00001

1 Court File No.0103-14569

2 IN THE COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH OF ALBERTA

3 JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF EDMONTON

4 B E T W E E N:

6 FERREL CHRISTENSEN,

7 Plaintiff,

8 - and -

10 THE NATIONAL POST, NP HOLDINGS COMPANY, GLOBAL

11 COMMUNICATIONS LIMITED and DONNA LAFRAMBOISE,

12 Defendants,

13 [For reasons noted elsewhere, the name of the person examined has been deleted in this document.]

14 --- This is the Examination for Discovery of [name

and descriptor deleted] of The National Post

16 herein, taken at the offices of Atchison & Denman

17 Court Reporting Services Limited, 155 University

18 Avenue, Suite 302, Toronto, Ontario, M5H 3B7, on

19 Wednesday, the 17th day of December, 2008.

21 APPEARANCES:

22 Bradley J. Willis For the Plaintiff

23 Matthew A. Woodley For the Defendant

00002

1 TABLE OF CONTENTS

3 INDEX OF EXAMINATIONS: PAGE NO.

4 [name deleted]: Sworn...........................4

5 EXAMINATION BY MR. WILLIS:......................4

7 INDEX OF UNDERTAKINGS

8 Undertakings are noted by "U/T" and are found on the

9 following pages: 25.

12 INDEX OF ADVISEMENTS

13 Under Advisements are noted by "U/A" ad are found on

14 the following pages: 19.

00003

1 TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)

2 INDEX OF EXHIBITS

3 PAGE NO.

4 EXHIBIT NO. 1: Package of documents,

5 re: R000139, R000140, R000142,

6 R000144, R000147..................11

00004

1 --- Upon commencing at 10:04 a.m.

2 [name deleted]: Sworn.

3 EXAMINATION BY MR. WILLIS:

4 1 Q. Mr. [deleted], I understand that you

5 are produced as a former employee of the corporate

6 defendant and that the answers you give will be some

7 of the information of that defendant in these

8 proceedings, that is to say, Queen's Bench action

9 0103-14569. Are those statements correct?

10 MR. WOODLEY: The statements are all

11 correct with respect to the information of the

12 corporation; similar caveats as discussed in the

13 examination with [name deleted] with respect to information

14 of the corporation, that is, the ability to provide

15 other evidence if such evidence is available.

16 MR. WILLIS: Yes. Of course. Thank

17 you.

18 BY MR. WILLIS:

19 2 Q. Now, Mr. [deleted], I understand that

20 in March and April 2001, you were the [deleted] editor

21 of the corporate defendant, which I'll refer to as,

22 just for convenience, as The National Post; is that

23 correct?

24 A. Yeah.

25 MR. WILLIS: Now, let's just go off

00005

1 the record for a second.

2 --- Off-the-record discussion.

3 BY MR. WILLIS:

4 3 Q. Okay. Sir, perhaps I could simply

5 ask you to give me a brief summary of your

6 professional and educational background leading up to

7 your appointment as the [deleted] editor of The

8 National Post.

9 A. Well, educational background,

10 undergraduate degree from [identifying words deleted].

11 Worked for a few years. Took a graduate journalism

12 program at [deleted]. Started [identifying words deleted]

17 4 Q. And you are still with [deleted]

19 A. Yes.

20 5 Q. Now, when you worked [deleted]

22 what were your duties?

23 A. At The National Post, I started as

24 a news reporter and then became [deleted] editor about

25 a year later, maybe 18 months later.

00006

1 6 Q. So how long had you been [deleted]

2 editor? Roughly when did you become [deleted] editor?

3 A. In late 2000, 2001. I was at The

4 National Post from [deleted] and I would say half

5 my time was as [deleted] and about half my time was

6 [deleted] editor.

7 7 Q. So by the time -- by March of

8 2001, roughly how long have you been [deleted] editor?

9 A. A few months.

10 8 Q. Had you fulfilled a similar

11 position before [identifying words deleted]

13 A. No.

14 9 Q. Had you worked as an editor before

17 A. No.

18 10 Q. When you [identifying words deleted]

20 what were your

21 duties?

22 A. [identifying words deleted]

24 11 Q. Now, in March of 2001, were you a

25 member of any professional journalistic associations?

00007

1 A. No.

2 12 Q. Were you a member, for example, of

3 the Canadian Association of Journalists?

4 A. No, other than I think they

5 purport to represent all journalists but I wasn't a

6 dues paying member, no.

7 13 Q. Have you ever been or are you --

8 have you ever been a dues paying member of the

9 Canadian Association of Journalists?

10 A. No.

11 14 Q. Have you ever been a member of any

12 professional journalists association?

13 A. No.

14 15 Q. Was there a written job

15 description of your position as [deleted] editor of

16 The National Post in March of 2001 or at any

17 subsequent time?

18 A. No.

19 16 Q. Perhaps then you would be kind

20 enough to give me informally what your job

21 description was, where you fit into the hierarchy,

22 who you reported to, who reported to you, that sort

23 of thing.

24 A. I was [deleted] editor which meant

25 I worked with reporters on the national news side and

00008

1 was responsible for [identifying words deleted]

2 So the first part of my

3 day would be working with the reporters in Toronto

4 and at bureaus across the country on stories they

5 were working on, national stories. The latter part

6 of the day would be putting those stories on the

7 pages that are in the national section. I was -- I

8 reported to [names and related information deleted],

12 17 Q. And how many reporters did you

13 work with in March, April of 2001?

14 A. There were probably 10 in Toronto

15 and maybe half a dozen in various bureaus across the

16 country. I did not deal with -- when I say bureaus,

17 all bureaus except Ottawa which had its own

18 particular editor.

19 Q. How long and in what context had

20 you known Donna Laframboise by March of 2001?

21 A. I did not know Donna at all.

22 19 Q. When you say you didn't know her

23 at all, had you -- you never worked on her with a

24 story before this story?

25 A. I never worked on her on any

00009

1 story.

