2                   JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF EDMONTON



                                   No. 0103 14569




                                 FERREL CHRISTENSEN





       8                                     (Plaintiff)



















                                 FERREL CHRISTENSEN



      19                          August 25, 2005


      20                         Edmonton, Alberta


      21           ***********************************************





                 G.A. Brown, Esq.            For the Plaintiff


                 F.S. Kozak, Esq.            For the Defendant


                 Deborah Wacker, CSR(A)      Court Reporter


               INDEX OF UNDERTAKINGS:  Page 438
















       1   COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH ACTION NO. 0103 14569




       3   (EXAMINATION COMMENCED 10:10 A.M., AUGUST 25, 2005)




       5   Q   MR. KOZAK:          Dr. Christensen, I have several


       6       questions for you arising from some of the answers that


       7       you've given to earlier undertakings, and a few of them


       8       may cover ground that was covered indirectly in an


       9       earlier discovery, but has a slightly different context


      10       given your answers.  So I'll try to be brief.  I expect


      11       that we will take no more than an hour this morning.  I


      12       take it that in 1995 prior to your retirement at the


      13       University of Alberta you were a full professor?


      14   A   Yes.  Official title is professor.  Informally they say


      15       full professor just to distinguish from other ranks.


      16   Q   Yes.  And that was in the Department of Philosophy?


      17   A   Yes.


      18   Q   Prior to your retirement what was your annual income in


      19       the last completed year as a professor?


      20   A   I'm not going to be able to recall that very well.  You


      21       do remember my telling you that I was on half time.


      22   Q   Yes.


      23   A   And I think it would have been someplace around, on that


      24       half-time basis someplace around 40,000, maybe $45,000 a


      25       year, someplace in between those two numbers I think.


      26   Q   I assume that you've retained your income tax returns and


      27       you can look back to see exactly what your income was in















       1       the year preceding your retirement?


       2   A   I believe I've kept them back that far.


       3   Q   All right.  I'm going to ask you to produce through your


       4       legal counsel your income tax returns for the years 1993


       5       through to 1997.  In fact, if you have them for the years


       6       from 1993 through to 2001 that might cover some questions


       7       that I'm about to ask.  Would you produce those through


       8       your lawyer if they're available to you?


       9   A   If they're available I don't have an objection.  '93 to


      10       '97 but then you also mentioned another range.


      11   MR. BROWN:              He's correcting the range.


      12   Q   MR. KOZAK:          I would like the range extended


      13       beyond 1997 through to the year 2002, let's say.  I want


      14       the range to begin prior to your retirement and to end


      15       after the date of publication of the article.


      16   MR. BROWN:              Can we just go off the record for one


      17       second.


      18   MR. KOZAK:              Sure.


      19                     (Discussion off the Record.)


      20   Q   MR. KOZAK:          Dr. Christensen, in an off-the-record


      21       discussion with your counsel I have confirmed that if


      22       you're able to produce the income tax summaries as


      23       opposed to the return itself for the years mentioned that


      24       would be sufficient for the purpose of my inquiry.


      25   A   I'm certainly willing to do that.


      26   Q   Thank you.

















       1                   UNDERTAKING NO. 52:


       2                     RE PRODUCE TAX RETURNS OR SUMMARIES FROM


       3                     1993 THROUGH TO 2002.


       4   Q   MR. KOZAK:          When you retired in 1995 --


       5   A   May I say.  I realized this is one of the very minor


       6       errors that I didn't ever correct from the first session


       7       of discoveries.  It was '96 that I retired.


       8   Q   I see.


       9   A   I was 55 and I retired in '96 and I guess I got the 5 and


      10       the 6 mixed up.  It was the end of 1996 when I retired.


      11   Q   But you were 55 years of age in that year?


      12   A   That was the same month that I retired is the month I


      13       turned 55.


      14   Q   And what year was that, November?


      15   A   That was December.


      16   Q   Now, I think that you indicated earlier that the


      17       University had made a very lucrative offer which


      18       precipitated your early retirement; is that correct?


      19   A   That's part of my reason for taking early retirement.


      20   Q   And I think you said that you had undertaken an analysis


      21       that in rough or general terms suggested that you would


      22       be as far ahead taking early retirement as you would


      23       working until the age of 65?


      24   A   Not as far ahead but adequately close to it for my


      25       purposes because I live frugally.


      26   Q   Now, I assume that that offer was a combination of the


      27       payment of a lump sum of money and an eligibility for















       1       early retirement?


       2   A   That was basically it as I recall now.


       3   Q   And was that lump sum payment characterized as a retiring


       4       allowance, that is was it money that was paid directly


       5       into your RRSP?


       6   A   It was put directly into an RRSP, yes.


       7   Q   And do you recall in general terms what the rough numbers


       8       were in terms of that retirement allowance?


       9   A   I think it was $50,000.  I may be wrong on that.  That


      10       number comes to mind at the moment, though.


      11   Q   And that would have been the lump sum component of the


      12       retiring allowance or --


      13   A   That's the way it seems to me now.


      14   Q   And following your retirement in December 1996 what was


      15       your eligibility for an annual pension, that is the rough


      16       amount of your annual pension?


