Kimberly Rogers Inquest Alerts

Ontario Social Safety NetWork (OSSN) Summary
for Day 9 - October 25, 2002

October 25, 2002

The Ontario Work's Eligibility Review Officer (ERO) continued on the stand today.

The coroner, Dr. Eden, frequently interrupted the cross-examination of the ERO by both Jacquie Chic (counsel for OSSN/SCSA) and Chantal Tie (counsel for the CAEFS coalition) and asked the jury to leave the court room many times.

Dr. Eden clearly would not permit the public interest lawyers to ask certain questions and restated the three tests that counsel's questions would have to meet:
i. Is evidence relevant to Inquest?
ii. Is evidence relevant to the scope of the Inquest?
iii. Is evidence within the area of interest (as per Coroner's ruling in application for standing at Inquest)

The ERO testified that only 10 cases were reported to police for welfare prosecution from 1999 to 2001. This is a very low percentage of the Ontario Works (OW) caseload which in 1999 were 6,029 cases; in 2000 -- 4,644 cases, and in 2001 -- 4,899 cases.

The ERO was asked by Jacquie Chic, if she was familiar with an Ontario Works policy (from one of the 5 volumes -- each about 2 inches thick -- of OW policies, rules and regulations, bulletins and directives, entered into evidence) regarding the recovery rate for over payments: (to 1998: rate of recovery is set at 5% but can be raised to 10% if there's capacity to pay the 10% or reduced when it would cause undue hardship). The ERO responded that she would have read it at least once in her life. She stated that OW in Sudbury, collect at a 10% recovery rate - which is the default position in Sudbury.

When the ERO was questioned by Ms. Chic about what triggers came into play for OW officers to refer cases to an eligibility review, the ERO responded with the example of high rent payments beyond what an OW recipient could afford from their monthly benefit..

The ERO testified that the maximum shelter allowance for a single person is $325 plus $195 for basic needs for a total of $520 monthly. The ERO was not permitted to respond to a question regarding her opinion of the inadequacy of the OW shelter allowance.

In terms of what constitutes welfare fraud, the ERO responded with:
- unreported income
- categorical ineligibility - eg. living with a spouse (co-habitation), assets beyond the maximum allowed

In terms of what constitutes "income", the ERO responded with:
- all wages, salaries
- pension income
- value of a sale from an asset
- cash advances and lines of credit
- proceeds from loan
- loans
- donations

In terms of what isn't deemed as "income", the ERO responded with:
- casual gifts to children made around special occasions (birthdays, Christmas)
- clothing
- food
- meals

The ERO was asked by Chantal Tie what would happen should a person on OW sell a fridge for $500 -- would the amount constitute as income? The ERO initially responded no, that it would be considered an asset. When Ms. Tie read from the OW policy, the ERO changed her response to agree that the $500 would be considered as income in the month received, and as an asset in the following month (as per the OW Policy)..

Another example was provided by Ms.Tie to clarify what constitutes "income" even when there is no actual net gain to the individual in receipt of OW. Ms. Tie asked the ERO whether a loan of $500 made by a person on OW to a neighbour would be deemed as "income" when repaid. The ERO admitted that the $500 would be deemed as income and offered a remark that she would be questioning where the individual would have got the $500 money to lend out in the first place.

As Kimberly Rogers had no NET gain from her OSAP loan, Ms. Tie asked the ERO if there wasn't an alternate way to deal with the situation other than to criminally prosecute Kimberly Rogers.

The ERO reserved her right to express her opinion unless directed to do so by the coroner.

Barbara Anello
Ontario Social Safety Network (OSSN)
http://dawn.thot.net/ossn