ERRORS AND OMISSIONS of POSSIBLE IMPORTANCE

made by Ferrel Christensen in his Examination for Discovery, February 2005

 

Dr. Christensen submitted these corrections to opposing counsel soon after receiving the transcripts.

 

P. 111 ff.: His original understanding of the reasons for labeling statements 15(a) through (s) "misleading", as it came back to Dr. Christensen after oral discovery, is as follows. In presenting statements 15(a) through (s) as grounds for its defence, The Post is claiming them as their reasons for making the defamatory insinuations in the article complained of; but to the degree that they or anyone else actually believes that said statements do support those defamations, the statements are misleading. And statements 15(a) through (s) are collectively incomplete in the sense that they fail to reveal important facts which would show the defamations to be false.

 

P. 123, line 23 through p. 124, line 5: As was discovered through a search for old emails, Dr. Christensen's memory was incorrect on this point. Although he began trying to save all the emails only after the conflict with Ms. Malenfant began (p. 127 lines 14-15), some that are relevant to Undertaking 13 (and now submitted under it) did survive from before then.

 

P. 158, lines 11-12: As the sentence on lines 12-13 makes fairly clear, Dr. Christensen said or meant to say 'them' both times, not 'him'.

 

P. 169-170: Dr. Christensen's words on these two pages were not quite complete; as already noted on page 22 of Exhibit D-4, he had described Mr. Adams to support-group attendees as being a lawyer but "not in practice".

 

P. 192, line 22 through p. 193, line 9: Getting confused between the names '[Tim] Adams' and 'Bob Bouvier' (as revealed by lines 6-8 on p. 193), Dr. Christensen failed to make clear that there were no absentee ballots for [Tim] Adams. Since no one knew beforehand that Mr. Adams would be running, the absentee voters in particular didn't know; they had all simply registered their advance support (as revealed by lines 15-17 on p. 192) for re-electing existing president Bob Bouvier.

 

P. 213, lines 15-27: Review of emails (see Undertaking 17) has revealed that Dr. Christensen mis-remembered the time-frame under discussion, and drew a faulty inference based on the mistaken one. It appears what originally made him notice a financial aspect to Ms. Malenfant's motivation was her attempt to get him to turn control of the money he paid her over to someone else; only after that attempt failed did she resume the working arrangement with him.

 

P. 244, line 4: The word 'secretary' should have been 'treasurer'.

 

P. 247, line 17 ff.: By way of clarifying what Dr. Christensen said here, what Mr. Bouvier had asked Ms. Malenfant to cease doing (as seen from his email to her of February 16, 2001, included in our production) was disrupting ECMAS with complaints about her personal dispute with Dr. Christensen. He did not ask that she cease talking about the book or Mr. Adams' record, for when she finally did raise those two issues with him (once), he simply did not respond again.

 

P. 279, lines 20-23: As reflected in Dr. Christensen's response to Undertaking 27, his memory at the moment concerning further passages in his book was indeed mistaken.

 

P. 345, line 3 ff.: Dr. Christensen has since additionally recalled once being told by Jeffrey Asher that he, Senator Cools and Ms. Laframboise were all speakers at a small activist meeting in the mid-1990s in Peterborough. Jeffrey Asher was identified during Ms. Laframboise's examination for discovery as having given her a copy of Dr. Christensen's book some years before.

 

P. 348, lines 17-18: As revealed in Dr. Christensen's response to Undertaking 41, this expressed belief concerning further recipients of the email in question turned out to be mistaken.

 

P. 349, line 13: 'Calgary Sun' should have been 'Calgary Herald'.

 

P. 384-386: Subsequent examination of two different versions (attached here) of proposed by-laws for ECMAS in Dr. Christensen's possession has indicated strongly that the date May 1^st, 2001 was an error. Marginal notes reveal one to have been the working version at the time of the February 2001monthly meeting, the other to have been the version presented for passage at the 2001 Annual General Meeting in March. Very likely, then, May 1^st, 2001 was a date projected at some point in the writing process, which was not noticed when the vote on the by-laws was taken.

 

P. 390, lines 11-13: Because the framing of the question (lines 6-10) singled out a previously mentioned night when he did not sleep at all, Dr. Christensen answered it in terms of entire nights of lost sleep. In fact, the defamation has caused him many nights of partially lost sleep, especially during the period following the first article and before the one about him appeared. Knowing that it might appear next morning kept him from sleeping on most of those nights (on others sleep was episodic and fitful) until the newspaper arrived; after it did so and he found the article not to be there, he got three or four hours' sleep each time. (This information was already recorded on p. 13 of Exhibit D-4.) And ever since, as the lawsuit has continued, the long periods of delay and the periodic reminders of his helplessness until his name is cleared have often made his sleep fitful.

 

The following correction was mailed to opposing counsel at a later time, in early 2006:

 

On another matter, Dr. Christensen has belatedly discovered a date-error regarding the taped radio interview of Louise Malenfant by local radio host Leslie Primeau. (See page 00224 of his examination for discovery and item 83 of our supplementary affidavit of records.) In retrospect, the error appears to have been the result of confusing the show's date with that of a related program he also learned of second-hand at around the same time. Then, he failed to recall certain content of the program between the time of originally listening to the tape and that of the compiling of the supplementary affidavit of records. That content quite clearly indicates that the show was broadcast the same day as the Post article about Dr. Christensen appeared: April 17, 2001, not the date stated in our affidavit of records.