, alone and destitute. Her badly decomposed body was found on Aug 9, three days after she had last been seen alive.

An inquest into the death of Kimberly Rogers heard 30 days of evidence over 6 weeks. Final submissions were made to the jury on Dec 11 and 12th.

The 5-member jury will deliver their verdict and recommendations on the morning of Thurs. Dec 19th.

On Oct. 29, 2001, the Supreme Court of Canada heard the case of Louise Gosselin - the first claim under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the first claim under human rights legislation to a right to an adequate level of social assistance for those in need.

"The Gosselin case raised the critical issue of whether the right to "security of the person" in section 7 of the Canadian Charter and the right to equality under section 15 impose positive legal obligations upon governments to ensure an adequate level of income for Canadians when they are unable to provide for themselves."

The Supreme Court will render judgment on the Gosselin appeal, ironically, on the same date, and at the same time as the Rogers Inquest jury will deliver their verdict and recommendations.

While I am hopeful for some decent recommendations to come from the Rogers Inquest jury, I'm not so optimistic that the Ontario Tories will implement the recommendations that have the capacity to make a real difference to people living in poverty in Ontario.

The Tories have been consistent in their agenda - clearly one of employability (shortest route to employment) rather than raising social assistance rates to adequate levels for people to survive.

Social assistance recipients had benefits slashed by the Tories by 21.6% in 1996! People living in poverty are left little choice but to employ whatever strategies they can to survive, sometimes that includes breaking the law just to be able to survive.

How can anyone living in a position of privilege look down at poor people who often have to choose between paying their rent or feeding their children? People who live in constant fear of eviction and/or the threat of having their children removed by Children's Aid.

The Tories won two provincial elections by painting social assistance recipients as "welfare bums" -- beer-slinging, drug-addicted, illiterate, lazy burdens on hard-working Ontario tax payers.

We heard talk of literacy testing and mandatory drug testing -- all successful strategies that reinforced the stigma and stereotyping of social assistance recipients (and no doubt held promise to the same breed of consultants who profited immensely from the Tories' mandatory testing in our education system).

And with so much attention focused on welfare fraud, the corporate welfare bums like Anderson/Accenture laughed all the way to the bank.

Why do Ontario Tories pick on vulnerable people? Is it simply because they can or is it because poor and vulnerable people historically don't vote in any great numbers to make a difference?

What happened to the kinder, gentler government we hear the Tories yak about?

What do Ontarians think about the discriminatory policies that target poor people? How does that reflect on Ontario, the richest province in Canada, as a civilized society that treats our disadvantaged citizens less humanely than it does murderers, rapists and pedophiles?

Why is it that poor people convicted of welfare fraud (who break the law out of need, not greed) must face punitive measures such as the draconian welfare ban, that deny them the ability to survive when corporate fraud, deliberate tax cheating, and GST fraud gets swept under the rug with little or no repayment and wrist slapping jail time!

We've heard media reports of Tory Ministers who have been exposed for inappropriate expense claims. They weren't charged, they weren't kicked out of the legislature and they weren't charged with fraud.

One has only to look at the case of Eleanor Clitheroe, the Hydro CEO fired by Hydro One for inappropriate expense account spending for more evidence of discriminatory practices that favour the privileged. Why hasn't she been charged with fraud? Lucky for Ms. Clithroe, she didn't have to depend on an insufficiently funded legal aid system to bail her out.

Why is fraud committed by politicians and other public servants treated differently than that of Kimberly Rogers, who collected student loans while on social assistance because she wanted to get an education to climb out of the poverty trap?

Student loans provide up to $9 a day for living expenses. How is a person with no means or financial support from family, able to access college or university if they are prevented from working while going to school because of handicapping conditions they are challenged with? Kimberly Rogers had documented medical problems (chronic migraines, anxiety disorder, insomnia, depression and a bad knee that required her to wear a brace).

What kind of province is Ontario if the only people who can access post-secondary education are the sons and daughters of those who can afford to pay?

Are "Call Centres" the helping hand that the Ontario government thinks will help alleviate poverty? Where are the meaningful employment and training opportunities?

From all appearances, the Ontario Tories have been successful at deepening the poverty trap than helping poor people move out of poverty. And the Tories have been just as successful at perpetuating the stigma and stereotyping of low income people.

It needs to STOP!

Ontario voters have the capacity to send that message to the Tories, loudly and clearly. I hope that in this next election, every poor person and every person with a conscience, exercises their right to vote in overwhelming numbers.

It will be interesting to hear the decisions of both the Rogers Inquest Jury and the Supreme Court this Thursday!

I am hoping that there will be at the very least, a measure of Justice with Dignity.

source:
http://dawn.thot.net/anello.html