[COMMENT1] Court File No. 0103‑14569

[This electronic file (as converted to MSWord) was supplied by the commercial court reporter employed, not scanned by me from printed copy as were the first two discoveries for Ms. Laframboise. It was of course converted to html for the present purpose--FC]

IN THE COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH OF ALBERTA

JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF EDMONTON

B E T W E E N:

FERREL CHRISTENSEN,

Plaintiff,

‑ and ‑

THE NATIONAL POST COMPANY, NP HOLDINGS COMPANY, GLOBAL COMMUNICATIONS LIMITED and DONNA LAFRAMBOISE,

Defendants.

‑‑‑ This is the Continued Examination for Doscovery of DONNA LAFRAMBOISE, a Defendant herein, taken at the offices of Atchison & Denman Court Reporting Services Limited, 155 University Avenue, Suite 302, Toronto, Ontario, M5H 3B7, on Tuesday, the 22nd day of October, 2002.

APPEARANCES:

Bradley J. Willis For the Plaintiff

F.S. Kozak For the Defendants

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INDEX OF EXAMINATIONS:

DONNA LAFRAMBOISE; Previously Sworn................. 414

EXAMINATION BY MR. WILLIS: (Cont'd)................ 414

INDEX OF UNDERTAKINGS

Undertakings are noted by U/T and are found on the following pages: 415, 416, 435, 437, 439, 440, 462, 466, 467

‑‑‑ Upon commencing at 10:06 a.m.

DONNA LAFRAMBOISE; Previously Sworn.

EXAMINATION BY MR. WILLIS: (Cont'd).

529. Q. Ms. Laframboise, you acknowledge you're still under oath?

A. Yes.

530. Q. Following up on the undertaking we made yesterday with regard to the completion of the transcript of your interview with Louise Malenfant, if I could just refer you to Item S00221 in your production. And that is under your No. 17. Now, one of the things that I mentioned is that I only found one e‑mail from you to Louise Malenfant, but if I can just ‑‑ now, if at the same time, you could turn and have in front of you Item 14.1 from our production. It is your memorandum to Dr. Christensen.

A. Yes.

531. Q. Now, if you'll notice, your memorandum to Dr. Christensen appears to have been e‑mailed at 1:25. I presume that would be Toronto time on Friday March 23rd, 2001, correct?

A. It appears to be, but this has actually been printed by Dr. Christensen. It says on the bottom. So it's possible in the printing, that the times may have been transposed.

532. Q. Well, let's find the originals of your copy somewhere. It must be in your production. Let's confirm that that's the right time. We've been looking for about five minutes. Would you undertake to search your records, and perhaps we can do so over the break, to try and provide me with your copy of your e‑mail to Dr. Christensen on the 23rd?

U/T A. Sure.

533. Q. Now, but I can advise you that my information from Dr. Christensen is that that's the time ‑‑ that's a true copy of the e‑mail he got from you, and that is the time that was on it, Friday March 23rd at 1:25. And of course, that would be Ontario time.

A. That would be the time it was sent or the time it was received by him?

534. Q. Now, I'm not sure. If it was the time it was received by him, then of course, it would have had to have been sent somewhat earlier. But normally, these things don't hang around in the ether that long. We can make technical inquiries, but I believe that the time is the time sent, not the time received, but I'm not sure. In any event, do you recall that it was about 1:30 in the afternoon of March 23rd that you sent that e‑mail to Dr. Christensen?

A. I'm sorry, I don't recall.

535. Q. All right. So I'd like you to undertake when you make your inquiries to find your copy of the e‑mail to Dr. Christensen to make whatever inquiries you can make to refresh your memory to confirm that time.

U/T A. Yes.

536. Q. You see, the problem I'm having is, as I mentioned before, there's this extensive e‑mail correspondence from Louise Malenfant to you, but there's only one e‑mail from you to Louise Malenfant. And I think I can now demonstrate that there must have been at least one more and probably many more. [As noted elsewhere, not even one from her.]

