Membership

T0: The Government of Ontario - The Minister of Community, Family and Children's Services

1. The zero tolerance lifetime ineligibility for social assistance as a result of the commission of welfare fraud, pursuant to Ontario Works Act, 1997, O. Reg. 134/98 Section 36, should be eliminated. The temporary ineligibility in the instance of offences that have occurred prior to April 1, 2000, should also be eliminated.

Evidence indicates that this would have a devastating and detrimental effect on our society. To prevent anyone of having to go without food and/or shelter, to be deemed homeless and therefore and most importantly, to prevent the death of impoverished individuals.

TO: The Government of Ontario - The Minister of Community, Family and Children's Services

2. A provision should be added to the Ontario Works Act, permitting the Local Ontario Works Administrator to exercise discretion in the use of any suspension of Ontario Works benefits, in instances that could be life threatening to the client and/or dependents.

Evidence indicates that suspension of benefits is detrimental to the client and the community.

TO: The Government of Ontario - The Minister of Corrections - Probation and Parole

3. When someone is serving a custodial sentence of house arrest, the government should ensure that adequate housing, food and/or medication is provided to the person.

An individual placed under house arrest, who is faced with a suspension of Ontario Works benefits, and has no other financial resources, would find it difficult to survive, and should not be dependent on Charitable Organizations.

TO: The Government of Ontario - The Minister of Community, Family and Children's Services

4. The Ministry of Community, Family and Children Services and the Ontario Works Program should assess the adequacy of all social assistance rates. Allowances for housing and basic needs, should be based on actual costs within a particular community or region. In developing the allowance, data about the nutritional food basket prepared annually by local health units, and the average rent data prepared by the Canadian Mortgage and Housing Corporation should be considered.

To ensure that social assistance rates are adequate and adjusted annually if necessary.

5. Physicians should be educated on the potential risks of tri-cyclic anti-depressants in the treatment of depression, and should be encouraged to use the safer class of anti-depressants, such as Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors (SSRI) as a first line drug therapy. Wherever appropriate, physicians should encourage patients to access supportive counseling services in the community.

To encourage the use of extreme caution in the prescribing of medications. By encouraging the prescribing of a less dangerous or lethal drug.

TO: The Government of Ontario - The Minister of Community, Family and Children's Services

6. Ontario Works should continue its efforts to detect ineligibility or fraud at the earliest possible time in order that corrective measures may be taken short of prosecution or criminalization.

TO: The Government of Ontario - The Minister of Community, Family and Children's Services

7. A committee should be established by the local delivery agents for Ontario Works under the auspices of the Ontario Municipal Social Services Association composed of various stakeholders including representatives of the Ministry of Community, Family & Children's Services, the Ontario Social Safety Network and the Steering Committee on Social Assistance. This committee's mandate would be to develop a model to be used throughout the province for the assessment of whether cases involving allegations of welfare fraud should be referred for prosecution. Such a model could be based on an enhanced version of the Sudbury model and would include an evaluation of the life circumstance of the recipient and the consequences of a conviction on both the recipient and/or dependents.

There should be a full appreciation of the person's life circumstances and the impact of the consequences of a fraud conviction. During this inquest, it was noted, that the various Organizations, including Charitable Organizations, assisted the deceased prior to her death, therefore they should have an active voice in this Committee.

TO: The Government of Ontario - The Minister of Community, Family and Children's Services

8. Ontario Works benefits for drug therapy for the treatment of medical conditions that threaten life or cause serious symptoms should not be discontinued during any Ontario Works suspension.

9. Consideration should be given to the creation of a computer access Internet program such as British Columbia's PharmaNet system. For example by using a health card, that would permit pharmacies to access a patient's drug dispensing records from other pharmacies, as well as to alert other pharmacies of a patient's past attempts to utter forged prescriptions. Pharmacists should be required to notify the prescribing physician of any attempts by the patient to alter the prescription.

Evidence showed that several different pharmacies were used to fill prescriptions. This will give pharmacists a history of a patient's prescriptions.

TO: The Government of Ontario - The Minister of Education, Colleges & Universities

10. The Ontario Student Assistance Program (OSAP) should amend the application form by highlighting the possibility of criminal prosecution, future ineligibility and loss of loan forgiveness as a result of providing false declarations.

11. Physicians should be encouraged to write out prescriptions in both digits and longhand to prevent modification of the quantity by patients, e.g. "40, forty tablets".

Evidence was introduced indicating possible quantity changes on the Physician's prescription by the patient. This will prevent a patient from changing the numerically written number.

12. Health Canada and the publishers of the Compendium of Pharmaceuticals and Specialties (CPS) should ensure that the information for both brand name drugs and generic drugs reflect the same information. For example, the current descriptive entries for Elavil (brand name) and Amitriptyline (generic name), while the same pharmaceutical/medicine, are noticeably different with respect to dosage for out-patients. .

To provide doctors with accurate information in regards to dosage and side effects.

TO: The Government of Ontario - The Minister of Corrections, Probation and Parole

13. When a person is subject to a conditional sentence, as part of the prisoner's orientation, Probation and Parole should provide them with a written list of community-based agencies which advocate on behalf of prisoners, together with appropriate consent forms to permit information-sharing.

To ensure the sharing of important information in regards to support services available in the community.

14. Ongoing professional training and development of materials should be provided to all of those involved in the investigation, charging, prosecution, sentencing and supervision in relation to all offences.

The evidence showed that the Crown and Courts were unaware that upon conviction the accused would be subject to a suspension of Ontario Works benefits.

There is no question about the historic and political significance of this inquest. Everyone from activists, advocates, and front-line workers to low-income people and their allies to students, academics, lawyers, judges to policy makers and maybe even politicians – so many communities will be monitoring this inquest with a keen eye.

Issues and recommendations emerging from this case are poised to have profound impact on the struggle for strengthened social safety nets, on economic justice, on public policy, on the anti-poverty movement. How we challenge governments on a myriad of issues – the decimation of income support programs, systemic obstacles to achieving economic and social justice, federal abandonment of responsibility, flaws in conditional sentencing schemes, the fallacy of welfare fraud – will be impacted by this case.

Groups around the country have taken on this case as a matter of paramount importance. We all know that a tragedy like Kimberly’s in Sudbury is not one that is unique to Ontario. We all know that those concerned about poverty in communities across the country are affected. Issues of geography and jurisdiction are of less and less relevance these days. The death of Kimberly Rogers touches us all.

The National Anti-Poverty Organization (NAPO) is but one of several organizations that will be participating at the inquest as an intervener. We have been working in coalition with partners at the local level in Sudbury, the provincial level, and at the national level, to prepare for the inquest.

This is the first in a series of electronic communications – "INQUEST INFORMATION” – we will be disseminating to all corners of the country to keep you informed about the inquest. While interveners in Sudbury are undertaking the legal work, we all have an equally important role to play outside the courthouse. There has been much media interest in this case – we know it will continue.

We are pleased to keep you informed through the dispatch of media releases and press statements issued by the groups working closely on this case. We will send you sample letters to the editor, redi-print articles, and media statements to issue in your own communities. We’ll also send you updates about what’s happening at the hearings.

If you have any media-related material that you’d like to share, send it to us so we can pass it along to the pan-Canadian networks. And by all means, send the INQUEST UPDATES as far and wide as possible so that we are all connected around this critical matter.

Watch for more communications from us in the days to come. Thanks for your interest in this case. We look forward to staying connected with all of you and building this network.

Le 9 octobre 2002

Si vous recevez cette communication, vous et votre organisation avez un intérêt dans un important événement à venir. Cela peut également signifier que vous pouvez transmettre cette information à d’autres personnes et groupes qui devraient être tenus au courant de cette affaire et sur tout ce qui pourrait en découler.

l’enquête du coroner de la province de l’Ontario sur le décès de Kimberly Rogers doit débuter,

L’importance historique et politique de cette enquête ne fait aucun doute. Tout le monde, en passant par les activistes, les défenseurs, les travailleuses et travailleurs de première ligne, les personnes à faible revenu et leurs alliés, les étudiantes et étudiants, les universitaires, les avocates et avocats, les juges, les décideurs et peut-être même la classe politique – un très grand nombre de communautés surveilleront cette enquête avec attention.

Les questions et les recommandations qui émergeront à la suite de cette affaire auront de grandes répercussions sur la lutte pour des filets de sécurité sociale renforcés, sur la justice économique, l’ordre public et le mouvement de lutte contre la pauvreté. Cette affaire jouera sur la façon dont nous contestons les gouvernements sur un éventail de questions – la décimation des programmes de soutien du revenu, les obstacles systémiques pour obtenir une justice économique et sociale, le rejet par le gouvernement fédéral de ses responsabilités, les failles dans les programmes de condamnation avec sursis, les erreurs concernant la fraude de l’aide sociale.

Des groupes de tout le Canada considèrent cette affaire comme de la plus haute importance. Nous savons toutes et tous qu’une tragédie comme celle de Kimberly, à Sudbury, ne touche pas seulement l’Ontario. Nous savons toutes et tous que les personnes qui sont préoccupées par le problème de pauvreté dans les collectivités canadiennes sont affectées. Les questions de géographie et de juridiction sont moins pertinentes ces temps-ci. La mort de Kimberly Rogers nous affecte toutes et tous.