2 20 Q. All right. When I say this story,

3 I'm referring to the March 30th story that was

4 published with respect to [Tim] Adams and then the

5 April 17th story. When I say "this story", I'll be

6 referring specifically to the April 17th, 2001, story

7 which is the subject of this litigation. But

8 generally of course earlier there was a story on

9 March 30th which I take it you recall.

10 A. Is that this story?

11 MR. WILLIS: Let's go off the record.

12 --- Off-the-record discussion.

13 BY MR. WILLIS:

14 21 Q. Mr. [deleted], confirming our

15 discussion off the record, the April 17th, 2001,

16 story which is at issue in this litigation, was the

17 first one that you ever worked on with Donna

18 Laframboise, correct, as far as you can recall?

19 A. I didn't work with her on any

20 story. That's the first story she ever wrote that

21 came to me to go into the national section that I

22 recall. I didn't work on her with it. She wasn't

23 one of the reporters -- one of the ten or a dozen

24 reporters I worked with. She was not part of that

25 group. So I had nothing to do with the story she

00010

1 worked on. [Most of this transcript involves this person's denials of anything but trivial involvement with the article. For whatever it means, CanWest began to make genuine efforts to settle this lawsuit without going to trial only when my lawyer began interviewing the former editors at The Post, unearthing such contradictions.] [Back]

2 22 Q. Thanks for making that

3 distinction. Now, off the record, I advised you that

4 there was an earlier article that did not refer to my

5 client, Dr. Christensen -- rather, [Tim] Adams, that

6 ran on March 30th, and confirming our discussion off

7 the record, I understand that, as far as you can

8 recall, you were not involved in that article and do

9 not recall it.

10 A. I was not involved in that

11 article, and I don't recall it.

12 23 Q. Thank you. So when I refer to the

13 article or this article, unless I specify otherwise,

14 I'll just be referring to the article of April 17,

15 2001.

16 A. Right.

17 24 Q. Now, just to do some housekeeping

18 before we get on record. I don't think we -- perhaps

19 just for clarity, although these items are listed in

20 your affidavit of record, so technically we don't

21 need to enter them as exhibits. Perhaps since we are

22 in Toronto --

23 MR. WOODLEY: However you like it.

24 MR. WILLIS: We could enter items

25 R00139, 140, 142, 144, and 147 collectively as the

00011

1 first exhibit in these discoveries as e-mails

2 involving Mr. [deleted]. And as I understand it, at

3 least based on my review of the affidavit of records,

4 and yours, Mr. Woodley, these are all of the e-mails

5 that have been produced that had Mr. [deleted]'s name on

6 the --

7 MR. WOODLEY: I'm relying on my

8 colleague for that but that's my understanding.

9 MR. WILLIS: Might this package, as

10 I've described it, be entered as the first exhibit.

11 MR. WOODLEY: That's fine.

12 EXHIBIT NO. 1: Package of documents,

13 re: R000139, R000140, R000142, R000144, R000147.

14 BY MR. WILLIS:

15 25 Q. Now, my understanding from the

16 examination for discovery of Ms. Laframboise was, as

17 she put it, she pitched the story to you. Just to

18 assist you, I'm showing you page 22 of the

19 examination of Donna Laframboise way back in 2002,

20 and you'll note that she there says that the story

21 was, as she puts it, pitched to you.

22 A. Hmm-hmm.

23 26 Q. What do you recall about Ms.

24 Laframboise's pitching of the story?

25 A. I recall nothing of her pitching

00012

1 of the story, and my reading of this is she seems

2 here in this bit that I have to be talking in

3 generalities. The person that I pitched the story

4 to, which is a news editor, are we interested in

5 doing this story and that was [this editor's name deleted],

write this story and [name deleted again] at some

7 point edited it. My reading of that is that's the

8 general purpose, the general process, and she is

9 correct. But I don't recall her pitching me anything

10 on this story.

11 27 Q. Now, apart from the documents in

12 Exhibit 1, did you keep any notes or records relating

13 to the production of this story?

14 A. No.

15 28 Q. Did you have any notes, records or

16 e-mails or other information which have since been

17 lost or destroyed?

18 A. No.

19 29 Q. So do I understand you correctly

20 to say that the description that we've read on page

21 22 of Ms. Laframboise's discovery is a correct

22 description of the general procedure, but you have no

23 recollection as to whether that procedure was

24 followed in the case of this story involving you?

25 A. I have no recollection. I'm

00013

1 basing that on the question posed to her is -- seems

2 to make it a general statement of how stories are

3 pitched. I have no recollection of her pitching the

4 story to me at all.

5 30 Q. Perhaps I could just ask you:

6 What knowledge or interaction did you have with Donna

7 Laframboise before you interacted with her in

8 relation to this story?

9 A. None.

10 31 Q. Did you know anything about her?

11 A. No.

12 32 Q. Did you assume that she was an

13 experienced journalist when you dealt with her?

14 A. I assumed she was or she wouldn't

15 be working at the Post, yeah.

16 33 Q. Were you aware of who else, if

17 anyone, she reported to in her daily duties at the

18 time you were involved with her in the preparation of

19 this story?

20 A. I don't know who she reported to,

21 to tell you the truth, which is not uncommon. As I

22 recall, she was an opinion page comment person

23 feature writer and those people tend to report to

24 various editors, so that's not uncommon. But I don't

25 recall who she reported to directly day-to-day in

00014

1 other words.

2 34 Q. Perhaps the simplest and quickest

3 way to do this, especially since you are used to

4 telling coherent stories, is simply to ask you with

5 the assistance of Exhibit 1, if this helps, to place

6 on the record all that you can recall about your

7 involvement with Donna Laframboise and this story and

8 then we'll ask follow-up questions from there.

9 A. What I recall from going over

10 these e-mails is that I was presented with a 2,000

11 word story to go in the paper the next day. And as I

12 mentioned before, the latter part of my duties

13 everyday was to put the stories my reporters have

14 worked on or other reporters were working on that

15 were going to go into the national section. I was to

16 put those in the national section, those pages, a lot

17 of them, in the national section in the evenings.