A. Mm‑hmm.

537. Q. Then I want to explore with you where they went. The beginning of the demonstration is document S00221, and you will see that this is a partly redacted e‑mail. The odd thing about it is it's printed out in such a way that if, in fact, it was a reply to an e‑mail from you, it doesn't show that. It's printed out individually. It was sent Friday March 23rd, 2001, at 13:56. That would be Winnipeg time?

A. No, Edmonton time.

538. Q. So that would actually be two hours earlier. That would be in Toronto time that would be 11:56, correct? No, sorry, that would be 3:56.

A. Louise is sending me something.

539. Q. Yes. And if I can just draw your attention to the first two paragraphs, "Dear Donna, how powerful and insightful your questions are. I'm really humbled by how able you are to grasp even the minutest and finest insight into this ugly situation. You have confirmed my belief that there is only one reporter who could see and do this story. He's going to start crying when he sees your questions." So you see, obviously, at some point and given this lengthy letter, it must have been fairly soon when you sent those questions to Dr. Christensen? You sent those questions to ‑‑

A. Yes.

540. Q. ‑‑ Ms. Malenfant?

A. Yes.

541. Q. So where is your e‑mail?

A. Well, the thing about e‑mails that one sends is that the e‑mail system ‑‑ certainly, the one at the Post ‑‑ whenever you send an e‑mail, it goes into the sent folder. And then at some point, that sent folder

gets emptied, and we would get occasional pleas from the technical people at the Post to please empty our folders because the system's being overloaded. So in order for me to keep, to have records of the e‑mail I sent, it would

have taken a deliberate effort on my part to go into my sent box and retrieve e‑mails and store them somewhere else, and I just was not in the habit of doing that.

['Habit' or no, we'll see that she was legally bound to preserve materials relevant to the pending lawsuit. She sent the one particular e-mail under discussion here (and evidently others) to Malenfant on the same day, March 23, as two e-mails she did turn over to my lawyer--namely, the ones she sent to Bouvier and me--so this excuse of hers raises further suspicion. As regards her copy of the one she'd sent me:[Next]

542. Q. But at this point, you know that ‑‑ you knew that Dr. Christensen was potentially threatening litigation?

A. No, I don't think that's true on Friday the 23rd.

543. Q. All right. At some point, you knew that. In fact, at least by Monday March 26th, you knew that?

A. What happened on Monday March 26th?

544. Q. Pardon me. When Mr. White ‑‑ actually, on Friday March 23rd, when Mr. White got a letter from Julian Porter? [Porter's fax on the 23^rd was addressed to both The Post and Ms. Laframboise.]

A. Sorry, can you just double check that page? Yes, I think the letter from Julian Porter came as a response to my question. [In response to her slander to Bouvier the day before!]

545. Q. So at least by that date, you knew that, and you knew as a reporter that you're supposed keep all the documentation? You're supposed to keep all documentation relating to matters that are being litigated, correct?

A. Well, I've never been sued before, so this was a bit of a learning curve for me. Certainly, the number of documents, particularly e‑mails, that survived from this case is far out of proportion to what would exist for any other story I worked on at the Post. So I think I made a good‑faith effort to do that.

546. Q. So you understood, at least after Friday, March 23rd, that you should keep all of the documentation including your side of any e‑mails?

A. No, I don't think that I specifically understood that I should keep my side of any e‑mail I sent.

547. Q. Did you not, at least, understand from previous contacts with counsel involving threats of lawsuits that you should keep every piece of paper and destroy nothing once, at least, when there's any possibility that there might be litigation?

A. No, frankly, I've heard other advice.

548. Q. If you have heard other advice, you have heard it from people who should be disbarred.

A. I certainly never heard it in any context which applied to me.

549. Q. Who gave you such advice?

A. I can remember an editor who went through a very unpleasant lawsuit with Toronto Life, telling me that if he were going to do it again, he would destroy everything. Now, I'm not sure that was advice. That was in the context of conversation.

