Kimberly Rogers Inquest Alerts

Kimberly Rogers Inquest - Wed., Nov. 6, 2002 - Day 17
Ontario Social Safety NetWork (OSSN) Summary

The OW Caseworker who dealt with Ms. Rogers from her reapplication in March, 2001 until the file was closed testified. (Previous workers who dealt with her were not called as witnesses, only the ERO who decided to prosecute).

The worker did about a 40 minute interview with Kimberly Rogers. The only information she had were the notes from the Income Screening Unit when Rogers called to reapply. This stated that Ms. Rogers last worked in January, 2001 at a call centre; had quit for medical reasons, had Dr's letter; she was pregnant, was treated for depression. This worker filled in the nine page application form (entered information into computer and it was then printed out); also went over the consent form, participation agreement and Rights and Responsibilities form, as well as all the documents that Ms. Rogers had to supply.

The worker agreed that in a 40 minute interview there is not enough time to fully explain all the rules regarding income, assets, special benefits, etc. However she said that is the reason for giving the client printed information (the double-sided, 8 ½' by 14' small printed Rights and Responsibilities form). Of course she always reviews this form with the customer.

The worker had noted that she was pregnant and checked off the box "special diet." When asked to explain why Ms. Rogers never received the special diet she at one point said she wasn't sure; it might have been inadvertent. However she then said that before the "prenatal" diet could be given, the client must hand in a Dr's letter confirming the due date. There is no evidence that Ms. Rogers was ever asked to bring that letter in, although it is noted that she had to supply other information like a letter from EI and attendance at a mandatory OW participation workshop.

Another thing the caseworker noted at the interview was that Ms. Rogers rent was $450, so she cautioned her about "rent too high." She explained that meant that Ms. Rogers would have to use her food money for rent, so she should consider looking for a cheaper apartment.

It was Ms. Rogers, at that first interview (which was the only meeting the worker ever had with her) who told her about the fraud charge. This worker never looked at her old file, so she had no other knowledge of the fraud, or of past circumstances of Ms. Rogers, such as that she had said she fled from an abusive relationship when she first applied for welfare in 1996; that she had had severe knee problems for a long period of time; that she had applied for disability.

When Ms. Rogers said she was going to court for welfare fraud, the worker did not discuss the consequences for her for continued welfare eligibility. There was some communication between them in April before the court case, but that just had to do with Ms. Rogers providing the letter from EI and confirmation of attendance at the OW information workshop. There were no calls recorded from her to anyone at the OW office asking about the cancellation of benefits after a fraud conviction before her Court date, contrary to the evidence of the defence lawyer.

However on April 26, the day after her conviction, Ms. Rogers called the Citizens Help Line and reported that she had been convicted. She stated she was pregnant, had no income or any way to pay her rent. The next day the ERO entered the information about the conviction, and cancelled Ms. Rogers assistance. A few days later a letter was sent out to Ms. Rogers.

At no point did this worker ever discuss with anyone in her office the risk factors involved in cancelling benefits for a pregnant woman, high risk pregnancy (because of her age), who suffered from depression, had already been in rental arrears and had no other means of support.

In late May this worker received a message from Ms. Rogers stating that she was reinstated, which the worker understandably assumed to be an SBT interim order. Later the Court order was faxed to the OW office and she was given assistance; however the pregnancy amount was still never given.

This caseworker had no further dealings with Ms. Rogers, and the OW computer narrative file submitted to the Coroner's investigation mysteriously ends on June 6, when it was sent to the Ministry of Community and Social Services office (the file states that it was transferred to ODSP, but the worker called that a "misnomer"; the Ministry had requested the file.) There is on file, however, a letter to Ms. Rogers in July stating she will have a Consolidated Verification Program interview on September 5; failure to attend would result in disqualification.

During the discussion of the Rights and Responsibilities form, a new form was produced dated February, 2002. This new form now states on the bottom just above the signature, that anyone convicted of welfare fraud will be subject to the lifetime ban, and that this applies to both OW and ODSP.

On Thursday November 7 the OW Administrator for Sudbury will testify. In the afternoon, submissions will be made on the witnesses that the three public interest parties wish to call; after arguments from all counsel the coroner will rule on whether those witnesses may be called and what areas they will be allowed to give evidence on. This will still be subject to have those witnesses qualified as experts once they get on the stand.