1                                Court File No.0103-14569



  4   B E T W E E N:


  6                    FERREL CHRISTENSEN,

  7                                              Plaintiff,

  8                          - and -




 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.



 22        Bradley J. Willis    For the Plaintiff

 23        Matthew A. Woodley    For the Defendant




  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.













  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





















  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


  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.


  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?


  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


  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


  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


  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


  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


  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


  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


  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?


  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


  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.


  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


  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


  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


  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


  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


  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


  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?


  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.


  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


  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


  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


  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


  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


  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


  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.


  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


  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


  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


  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.


  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


  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.


  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


  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


  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


  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


  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.


  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


  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?


  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.


  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]?


  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


  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.


  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.


 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