      17   A   Again I don't have any precise numbers in my head.


      18   Q   I assume --


      19   A   Somewhere in and around $30,000.


      20   Q   I assume that that will be answered by the income tax


      21       summaries that you're going to provide?


      22   A   Surely.


      23   Q   But based on your recollection at this point in time your


      24       annual income would have dropped from a salary in the


      25       range of 40 to $45,000 down to roughly a pension of


      26       $30,000?


      27   A   Very roughly.  Again, I'm not at all sure of the exact















       1       numbers, but in that ball park, yes.


       2   Q   Following your retirement from the University of Alberta


       3       have you earned any salary or had any other income


       4       sources?


       5   A   Only such things as interest on my savings.  Certainly no


       6       salary.


       7   Q   And I think that in an earlier response to a question put


       8       to you during examinations for discovery or perhaps in


       9       the documents that you've produced you described your


      10       savings as being considerable, is that a fair assessment?


      11   A   I'm not sure what it means.  I'm not sure whether I said


      12       it.  So I'm not quite sure how to answer now.


      13   Q   I think that it was in a response that you provided to


      14       Undertaking 13 which asked for e-mails sent by you to


      15       Ms. Malenfant.


      16   A   Okay.


      17   Q   And I think in that e-mail to her -- I'm sorry, your


      18       words were I believe, Because I own my own place and live


      19       frugally and have a fair amount in savings.  So I stand


      20       corrected, it wasn't considerable savings it was a fair


      21       amount in savings.


      22   A   Big improvement.


      23   Q   But is that a fair characterization?


      24   A   It's vague enough that it could hardly fail to be.  Yes,


      25       I do have savings to tide me over hard times.


      26   Q   All right.  Other than the pension that you've described


      27       do you get any other payments from the University of















       1       Alberta?


       2   A   No, no other payments.  Some extra medical insurance


       3       through them, that sort of thing, but no other payments,


       4       no.


       5   Q   Part of the retiring package that you received gave you


       6       some entitlement to non-salary benefits, I assume?


       7   A   That's right.


       8   Q   And those would be what?


       9   A   Dental insurance, eyeglasses, standard medical type stuff


      10       that goes beyond the Alberta Health Care plan.


      11   Q   And do you pay any portion of the premiums for that


      12       coverage?


      13   A   No.


      14   Q   One of the other things you said about your early


      15       retirement, apart from the financial consequences, was


      16       that it would allow you to pursue your long-standing


      17       interests with MERGE and ECMAS, do you recall that


      18       answer?


      19   A   My main reason for taking early retirement was to be


      20       involved in the kind of research and the kind of activism


      21       that I had gotten so heavily involved in before retiring.


      22   Q   That activism, though, wasn't directly linked to any of


      23       your interests or responsibilities as a professor at the


      24       University of Alberta, were they?


      25   A   No, that's independent.  Well, I should make a more


      26       careful answer.  The University of Alberta does give


      27       credit for community activity in general.  The feeling is















       1       that we shouldn't just be locked away in the ivory tower


       2       and have our taxpayers' money not going back to the


       3       community, and so the University does give a certain


       4       amount of credit for community work of various kinds.


       5       And so if you use the term activism in a very narrow


       6       political sense, then of course that wouldn't be


       7       appropriate for the University to be sponsoring that, but


       8       in a more broad sense of doing things to help the


       9       community the University has always considered that along


      10       with publication and along with administration work when


      11       they look at deciding how to reward your yearly work.  I


      12       hope that answers your question.  I'm not totally sure.


      13   Q   It does, thank you.  Within the answers to undertakings


      14       that you've provided through your legal counsel you have


      15       referred to a research group that attains some charitable


      16       designation or status.  Can you provide me with details


      17       of that?


      18   A   It's the Gender Issues Education Foundation.  It's, as


      19       the name implies it's a foundation, it's a corporation


      20       rather than a society established under the rules of


      21       Alberta.


      22   Q   Business Corporations Act?


      23   A   As an educational type of entity.


      24   Q   And did you found that foundation?


      25   A   Yes.


      26   Q   And are you still actively involved with it?


      27   A   I'm still the president.















       1   Q   And I take it that you don't receive any income or salary


       2       as a result of your work with GIEF?


       3   A   That's correct.


       4   Q   Are you entitled to be reimbursed for any expenses that


       5       you incur on behalf of GIEF?


       6   A   If you just mean expenses that I pay out of my own pocket


       7       and then just get money back for it, yes, that's my


       8       standard way of working.  Sometimes when we're dealing


       9       with larger amounts of money I'll write a cheque on


      10       GIEF's bank account, but most of the time for smaller


      11       things I just pay out of my own pocket and then get


      12       reimbursed later.


      13   Q   I see.  And when was GIEF founded?


      14   A   I believe it was right at the end of 1986.


      15   Q   And you've been an active participant since that date?


      16   A   That's correct.


      17   Q   Have you been the president throughout that time?


      18   A   Yes, I have.


      19   Q   Where does GIEF get its funding?


      20   A   From individual donations, mostly mine, but sometimes


      21       from others.  There is -- I don't know how much detail


      22       you want, but that's the general answer.  We don't have a


      23       lot of money, and so we don't do a lot.  Most of the


      24       donation is donation of time, and mostly it's my time,


      25       but there's some funding from donations as well.