L’Organisation nationale anti-pauvreté (ONAP) n’est qu’une parmi plusieurs organisations qui participeront à l’enquête en tant qu’intervenante. Nous travaillons en coalition avec des partenaires locaux à Sudbury, à l’échelle provinciale et à l’échelle nationale, pour nous préparer pour l’enquête.

Voici la première d’une série de communications électroniques – LE POINT SUR L’ENQUÊTE – que nous diffuserons dans tous les coins du Canada afin de vous informer sur l’enquête. Pendant que les intervenants à Sudbury s’occupent du travail légal, nous avons toutes et tous un rôle tout aussi important à jouer à l’extérieur du palais de justice. L’intérêt des médias pour cette affaire a été très grand et nous savons qu’il ne diminuera pas.

Nous sommes heureux de vous informer en vous faisant parvenir des communiqués de presse et des déclarations publiées par les groupes qui travaillent étroitement sur cette affaire. Nous vous enverrons des modèles de lettres au courrier des lecteurs, des articles prêts à publier et des déclarations de presse à diffuser dans vos collectivités. Nous vous enverrons également des informations régulières sur ce qui se passe aux auditions.

Si vous avez des documents pour les médias que vous aimeriez partager, veuillez nous les faire parvenir afin que nous puissions les faire circuler sur les réseaux pancanadiens. Il va sans dire que vous devez envoyer LE POINT SUR L’ENQUÊTE aussi loin et au plus grand nombre possible afin que nous soyons toutes et tous branchés sur cette affaire capitale.

Gardez l’œil ouvert pour les autres communications que nous vous enverrons dans les prochains jours. Nous vous remercions de l’intérêt que vous avez pour cette affaire. Nous espérons rester branchés avec vous toutes et tous afin de créer ce réseau.

Pour plus amples renseignments, veuillez contacter ONAP sans frais 1.800.810.1076, ou visitez www.napo-onap.ca.

15 October 2002

Today marks the start of

the Ontario Provincial Coroner’s Inquest

into the death of Kimberly Rogers

in Sudbury, Ontario.

This is not a media advisory or release. This is a means of staying linked and informed as groups and individuals across the country concerned about the inquest.

Cette mise à jour n’est pas un communiqué de presse, ni un avis de presse. C’est une façon de maintenir les liens entre les groupes et individus partout au Canada qui sont intéressés par l'enquête.

When NAPO and its coalition partners issue official media communications, those will be forwarded to you via these updates, for your information.

L’ONAP et ses partenaires vous feront parvenir les communiqués de presse par le biais de la section des mise à jour.

Please send this and subsequent INQUEST UPDATES as far and wide as possible so that we are all connected around this critical matter.

Veuillez diffuser ce bulletin d'information et les autres qui suivront afin que toutes les personnes concernées soient informées des derniers développements.

If you have communications material to share, do let us know. Si vous avez du matériel d'information à partager, veuillez nous en informer.

Watch for tomorrow’s bulletin describing the first day of the inquest, and more from us in the weeks to come. There will be much for all of us around the country to do in support of this inquest. Thanks for your interest in this case. We look forward to staying connected with all of you and building this network.

Revenez nous voir souvent afin d'obtenir de l'information sur les derniers développements dans cette enquête. Il y aura plein de choses à faire pour toutes les Canadiennes et les Canadiens souhaitant démontrer leur appui pour cette cause. Demain : un survol du premier jour de l’enquête. . Nous vous remercions de l’intérêt que vous avez pour cette affaire. Nous espérons rester en contact avec vous toutes et tous afin de créer un réseau de solidarité.

In this update – dans ce bulletin:

- Globe and Mail article, 15 October 2002

- Toronto Star article, 15 October 2002

- ISAC press advisory, 11 October 2002

Check out our new website – Voyez notre nouveau site web

www.napo-onap.ca

NAPO

For more information, call NAPO

Pour plus amples renseignements, contactez l’ONAP

Phone / tél : 1.800.810.1076

www.napo-onap.ca

National Anti-Poverty Organization – l’Organisation nationale anti-pauvreté

Pam Kapoor, Acting Executive Director / Directrice intérimaire - 613.298.0902

An inquest-related list of organizational spokespeople can be viewed at

Un liste des porte-paroles pour l’enquête est disponible à

www.napo-onap.ca

From globeandmail.com

POSTED AT 11:12 AM EDT Tuesday, October 15

Inquest begins into welfare mother's death

By DARREN YOURK
Globe and Mail Update

The inquest into the death of Kimberly Rogers — found dead in her sweltering apartment during a heat wave on Aug. 11, 2001 — began Tuesday morning in Sudbury, Ont.

Ms. Rogers had been serving six months under house arrest for welfare fraud. She was eight months pregnant at the time of her death.

The official cause of her death has never been released.

Before the inquest, Coroner Dr. David Eden granted public-interest standing to the Ontario Social Safety Network (OSSN) and the Steering Committee on Social Assistance. Both groups are represented by the Income Security Advocacy Centre (ISAC).

"We extend condolences to the family and friends of Kimberly Rogers. We know the next six weeks will be a difficult time for them," ISAC legal director Jacquie Chic said. "We believe it is vitally important that the jury has the opportunity to examine all the issues and factors relating to the tragedy of Kimberly Rogers' death last August."

OSSN spokeswoman Barbara Anello said she hopes the inquest "sheds light on the dangers of cutting the social safety net and imposing discriminatory penalties on vulnerable people like Kimberly Rogers."

A straight-A social-services student at Cambrian College, Ms. Rogers had pleaded guilty to defrauding the provincial government by taking student loans while still collecting welfare cheques.

Her welfare benefits were cut off and she was ordered to repay the government about $13,300. The ruling left her unable to pay her monthly bills.

A published newspaper report in August said that Ms. Rogers died of an overdose of a prescription antidepressant, not heat stroke or hyperthermia from being confined to her apartment.

The National Anti-Poverty Organization says the results of the inquest will have far-reaching impacts. "Issues and recommendations emerging from this case are poised to have profound impact on the struggle for strengthened social safety nets, on economic justice, on public policy, on the anti-poverty movement," NAPO said in a release.

"How we challenge governments on a myriad of issues — the decimation of income support programs, systemic obstacles to achieving economic and social justice, federal abandonment of responsibility, flaws in conditional sentencing schemes, the fallacy of welfare fraud — will be impacted by this case."

On May 14, 2001, Ms. Rogers launched a case under the Charter of Rights that challenged the constitutional validity of Ontario Works regulations that suspended benefits after a conviction of welfare fraud.

Ms. Rogers' was able to have her welfare benefits reinstated May 31, but the court had yet to rule on her challenge at the time of her death.

Related Stories
• Bleak House
• Ontario MPPs demand inquest
• Expectant mother guilty of fraud challenges welfare ban in court

16-10-02

For more information, call NAPO

National Anti-Poverty Organization – l’Organisation nationale anti-pauvreté

Pam Kapoor, Acting Executive Director / Directrice intérimaire - 613.298.0902

INQUEST SYNOPSIS: day one

The first day of this historic inquest into the death of Kimberly Rogers was spent primarily on the Coroner’s instructions about the process. There was also a presentation of an outline of the evidence assembled by the case investigators.

· The OPP (Ontario Provincial Police) constable who summarized the chronology of life events leading up to Kimberly Rogers’ death focused on the prescription medications she received, past history of visits to walk-in clinics and family physician, family and relationship history, debt load.

· By day’s end, it was revealed that investigators had erred in citing the amounts of medication: Kimberly had actually obtained medication from her family physician and only in the amounts allowed under the Ontario Drug Benefit plan.

· Among the 18 volumes of documentary evidence amassed by the Coroner’s investigators, five volumes contain the Ontario Works Act, regulations, policies and procedures.

· From the way the evidence was presented yesterday, it is clear that the focus by some of the parties will be overwhelmingly on the personal.

· Public interest groups intervening at the inquest to attempt to highlight the broader social context of the case include the Sudbury Social Planning Council, the Ontario Social Safety Network, the Ontario Steering Committee on Social Assistance, the Canadian Association of Elizabeth Fry Societies, the National Anti-Poverty Organization, the Women’s Legal Education and Action Fund, and the National Association of Women and the Law.

· It appears as though one week of the full inquest will be devoted to issues within the social context and the final week on recommendations.

Please feel free to borrow ideas or text from these letters for use in your own letters to local and regional editors in your area.

Letters to Editor contact info

Sure, it may have been that Kimberly dealt with some health issues such as depression and migraines. But think about it – how many people on welfare do you know who are not struggling to manage an injury or illness of one sort or another? It is preposterous to hold up one woman’s life story as unique when the truth is, most social assistance recipients have a horrific time navigating personal struggles under abysmal government support.

The shame game is lame. Why try to distract everyone from the political and regulatory factors that led to this tragedy? No amount of magic can conceal the truth. It just may be that the five-member inquest jury – like most of us – are not fooled by slight of hand.

How predictable that the inquest hearings into the death of Kimberly Rogers have so quickly become an occasion for prosecution to stir up controversy by combing through the intimate details of Kimberly’s life. From what I’ve read, Kimberly Rogers was well liked by friends, neighbours and colleagues, and was well on her way to a better future. She worked hard to overcome personal obstacles in order to achieve an accomplished education.

I guess it would be out of character for those incapable of deeper social analysis to call attention to Kimberly’s accomplishments. How few citizens have the guts to launch an historic Charter Challenge like the one Kimberly did to the ban on welfare?

