The revoked day parole of convicted killer Kerry Marie Sim was upheld on appeal, according to a recently released decision.
Formerly known as Kelly Ellard, 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’s 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, and that she 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That day parole was revoked in June 2025.
“After reviewing your file and the board’s decision, the Appeal Division finds that the board conducted a fair and adequate risk assessment, and that, based on its assessment, its decision to revoke your day parole was the least restrictive determination in keeping with public safety,” reads the Feb. 20 decision upholding that revocation.
RELATED: Day parole revoked for killer in Saanich teen Reena Virk’s 1997 murder
RELATED: Kelly Ellard declines chance for full parole, says she’s not ready
RELATED: Teen killer Kelly Ellard re-granted day parole after previously breaking conditions
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.
An appeal filed in August 2025 asked for immediate release pending bed space availability at a community residential facility or a new review.
The appeal cited three concerns; whether the administrative process leading to the review was unfair; the decision was based on relevant, reliable and persuasive information; and if the board conducted a fair and adequate risk assessment, leading to the least restrictive determination consistent with the protection of society.
The appeal decision notes “though imperfect at points” the review was fair overall and did not affect Sim’s right to be heard.
After twice postponing, Sim opted out of an in-person hearing – by waiver citing concerns including not wanting media present – and the board instead did an in-office review. Sim made submissions both before and after waiving the right to an in-person hearing.
During the post-suspension interview, Sim denied using drugs, questioned the urinalysis protocol and said she was too busy caring for her two children. The appeal reiterated those concerns.
“According to your file, since your suspension, you have remained adamant that you have not used drugs, and any positive results are due to your prescribed medication. You once again claimed the medication you were prescribed caused a false positive. It was confirmed the medication you were taking would not provide a false positive,” the decision reads.
In all, the decision notes the board conducted a fair and adequate risk assessment, consistent with board policy and the legal criterion.
“The board did not fail to observe a principle of fundamental justice, make an error of law, or base its decision on erroneous or incomplete information,” the decision reads.