      26   Q   All right.


      27   MR. BROWN:              Could we just go off the record for















       1       one second.


       2   MR. KOZAK:              Sure.


       3                     (Discussion off the Record.)


       4   Q   MR. KOZAK:          Dr. Christensen, in an off-the-record


       5       discussion your counsel has indicated that GIEF receives


       6       some money as a result of an arrangement that you've put


       7       into place that involves a condominium in Hawaii.  Can


       8       you just explain how that works?


       9   A   The condominium is basically leased by me to GIEF, I


      10       guess they used to call it a dollar a year arrangement.


      11       And so the money goes directly, that is any profit after


      12       the expenses of maintaining it goes to that organization.


      13   Q   Now, I take it, then, that you personally own the


      14       condominium?


      15   A   That's correct.


      16   Q   And that the condominium generates rental income because


      17       it's part of a rental pool?


      18   A   Yes.


      19   Q   And you don't have any day-to-day hand in the management


      20       or rental of that condominium?


      21   A   No, an agent in Hawaii does all of that.


      22   Q   And after payment of expenses the income would go


      23       directly to GIEF?


      24   A   That's correct.


      25   Q   And I take it then that you get some kind of statement of


      26       a charitable donation as a result of that income going to


      27       GIEF rather than to you?















       1   A   No, the way I was advised by the people who suggested


       2       this arrangement because it's leased to GIEF it's not


       3       considered a donation by me.  It's not money that I ever


       4       owned.


       5   Q   I see.  Your only income is a dollar a year?


       6   A   Or whatever it says on the lease.  Something nominal like


       7       that.


       8   Q   Now, my notes indicate that you have been at the U of A


       9       or had been at the U of A from approximately 1971 until


      10       1996?


      11   A   That's correct.


      12   Q   Were you a professor for all of those years?


      13   A   No, no, as usual I began as assistant professor and then


      14       went through the ranks, associate professor then finally


      15       professor.


      16   Q   Prior to coming to the U of A in 1971 had you been


      17       earning an income at any other University?


      18   A   No, I was finishing my Ph.D. prior to that and -- well,


      19       if by income you include the scholarship, the fellowship


      20       that I was on, yes, I guess.  But it was a small amount.


      21   Q   You had also indicated earlier that amongst your


      22       professional colleagues and I took your comment to mean


      23       amongst people that you encountered at the University


      24       that there was no change in their attitude towards you


      25       following the publication of the article in The National


      26       Post?


      27   A   That certainly is my impression.















       1   Q   And would that include professional colleagues not only


       2       at the University of Alberta but professional colleagues


       3       at other universities and institutions of higher


       4       learning?


       5   A   No, I certainly can't say that.


       6   Q   All right.


       7   A   My colleagues at the U of A are people I deal with or


       8       dealt with on a daily basis and so I can speak to that.


       9   Q   Are there any professional colleagues outside the realm


      10       of the University of Alberta that did demonstrate a


      11       change in demeanor or attitude towards you following the


      12       publication of the article in The National Post?


      13   A   By professional colleagues you mean people teaching in my


      14       field, philosophy?


      15   Q   Yes.


      16   A   At other universities?


      17   Q   Yes.


      18   A   You have to understand that I don't have a lot of contact


      19       with such people or rather haven't since 2001.  The


      20       people that I deal with at that distance are mostly


      21       people in some way are they connected with studies or


      22       activism with regard to sex and/or gender, and so without


      23       a lot of contact with people elsewhere it's hard to say


      24       anything about any of their attitudes.


      25   Q   I'm not asking you to speculate.  I'm not asking you for


      26       conjecture.  I'm asking you are you aware of any instance


      27       where a professional colleague at another university has















       1       demonstrated a change in demeanor or attitude as a result


       2       of the publication of the article in The National Post?


       3   A   At a university?  Let me think.


       4   Q   I think my earlier question was at a university or an


       5       institution of higher learning.


       6   A   All right.  I cannot think of anyone, and I suspect that


       7       I don't know, I wouldn't think of anyone later on.  The


       8       only ones that I would have had contact with I would have


       9       -- are few in number, people involved not just --


      10       they're not just university people but they're involved


      11       in, share my interest in sex and gender and the only ones


      12       I can think of, the few, are people that knew me well


      13       enough that they would not have expressed any such change


      14       in attitude to me.


      15   Q   Well, is it fair to say that they demonstrated the


      16       opposite, that is they were supportive towards you?


      17   A   Certainly the ones that come to mind now, all of them


      18       were supportive, yes.  Again, all people that I knew


      19       fairly well and people who shared, and this might be


      20       helpful, people who shared my attitudes towards sex and


      21       gender and so they're sympathetic in general.  Not large


      22       numbers of them, but people that I've been on e-mail


      23       lists with.  I imagine you're acquainted with the e-mail


      24       discussion groups.  They're the only ones that really


      25       come to mind.