Je ne suis pas surprise que l' enquête sur la mort de Kimberly Rogers soit devenue une occasion pour la Couronne de soulever la contreverse en décortiquant, jusqu’au dernier détail, la vie personnelle de Kimberly. De ce qu’on sait, Kimberly Rogers était bien aimée de tous ces amis, voisins et collègues et elle était sur la bonne voie, l’amenant vers un futur plus prometeur. Elle a travaillé très fort pour dépasser ses problèmes personnels afin d’acquérir une meilleure éducation.

Nous pouvons présumer que les personnes, qui sont incapables de fonder une analyse sociale plus profonde, sont également incapables de souligner les accomplissements de Kimberly Rogers. Combien de personnes auraient eu assez de courage pour entreprendre une poursuite constitutionnelle historique telle la poursuite de Kimberly Rogers?

Whether the inquest into Kimberly Rogers' death finds that it was an accident or suicide, doesn't change anything about the province's role in Ms. Rogers' death. Ms. Rogers fought poverty and apparently depression to graduate from college with honours. In return, she was charged, humiliated, isolated and left without any means of support for herself or her unborn child. The province should ensure she didn't die in vain by repealing the welfare ban immediately.

Welfare rates are so low at this point I'm surprised everybody doesn't cheat. And when they do, they are banned from social assistance for life. Doctors who defraud the Medicare system are not banned from billing for life. Politicians who claim outrageous expenses continue to collect their MPP's salary and remain eligible for their pension. How can the province justify this kind of discrimination? And how can we sit by and let it happen?

Inquest Update #4

17-10-02

INTERNATIONAL DAY FOR THE ERADICATION OF POVERTY

Journée internationale pour l’élimination de la pauvreté

In this update – dans ce bulletin:

- Synopsis of second day of hearings

- NAPO media release

- bits of found coverage

To come – à venir:

- useful web and electronic resources

- what’s the relevance? what’s to gain?

- action items

Check out our new website – Voyez notre nouveau site web

www.napo-onap.ca

NAPO

For more information, call NAPO

Pour plus amples renseignements, contactez l’ONAP

Phone / tél : 1.800.810.1076

www.napo-onap.ca

National Anti-Poverty Organization – l’Organisation nationale anti-pauvreté

Pam Kapoor, Acting Executive Director / Directrice intérimaire - 613.298.0902

An inquest-related list of organizational spokespeople can be viewed at

Un liste des porte-paroles pour l’enquête est disponible à

www.napo-onap.ca

INQUEST SYNOPSIS: day two

Testimony on the second day of hearings was given by various investigating police officers who went to Kimberly's apartment on the evening she died.

The rest of the week is expected to continue covering evidence and testimony pertaining to Kimberly’s personal and medical history. Once this difficult, and at times frustrating, phase has closed, those allies present at the hearings in Sudbury will share their reflections of this phase and a look ahead to the weeks and stages to come.

· Although the heat wave at the time was well documented, the police officers attempted to minimize the issue of temperature

· One officer stated that he saw a thermometer in her kitchen registering 34 degrees Celsius - he called that "in the mid 80's" Fahrenheit; another officer said it was about 78

· Lawyers for the government kept emphasizing that there was a fan in the apartment as well as two open windows (though the bedroom windows could not be opened)

· There was a window from a landing onto a rooftop by which it was possible to get out of the apartment and sit on the roof; government lawyers repeated that Kimberly could have gone outside through that window, although no evidence has been given that she did

· All officers stressed that the apartment was "messy", in "disarray", "untidy" - one called it "filthy"

· The photos showed three small rooms with clutter like mail and papers on tables, along with a glass and some snack foods, etc.

· Authorities appear focused on how Kimberly, stuck in her apartment in the middle of a heat wave, was eating snack foods and not cleaning up.

Inquest Update #5

18-10-02

For more information, call NAPO

National Anti-Poverty Organization – l’Organisation nationale anti-pauvreté

Pam Kapoor, Acting Executive Director / Directrice intérimaire - 613.298.0902

INQUEST SYNOPSIS: day three

On October 17^th – International Day for the Eradication of Poverty - testimony was given by a toxicologist and by a pathologist - many technical details and scientific studies were cited.

· The jury heard about the number of days between when Kimberly Rogers was last seen until her body was found

· Data was presented regarding the extreme heat in her bedroom, and how it would have affected the level of drugs found in her system

· It is clear that the scientific experts cannot be at all certain about how much medication Kimberly took, or even which day she died

· It is possible that Kimberly may have taken two or three times her prescribed dosage, rather than the 80 pills previously speculated

· Kimberly could have died on any date from the 6^th to the 8^th of August last year

· With her pregnancy, she had stopped using alcohol and no liquor bottles were found in her apartment – yet Coroner’s counsel repeatedly referred to levels of alcohol in her system which likely pertains to natural processes that occur post-mortem

· According to experts, including the toxicologist, the overdose could have been either accidental or intentional

· At day’s end, testimony from Terry Pyhtilla, the father of Kimberly’s unborn child, began – he described his discovery of her body and his evidence offered a glimpse into what the last few months of Kimberly’s life were like – she’d been excited about her baby and began to eat better and become more active

· His testimony recalled the distress that Kimberly felt about the charge of welfare fraud and her worry about what would happen when she went to court

· After her conviction, Kimberly told Terry that a deal had been worked out, that she’d pleaded guilty and was sentenced to house arrest – she seemed relieved to not have to go to jail

· It remains obvious that Kimberly had not been aware that her social assistance entitlements would be stopped

Public interest interveners remain focussed on the death resulting from a combination of factors like poverty and harsh and discriminatory penalties.

SOME USEFUL WEB-BASED RESOURCES FOR …

Burnaby, B.C. -- In the process of answering her own question (Who killed Kimberly Rogers? -- Oct. 17), Margaret Wente retreats to the safe haven of all good social conservatives: "Kimberly Rogers killed herself when she was depressed."

After chronicling the tragic events surrounding Ms. Rogers's life, it is baffling that Ms. Wente can reach such a narrow-minded verdict.

It must be comforting for conservatives to write off this tragedy as a perceived personal weakness. In doing so, they can justify all manner of Draconian public policies in an attempt to protect their precious tax cuts.

Fortunately, the rest of society is not so dim. We understand that an injury to one is an injury to all -- especially when carried out in our name by a government representing all citizens. If only Ms. Wente would understand this fundamental principle of democracy.

Ottawa -- An even better question than who killed Kimberly Rogers is: Who bears the responsibility?

Does she for overdosing? Does her doctor for prescribing the pills? Do the Ontario Tories for their Draconian welfare reforms? Does the voting public for electing them?

As a society, we all bear a little responsibility in her death by perpetuating capitalism, a system that puts money ahead of people, a circumstance that most reasonable people despise. It fosters the depression and alienation that proved fatal in Ms. Rogers's case, and not in hers alone.

SUDBURY — A pregnant woman who pleaded guilty to welfare fraud was relieved that her sentence was to be served in her home, her boyfriend testified yesterday.

"It just seemed she was glad to get it over with," Terry Pyhtila told an inquest into the death of Kimberly Rogers, 40, whose body he discovered on Aug. 9, 2001.

Pyhtila, a guard in the Sudbury jail, said he didn't know whether Rogers was aware that her conviction would lead to an automatic three-month suspension of her welfare benefits.

Asked if Rogers sought financial help from him, Pyhtila replied: "Sure. She always asked for money."

Pyhtila said Rogers appeared to become revitalized by her pregnancy, changing from a lifestyle in which she spent most of her time in bed watching television to one in which she cleaned up her apartment and was less passive.

He said he last spoke to her on Aug. 6. He called her several times over the next three days, getting no answer. He said she often unplugged her phone if she didn't feel like talking.

But by Aug. 9, he was concerned and stopped by. He noticed the smell as soon as he unlocked the door.

The inquest jury also heard from pathologist Nihad Ali-Ritha, whose post-mortem examination Aug. 11 found that Rogers was healthy, eight months pregnant with a baby girl and identified no cause of death.

Lethal concentrations of the anti-depressant amitriptyline were found in her blood, forensic toxicologist Randall Warren said.

Rogers had been prescribed 300 mg a day, the maximum recommended, to treat depression, insomnia, migraines and pain from a knee injury.

For more information, call NAPO

National Anti-Poverty Organization – l’Organisation nationale anti-pauvreté

Pam Kapoor, Acting Executive Director / Directrice intérimaire - 613.298.0902

INQUEST SYNOPSIS: week two

Kimberly’s family physician, Dr. Clendenning, testified as to the medication he had prescribed her. He had increased the dosage because of her migraines and anxiety, and says he stressed that taking more than the prescribed amount would be toxic. As the media reported, his opinion is that her overdose was intentional.

Dr. Clendenning stated that although Kimberly was stressed, she was also proud of having moved her life forward by doing so well in college and adjusting her life around her pregnancy.

Dr. Clendenning stated that Ontario’s lifetime welfare ban is cruel and unusual punishment, akin to a death sentence when provisions are not made to meet medical needs. He expressed disapproval of the inadequate amount of money that Kimberly had to live on, saying, “People have to eat.”

dealt with Kimberly’s OSAP (Ontario Student Assistance Plan) loan applications.

