Kimberly Rogers Inquest Alerts

Kimberly Rogers Inquest - Monday October 28 - Day 10
Ontario Social Safety NetWork (OSSN) Summary

Witnesses:
- Carmen Marleau-Woitowich, the Ontario Work's Eligibility Review Officer (ERO)
- Constable Sheldon Roberts of the Sudbury Police's fraud unit of the criminal investigation branch

Some of the highlights of today's Inquest included two questions posed by coroner, Dr. Eden, that concluded the cross-examination of the ERO. Dr. Eden, put the following questions to the ERO: (paraphrasing)

i. If Kimberly Rogers had been attending college while on social assistance without student loans, would Ontario Works (OW) have still been considered this an offence. The ERO's response was that yes, that attending a post secondary institution would have been an offence as Kimberly would not have been available for employment.

ii. Would the offence be caught - today - before the point where criminal charges would have to be laid resulting from fraud over $5,000 (in Kimberly's case, the fraud continued for 3 years). The ERO responded that that she was confident that with the information sharing in place today the offence would have been caught earlier.

Also testifying was Constable Sheldon Roberts of the Sudbury Police's fraud unit of the criminal investigation branch whose unit deals specifically with social assistance fraud.

Constable Roberts testified that there would have to be reasonable and probable grounds to move forward on a fraud charge, once a file was received from the ERO. He also testified that from 1999 - 2001, there has been only 7 out of 10 fraud cases had resulted in a conviction for welfare fraud of $5,000.

During the cross-examination of Constable Roberts by Michelle Smith, the counsel for the Attorney General's office, the coroner asked the jury to leave and he asked Ms. Smith to refrain from using legal terms such as "deceitful" when referring to Kimberly Rogers. Additionally, the counsel for the Greater Sudbury Police stood to make a submission that Ms. Smith provide his client, Constable Roberts with an opportunity to respond to the question(s) put to him.

During the cross of Constable Roberts by Jennifer Scott, counsel for the CAEFS coalition, Constable Roberts testified that he resolved the Rogers case in a few days as it wasn't a complex case .. that it was apparent that while Kimberly went to college, she collected Ontario Works benefits. He referred to the case as "straight forward".

Ms. Scott indicated that she saw some of the circumstances surrounding the Rogers case as being complex and wondered how much consideration would be given to the mitigating circumstances (in the commission of the offence and the impact of prosecution on conviction) before charges are laid.

Ms. Scott provided a hypothetical example of a woman leaving an abusive relationship as a mitigating circumstance. Ms. Scott asked the constable if an offence was committed out of necessity, would that be a factor in exercising discretion re: charges being laid. "In Kimberly Rogers' case, she was going to school to eventually get off the welfare rolls.. was the offence committed out of necessity?"

Constable Roberts responded that it would be taken under consideration as a mitigating circumstance if Kimberly Rogers had committed the offence while in an abusive relationship, but not after leaving an abusive relationship. He elaborated that while the latter could be considered a necessity, the former was less of a necessity.

Constable Roberts responded that the bulk of the investigation was carried out by the ERO, who prepared the file and then sends to the police for charges to be paid.

Ms. Scott then asked Constable Roberts if he would find it helpful to have the file enclose mitigating circumstances (such as dire circumstances)?

Mr. Roberts responded that he wouldn't be opposed to this.

Ms. Scott asked the constable is he knew that Kimberly Rogers would a three month suspension of her Ontario Works benefits upon conviction. He responded, "No.".

Ms. Scott asked if the constable knew Kimberly had a history of depression and that she would lose access to her medication, her benefits/income (rent, food etc). He responded, "No".

Ms. Scott asked the constable if he had given any consideration to the impact on Kimberly Rogers ability to work in her field... He responded, "No".

Ms. Scott then asked Constable Roberts if he would find guidelines regarding the abovementioned helpful. He responded, "Yes".

The Inquest continues tomorrow with the testimony of Mary Nethery, the Director of the Criminal Law Policy Branch, Ministry of the Attorney General

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