      26   Q   I want to ask you about Undertaking 14, which asked you


      27       to provide the names of clients that [Tim] Adams obtained















       1       because of their involvement with ECMAS.  It also asked


       2       you whether there was an issue with regard to


       3       confidentiality, and if so to provide your position.  In


       4       your answer you've declined to provide the names of


       5       clients that [Tim] Adams obtained because of their


       6       involvement with ECMAS.


       7   A   Not exactly.  There was a question of whether I know any


       8       such names.  I do not know of any.  [Tim] Adams declined,


       9       even if he -- if I can remember how I put this.  He said


      10       he would consider this confidential but he didn't have


      11       records himself of such persons, so it wasn't


      12       straightforward declining, it was more of a hypothetical


      13       declining.


      14   Q   Nevertheless even in the absence of records Mr. Adams


      15       declined to tell you the names of clients even based on


      16       his memory because of a claim for confidentiality, is


      17       that accurate?


      18   A   Not quite.  He told me he did not remember, but he would


      19       decline if he could remember, that was.


      20   Q   So he could not remember the names of any clients that he


      21       obtained through ECMAS?


      22   A   Because he didn't remember whether the client came from


      23       this source or that source or whatever.  That's as best I


      24       recall what he told me.


      25   Q   In your answer to that undertaking you say, Further to


      26       that, that is the fact that he has no records and is


      27       unable to recall such information, further to that he















       1       certainly feels professionally obligated to keep the


       2       promises of confidentiality he has always made.  That


       3       promise of confidentiality is not a solicitor/client


       4       relationship, is it?


       5   A   That's correct, it is not.


       6   Q   [Tim] Adams at the time that the article was published in


       7       2001 and since then has not been a practicing lawyer in


       8       Alberta?


       9   A   That's correct.


      10   Q   And finally in your answer to Undertaking 14 you've


      11       referred to redacted transcripts made from notes that you


      12       took, if you look to the bottom of that answer.  Those


      13       are with respect to meetings of the ECMAS support group,


      14       and I assume from that answer that your original notes


      15       contain names of people that were advised to or expressed


      16       a desire to get help from Mr. Adams outside the meeting.


      17       So those names are apparent to you from your notes?


      18   A   Yes, sometimes there were first names only, sometimes


      19       first and last.


      20   Q   You maintain your objection to providing those names


      21       based on a promise of confidentiality to them?


      22   A   Yes, that's my position.  As I mentioned briefly in there


      23       at the beginning of each of the support groups a solemn


      24       promise is given by the group leader that their


      25       information will not be revealed elsewhere, without their


      26       permission, I'm sorry.


      27   Q   Without their permission.  So that's actually my next















       1       question, have you sought their permission?


       2   A   No, I have not.


       3   Q   At the beginning of that session when confidentiality is


       4       discussed is there any discussion about whether or not


       5       you'll protect their confidentiality even if ordered to


       6       reveal their names by a court?


       7   A   No, there's no such discussion.


       8   Q   All right.  Now, when I was asking about your


       9       professional colleagues and whether or not any of them


      10       demonstrated a change in attitude following publication


      11       of the article I intended to specifically exclude other


      12       categories of people, but I now want to deal with those.


      13       You've indicated that in terms of a change in attitude


      14       towards you you had arranged to meet with the Chief


      15       Justice of the Court of Queen's Bench and that he


      16       declined to meet with you following publication of the


      17       article?


      18   A   That's correct, that's all in the letters that were


      19       exchanged.


      20   Q   All right.  You had also earlier referred to


      21       correspondence with somebody named Sheila, and you said


      22       that you inferred that the article caused a change in


      23       attitude but you had no evidence of that.  Is that still


      24       the case?


      25   A   Well, I inferred it from her behaviour in not answering


      26       my phone calls and e-mails, even though we had had a good


      27       rapport before that.















       1   Q   That's the sole basis for your inference, though?


       2   A   The full basis?  Well, not quite because I was getting a


       3       very cold and very nervous reception from the person, the


       4       young woman who was working with her.  I'm not sure what


       5       her title was, but she was the one that I often -- that I


       6       was sent to when I tried to get in touch with Sheila


       7       Heath.  I talked to this young woman who was working with


       8       her.  She was sort of distant and nervous and that was


       9       part of my -- was what I was going by in recognizing that


      10       Ms. Heath was not -- was avoiding me.


      11   Q   And who is Sheila Heath?


      12   A   At that time she was working for the Red Cross.


      13       Specifically she was working with a program that they


      14       have dealing with family violence, and I don't know all


      15       of her duties.  I don't know her title now.  But she was


      16       their person specializing in the subject of family


      17       violence and it involved things like taking programs to


      18       schools to teach young people about the problems of


      19       family violence.


      20   Q   And where was Ms. Heath located?


      21   A   Their office -- well, during the time that I worked with


      22       her their office moved.  The Red Cross was originally I


      23       guess I'm not -- I don't know the exact address downtown,


      24       but their office then moved and I believe now still is on


      25       106th Street just south of 100th Avenue.


      26   Q   But it is Edmonton?


      27   A   Oh, yes, it's the local Edmonton office is what I'm















       1       referring to.


       2   Q   You've never had a direct discussion with Ms. Heath or


       3       her assistant as to whether or not the article that was


       4       published changed their attitude towards you?