18 This story, as I recall it, came to me quite late in

19 the game and was too big to fit and had to either be

20 cut down or held for a day when there would be more

21 space. So I think I had suggested to her someone

22 would have to edit this down if it was going to go

23 that day or it would have to wait until a day when it

24 was -- there was more space.

25 35 Q. And what happened then?

00015

1 A. From these, I guess we held it a

2 couple of days and I don't even know if it was edited

3 down or not, but it ran and I think it ran on a

4 Saturday or it ran anyway on a day when there was

5 more space for it.

6 36 Q. Now, when you said these, for the

7 record, you are referring to the documents that were

8 entered together as Exhibit 1. Anything else that

9 you recall as you go through those documents?

10 A. No.

11 37 Q. Now, you'll note that Ms.

12 Laframboise said that you edited the piece. What did

13 you do to edit the piece; do you recall?

14 A. I don't recall editing the piece.

15 It would be rare for me to edit in great detail a

16 story that hadn't come from a reporter that I worked

17 with normally, and a feature in particular. Usually

18 I would send it back to that reporter to rework and

19 then it would go to a copy editor for final editing.

20 But I didn't -- I don't recall editing the story.

21 38 Q. Now, in undertaking number 27, in

22 the examination of Donna Laframboise, you'll note

23 that it is suggested that there were five separate

24 drafts of the story which is part of the subject of

25 this litigation. Do you recall reviewing any of

00016

1 those drafts? They have not been produced based on a

2 claim of privilege.

3 MR. WOODLEY: Right. Just take a look

4 at this. Can we go off the record for a second.

5 MR. WILLIS: Sure.

6 --- Off-the-record discussion.

7 BY MR. WILLIS:

8 39 Q. So confirming our discussion off

9 the record, I'm showing you undertaking number 27 of

10 Donna Laframboise, and the advice was that it isn't

11 possible to determine with certainty the number of

12 drafts to the articles, but the defendants were able

13 to ascertain that there were five dated drafts and

14 five undated drafts. The five dated drafts were

15 March 26, 2001, two drafts dated March 27th, one

16 dated March 30th and another one dated April 10th.

17 Do you recall having anything to do with any of these

18 drafts, even seeing them?

19 A. No.

20 40 Q. Are you able to say as a matter of

21 the normal procedure that you would have followed as

22 [deleted] editor, are you able to say whether you did

23 see any of these drafts?

24 A. I don't recall seeing any of those

25 drafts.

00017

1 41 Q. Now, if I could just see Exhibit 1

2 there for a minute. Thank you. Now, looking at the

3 e-mail from you to Donna Laframboise dated April 5th,

4 2001, in your e-mail to Donna Laframboise, you say,

5 as you've -- you repeat what you just said under

6 oath, namely, that there wasn't space to put the

7 story in, but you also say: I'm upset as well that

8 we haven't run this story. It's a great story and a

9 credit to you for finding it. So do I assume

10 correctly that that means you would have read a draft

11 of the story at that point?

12 A. I would have, I presume, based on

13 that e-mail, whatever she sent to me or whatever the

14 story was that was going to go in the paper that day,

15 I would have had, yeah.

16 42 Q. All right. Is it possible that if

17 you reviewed the drafts in the possession of the

18 defendants, that that might refresh your memory as to

19 what interaction you had, if any, in the preparation

20 or editing of those drafts?

21 A. I doubt it. I barely recall the

22 story at all.

23 43 Q. I understand that. I'm just

24 saying if you were to review those drafts, which for

25 all we know might contain -- might contain remarks or

00018

1 comments by you or additions by you, is it possible

2 that would refresh your memory as to what occurred?

3 A. Again, I doubt it simply because I

4 doubt there would be comments from me because this

5 story had been in Donna's hands for a long time, as I

6 understood it, and it was coming to me to get in the

7 paper, not to rework, not for advice on how to

8 proceed, how to develop it, how to shape it. Now, I

9 was the end -- I was the guy who was putting it in

10 the paper and that's all I remember on that story. I

11 wasn't helping her try to shape the story.

12 44 Q. All right. The difficulty that

13 I'm having of course is that she testified that you

14 edited it and there's no -- I can advise you that

15 there's no indication of anybody else -- I asked her

16 that and you were the person that she said edited it.

17 If you were to look at those drafts, might you be

18 able to assist us with who else may have helped in

19 the editorial process?

20 A. Maybe but I don't know.

21 45 Q. I would ask you to undertake to

22 review the drafts that were produced as undertaking

23 number 27 and for two purposes. First, to refresh

24 your memory as to your involvement. I appreciate you

25 think that's unlikely but perhaps it will. And if it

00019

1 does refresh your memory, to advise me through your

2 solicitor. Second, to attempt to ascertain who else

3 may have been involved in the editorial process that

4 led to the final article.

5 MR. WOODLEY: To ascertain that from

6 the review of the drafts.

7 MR. WILLIS: If he can.

8 U/A MR. WOODLEY: So I'm going to take it

9 under advisement for now.

10 MR. WILLIS: All right. And I would

11 actually also, Mr. Woodley, it looks like -- off the

12 record.

13 --- Off-the-record discussion.

14 MR. WILLIS: Mr. Woodley, confirming

15 our discussion off the record, I would also ask that

16 when the witness has reviewed these 10 drafts, that

17 you undertake to produce whatever portions of those

18 drafts are not the subject to a claim of privilege.

19 That was confirming our discussion off the record.

20 That was a matter that was raised by me, as I

21 understand it, when I was involved some years ago but

22 it doesn't appear to have been followed up on. So I

23 understand you are going to take that request under

24 advisement.

25 U/A MR. WOODLEY: Yes. I will take it

00020

1 under advisement.

