Lack of accountability and a positive urine test for meth are among the reasons cited by the Parole Board of Canada in revoking day parole for convicted killer Kerry Sim.
Formerly known as Kelly Ellard, 42-year-old Sim was among a group of teens who swarmed 14-year-old Reena Virk under the Craigflower Bridge in Saanich on Nov. 14, 1997. Ellard and Warren Glowatski followed her along the shoreline where they continued the beating and held Reena鈥檚 head under the water until she drowned.
Handed a life sentence in 2005, Sim was originally granted day parole in November 2017 with the conditions not to consume drugs or alcohol, participate in a treatment program, avoid certain persons, and follow psychological counselling.
Sim was released the next January to participate in a residential treatment program in the Fraser Valley. Sim was transferred to a community-based residential facility on the Lower Mainland, and day parole was routinely extended and incrementally expanded to five days out and two days in the facility.
That day parole was revoked this month, according to a June 23 parole board decision.
By waiver, Sim opted out of an in-person hearing, and the board instead did an in-office review considering suspension of her day parole. The May 16 form indicates she did not want media present at the hearing.
Sim was confined to her home after a positive urinalysis test for methamphetamines.
It followed a concerning pattern of behaviour in the months leading up where staff at the residential facility reported Sim was non-compliant, defiant, argumentative, and mocked and shouted at staff.
During the post-suspension interview, Sim denied using drugs and questioned the urinalysis protocol and said she was too busy caring for her two children.
Sim provided a note from her doctor indicating her prescribed medication can cause a positive result for methamphetamines and amphetamines. However, the board notes the Correctional Service of Canada confirmed the positive was not related to prescription medication.
鈥淔urther, the board notes you failed to provide a urine sample on two separate occasions, constituting a breach,鈥� the June 23 decision reads. 鈥淎s a result, the board finds the information provided by the CSC to be more reliable than your version. The board finds your failure to provide a urine sample on two separate occasions, apparent attempts to delay your urinalysis test on the day, and the subsequent positive test result, is sufficient 鈥� to conclude that you breached the abstain from drugs condition.鈥�
The decision also notes Sim explained in a June 6 letter that she did not consistently take prescribed medication due to fear of a positive urinalysis result.
鈥淭he board finds this statement deflects accountability and acts as an attempt to justify your behaviour leading to this suspension. You describe the impact of your incarceration on your children and the impact your parole restrictions have on their lives.鈥�
Revisiting her sentencing, the board noted that the judge found she presented an anti-social or delinquent value system, unwillingness to accept responsibility and rebelliousness that put her at high risk for future delinquent behaviour.
鈥淭he board notes the findings of the court in 2005 remain relevant to your behaviour today,鈥� the decision reads, noting she became hostile and deflected blame with both corrections and residential facility staff.
鈥淭he board finds your behaviour in the community prior to your suspension is inconsistent with what is minimally required or expected on an earned release.鈥