       5   A   No, not -- let me see, certainly not with Ms. Heath, I've


       6       got to think carefully here, because she would never


       7       respond again.  With the assistant I believe I did not


       8       put the question directly for reasons I've hinted at


       9       before.  People when you can see someone doesn't want to


      10       be the bearer of bad news you don't press them on it


      11       unless there's powerful reason to do so.


      12   Q   Pretty well at the core of my job.


      13   A   When one is trying to be polite, I should add.


      14   Q   That's never a factor in my approach.  You also mentioned


      15       Terry Hodgkinson, a lawyer in Edmonton, and I believe you


      16       said that you had heard through some other source that


      17       she had made a negative comment about you but you have no


      18       direct knowledge of that?


      19   A   That's correct.  I would like to clarify.  I came up with


      20       that only because you were pressing me to think of any


      21       possible situation of this kind, and it had -- it came to


      22       my mind but it was a comment made by someone at the


      23       support group and I couldn't subsequently remember any


      24       more detail.


      25   Q   And you can't even say whether or not it actually


      26       happened, and if it happened whether or not it was linked


      27       to the publication of the article?















       1   A   That's right, I cannot say either of those things.


       2   Q   You also mentioned Senator Anne Cools as somebody who


       3       demonstrated a change in attitude towards you?


       4   A   Yes.


       5   Q   Again, I assume you're linking that change in attitude as


       6       an inference that you've drawn and that you have no


       7       direct knowledge of that?


       8   A   It's a very, very strong inference.  I could give more


       9       detail if you would like.


      10   Q   Yes.


      11   A   I tried to give more detail in the response to the


      12       undertakings here.  The senator and I were very close for


      13       a very long time, and on numerous occasions when we would


      14       meet, which was fairly often because she travelled a lot,


      15       she would see me and whatever she was doing she would


      16       drop everything, run and give me a big hug.  And I think


      17       the other materials I submitted give some indication that


      18       there's been a lot of contact.  After this event -- I


      19       could add further things, sometimes she would phone me at


      20       home over time.  There was a lot of contact with her.


      21       Not only did she not phone me following this event


      22       anymore or send any e-mails -- sorry, she never sent


      23       e-mails to start with, sorry.  She did not phone me or


      24       send letters, make other contact.  But when I went to see


      25       her at a time when there was some kind of Liberal


      26       convention here in Alberta, this was I think May


      27       following the publication of the article I spotted her in















       1       the main hall for the hotel speaking with someone, and as


       2       I say in the past in those circumstances when she became


       3       aware of me she would have interrupted what she was doing


       4       and hugged me.  And on this occasion she just looked at


       5       me and looked rather displeased and ignored me.  I


       6       inferred that it was because there were lots of people


       7       around and she would be seen dealing with me in public so


       8       I didn't press the point.  I just left.  Now, it's not as


       9       if she wasn't willing to talk with me at all, because she


      10       had talked to me on the phone.  She took a phone call


      11       from me at home between the publication and that event


      12       and talked to me.  But she was very guarded.  And when I


      13       spoke hypothetically of her coming to Alberta again for


      14       some activities she made these kinds of phony excuses


      15       that people make and, again, so I didn't press the


      16       point.  I think the inference is completely obvious that


      17       she didn't want to be dealing with me in public all of a


      18       sudden, and the only inference one can draw is the


      19       article was the reason, or the whole series of events


      20       surrounding the article perhaps.


      21   Q   You didn't ask her if the article was the basis for her


      22       change in attitude?


      23   A   I've tried to remember specifically what I said about


      24       that, and if I said anything, and I don't believe that I


      25       pressed the point, again it's -- when there's such a big


      26       change in attitude it's not polite and not even fruitful


      27       to press the point.















       1   Q   Did she mention --


       2   A   I don't believe I did.


       3   Q   Did she mention the article to you?


       4   A   She did not I'm quite sure.


       5   Q   Was there ever an occasion following the publication of


       6       the article in 2001 that she refused to take a phone call


       7       from you?


       8   A   There was only the one occasion when I did call her, and


       9       so there was no occasion for her to have refused.


      10   Q   So the one instance after the publication of the article


      11       when you called her she took your call and spoke to you?


      12   A   Oh, yes, but she was so distant and at that point that


      13       there was no point to keep trying.


      14   Q   The next person that you mentioned was Roger Gallaway,


      15       and that was I think in Undertaking 51.  Is he somebody


      16       whose attitude towards you changed following publication


      17       of the article?


      18   A   Again I believe the material I've submitted covers that.


      19       We had a good rapport.  I hadn't known him nearly as long


      20       as I've known the senator, but we had a good rapport.  We


      21       spoke from time to time on the telephone.  We exchanged


      22       e-mails from time to time.  Sometimes I spoke with him in


      23       his home on his telephone.  I had his home number.  And


      24       in his case it was a little different.  He was still as


      25       friendly toward me as ever in discussing issues following


      26       the events, and I'm fairly sure that I talked to some


      27       degree with him about the article and so on, not a lot,















       1       in conversations we had up to a certain point.


       2           To be fully, give full detail, one of the last


       3       occasions when I actually saw him was at that same


       4       Liberal party meeting in May at the hotel in Edmonton


       5       where I spoke with him and he was as friendly as ever.