When it came to light in November of 1999 that Kimberly was in receipt of both OSAP and welfare, Kimberly wrote a letter to OSAP. Here are some excerpts from hat letter:

“I realize that I have made a huge mistake and do not want to be arrested or charged with fraud. I have no criminal record … I hope you will take this letter into consideration and accept my sincere apologies and please let me finish my schooling … I am truly sorry and the only way I can redeem myself is to finish school and get a good job so I can repay my mistakes.”

The financial aid officer told Kimberly that she was ineligible for any more OSAP to complete her education in social work from January to May of 2000. Her welfare assistance had been cut as of November of 1999. The financial aid officer said he had wanted to help Kimberly complete her schooling, so he arranged for two bursaries totaling $1,200. He wrote a very complimentary letter about how well she was doing in school and in support of her need for financial help to complete her program.

The manager of a group home/respite service where Kimberly did her social work field placement testified about how well she had done in her placement; that she was dedicated, worked extra hours, communicated extremely well with the youth in the program; that she would have been a “dynamite” social worker. She testified that Kimberly was “beyond broke,” that sometimes the only food she had was what she ate at the group home, and that she frequently had no bus fare (this was during the period when Kimberly had neither OSAP nor welfare).

Since 1995, after the elimination of the Canada Assistance Plan (CAP) and the introduction of the Canada Health and Social Transfer (CHST), the second-class citizenship of poor people in this country has become more assured. Our society, not helped by regressive governmental policies and seemingly institutionalized discriminatory attitudes, encourages negative attitudes toward low-income people and the perpetuation of stereotypes. We have become a culture tolerant of blatant discrimination, complacent about the oppression of more than 5 million low-income people in Canada.

The sport of portraying social assistance recipients as “cheats” or “thieves” or “bums” has become a cornerstone of government electioneering and social policy. Governments, mainstream media, and segments of the corporate culture have assisted in the development of hostility toward poor people – a result of increased societal acceptance of poor bashing. In recent years, poor-bashing has reached the point of widespread blatant violations of the most fundamental human rights of poor people. The most blatant example is the lifetime ban on receiving welfare imposed as a penalty for so-called “welfare fraud”, often the survival strategies of those condemned to live and try to provide for their children on criminally low levels of financial assistance.

So how do we combat the image of welfare recipients, and others on income support, as lazy abusers of the system? The economically secure may always have a tendency to look down upon low or no income members of society, but what is the bridge between individual behaviours and government choices? What about political will?

The Ontario Provincial Coroner’s inquest into the death of Kimberly Rogers provides a forum through which some of these questions may be explored. In an effort to expose government culpability in the tragic death of a pregnant woman convicted of welfare fraud and sentenced to house arrest, even when the prosecutor and the judge knew she would be banned from receiving welfare and would be utterly unable to provide for basic necessities, public interest groups intervening in the case (and our allies) are, not surprisingly, coming up against disparaging criticism about Kimberly’s life and offensive generalizations about “choices” and “lifestyles” of low income people.

While understanding this as an important moment in the struggle to expose and eliminate systemic imbalances that deliver economic disadvantage to millions of people in Canada, the dignity of Kimberly must remain paramount. Her life ended too soon due to scandalous and violent politics. Our challenge is to carry our message respectfully while seizing this opportunity to put the facts on the public record and build another critical stepping stone towards a just society.

The millions of people living in poverty in Canada today. Advocates who represent poor people, many of whom are poor themselves, in the face of oppressive and demeaning government bureaucracy and scrutiny. Activists who take on the system and fight for a voice for poor people. People who are incensed by government policies – federal, provincial and territorial – that criminalize poor people and increase poverty. People who are fighting to claim human rights for all of us. We are the anti-poverty movement.

We all know (many of us first hand) what dire impact the latest onslaught of government policies are having on poor people. We know that though Kimberly lived and died in Ontario, this tragedy could have taken place in any community anywhere in Canada. The Ontario government is certainly not alone in implementing discriminatory and dangerous policies. We need only look at contemporary British Columbia to know that some regions are swiftly eclipsing even the Ontario Tories in terms of income support slashing, program dismantling, resource canceling – wholesale desertion of poor people and poverty issues.

Every single one of us has a vested interest in the recommendations that will be handed down by the five-member inquest jury in mid-November. Emblazoned on the public record may be insightful citations of the direct link between government policies that violate fundamental human rights and the increasing criminalization of poor people.

We are looking for recommendations that point to the cascading nature of institutionalized discrimination towards poor people in Canada as illustrated through …

… the cancellation of CAP and the introduction of the CHST – key examples of federal abandonment of responsibilities

… subsequent fatal tampering by a provincial government with income assistance programs leading to inadequate welfare rates and heightened paranoia about welfare fraud

… discriminatory sentencing schemes set up by the federal government post-CAP that have contributed significantly to ongoing criminalization of poor people [everyone should have equal access to conditional sentencing but it should not be imposed discriminatorily on poor people, and not without at the same time ordering the provision of adequate assistance]

… the disproportionate prosecution of women for welfare fraud and a gendered analysis of conditional sentencing and low-income women’s unique survival strategies

… governments’ blatant disregard of international human rights obligations and concerns raised by U.N. human rights bodies about the situation of poor people in Canada

An inquest jury’s recommendations, however, carry no weight and are in no way legally binding. For that reason, it is imperative that we coalesce, as a movement, around the positive and useful aspects of those pending recommendations. In many ways, the real impact of such an inquest emerges long after the courthouse doors have closed. It is entirely up to us to mount public pressure in an effort to press governments to implement useful recommendations. What comes out of this inquest may be, for the anti-poverty movement, another prong in our platform for government action, campaign for chnge, our struggle for human rights.

For information about the inquest, the interveners, the policies, and to learn more about Kimberly’s story:

Clendenning also testified he had prescribed Rogers more medication than she would be using "in order to ensure a supply should her (drug) plan be stopped."

SUDBURY, ONT. -- The doctor of Kimberly Rogers, the woman who died last year while under house arrest for welfare fraud, told a coroner's jury yesterday he believes his patient took her own life.

Dr. Robert Clendenning testified yesterday that a high concentration of the prescription drug amitriptyline, an antidepressant and migraine medication, as well as an empty pill bottle that police found at the woman's bed, provided strong evidence she committed suicide.

"I think the empty bottle speaks for itself," said Dr. Clendenning, who had treated Ms. Rogers since 1996.

"I think she emptied the bottle, and the high level of concentration speaks of a large number [of pills] being ingested," he said. "She ended up with three or four times the concentration considered lethal. As to why, I don't think we'll ever know."

The doctor said he warned Ms. Rogers repeatedly not to use more than the 300- milligram prescribed dosage, he said.

The inquest had heard that Ms. Rogers had secretly stockpiled 1,350 of the antidepressant pills over a 10-week period before she died.

Yesterday, the doctor said that he believed that Ms. Rogers understood his instructions and that he never had any fear she would take more than he prescribed.

Ms. Rogers had been sentenced to six months of house arrest after pleading guilty to theft over $5,000 for collecting $14,000 in welfare benefits while on student loans.

She died in early August, 2001. Her boyfriend found her body in the sweltering heat of her apartment.

Dr. Clendenning confirmed that Ms. Rogers suffered from numerous ailments, including regular migraine headaches, panic attacks, insomnia and depression.

Toronto -- Vincent J. Guihan says "we all bear a little responsibility" for the death of Kimberly Rogers. I will take that opinion, extend it, and feel pretty good about myself for my contribution to the careers of Roberta Bondar, Shania Twain and Pamela Wallen. How would they have done it without me?

Newmarket, Ont. -- Vincent J. Guihan (letter -- Oct. 17) asserts that our embrace of capitalism is partly responsible for Kimberly Rogers's suicide. He contends that capitalism fosters the depression and alienation that proved fatal in Ms. Rogers's case.

It's surprising, then, that Denmark and Sweden, two socialist countries, have much higher suicide rates than Canada or the United States.

Capitalism does not "put money ahead of people." It opens markets so that prosperity increases and allows individuals to use their talent and initiative to improve their standard of living. It's not a perfect system, but it's better than alternative systems that generally ensure everybody is equally poor.

Rather than seeking to lay blame, we need to accept that individuals bear some responsibility for their decisions and circumstances.

27-10-02

For more information, call NAPO

National Anti-Poverty Organization – l’Organisation nationale anti-pauvreté

Pam Kapoor, Acting Executive Director / Directrice intérimaire - 613.298.0902

INQUEST SYNOPSIS: October 24

Testimony came from two pharmacists who described the exact number of amitriptyline tablets Kimberly received in the three months before her death.

After so much testimony about the prescription and dispensing of medication, it seems likely that the jury may be asked to make recommendations about more controls on prescription medications.

Near the end of the day, the Eligibility Review Officer (ERO) who discovered that Kimberly was attending Cambrian College, cancelled her benefits and referred her file to the police, began testimony.

The ERO explained that in September of 1999, Ontario Works (OW) offices were given access to the database of the Ministry of Education and Training – for the first time, they could automatically determine the enrollment of recipients in post-secondary institutions.

The ERO called the Cambrian College financial aid office to confirm her attendance and cancelled her welfare assistance.

The overpayment was not actually calculated until May, 2000, when Kimberly reapplied for assistance after finishing her social work program; at that point, according to the ERO, it was determined that there was intent to commit fraud, so the matter was referred to police.