2 MR. WILLIS: And may I just say for

3 the record, of course you have an independent

4 obligation to produce anything that isn't covered by

5 a claim of privilege. It is my thought that when

6 this matter is reviewed by Mr. [deleted], that may

7 assist you in evaluating or re-evaluating that claim.

8 MR. WOODLEY: The defendants have that

9 obligation, yes. Mr. [deleted] of course doesn't and I

10 don't but we will of course comply with our

11 responsibilities --

12 MR. WILLIS: Right. And I just want

13 to flag that because it may be something that just

14 slipped through the cracks some years ago.

15 MR. WOODLEY: That's fine.

16 BY MR. WILLIS:

17 46 Q. Okay. Now, again in the first

18 e-mail, which I'll just show you, you have referred

19 to a discussion with Louise. Before I ask you about

20 that, you say: I'm upset as well that we haven't run

21 this story. It's a great story and a credit to you

22 for finding it. Now, this is April 5th, 12 days

23 before the story appears. Do you have any

24 recollection as at -- strike that. Do you have any

25 recollection as to what discussions if any you may

00021

1 have had with Donna Laframboise about this story

2 before April 5th, before you wrote those words?

3 A. I don't.

4 47 Q. Okay. Now, the next sentence you

5 have is this, it says: Louise talked to me as well

6 and I assured her that the only reason the story

7 hasn't run is space, not interest. Louise, did you

8 know who Louise was?

9 A. I know now from reviewing the

10 story. I don't recall her.

11 48 Q. All right.

12 A. I'm presuming that's this Louise.

13 I don't know.

14 49 Q. Basically what's happened is that

15 your -- the lapse of time has simply made it so that

16 you don't remember who Louise was.

17 A. Correct.

18 50 Q. Is that what you are saying? Just

19 so we can be clear, what if anything is your present

20 memory of the person you have identified as Louise in

21 your e-mail?

22 A. I don't remember at all.

23 51 Q. All right. Now then, the next

24 e-mail is from Donna Laframboise to you copies to

25 some of the people whom you've referred to, and the

00022

1 subject is Alberta father's group story delay. And

2 you'll note that it says Louise Malenfant,

3 M-A-L-E-N-F-A-N-T, the whistleblower on this story

4 and someone who has repeatedly given the Post

5 reliable news tips, writes: And then there's a

6 letter from Louise Malenfant. Today do you remember

7 reading that e-mail or do you remember the -- does

8 that refresh your memory about Louise Malenfant?

9 A. I don't remember her at all.

10 52 Q. Now, by the time you got the

11 story, as a matter of your normal practice, would you

12 have assumed that the bona fides of the person

13 referred to as the whistleblower would have been

14 checked out by Ms. Laframboise?

15 A. Yes.

16 53 Q. So that if, for example, Ms.

17 Laframboise had a pecuniary interest in the result of

18 the story, that that would have been checked into and

19 considered by Ms. Laframboise?

20 A. Oh, I would presume that, yeah.

21 54 Q. And that if she wasn't going to

22 put it in the article, that she would have, in the

23 normal course, at least discussed that with somebody,

24 discussed the question of whether Ms. Laframboise's

25 pecuniary interest, assuming she had one, should have

00023

1 been mentioned.

2 A. That's a discussion she would have

3 with whatever editor she was working with.

4 55 Q. And you would assume that all that

5 had been done before it got to you.

6 A. Yes.

7 56 Q. All right. Because I'm

8 understanding now something I didn't understand when

9 we sat down a few minutes ago, namely that -- let me

10 just see if I have this correct. Your role, as you

11 recollect it, was not to oversee the, shall we say,

12 journalistic quality of the story as it developed but

13 rather to find a place for it on the national page

14 once it was ready; is that correct?

15 A. Correct.

16 57 Q. And at this point, you don't know

17 who, if anyone, would have been overseeing the

18 journalistic quality in the story.

19 A. I don't know, correct.

20 58 Q. There normally would have been

21 someone though. You would have expected that.

22 A. Yes, yes.

23 59 Q. And do you recall having any

24 discussions with any of the gentlemen, I think you

25 referred to them as [identifying words deleted] editors?

00024

1 A. Hmm-hmm.

2 60 Q. Who were copied on that particular

3 e-mail.

4 A. I don't recall talking to them

5 about this story, no.

6 61 Q. Do you recall any e-mails coming

7 from them or other e-mails to them?

8 A. From me?

9 62 Q. From anyone that you were copied

10 on.

11 A. About this story.

12 63 Q. Yes.

13 A. No.

14 64 Q. May I just see that again.

15 A. Yes.

16 65 Q. Thank you. Now, as of, without

17 telling me what was said, as of April 5th, 2001, do

18 you recall having any contact with lawyers with

19 reference to the story, that is to say, lawyers for

20 The National Post?

21 A. I don't recall talking to lawyers

22 about this story.

23 66 Q. At any time, do you recall having

24 done that?

25 A. No.

00025

1 67 Q. So that again, by the time this

2 story came to you or whatever versions of this story

3 came to you, you would assume that that had already

4 been done by somebody else.

5 A. Yes.

6 68 Q. But you don't know who.

7 A. No.

8 MR. WILLIS: Now, I think this is

9 included in the previous undertaking, but when you do

10 review the drafts, if those drafts suggest to you the

11 name of any person who was involved in the editing

12 process other than yourself and of course Ms.

13 Laframboise, if you would kindly advise me through

14 your solicitor.

15 U/T MR. WOODLEY: That's included in the

16 previous undertaking.

17 MR. WILLIS: I thought so but I

18 thought I'd better put it in just in case I didn't

19 make it clear.

20 BY MR. WILLIS:

21 69 Q. Now, the third, just before I

22 leave that, e-mail, R00139, which includes an e-mail

23 from Louise to Donna Laframboise, dated April 4th, as

24 you look at that e-mail, does that refresh your

25 memory as to who the Louise was who in your previous

00026

1 e-mail you said you had spoken to?