       6       What happened with him was that based on his value to the


       7       things I'm trying to do I phoned him on one occasion, it


       8       was probably around shortly after that May meeting of the


       9       Liberal party here and asked him if he would be willing


      10       to speak at an event later on and he agreed to that, and


      11       but then subsequently apparently changed his mind, again


      12       this is an inference, because having once agreed to it he


      13       stopped communicating with me.  I would send e-mails


      14       asking for final confirmation and I was never responded


      15       anymore.  Again, I believe the e-mails or the ones that I


      16       still have are in our production.


      17   Q   Well, let's just back up a step.  Following publication


      18       of the article in National Post you spoke to Mr. Gallaway


      19       about the article; is that correct?


      20   A   That's what I said I'm not sure.  I think I probably said


      21       a little bit about the events surrounding the article but


      22       I do not at this point remember any details.


      23   Q   Well, at this point do you remember knowing whether or


      24       not Mr. Gallaway had read the article?


      25   A   I certainly remember assuming it.  He was certainly aware


      26       of it.


      27   Q   And when he was aware of it his attitude towards you had















       1       been unchanged and was as cordial as it ever had been?


       2   A   That was my impression in talking with him.  If I can add


       3       one thing, I was telling everybody that I did speak to


       4       about the article that these things that were said about


       5       me were false and/or misleading or both and that much at


       6       least I believe I said to him, and again he was certainly


       7       cordial and friendly as before, yes.


       8   Q   Well, in fact in addition to telling people about the


       9       article and your view that it was inaccurate and false,


      10       you issued a press release, did you not?


      11   A   Yes, more than one.


      12   Q   All right.  What were the instances where you issued


      13       press releases?


      14   A   Again, this should all be in the production.  The first


      15       one was just sent to The Calgary Herald and The Edmonton


      16       Journal and The National Post.  The second one was sent


      17       later on to a variety of major newspapers around the


      18       country.


      19   Q   Now, let's deal with the first one, the one that you sent


      20       to The Calgary Herald, Edmonton Journal and National


      21       Post.  I assume that's in your production?


      22   A   Yes.  Well, it's also mentioned in The National Post's


      23       Statement of Defence and so on or Statement of


      24       Counterclaim, I'm not sure which.


      25   Q   Yes, in the Counterclaim.  And was that press release


      26       published in any of those newspapers?


      27   A   No.















       1   Q   The second press release, the one that you sent to a


       2       number of major newspapers, was that published in any of


       3       the newspapers?


       4   A   No.  Of course the press release isn't generally meant to


       5       be published, it's meant for them to follow up and use


       6       parts of whatever as they wish but nothing based on it


       7       was published either.


       8   Q   Was there a third press release?


       9   A   ECMAS had a press release sent out at the same time as my


      10       second one.


      11   Q   Was that published?


      12   A   No.


      13   Q   By publish, I'm referring to the traditional definition,


      14       that is was it published in a newspaper.  Obviously the


      15       press release was published in the sense that ECMAS sent


      16       it to other entities?


      17   A   Right.


      18   Q   Was there a fourth press release?


      19   A   No.


      20   Q   You did, however, take out an advertisement at some point


      21       in time setting out your belief that you had been


      22       defamed?


      23   A   Yes.


      24   Q   What are the details of that?


      25   A   Again, that's in the production and I'm not remembering


      26       exactly any wording from it right now, but the point was


      27       because the trial was -- the legal process was dragging















       1       on I was trying to get the word out, though my side was


       2       never printed there is another side.  I wanted people to


       3       know that.  So I shelled out money to make that


       4       announcement in The Edmonton Journal.


       5   Q   Was that the only newspaper in which you placed the ad?


       6   A   That's correct.


       7   Q   And it was published on one day?


       8   A   One day.


       9   MR. BROWN:              Off the record.


      10                     (Discussion off the Record.)


      11                      (Examination adjourned.)


      12                      (Examination resumed.)


      13   Q   MR. KOZAK:          Dr. Christensen, during our break you


      14       indicated that your referral to a Liberal party meeting


      15       may have been ambiguous on the record.  The publication


      16       date of the article was April 17th, 2001, and you


      17       indicated off the record that the Liberal party function


      18       was in May of 2002; is that correct?


      19   A   That's as I remember it.  If I slipped and spoke as if it


      20       was 2001 I believe that's an error.


      21   Q   Now, I've referred to the transcript and your answers to


      22       undertakings and identified a number of individuals to


      23       you whose attitude apparently changed following


      24       publication of the article.  Are there any that I've


      25       missed?


      26   A   Have you missed today you mean?


      27   Q   Yes.















       1   A   Those were the main ones that I've spoke of in the past


       2       and I spoke, I guess they're all the ones I've spoken of


       3       by name if I remember now.


       4   Q   All right.  So I asked you about the Chief Justice,


       5       Sheila Heath, Terry Hodgkinson, Senator Anne Cools and


       6       Roger Gallaway.


       7   A   I believe that's all the ones that I've mentioned


       8       before.