The ERO attended Kimberly’s court hearing expecting to be a witness, but found that Kimberly was pleading guilty.

Upon sentencing, the judge said he’d heard of “zero tolerance” (the lifetime ban), and wondered if it applied to Kimberly - her defense lawyer said he didn’t know because he’d never heard of it - the Crown didn’t know either

The ERO, who was present and called to the stand, stated that zero tolerance did not apply and that Kimberly’s benefits would be cancelled for three months because her offense was committed before April, 2000.

The ERO was asked if there was any process in place for notifying someone facing fraud charges that they would have assistance cancelled for three months; she replied that it would be a question for the caseworker - the ERO never personally contacted Kimberly.

The ERO testimony also revealed that Kimberly had applied for support under the Ontario Disability Support Program (ODSP).

Finding Answers: the Kimberly Rogers Inquest

By Kim Brooks, National Association of Women and the Law

At its most extreme, the criminalization of poverty costs lives. That is exactly what happened to Kimberly Rogers.

Kimberly Rogers was charged and pled guilty to welfare fraud in April 2001. She had collected social assistance and failed to report that she was collecting student loans simultaneously. Social assistance recipients cannot also collect student loans without a reduction in their social assistance payments. Justice Greg Rogers sentenced Kimberly to 18 months probation and imposed a six-month conditional sentence. For the six-month period, Kimberly was required to stay in her apartment. She was only permitted to leave once a week for three hours. In addition to these penalties, she was ordered to pay $13,372.67 restitution.

Punishment did not stop with Justice Rogers’ judicial sentence. Ontario’s social assistance regulations (under the Ontario Works Act) required Kimberly’s social assistance to be cut off for three months. Kimberly was cut off even though she was pregnant at the time. (These rules have subsequently been made even more punitive. For welfare fraud convictions that relate to periods that occurred in whole or in part after April 1, 2000, the claimant is cut off from receiving any benefits for life.)

In May, Kimberly began a constitutional challenge to the regulations. Her application for interim relief, heard by Madam Justice Epstein, was granted and Kimberly’s social assistance payments were reinstated. The effect of this decision was limited to Kimberly Rogers, and was focused in particular on the dangers of denying social assistance payments to a pregnant woman.

To give some shape to the amount of the benefits Kimberly received, as a single person, Kimberly was entitled to $520 a month and a drug card. She had rent payments of $450 a month, and was required to pay $52 a month against her overpayment. Even though Justice Epstein’s judgment was a victory, it left only $18 a month for food, telephone, clothing and other expenses.

Not surprisingly, Kimberly was taking anti-depressants. She was unable to afford the basic necessities for living. Her apartment was unbearably hot, and the house arrest made it extremely difficult to seek assistance or community support.

Kimberly Rogers died on August 9, 2001 in her apartment in Sudbury. The cause of death will be determined by the jury at the inquest into her death.

The Inquest into the death of Kimberly Rogers was announced on September 24^th, 2001. It began in Sudbury on October 15, 2002. The purpose of the Inquest to examine the circumstances surrounding Kimberly’s death and the Inquest jury may make recommendations aimed at preventing future deaths.

NAWL is co-intervening in the Inquest with the Canadian Association of Elizabeth Fry Societies, the Legal Education and Action Fund, and the National Anti-Poverty Organization. The aim of our coalition is to identify the effect of the federal government’s approach to criminal and social justice on the abrogation of provincial and municipal responsibilities to poor women. We also seek to demonstrate how the federal government’s approach has resulted in the increased feminization of poverty and the criminalization of women who are indigent, mentally and/or cognitively disabled and otherwise marginalized. The coalition is fortunate to have Chantal Tie and Jennifer Scott acting as counsel.

Kimberly Rogers’ death was a tragedy, and one that should cause national alarm. But it was not unpredictable. It can be located in the increasing criminalization of poverty.

Our abandonment of low-income Canadians began most obviously in 1995, when the federal government abandoned the Canada Assistance Plan and its standards for social assistance. The only remaining standard is that a province cannot require a minimum period of residency for social assistance recipients and still receive a federal government transfer payment to support social assistance.

The Ontario provincial government has followed the federal government’s indication that abandoning poor people is acceptable, even appropriate. Social assistance payments have been dramatically cut, work-for-welfare programs have been implemented, and mandatory drug and literacy testing have been proposed. Welfare fraud charges have become more common, and social assistance can no longer be collected when a recipient is found guilty.

The government portrayal of low-income people as cheats is picked up in the media, and the result is an increased public acceptance of poor bashing.

All of these changes have negative effects for women, and particularly for single mothers. Poverty leaves people in precarious life situations. The government has an obligation to provide support to low-income folks, not to criminalize people who lack economic power.

Kimberly Rogers’ treatment is just one illustration of the human rights violations that the new Ontario social assistance rules require. Her house arrest was a cruel form of punishment – only in the most extreme cases should “prisoners” be placed in solitary confinement, and yet for just under $14,000 we imposed that sentence on Kimberly.

Hopefully the Inquest will result in recommendations that will be acted upon in order to ensure that this kind of tragedy does not occur again.

28-10-02

For more information, call NAPO

National Anti-Poverty Organization – l’Organisation nationale anti-pauvreté

Pam Kapoor, Acting Executive Director / Directrice intérimaire - 613.298.0902

INQUEST SYNOPSIS: October 25

The coroner, Dr. Eden, was strict in disallowing the public interest lawyers to ask certain questions and restated the three tests that public interest counsel's questions would have to meet:

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

The ERO was asked by one of public interest counsel if she was familiar with an OW policy regarding the recovery rate for over-payments. The ERO responded that she would have read it at least once in her life; she stated that OW in Sudbury collects at a 10% recovery rate - the default position in Sudbury.

Note: OW policies, rules and regulations, bulletins and directives, entered into evidence, are five volumes, each about two inches thick. To 1998, the rate of recovery is set at 5%. This can be raised to 10% if there is capacity to pay the 10%, or reduced when it would cause undue hardship.

When the ERO was questioned about what triggers 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:
- unreported income
- categorical ineligibility, ie: living with a spouse (co-habitation), assets beyond the maximum allowed

In terms of what constitutes "income", the ERO responded:
- 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 "income", the ERO responded:
- casual gifts to children made around special occasions
- clothing
- food
- meals

The ERO was asked by one of public interest counsel 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. But when counsel read from OW policy, the ERO changed her response to agree that the $500 would be considered income in the month received and as an asset in the following month (as per the OW Policy).

When asked whether a loan of $500 made by a person on OW to a neighbour would be deemed "income" when repaid, the ERO admitted that the $500 would be deemed income and offered a remark that she would be questioning where the individual would have gotten the $500 money to lend.

As Kimberly had no net gain from her (Ontario Student Assistance Plan) loan, public interest counsel asked the ERO if there wasn't an alternate way to deal with the situation other than to criminally prosecute Kimberly.

The ERO reserved her right to withhold her opinion unless directed otherwise by the coroner.

Welfare prosecutions were few, inquest told

By KEITH LACEY
Special to the Globe and Mail
Saturday, October 26, 2002 – Print Edition, Page A12

Sudbury -- A pregnant woman who died while under house arrest was one of only a handful of welfare fraud prosecutions in Northern Ontario's largest city since 1999, a coroner's jury heard yesterday.

Kimberly Rogers, 40, was sentenced to six months of house arrest after pleading guilty to theft over $5,000 for collecting welfare while on student loans. An eligibility review officer told the jury her case was one of 10 prosecuted in the area in the past four years.

The next time the Tory government boasts of reducing the number of welfare recipients in Ontario, please remember Kimberly Rogers. If the Tories were in charge of headstones, hers would read: Here Lies Kimberly Rogers — One Less Mouth to Feed.

Rogers was condemned for collecting student loans while on welfare — the very thing that made it possible for me to get a marketable education, get off welfare, and become "a taxpayer." Without student loans, a child-care subsidy, and affordable housing, I couldn't have done it.

I collected social assistance and student loans from 1986 to 1989. Not only was it legal, it was seen as a sign of initiative and good character. The government did the fiscally sensible and socially decent thing by providing me with the resources to get off welfare.

By contrast, the current government has demonstrated time and again that welfare recipients in Ontario should not expect help, compassion, or even indifference from their government, just open and aggressive hostility. This government stigmatizes, degrades, bullies and punishes welfare recipients, somehow believing that they can simply choose another way to live.

I know from experience that people need more, not less, in order to extricate themselves from poverty — more money, more resources, more support, more reason to hope and believe and try.

I borrowed money for an education while on social assistance, just like Rogers. I was applauded, she was criminalized. I escaped poverty, she died trying. I thank my lucky stars I was poor in the '80s and not today.

****

SUDBURY — A Sudbury woman's illegal collection of student loans and welfare benefits was uncovered as soon as a program was instituted to cross-reference post-secondary enrolment with welfare rolls, an inquest has heard.

The program, which began in September, 1999, allowed investigators to check for duplication going back to 1996, said an eligibility review officer with Sudbury Social Services, which administers Ontario Works.

Kimberly Rogers, 40, was eight months pregnant and halfway through a six-month house-arrest sentence for welfare fraud when her body was found in August, 2001. An inquest jury has to decide whether her death was accidental or a suicide, and whether the administration of Ontario's welfare and justice systems played a part.