2 A. It doesn't. The theme of this

3 e-mail seems to be consistent with the others, that

4 there was anxiousness on the part of these people

5 that the story hadn't run.

6 70 Q. Wouldn't it be unusual --

7 A. That they were keen to have it run

8 which, you know, why it came to me to put it in the

9 paper.

10 71 Q. Again, given that you have no

11 memory, I have to just ask you about your normal

12 experience. Would it be unusual for someone like

13 Louise Malenfant, referred to as, quote, the

14 whistleblower, to come to you directly about such a

15 matter?

16 A. It would be unusual. The normal

17 course would be the reporter and the editors.

18 72 Q. Now, I can advise you that in her

19 examination for discovery -- let's just go off the

20 record for a minute.

21 --- Off-the-record discussion.

22 BY MR. WILLIS:

23 73 Q. I'm just going to read into the

24 record something that I showed you and your counsel

25 off the record and that is from page 84 of the

00027

1 examination of Donna Laframboise back in October of

2 2002, and this passage deals with a conversation that

3 Ms. Laframboise had with a person called Bouvier,

4 B-O-U-V-I-E-R, just for your context, who was

5 associated with MEN's Group, ECMAS, E-C-M-A-S, which

6 is the subject of the article. The passage goes like

7 this.

8 "QUESTION: All right. Do you

9 remember when you talked to Mr. Bouvier, do you

10 remember now telling him, well, we were going to run

11 this for Saturday and you're having a meeting this

12 weekend. Now we've bought you some time right.'

13 Right?"

14 I may advise you, Mr. [deleted], the

15 context is some time to determine whether to seek or

16 accept the resignation of [Tim] Adams, the disbarred

17 lawyer who had been elected...

18 "ANSWER: Yes.

19 "QUESTION: Does that help you to

20 remember that you were talking to him on Thursday the

21 22nd? The story was to run on Saturday the 24th?"

22 That is of March. So this would be

23 some weeks before the story actually ran.

24 "ANSWER: No. Because I know we

25 talked -- if we talked to him on the Thursday, it's

00028

1 still not clear to me which Thursday.

2 "QUESTION: Well, what about the

3 discussion with your editor where you said -- is

4 that -- by the way, did you actually have that

5 discussion with the editor?

6 "ANSWER: Yes. I said, 'The story is

7 developing. Let's give him some time'.

8 "QUESTION: And that was Mr. [deleted]?

9 "ANSWER: Mr. [deleted] and I discussed

10 that with [name deleted] as well."

11 I then asked for an inquiry as to

12 whether, you could help fix the date of the

13 discussion, and the undertaking came back that

14 neither you nor [name deleted] could do that. But do I

15 assume that at least you could remember that there

16 was such a discussion?

17 A. I can't remember that discussion

18 at all.

19 74 Q. The problem I'm having is the

20 context here is the question of Ms. Laframboise

21 deciding to hold off on the publication of the story

22 and this is before the story of March 30th, it

23 related only to [Tim] Adams, and then seeking advice

24 as to whether to do that, seeking advice from

25 yourself and Mr. [deleted]. And she says that you and

00029

1 she discussed it with Mr. [deleted]. The difficulty I'm

2 having is if I understand you correctly, your

3 recollection of your role is that there never would

4 have been any such discussion.

5 A. I don't remember a discussion.

6 There might have been a discussion. I don't remember

7 it.

8 75 Q. All right. Is it possible then

9 that throughout -- I won't say throughout but at

10 least from some time in March, that Ms. Laframboise

11 was asking you for advice about this story and how to

12 handle it and you've just forgotten it now in all the

13 pressure of events?

14 A. I don't recall her asking me for

15 advice.

16 76 Q. And I just need to check this out.

17 Is it possible that she was -- for example, is it

18 possible that she did discuss this with you and

19 seeked your advice and that of Mr. [deleted] but now

20 you've just forgotten after this lapse of time? Is

21 that possible?

22 A. That's possible.

23 77 Q. Is it possible that actually

24 before deciding to do the story, that as she put it,

25 pitched it to you and got your informal approval or

00030

1 encouragement to carry on with it but that now you've

2 forgotten?

3 A. I have no recollection of her

4 pitching me this story. I believe she came to me

5 when the story was well underway and had been

6 underway for some time and we were getting down to

7 getting it in the paper. This again, she wasn't one

8 of the reporters I worked with on a day-to-day basis.

9 Those people I knew what they were working on and

10 talked to them constantly about the stories they were

11 working on. Donna worked in a whole different

12 section. So I cannot recall her pitching me this

13 story at all.

14 78 Q. So pitching the story, to use that

15 phrase, is that something that she would normally

16 have to do, is she would have to get some sort of

17 approval before -- or encouragement before going

18 ahead with the story?

19 A. I don't know how she operated but

20 that's certainly how the reporters I worked with

21 operated. They would come to me at the start and

22 say, this has happened or I'm interested in following

23 this or I got this tip, they do that because if they

24 get a cold reception, they are not going to spend a

25 lot of time on it. So that's usually the starting

00031

1 point, or it's an editor going to a reporter saying

2 the exact same thing and again it's the same

3 dialogue.

4 79 Q. But your recollection is that

5 somebody had already okayed the story before it came

6 to you.

7 A. Oh, yeah, yes.

8 80 Q. All right. Do you know who?

9 A. I don't.

10 81 Q. Are you able to suggest what

11 persons might have okayed the story, would have had

12 the -- would have been in a position where they might

13 have okayed the story? Now, I simply ask you this

14 because we have Ms. Laframboise's testimony that it

15 was you and I take it we can be pretty sure that it

16 wasn't you. So can you help us with who in the

17 post-hierarchy it might be?

18 A. I think in one of the things you

19 showed me, she mentioned Ken Whyte, and I suspect at

20 some point he must have been involved. I don't know

21 that she worked with him on a day-to-day basis. I

22 doubt it. I thought she worked more with [deleted]

23 on a day-to-day basis or however arrangement they

24 had. I suspect those are the people she dealt with

25 more frequently than me.