       9   Q   Thank you.  Now, in response to Undertaking 17, which


      10       asks you to produce e-mails or other documents that you


      11       have that document the deterioration of your relationship


      12       with Louise Malenfant, there are a number of e-mails


      13       attached to that.  And in those e-mails there is


      14       reference to a disagreement that you had with Ms.


      15       Malenfant where she accused you of using foul language.


      16       Do you recall that?


      17   A   Oh, yes. [For the entire story of this , see the file titled My conflict with L.htm.]


      18   Q   She said that in a public setting you used the phrase


      19       "dirty fucking cocksuckers just won't listen" and you


      20       took umbrage at her suggestion that you had said that?


      21   A   No, this was not a public setting.  This was in a phone


      22       conversation.


      23   Q   Oh, I see.  She claimed that the use of that language was


      24       in your telephone conversation with her?


      25   A   That's right.  And in the e-mail she made that claim,


      26       yes.


      27   Q   And who was she saying that you had used that language















       1       about?


       2   A   I believe this is all in what I've submitted, but we were


       3       talking about certain individuals at The Edmonton


       4       Journal.


       5   Q   And who were those individuals?


       6   A   Again, as indicated by materials I sent I guess we were


       7       talking specifically about two individuals, more


       8       generally about attitude difficulties at the newspaper,


       9       but specifically I was referring to Susan Ruttan and


      10       Leanne Faulder.


      11   Q   So by way of background, is it fair to say that you


      12       thought there was some kind of attitudinal bias at The


      13       Edmonton Journal contrary to the goals of ECMAS or MERGE?


      14   A   Very strong attitudinal bias, yes.  Again, I have


      15       submitted materials that are relevant to that.


      16   Q   And in particular those two individuals would you say


      17       exemplified that attitudinal bias?


      18   A   What brought them up specifically was the articles they


      19       wrote against me and against MERGE the earlier summer,


      20       and because of the relevance of their articles to the


      21       e-mail I put them in with the undertaking.


      22   Q   Yes.  Now, in your exchange with Ms. Malenfant you deny


      23       using the word "cocksuckers"?


      24   A   That's correct.


      25   Q   And you go on to say that it's not in your working


      26       vocabulary?


      27   A   That's what I said.















       1   Q   So was the rest of her attribution to you accurate?


       2   A   No, and again this is all in what I've written, the


       3       phrase I used was one that I quite well remembered and


       4       had written down afterwards as I was recording all these


       5       things.  What I said was "they're goddamn fucking


       6       bigots".


       7   Q   And they was a reference to whom?


       8   A   Well, speaking generally a group of people at The


       9       Edmonton Journal.


      10   Q   Now, the e-mails that I'm referring to also refer to a


      11       proposal or a plan to picket The Edmonton Journal.  Do


      12       you recall that?


      13   A   Yes, indeed.


      14   Q   And was that one of your ideas?


      15   A   That was a plan that had been put in effect at the MERGE


      16       annual general meeting at my suggestion because of the


      17       kind of treatment we had been receiving exemplified


      18       certainly by the two articles by these two particular


      19       writers, together with the fact that we were not allowed


      20       to make any kind of reply to the false things they had


      21       said.


      22   Q   Had you written a letter to the editor in response to the


      23       things that they had said?


      24   A   Yes.


      25   Q   And it wasn't published?


      26   A   That's right.


      27   Q   And --















       1   A   Sorry, maybe I should state it more carefully.  The


       2       letter to the editor was not specifically in response to


       3       what those two said, it was in response to some unfair


       4       coverage in the news articles themselves, but the desire


       5       to picket was certainly speared by all of those things


       6       together including the articles by those two writers.


       7       That's the accurate way to put it.


       8   Q   Have you produced a copy of the letter to the editor in


       9       your production in this lawsuit?


      10   A   No.


      11   Q   Do you have a copy of that letter?


      12   A   I'm sure I do.


      13   Q   I wonder if you could undertake to provide me with a copy


      14       of that letter through your lawyer?


      15   A   I don't see a problem with that.


      16                   UNDERTAKING NO. 53:


      17                     RE PRODUCE A COPY OF THE LETTER TO THE


      18                     EDITOR AT THE EDMONTON JOURNAL.


      19   Q   MR. KOZAK:          Thank you.  Is it fair to say that


      20       you had a difference of opinion with Ms. Malenfant


      21       regarding the wisdom of picketing The Edmonton Journal?


      22   A   That certainly is fair to say.


      23   Q   Was it something that was voted on at the annual general


      24       meeting of MERGE?


      25   A   In these small organizations these decisions are made


      26       sometimes without formal votes, just sort of consensus.


      27       I couldn't swear whether it was or was not voted on.  I















       1       think we probably -- well, I don't know.  It certainly


       2       was decided, agreed on, but I don't know whether it was a


       3       formal vote.


       4   Q   But it was your idea?


       5   A   Certainly my suggestion, and when we finally had the


       6       picket we had a fair number of members out who felt that


       7       it was worth doing, so others agreed with the idea.


       8   Q   And did your picketing of The Edmonton Journal receive


       9       news coverage?


      10   A   That did, yes.


      11   Q   Did it receive coverage in The Edmonton Journal?


      12   A   It did.


      13   Q   Going back to some questions I asked you earlier this


      14       morning, is it fair to say that the publication of the


      15       article in The National Post on April 17th, 2001 had no


      16       financial impact on you?