"I received an allegation through the MET (ministry of employment and training) that Kimberly Rogers was attending a post-secondary institution and had been since 1996," Carmen Marleau-Woitowich testified.

She checked and found that Rogers was at Cambrian College and in October, 1999 she terminated Rogers' social assistance. "She was a full-time student at an institution not approved by Ontario Works," Marleau-Woitowich explained. At that point, Rogers' case went into abeyance pending calculation of overpayment and other files took higher priority, she said.

But in May, 2000, after graduating from Cambrian with a social services diploma, Rogers applied to go back on welfare. That brought her file back to the top of the pile, for a calculation of the overpayment and arrangements for restitution.

Marleau-Woitowich determined that in 1996-99, when Rogers received $32,672 in student loans, she had obtained in excess of $13,468.31 from Ontario Works. Ten per cent of Rogers' $520-a-month welfare payment was withheld to start paying the amount back.

Marleau-Woitowich said that for amounts involving less than $5,000, no further action would have been taken. But an in-house policy required that she refer higher amounts to the police, and as a result Rogers was charged criminally with fraud.

Marleau-Woitowich said she never had any personal contact with Rogers until the trial date in April, 2001, when the investigator was expected to be a witness. No trial was held because Rogers pleaded guilty. Marleau-Woitowich's only participation was to advise the judge of the consequences of a conviction, namely a three-month suspension of her welfare benefits.

29-10-02

For more information, call NAPO

National Anti-Poverty Organization – l’Organisation nationale anti-pauvreté

Pam Kapoor, Acting Executive Director / Directrice intérimaire - 613.298.0902

INQUEST SYNOPSIS: October 28

Testimony continued today from the Ontario Work's Eligibility Review Officer (ERO). Constable Sheldon Roberts of the Sudbury Police's fraud unit of the criminal investigation branch was also questioned.

Dr. Eden, Coroner, concluded the cross-examination of the ERO with the following two (paraphrased) questioned:

1. If Kimberly Rogers had been attending college while on social assistance without student loans, would Ontario Works (OW) still been considered this an offence?

ERO response: Yes, attending a post-secondary institution would have been an offence as Kimberly would not have been available for employment.

2. In a present-day scenario, would the offence be caught - 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)?

ERO response: She was confident that with the information sharing mechanisms that exist today, the offence would have been caught earlier.

Later, Constable Sheldon Roberts of the Sudbury police fraud unit (criminal investigation branch), whose unit deals specifically with social assistance fraud, took the stand.

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 testified that from 1999 to 2001, only 7 out of 10 fraud cases had resulted in a conviction of welfare fraud of $5,000.

During the cross-examination of Constable Roberts by counsel for the Attorney General's office, the Coroner asked the jury to leave and he asked counsel to refrain from using legal terms such as "deceitful" when referring to Kimberly.

During the cross of Constable Roberts by counsel for a public interest intervener, Constable Roberts testified that he had resolved the Rogers case, stating it was “straight forward” and not “complex”.

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

Constable Roberts responded that it would be taken under consideration as a mitigating circumstance if, further to the hypothetical example put forward by counsel, Kimberly 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.

Counsel then asked Constable Roberts if he would find it helpful to have the file enclose mitigating circumstances (such as dire circumstances). He said he wouldn't be opposed to this.

… when asked if he had known that Kimberly would receive a three-month suspension of her Ontario Works benefits upon conviction

… when asked if he knew that she would lose access to medication, benefits, and income for rent, food etc.

.. when asked if he had given any consideration to the impact on Kimberly’s ability to work in her field

Constable Roberts stated that he would find guidelines regarding such issues helpful.

The Inquest continues on the 29^th with testimony from Mary Nethery, the Director of the Criminal Law Policy Branch of the Ministry of the Ontario Attorney General.

MEDIA RELEASE – October 28, 2002

The Committee to Remember Kimberly Rogers is angered that the Ontario Ministry of Community, Family and Children's Services has not requested legal standing at the coroner's inquest into the death of Kimberly Rogers taking place in Sudbury.

“The ministry's absence signals its appalling disregard for the effects of its welfare policies on the citizens of Ontario,” said Laurie McGauley, spokesperson for the committee.

“Why doesn't the provincial government understand that it is wrong to sentence someone to house arrest, then make that person ineligible for any assistance except charity? Are they concerned at all about the fate of people subjected to their policies?

“Does the minister believe that a legal representative of her ministry should not have a role at these proceedings because the focus of the inquest is someone who collected social assistance? The treatment of Kimberly Rogers would not be allowed for any other segment of our population.

“The Committee to Remember Kimberly Rogers issues a challenge to Ms. Elliott to seek standing and defend their welfare policies that affected the life of Ms. Rogers.”

The Committee to Remember Kimberly Rogers, through its Justice with Dignity Campaign, knows the minister must start by:

ü Increasing funds for training and employment programs to pre-1995 levels (adjusted for cost of living)

ü Allowing social assistance recipients to receive both social assistance and student loans

ü Eliminating restrictions that make it difficult for people in need to qualify

ü Stopping violations of Canada's human rights commitments and international treaty obligations

31-10-02

For more information, call NAPO

National Anti-Poverty Organization – l’Organisation nationale anti-pauvreté

Pam Kapoor, Acting Executive Director / Directrice intérimaire - 613.298.0902

INQUEST SYNOPSIS: October 29

An Ontario provincial official who provides policy guidelines to Crown attorneys gave testimony.

When asked to expand on whether factors such as the impact of a conviction and sentence on the mental health of the accused, and whether the conviction would result in loss of income, she indicated that such factors could be taken into account, if known to the Crown.

When asked if the circumstances that led to the commission of the crime should be considered, such as whether the crime was committed out of the need to survive rather than greed, lawyers for the Attorney General and Public Security Ministries objected.

One of counsel for the public interest groups asked the official whether there are any specific guidelines to deal with welfare fraud [response: no] and whether, since Kimberly’s death, there has been any change in the practices of such prosecutions [response: no, but it might be a good idea to give the Crowns information about the Ontario Works Act].

The Crown attorney who had first dealt with Kimberly’s file took the stand. He had first recommended a six-month conditional sentence followed by 18 months probation, and restitution. The sentence was to include a curfew, but at that point he had not specified the exact details of the house arrest. His testimony and that of the Crown who attended the sentencing hearing continue on Wednesday.

INQUEST SYNOPSIS: October 30

Testimony was given by two of the Ontario Crown attorneys who dealt with the prosecution of Kimberly for welfare fraud. They both stated that a conditional sentence of six months with a curfew (or house arrest), with probation, community service hours and restitution, was appropriate as a deterrent because of the serious nature of Kimberly’s crime. They testified that there was a re-trial conference at which it was indicated that Kimberly would be pleading guilty; it was determined then that the Crown and defense would both agree to a sentence of house arrest.

On the very day of the sentencing hearing, the Crown attorney learned that Kimberly was receiving assistance and having the overpayment deducted, that she was pregnant and due in August, that she lived alone, and that she was paying $450 for rent out of a welfare cheque of $485. During the hearing itself, the Crown, the defense lawyer, and the judge all learned that she would be subject to a three-month ban on receiving welfare once convicted. This was likely the first time Kimberly learned of that herself.

Questions from public interest counsel pertaining to the lifetime ban were objected to on the grounds that Kimberly had been sentenced only to a three-month ban. The Coroner ruled in favour of such questioning, stating that the purpose of inquest recommendations is to prevent future deaths and that since the lifetime ban would affect a person in Kimberly’s circumstances today, the inquest can deal with the lifetime ban issue.

A memo sent to all Crown attorneys in the province concerning the lifetime ban was entered into evidence. This memo had been distributed by e-mail on October 28, 2002 advising all Crowns that the lifetime ban applies to all social assistance fraud committed since April, 2000.

STATEMENT by Tony Martin, Member of Provincial Parliament (NDP), in the Ontario provincial legislature on October 31^st:

If you are on your own and need social assistance you will only receive $520a month, not even enough to cover most rent.

Government should be there to help people who have fallen on hard times, but this government holds them down.

1-11-02

For more information, call NAPO

National Anti-Poverty Organization – l’Organisation nationale anti-pauvreté

Pam Kapoor, Acting Executive Director / Directrice intérimaire - 613.298.0902

INQUEST SYNOPSIS: October 31

Cross-examination of the Ontario Crown involved in Kimberly’s sentencing hearing continued today.

He told the inquest that he did not know what impact the sentence would have on Kimberly or what assistance from the community she would require. He was aware that she would be seeking help from friends and relatives.

He did not know whether or not the 3-month welfare ban was taken into consideration by Kimberly’s defence counsel or by Kimberly herself. There was no discussion directly between he and Kimberly’s defence counsel on the impact of the suspension of benefits. From this, he concluded that defence counsel did not view the conditional sentence as unduly harsh.

He said he felt the conditional sentence was appropriate based on the information that was provided to the court and the seriousness of the offence, stating that the court’s focus in cases of this type is general deterrence and that there has to be a clear message to the community that there would be consequences for such an offence.

In response to a question from a juror as to what would happen in a similar case in which a defendant suffers from a mental disorder or depression, the Crown replied that he felt certain that a pre-sentence report would have been ordered by the judge.