00032

1 82 Q. All right. And in particular,

2 with regard to this story, before it came to you, you

3 assumed that one of those people had already, I don't

4 want to use the word "vetted", but had already been

5 pitched the story and had encouraged her to go ahead

6 with it.

7 A. Yes.

8 83 Q. Now, she indicates that you talked

9 to Mr. [deleted]. Do you have any recollection of

10 having checked that or confirmed that with anyone or

11 did you simply assume that she wouldn't have come to

12 you if it hadn't already been okayed?

13 A. I have -- I don't recall what we

14 talked about. [Potentially identifying words deleted]

15 who dealt with things that might ultimately involve

16 the lawyer and so something that was headed that way,

17 would go through him first.

18 84 Q. All right. So just to confirm,

19 what we are clear about though, even though of course

20 this is such a long time ago, but it's not surprising

21 that your memory has faded for some of the things,

22 but what we are clear about is this: By the time the

23 story came to you, you knew that someone else had

24 already, some other [identifying words deleted]

25 editors, had looked at it and

00033

1 essentially approved it.

2 A. Yeah. I would say by the time it

3 got to me, the process was well underway.

4 85 Q. All right. And you didn't have

5 any veto or any role in assuring the quality of the

6 story. You assumed that by the time it got to you,

7 all those matters had been looked into by

8 [words deleted] lawyers or other people, correct?

9 A. Yes.

10 86 Q. Thank you. May I just see those

11 e-mails. Thank you. Now, in the third e-mail of

12 Exhibit 1, which is the top e-mail of R00142, Ms.

13 Laframboise, on Tuesday, April 10th, 2001, in the

14 second last paragraph says:

15 "I know you're really busy, but you

16 also seem really decent. If you have any

17 inclination, I'd love to buy you a coffee and chat

18 about what's happened here. For me, it has been the

19 proverbial straw on the camel's back. There are some

20 profound problems in the newsroom that appear no

21 closer to being fixed than they were 18 months ago.

22 And while The Post does so many things right, it's

23 going to continue to lose good people until those

24 problems get recognized and addressed.

25 "I'm not looking for you to solve any

00034

1 of my issues, but if my input would be helpful to

2 you, let me know."

3 Did you understand what she was

4 talking about in those two paragraphs?

5 A. I think she had frustration with

6 the length of time it took to get this story in the

7 paper. She wanted to tell me about the whole process

8 she had gone through. That's what I gather from

9 that.

10 87 Q. And did she in fact have coffee

11 with you and pour out her heart on this?

12 A. I don't recall that, no.

13 88 Q. Do you recall any discussion at

14 all with her?

15 A. No.

16 89 Q. All right. Let me see that.

17 Thank you. Now, again, just to be clear, do I

18 understand correctly that it's possible some such

19 discussion took place, but given the length of time,

20 that has elapsed? If it did, you have forgotten it?

21 A. I don't recall having a discussion

22 with her after the fact like that at all.

23 90 Q. All right. And so again, I'm not

24 trying to put words in your mouth and just pause to

25 make sure I'm not inadvertently doing that. I'm

00035

1 understanding from what you are saying that all --

2 that two things are true. First, you don't have a

3 recollection but, second, you think that it's very

4 probable, given your normal policy and the way things

5 normally worked, that in fact there was no such

6 discussion. Are those two statements correct?

7 A. Yes.

8 MR. WILLIS: Thank you. Off the

9 record again.

10 --- Off-the-record discussion.

11 BY MR. WILLIS:

12 91 Q. Now, the last e-mail, 00144, is

13 dated Thursday, April 12th. It's an e-mail from you

14 to Donna Laframboise and it says:

15 "So, I've sent the story to David

16 Walmsley who is running the national desk on Good

17 Friday. I've told him it has to run (so hopefully it

18 will). Anyway, we will all have to jump out windows

19 Monday if it didn't. [name deleted]."

20 Now, in fact it didn't run, as we

21 understood it, until April the 17th. Now, clearly

22 there wasn't any mass defenestration at The National

23 Post, but given the context of these e-mails, I'm

24 wondering if it helps you remember what happened here

25 that caused a further delay.

00036

1 A. I think again it was just the size

2 of the story and fitting it into the new section.

3 That's all I can remember. And if it didn't run for

4 another week, that must have been the problem, space.

5 92 Q. Now, Walmsley, W-A-L-M-S-L-E-Y,

6 was Walmsley someone, what was his role?

7 A. I was the [potentially identifying words

8 deleted]. David ran the sort of politics

9 government -- Ottawa news gathering. So he was the

10 -- I guess his official title was the politics

11 reporter. He handled all things to do with Ottawa.

12 93 Q. So how would he be involved now?

13 A. On a holiday, the editors rotate

14 in terms -- because you don't have a full complement

15 of people on Good Friday to put out a Saturday paper,

16 so editors rotate and become the editor for the whole

17 news operation for the holiday. So you don't have

18 all the editors in on a holiday. You rotate, and so

19 that would have been David's assigned date and be

20 [potentially identifying words deleted].

21 94 Q. But, in fact, if Thursday was

22 April 12th, then the story actually ran the following

23 Tuesday, April 17th, 2001.

24 A. Hmm-hmm.

25 95 Q. And by that time, you would have

00037

1 been back in the saddle as [deleted] editor; is that

2 correct?

3 A. I don't know. I guess. Unless I

4 was off, yeah.

5 96 Q. You don't recall.

6 A. I don't recall if I was in on the

7 Monday.

8 97 Q. Do I understand correctly that the

9 story was in fact 3,200 words, the story as finally

10 published?

11 A. Is that right? Okay. I don't

12 know.