      17   A   I think that's fair to say, yes.


      18   Q   I want to ask you some questions about what impact the


      19       publication of the article had on your health, if in fact


      20       it did have any impact on your health.  Following


      21       publication of the article on April 17th, 2001 did you


      22       seek some care from a medical doctor?


      23   A   Not as a result of that, no.


      24   Q   Did you ever see a psychologist or a psychiatrist as a


      25       result of any health impacts related to the publication


      26       of the article?


      27   A   I've never seen a psychologist or psychiatrist















       1       professionally as a patient for any reason.


       2   Q   So obviously that would include arising from the results


       3       of the publication of the article?


       4   A   That follows.


       5   Q   Have you seen any kind of health professional or


       6       counsellor or anyone else related to any health impact


       7       the publication of the article has had on you?


       8   A   I can't say for certain because I have a number of health


       9       problems which have gotten worse since the article was


      10       published.  Whether the stress of that is any part of the


      11       reason they've gotten worse I can't say.


      12   Q   Well, let me approach it in a different fashion.  You


      13       have seen a doctor since April 17th, 2001?


      14   A   Certainly, yes.


      15   Q   If I asked you for an undertaking to produce medical


      16       records from any doctor or health care professional


      17       you've seen since that date which would detail your


      18       reference to the publication of the article, would you


      19       have anything to produce?


      20   A   Sorry, which would detail?  I better get you to say that


      21       again.


      22   Q   Well, yes, I think I better say it again because I got


      23       lost in the middle of it.  You've seen doctors since


      24       April 17th, 2001?


      25   A   Quite a few.


      26   Q   And have you ever said to a doctor I have a concern about


      27       this specific symptom, I don't know whether or not it's















       1       related to stress but I have felt increased stress since


       2       the publication of an article about me in The National


       3       Post?


       4   A   No, I can safely say I have not said anything like that


       5       to a medical doctor.


       6   Q   You did in response to questions put to you by


       7       Mr. Eastwood describe the fact that prior to the


       8       publication of the article, that is when you thought that


       9       there might be something in The National Post you lost


      10       some sleep?


      11   A   That's correct.


      12   Q   And initially I think you said you had lost a night's


      13       sleep but in a later clarification you said that even


      14       following the publication of the article your sleep was


      15       fitful?


      16   A   Well, what I believe I said was between the first


      17       publication, which did not mention me but did talk about


      18       ECMAS and Mr. Adams, and the publication that did mention


      19       me that period was extremely stressful because I didn't


      20       know whether the reporter's threat of publishing an


      21       article about me would be carried out or not, and I went


      22       to bed each night fearing that my name would be smeared


      23       in the newspaper the following morning.  So I believe a


      24       majority of the nights in the period between the two


      25       articles I didn't sleep until I heard the newspaper flop


      26       outside my apartment door and checked it.  I hope that's


      27       clear enough.  There were on other nights when I did















       1       sleep before the newspaper came it was fitful.


       2   Q   All right.


       3   A   By the time the article came out I had begun I guess to


       4       think at least wishfully that it wouldn't ever appear at


       5       all, and that night as I recall I got a good night's


       6       sleep and then the following morning there was the


       7       article and that was very traumatic.


       8   Q   Are there any adverse health consequences that you can


       9       attribute directly or indirectly to the publication of


      10       this article?


      11   A   That I know for a fact I cannot do that.  As I say, I


      12       have had some health deterioration in that period, but


      13       what the sources are I certainly don't know.


      14   Q   And what is the general nature of the health


      15       deterioration that you've experienced?


      16   A   Well, I have a number of maladies.  I don't know if this


      17       is really something you need to know.


      18   Q   Well, I don't need you to answer that if you don't in any


      19       fashion relate them to the publication of the article.


      20   A   I certainly don't have grounds to relate them.  They're


      21       just anybody could say, well, you're getting older,


      22       things fall apart and so I would not rely on any changes


      23       in my health as part of my case at trial if that's really


      24       the question.


      25   MR. KOZAK:              That's the question.  In fact, those


      26       are all of my questions, and I have completed my


      27       Examination for Discovery of you, Dr. Christensen,















       1       subject to anything that may come out of these few


       2       remaining undertakings, which may well be handled by way


       3       of follow-up written interrogatory to avoid having to get


       4       together again, and also subject to any application that


       5       we might make with respect to the redacted copies of


       6       notes taken by you from meetings, and more specifically


       7       names of people who may have used [Tim] Adams as their


       8       advisor.


       9           So subject to those two categories of things, I've


      10       completed my Examination for Discovery of you.  Thank you


      11       very much.


      12                      (Examination adjourned 11:20 a.m.)




      14                   -----------------------




      16                           Certified a correct transcript,






      19                           ________________________________


      20                           Deborah Wacker, CSR(A)


      21                           Court Reporter



























       1                            UNDERTAKINGS




       3       UNDERTAKING NO. 52:


       4       THROUGH TO 2002.                                   407


       5       UNDERTAKING NO. 53:


       6       EDMONTON JOURNAL.                                  432