The defence counsel who had represented Kimberly during the case gave testimony about his involvement, but was restricted to only giving evidence that was outside of solicitor-client privilege. He stated that he felt that the conditional sentence Kimberley received was a fair sentence given the seriousness of the charge and the level of breach of trust. He felt that she had repeatedly misled Ontario Works (OW) and the Ontario Student Assistant Plan (OSAP) in her declarations of income. He said that he had only provided the court with the details he felt were necessary. He told the court that after reading the disclosure and discussing it with Kimberly, he thought there was a likelihood of conviction. He told the inquest that Kimberly was aware of the facts that were presented to the Court in the joint submission and that he was aware of the ban at that time. He stated that he would never have recommended the conditional sentence if he felt it was not appropriate and that the sentence was in line with jurisprudence.

Defence counsel went on to tell the inquest that he had known from handling other OW fraud cases that a suspension of benefits would be imposed. He was unsure how long the suspension would last and stated that he told Kimberly to contact the OW office to determine the duration of suspension. He stated that two days before trial, Kimberly advised him that OW told her that her suspension would be three months.

The lawyer arguing Kimberly’s charter challenge will give testimony to the inquest on Friday, November 1, 2002.

By KEITH LACEY
Special to The Globe and Mail

Thursday, October 31, 2002 – Print Edition, Page A9

SUDBURY, ONT. -- The courts were aware that a woman sentenced to house arrest for welfare fraud was pregnant and that her welfare benefits would be suspended for three months after conviction, a coroner's jury heard yesterday.

Assistant Crown attorney Alex Kurke helped read in the entire transcript of court proceedings from April 25, 2001, when Kimberly Rogers pleaded guilty to theft over $5,000.

On that day, Judge Greg Rodgers sentenced Ms. Rogers to six months of house arrest, 18 months of probation and ordered restitution after she admitted to collecting $13,500 in welfare while receiving student loans of $32,000 between 1996 and 1999.

In August, 2001, Ms. Rogers, then eight months pregnant, was found dead in her apartment during a blistering heat wave.

Mr. Kurke testified that he was handed her file the day before the sentencing hearing and he met with defence counsel Andrew Buttazzoni only minutes before the hearing.

He discovered from Mr. Buttazzoni that Ms. Rogers was pregnant and back on welfare, with Sudbury Social Services clawing back 10 per cent of her monthly cheque to repay the money she got illegally, Mr. Kurke said.

He also discovered Ms. Rogers would be cut off welfare benefits for three months once convicted, Mr. Kurke added.

The transcript reveals that the judge accepted a joint submission and lectured Ms. Rogers before imposing sentence.

Judge Rodgers called her "obviously intelligent" for returning to college and graduating. He then criticized her for engaging in fraud.

"You knew you were taking money when you were not entitled, there was four years of deception and disloyalty," he said. "Welfare is not there for people who want it, but for those who need it. You wanted more and you were prepared to cheat and lie. What you did was wrong."

The inquest has heard Ms. Rogers suffered from chronic depression, migraine headaches, panic attacks, insomnia and physical pain after knee surgery.

She died of an overdose of the prescription medication amitriptyline, which was prescribed to battle depression and prevent migraine headaches. Her psychological problems and history of using prescription pills were not mentioned at the sentencing hearing.

Earlier yesterday, assistant Crown attorney Philip Zylberberg told the inquest he screened Ms. Rogers' file days after she was arrested in September 1999.

Given the information at his disposal, his suggestion was for a six-month conditional sentence involving house arrest, a long period of probation and community service hours, he testified. That assessment was based on 25 years of legal experience and knowledge of similar cases, Mr. Zylberberg said.

Every case a Crown attorney receives is "continually screened" and the eventual sentence sought can change depending on any number of factors, he said.

He said he didn't know when he made his original assessment that Ms. Rogers would be subject to a three-month ban on welfare benefits if convicted.

The life circumstances of an accused are made available through meetings with defence counsel, in pretrial hearings before a judge and sometimes through a pre-sentence report prepared by a probation officer, he said.

Ms. Rogers lied on 34 occasions to government and college officials about collecting welfare and student loans and this affected his assessment, he said.

One member of the inquest jury asked Mr. Zylberberg if he would make the same sentencing recommendations today.

4-11-02

For more information, call NAPO

National Anti-Poverty Organization – l’Organisation nationale anti-pauvreté

Pam Kapoor, Acting Executive Director / Directrice intérimaire - 613.298.0902

INQUEST SYNOPSIS: November 1

Testifying today was Grace Kurke, a lawyer with the Sudbury Community Legal Clinic.

Ms. Kurke testified that she had not been aware of Kimberly’s suicide attempt in 1996 until she met with Kimberly, after having faxed the draft affidavit and related questions to Dr. Clendenning (Kimberly’s family physician). Her appointment with Kimberly was at 10 am. The fax to Dr. Clendenning had been faxed out at 9:26 am with the transmission completed by 9:30 am.

Dr. Clendenning completed his affidavit in his own handwriting and faxed it back to the legal clinic sometime on May 11, 2001. His affidavit mentioned Kimberly’s 1996 suicide attempt. Ms. Kurke testified that she did not receive the fax from Dr. Clendenning before her 10 am meeting with Kimberly.

Ms. Kurke refuted previous testimony, which had alleged that Kimberly had prior knowledge of the pending suspension of her benefits before her conviction. Electronic and paper archives of various communications were entered into evidence to substantiate Ms. Kurke’s testimony.

Ms. Kurke's testified about the benefit supplement for pregnant women on social assistance ($37 a month) that had been discontinued by Ontario in 1999 and that the City of Sudbury had continued to make a benefit supplement available in the amount of $43 a month (at 100% cost to the municipality) to pregnant women who were receiving Ontario Works.

The jury heard that Kimberly was never advised of the existence of this pregnancy benefit and that Mr. Kurke herself had not been aware of it.

Ms. Kurke testified about the application to the Ontario Court of Appeal to appeal Kimberly’s conviction and sentence, which had to be submitted within 30 days of the conviction.

During her vacation, she testified, Ms. Kurke met with Kimberly. This would be the last time she saw Kimberly. Her voice broke when she told the jury that she had taken a birthday card and some groceries for Kimberly. Ms. Kurke found Kimberly to be in good spirits but stated that it was very hot in her apartment.

In responding to what recommendations she would want the jury to consider, Ms. Kurke indicated the following:

- that it should be a requirement to inform a pregnant woman on social assistance of the pregnancy supplement available [the pregnancy benefit no longer exists in Sudbury; Ontario introduced a new dietary benefit of $30 a month as of September 2001]

- that this law of automatic suspension of benefits be eliminated as it causes undue hardship

- that the clerk of the court, in the context of a criminal case, be required to make known the consequences of conviction, ie: automatic suspension of benefits

- that the City of Sudbury continue to pay benefits to individuals who have had automatic suspensions to their benefits [during subsequent cross examination by counsel for the City of Sudbury, Ms. Kurke agreed this recommendation may be better implemented provincially rather than locally]

When asked by counsel for one of the public interest interveners if she ever had reason to believe, in her dealings with Kimberly, that Kimberly was suicidal, Ms. Kurke responded that it was her opinion that it was an accidental death by an overdose.

The Inquest continues on Monday, November 4th with the testimony of Patricia Wilkins, Probation & Parole Officer (Kimberly’s sentence supervisor).

16-10-02

For more information, call NAPO

National Anti-Poverty Organization – l’Organisation nationale anti-pauvreté

Pam Kapoor, Acting Executive Director / Directrice intérimaire - 613.298.0902

INQUEST SYNOPSIS: day one

· Among the 18 volumes of documentary evidence amassed by the Coroner’s investigators, five volumes contain the Ontario Works Act, regulations, policies and procedures.

· From the way the evidence was presented yesterday, it is clear that the focus by some of the parties will be overwhelmingly on the personal.

· It appears as though one week of the full inquest will be devoted to issues within the social context and the final week on recommendations.

Please feel free to borrow ideas or text from these letters for use in your own letters to local and regional editors in your area.

11-11-02

For more information, call NAPO

National Anti-Poverty Organization – l’Organisation nationale anti-pauvreté

Pam Kapoor, Acting Executive Director / Directrice intérimaire - 613.298.0902

INQUEST SYNOPSIS: November 6

Testimony was given by the Ontario Works caseworker that dealt with Kimberly from the time of her re-application in March 2001, until the file was closed. Prior workers who dealt with her were not called as witnesses, only the ERO who decided to prosecute).

The worker had conducted a 40-minute interview with Kimberly, during which she gathered information about Kimberly’s employment and medical history. They had discussed the consent form, participation agreement and Rights and Responsibilities form, as well as all the documents that Kimberly was required to supply.

The worker agreed that 40 minutes is not enough to fully explain all the rules regarding income, assets, special benefits, etc, but that printed information is supplied.

The worker had checked off the box marked "special diet." When asked to explain why Kimberly had never received the special diet, the worker said she wasn't sure.

The caseworker had cautioned that Kimberly’s $450 rent was "too high." She had explained that Kimberly would have to use food money for rent, so she should consider looking for a cheaper apartment.

It was Kimberly who had told the worker about the fraud charge. The worker had no knowledge of the fraud or of other unique and complex circumstances of Kimberly’s past.

When Kimberly said she was going to court for welfare fraud, the worker did not discuss the consequences for her for continued welfare eligibility.