13 98 Q. All right. So I'm gathering from

14 your earlier e-mail, when you said, well, if you can

15 cut it down to 1,000 words, I can do it, but a story

16 that was in excess of 2,000 words and in this case a

17 story with 3,200 words with a big picture of Louise

18 Malenfant with it, would be quite a large story.

19 A. Yeah. It's a whole page.

20 99 Q. Right. Now, with regard to the

21 picture of Louise Malenfant, who decides about which

22 picture goes in at that time? I should say who made

23 that decision?

24 A. The photo editor would decide on

25 the pictures.

00038

1 100 Q. And who was that at the time?

2 A. I don't remember. There were so

3 many changes. I don't know who the photo editor was.

4 101 Q. Is it in the normal process, would

5 the reporter make a recommendation to the photo

6 editor as to what photo should run or provide photos?

7 A. No, no. The reporter works on the

8 story, tells the photo editor that there's a picture

9 possibility either of the person involved or one of

10 the players. The photo editor then takes over the

11 whole photo side of things, organizes the

12 photographer, go and take the picture, the

13 photographer sends the pictures to the photo editor

14 and the photo editor decides which picture will go

15 with which story.

16 102 Q. All right. Now, by the time you

17 got the story as [deleted] editor, I was asking you

18 about various ethical matters that might have cropped

19 up in the course of the story. Now, my understanding

20 from, just to give you at least what I hope your

21 counsel will think is sufficient background, my

22 understanding from Ms. Laframboise's testimony is

23 that in the discussion with Mr. Bouvier, who was as I

24 mentioned before, one of the people on the executive

25 of this MEN's group, that she recommended to him that

00039

1 my client, Dr. Christensen, be removed or expelled

2 from the organization.

3 Now, assuming that a reporter, just as

4 a matter of general practice, if a reporter was going

5 to be involved in a story to that extent, that is to

6 say in making a recommendation as to what the

7 organization being covered should do, you'd assume by

8 the time it got to you, that that had been checked

9 out with a [potentially identifying words deleted]?

10 A. Yeah.

11 103 Q. But it certainly wasn't checked

12 out with you.

13 A. No.

14 104 Q. And that's the sort of thing that

15 would be sufficiently unusual, right, or you would

16 remember it probably.

17 A. Right.

18 105 Q. Thank you. Now, the other thing I

19 wanted to ask you about is the documentation that

20 would normally have been produced in The National

21 Post. In this particular -- in the development of

22 this particular story, again the evidence from Ms.

23 Laframboise is that she made a number of -- had a

24 number of telephone interviews which she recorded

25 without telling the other people they were being

00040

1 recorded.

2 Now, is this something that was

3 normally in the -- at that time in the discretion of

4 a reporter or was it something the reporter would

5 normally check with their superior before doing?

6 A. That's standard practice, you

7 wouldn't check that, no.

8 106 Q. Okay. With regard to documents

9 that were created, we have a lot of e-mails from

10 Louise Malenfant to Donna Laframboise but we don't

11 have the e-mails from -- we know that there were a

12 lot of e-mails from Laframboise to Malenfant and

13 those regrettably are no longer with us except for

14 one. Was there any policy, formal or informal, about

15 the retention of documentation on a matter of this

16 kind?

17 A. I don't recall any policy.

18 107 Q. If you knew or if there was a

19 threat of litigation, was there any policy as to the

20 retention of documents?

21 A. I don't recall. I suspect that we

22 would take direction from whatever the lawyers told

23 us to do.

24 108 Q. Now, in terms of, when I'm asking

25 about the normal process, of course I've learned

00041

1 today that Donna Laframboise was not one of, what we

2 should call them, your stable of writers?

3 A. Right.

4 109 Q. And so that it would have been

5 someone else that she was checking things with. But

6 would you -- do you recall any discussion with her,

7 before the article which you've read, about

8 interviews with Dr. Christensen?

9 A. I don't recall any discussions

10 with her on that.

11 110 Q. In any event, she never asked your

12 advice about that.

13 A. I don't recall her asking me my

14 advice, no.

15 111 Q. Now, I think I asked you before

16 whether you would have expected that Ms. Laframboise

17 would have checked the background of her source to

18 determine whether her source had any particular bias

19 or pecuniary interest or anything of that sort, and I

20 believe you said you would assume she would have and

21 that would have been done before you got the story,

22 correct?

23 A. Right.

24 112 Q. If you have a whistleblower, let's

25 say, are there any circumstances in which you -- the

00042

1 normal practice would be not to check into the

2 background of that whistleblower?

3 MR. WOODLEY: Are you talking about

4 the normal practice at The National Post, not his

5 opinion generally about --

6 BY MR. WILLIS:

7 113 Q. No, no, just normal practice.

8 A. What's the question, sorry?

9 114 Q. Are there any circumstances under

10 which, if we have a whistleblower like Ms. Malenfant

11 whose photo appears there and who we know is the main

12 source, are there any circumstances in which the

13 practice at The National Post would be not to check

14 into her background?

15 A. I think you would check into her

16 background. I think that would be the normal

17 practice.

18 115 Q. And in this respect, your lengthy

19 experience, I take it, it would indicate, this would

20 be the normal practice in any reputable newsroom,

21 correct?

22 A. Yeah.

23 MR. WOODLEY: Just a second. That's

24 asking for his opinion about journalistic standards

25 which he can't give.

00043

1 BY MR. WILLIS:

2 116 Q. Sorry, let me just ask. In your

3 experience, that has been the normal practice

4 [potentially identifying words deleted] everywhere that

5 you've worked.

6 A. Yes.

7 117 Q. Sorry, I'm obliged to you. I'm

8 not trying to get his expert opinion. I'm just

9 trying to get his experience.

10 MR. WOODLEY: Yes.

11 MR. WILLIS: We've got experts to give

12 expert opinions, I agree. Okay.

13 BY MR. WILLIS:

14 118 Q. So that because, for example, in

15 your experience at The National Post, the fact that a

16 source had given valuable tips before, would not be

17 any reason to not check into the source -- to the

18 source's background or bona fides in the next story.

19 A. I presume that if the person has

20 given reasonable tips before, you've been vetting

21 that person along the way, yeah.

22 119 Q. All right. But if that hadn't

23 happened, the fact that the tips had been reasonable,

24 would be no excuse for not checking it out this time.

25 A. Right. You would check out the

00044

1 information that was given, absolutely, yeah.

2 120 Q. May I just see that.

3 A. Yes.

4 121 Q. Now, with regard to the article of

5 April 17th, I understand that you have reread it in

6 preparation for today, correct?

7 A. Yes.

8 122 Q. As you reread it, do you recall

9 any concerns that you had about it at that time?

10 A. I don't recall any concerns I had

11 about it.

12 123 Q. All right. There's a bit of

13 italics on your word "concerns". Do you recall any

14 particular aspects of the article that stood out to

15 you at that time, that you may have -- that for any

16 reason may have been particularly drawn to your

17 attention?

18 A. No, I would have presumed that

19 this had gone to our lawyers and that Donna had

20 worked with them to make sure it was fine and that it

21 had gone through Ken or whatever editors it needed to

22 go to, so no.

23 124 Q. Were you aware at any time before

24 the article was published, that there had been a

25 threat of litigation from the lawyer Julian Porter?

00045

1 A. On this story?

2 125 Q. Yes.

3 A. No, I didn't know that.

4 126 Q. And the name Julian Porter though

5 was familiar to you at the time?

6 A. He is familiar to me, yeah. I

7 know who Julian Porter is but I didn't know he had

8 issued a notice.

9 127 Q. And I'm not suggesting he issued a

10 notice but there's a fax. In any event, you knew who

11 he was at the time but you weren't aware that there

12 had been any letter or any threat from him.

13 A. I knew Julian Porter was a lawyer.

14 I didn't know he was a lawyer on this -- that had

15 anything to do with whatever Donna was doing, no. So

16 I had no idea.

17 128 Q. And similarly, a lawyer named

18 Wagman, you weren't aware of his involvement.

19 A. No.

20 129 Q. Now, I think there's an indication

21 here that Louise Malenfant took the rather unusual

22 step of contacting you directly. Do you recall

23 anyone else contacting you other than of course Donna

24 Laframboise?

25 A. No.

00046

1 130 Q. Would you normally have taken

2 notes of your -- for example, if Ms. Laframboise --

3 pardon me, if Ms. Malenfant contacted you, whether or

4 not she did contact you, would you normally have

5 taken notes of that discussion?

6 A. No.

7 131 Q. Would you normally have taken

8 notes of any discussions with Ms. Laframboise?

9 A. No.

10 132 Q. Had you ever heard of Dr.

11 Christensen or at any time before the article was

12 published, did you read any part of his book?

13 A. No.

14 133 Q. Did you listen to any of the

15 audiotapes of Ms. Laframboise's interviews or read

16 any of her correspondence that you can recall except

17 for the correspondence that's reproduced in one of

18 those e-mails from Louise Malenfant?

19 A. No.

20 134 Q. Now, at The National Post at that

21 time, was there any separate fact checking

22 department?

23 A. No.

24 135 Q. Was there such a department at

25 [potentially identifying words deleted]?

00047

1 A. No.

2 136 Q. With regard to, I know you had

3 [potentially identifying words deleted]

4 was the editorial set up with national editors

5 and bureau editors? Was it approximately the same

6 sort of set-up as you were familiar with or did it

7 differ? And I'm looking for the differences that

8 might be relevant to the preparation of this article.

9 A. It was approximately the same, but

10 I had come from [potentially identifying words deleted]

11 to The National Post, so

12 keeping those differences in mind, yeah, it had the

13 same basic structure, yeah.

14 137 Q. Did you know a man named, I'm just

15 going to get the spelling correct here because it's

16 an unusual name, John Turleyewart,

17 T-U-R-L-E-Y-E-W-A-R-T, who worked for The National

18 Post at around that time?

19 A. I think he was in the comment page

20 as well or a columnist or an opinion writer.

21 138 Q. Did you have any interaction with

22 him?

23 A. No.

24 139 Q. Now, just again, I don't want to

25 sandbag you here, at page 51 -- let's just go off the

00048

1 record and I'll review the passage that I'm just

2 going to refer you to.

3 --- Off-the-record discussion?

4 BY MR. WILLIS:

5 140 Q. I have just reviewed with you some

6 portions of Ms. Laframboise's discovery in which she

7 talks about discussions she had with Mr. Turleyewart.

8 Now, based on what we have in Exhibit 1, it would

9 appear that by the time she spoke to you, she was

10 very keen on getting the thing published and had

11 overcome any scruples she may have had about

12 publishing it, correct?

13 A. I presume, yeah.

14 141 Q. Now, she's referred to one

15 discussion with a peer. Given the ethical concerns

16 set out, perhaps I should just put that on the

17 record, but we'll just save a little bit of time, set

18 out at pages 51 and 52 that you've just reviewed of

19 her discovery, would you normally have expected from

20 The National Post at that time, that she might have a

21 discussion with whatever editor it was that was

22 supervising her?

23 A. I would presume she did, yeah. I

24 would have a discussion with one of my reporters

25 about that kind of thing, yeah.

00049

1 142 Q. So of course the reporters might

2 talk to their peers but you would expect that kind of

3 thing would be raised with an editor as well.

4 A. Right.

5 MR. WILLIS: Thank you. Mr. [deleted],

6 thank you very much. Subject to any questions that

7 may arise out of the production of additional

8 documentation or any in respect of which your memory

9 is refreshed as a result of the undertakings, what

10 may arise actually out of the undertakings

11 themselves, those are all my questions.

12 MR. WOODLEY: Great.

13 --- Whereupon the proceedings adjourned at 11:20 a.m.

14 I HEREBY CERTIFY THE FOREGOING

15 to be a true and accurate

16 transcription of my shorthand notes

17 to the best of my skill and ability.

19 ____________________________________

20 Voula Kirkos, CSR

21 Computer-Aided Transcription