On April 26, the day after her conviction, Kimberly called the Citizens Help Line and reported that she had been convicted, stated she was pregnant and had no income or any way to pay her rent. The next day, the Eligibility Review Officer entered the information about the conviction and cancelled Kimberly’s assistance. A few days later a letter was sent to Kimberly.

At no point did the case worker discuss with anyone in her office the risk factors involved in the cancellation of benefits for someone in a high risk pregnancy 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 Kimberly. 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).

Note: a new Rights and Responsibilities form has been produced as of February 2002, which states on the bottom that anyone convicted of welfare fraud will be subject to the lifetime ban, and that this applies to both OW and ODSP.

INQUEST SYNOPSIS: November 7

The Executive Director of Birthright was called back to the stand to compare pictures of Kimberly’s apartment at the time her body was discovered with how she recalled the state of the apartment during her last visit on August 6. She said the apartment had not been nearly so messy on August 6.

Harold Duff, the Administrator of Ontario Works (OW) for Sudbury took the stand, providing an overview of Ontario Works. When asked by the Coroner to explain the difference between statutes, regulations, directives and policies, he required help from Coroner's counsel.

The Administrator himself became involved in the case when community agencies began contacting him after her assistance had been terminated upon. He advised the agencies that the City had no discretion to issue funds, and had suggested Kimberly see the legal clinic about appealing to the Social Benefits Tribunal (SBT). However, after continued discussions with the agencies, he decided to pay for her medications while she awaited an interim assistance order from SBT or from a court. The City has a $10,000 fund for drug costs in extraordinary circumstances.

Mr. Duff reviewed documentation that indicates the position taken by his department and the (then) Region of Sudbury on the "zero tolerance" or lifetime ban issue. Minutes from a committee meeting of the Ontario Municipal Social Services Association indicate that many municipalities opposed the ban and were passing resolutions asking the province to rescind it. His department prepared a report for their region's Health and Social Services Committee, which in turn asked Council to pass a resolution opposing the lifetime ban. They did so, and sent a letter to then Minister John Baird. To date, they have not received a response from the Ministry.

Internally, the Department responded to zero tolerance by changing the process they use to refer fraud cases to the police. Instead of a supervisor solely reviewing the ERO's recommendation, it now goes to a committee of himself and other senior personnel, along with a city lawyer, who will now consider additional circumstances such as whether there are children involved.

Because Kimberly was identified as “high risk” ($450 rent; maximum shelter allowance $325), the matter of the Consolidated Verification Process (CVP) arose. If rent is deemed “too high”, then the caseworker would counsel the client to find cheaper accommodation, get a roommate, or seek help from a rent bank. The CVP process is also used to discover when people are underpaid. Authorities, therefore, would have discovered in September that Kimberly was not receiving a pregnancy allowance; that omission would likely have been rectified.

Counsel for a public interest intervener suggested on cross examination that when the OW fraud review committee meets to consider whether or not to refer a case to the police, an advocate should be present to outline extenuating circumstances such as pregnancy, mental health, lack of income and availability of community resources. The Administrator called it an idea worth considering.

Kimberly’s Story

Kimberly Rogers pled guilty to defrauding the Ontario welfare system of $13,372.67 after having accessed social assistance and student loans at the same time.

Not a year later, at forty years of age and eight months pregnant, Kimberly Rogers was found deceased in her Sudbury apartment.

a) Firstly, Kimberly was placed on house arrest, a conditional sentence that left her confined to a small apartment. She was allowed to leave for three hours every Wednesday to attend medical appointments, meet with lawyers, and go shopping.

b) Kimberly was cut-off from social assistance for a minimum of three months, leaving her with no means to support herself. Kimberly was having a difficult pregnancy and was on medication to treat depression when her benefits were revoked. Not in possession of a health benefit card, Kimberly had immense difficulty in obtaining her prescriptions.

c) In addition to being placed on house arrest, Kimberly was ordered to 18 months probation and a restitution order was made for her to repay $13,372.67.

Kimberly’s pregnancy, already a difficult one, became stressed following the series of sentences placed on her. Confined to her apartment during an excruciating heat wave left both her and her unborn baby at risk for health complications.

In the months that followed, Kimberly filed a constitutional challenge, arguing that her sentence, along with current governmental policies, infringed on her rights prescribed under Sections 7, 12, and 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. A case was presented and the courts were ordered to temporarily restore Kimberly’s benefits, pending the ruling from the higher courts involved with her constitutional challenge.

Kimberly would receive $520 plus a drug card from social services. However, in accordance with her restitution order, $52 was cut from her cheque each month, leaving her with $468. Once she had paid rent, Kimberly was left with only $18 for all other monthly expenses, including food, clothing, telephone, and laundry. Moreover, she was ineligible to receive a pregnant diet supplement.

Following her death, an autopsy was conducted, but the results were found to be inconclusive at the time so more tests and investigations were ordered, performed, but not released. Rumours have since floated about the cause of death, but until the inquest is completed, no clear indication exists.

Kimberly Rogers a plaidé coupable d’avoir fraudé de 13 372,67 $ le système d’aide sociale de l’Ontario après avoir eu droit à l’aide sociale et à des prêts étudiants en même temps.

À peine un an plus tard, âgée de quarante ans et enceinte de huit mois, Kimberly Rogers a été retrouvée morte dans son appartement de Sudbury.

a) Premièrement, Kimberly avait été assignée à résidence, une condamnation avec sursis qui l’a laissée confinée dans un petit appartement. Elle avait le droit de quitter son appartement trois heures, chaque mercredi, afin d’aller chez le médecin, rencontrer ses avocats et faire ses courses.

b) Kimberly avait été exclue de l’aide sociale pour un minimum de trois mois, ce qui l’avait laissée sans aucun moyen de subsistance. Kimberly vivait une grossesse difficile et prenait des médicaments pour traiter une dépression lorsque ses prestations ont été révoquées. N’ayant pas de carte de prestation de maladie, Kimberly avait eu beaucoup de difficulté à obtenir les médicaments prescrits.

c) En plus d’être assignée à résidence, Kimberly avait été condamnée à 18 mois de probation et une ordonnance de dédommagement avait été rendue afin qu’elle rembourse 13 372,67 $.

La grossesse de Kimberly, déjà difficile, s’est aggravée à la suite de la série de sentences qui lui ont été imposées. Le fait d’être confinée à son appartement pendant une vague de chaleur accablante représentait une menace pour la santé de Kimberly et de l’enfant qu’elle portait.

Au cours des mois qui ont suivi, Kimberly a déposé une contestation en vertu de la Constitution, affirmant que sa sentence, ainsi que les politiques gouvernementales actuelles, contrevenaient à ses droits prévus en vertu des dispositions 7, 12 et 15 de la Charte canadienne des droits et libertés. Une affaire a été présentée et on a ordonné aux tribunaux de rétablir temporairement les prestations de Kimberly en attendant la décision des tribunaux de plus haute instance concernant sa contestation constitutionnelle.

Kimberly recevrait 520 $ en plus d’une carte de paiement des médicaments des services sociaux. Cependant, conformément à son ordonnance de dédommagement, un montant de 52 $ était prélevé de son chèque, chaque mois, ce qui lui laissait 468 $. Une fois le loyer payé, Kimberly n’avait plus que 18 $ pour toutes ses autres dépenses du mois, y compris la nourriture, les vêtements, le téléphone et le lavage. Qui plus est, elle n’était pas admissible au supplément alimentaire versé aux femmes enceintes.

Après son décès, une autopsie a été faite, mais les résultats n’étaient pas concluants; d’autres tests et enquêtes ont donc été ordonnés, ont été faits, mais les résultats n’ont pas été divulgués publiquement. Depuis, des rumeurs ont circulé sur la cause du décès, mais jusqu’à ce que l’enquête soit terminée, on n’a aucune indication claire.

Inquest Update #4

Kimberly’s Story

Tragedy Highlights Increasing Criminalization of the Poor

Le 9 octobre 2002

15 October 2002

For more information, call NAPO

16-10-02

For more information, call NAPO

INQUEST SYNOPSIS: day one

Letters to Editor contact info

Inquest Update #4

17-10-02

For more information, call NAPO

INQUEST SYNOPSIS: day two

Inquest Update #5

18-10-02

For more information, call NAPO

INQUEST SYNOPSIS: day three

SOME USEFUL WEB-BASED RESOURCES FOR …

For more information, call NAPO

INQUEST SYNOPSIS: week two

27-10-02

For more information, call NAPO

INQUEST SYNOPSIS: October 24

Finding Answers: the Kimberly Rogers Inquest

By Kim Brooks, National Association of Women and the Law

28-10-02

For more information, call NAPO

INQUEST SYNOPSIS: October 25

Welfare prosecutions were few, inquest told

****

29-10-02

For more information, call NAPO

INQUEST SYNOPSIS: October 28

MEDIA RELEASE – October 28, 2002

31-10-02

For more information, call NAPO

INQUEST SYNOPSIS: October 29

INQUEST SYNOPSIS: October 30

1-11-02

For more information, call NAPO

INQUEST SYNOPSIS: October 31

4-11-02

For more information, call NAPO

INQUEST SYNOPSIS: November 1

16-10-02

For more information, call NAPO

INQUEST SYNOPSIS: day one

11-11-02

For more information, call NAPO

INQUEST SYNOPSIS: November 6

INQUEST SYNOPSIS: November 7

Kimberly’s Story