550. Q. So this Nixonian advice. Did you get any of it with regard to this lawsuit?

A. Of course not.

551. Q. I don't know why you say of course not. It seems to me to be a logical question?

A. You've asked me if I've ever had any discussions on this matter, and I'm telling you the one discussion I can remember.

552. Q. But at least with regard to this lawsuit, you understood after Friday, March 23rd when your lawyers got involved that you were to keep everything?

MR. KOZAK: Well, you keep saying that, and that's not a fair summary of what she said to you. So I think that you can ask her what she understood on that date, but she hasn't said that to you.

MR. WILLIS: All right.

BY MR. WILLIS:

553. Q. I intended that not to be so much a statement as an interrogative. So let me repeat it. You did, did you not, understand at least after Friday, March 23rd that you were to keep every piece of paper that might be relevant to a potential lawsuit regarding this story?

A. I think I instinctively knew that it would be a wise thing to do for my own protection. Did I receive any directive to that effect from anyone? No, I did not.

554. Q. And did you, then, make an effort to keep the e‑mails that you sent to people, including Louise Malenfant after Friday, March 23rd?

A. No, I did not.

555. Q. Why not, if you knew they should be kept?

A. No. I said that I understood that it would be a wise thing for my protection to keep them, and I kept a few.

556. Q. Why didn't you keep them all so that, for example, we could know what you said to Louise Malenfant?

A. Because I didn't think it was relevant. I send out dozens of e‑mail a day on a typical day.

557. Q. You knew, of course, that a lawsuit might be pending from Dr. Christensen. Did you not seek advice as to how you ought to conduct yourself?

A. At that point, it was very, very early in the process. I did not seek advice.

558. Q. And when you did seek advice, did somebody eventually tell you that you should keep everything?

MR. KOZAK: Don't answer that, not if you're answering with respect to advice from a lawyer.

BY MR. WILLIS:

559. Q. At any point, did you understand that you had a legal duty to keep all relevant pieces of paper connected with this lawsuit as opposed to what you thought you should do for your own protection?

A. I understood that I had a legal duty to make available to counsel every existing piece of paper or pieces ‑‑ every existing document that we had in our possession at a certain point.

560. Q. Now, you didn't tell me whether you ever understood you had a duty to keep them.

MR. KOZAK: I'll answer the question for Ms. Laframboise. After a notice of intention was served, previous legal counsel would have instructed the National Post and Ms. Laframboise to keep any records or documents relating to the lawsuit, and I think that would have been the first time she was told that.[They knew perfectly well this would include

audiotape and electronic originals, not just printed versions allegedly made from the originals. (It may be asked why, if the reporter suppressed as much evidence as it appears she did, she turned over so many other damning materials. The answer may be that she destroyed or hid as much as she dared. And as we'll see shortly, the missing materials evidently were the most damning of all her records, directly exposing her motives and her conspirings with her ally Ms. Malenfant. ] [Back]

MR. WILLIS: Well, that's helpful, but of course, at this point, she was a journalist of some experience. And I'm trying to determine whether or not I might have an argument for a negative inference. So your counsel has helped us there. So he's waived the privilege to say that at some point after, there was a notice. Somebody would have given you instructions. When was that?

MR. KOZAK: I don't know.

BY MR. WILLIS:

561. Q. So you see my question was at some point did you understand you had a legal duty to keep every relevant piece of paper and if so when was that?

A. Every relevant piece of paper as opposed to e‑mails in my sent box?

562. Q. Every relevant document, electronic paper. At some point did you understand that and if so when?

A. Yes, I understood it, and I don't remember when.

563. Q. But you didn't understand it by Friday March 23rd? All your previous experience had not given you that understanding?

A. No.

564. Q. Now, but if we look at Item S00221, you'll agree with me that you must have sent your questions to Ms. Malenfant about the same time you sent them to Dr. Christensen. We don't know how earlier perhaps, maybe the day before. Do you remember? When you look at this, do you remember that you did send them to her?

A. Yes, I did send them to her.

565. Q. When did you send them to her?

A. I don't remember.

566. Q. Is it possible that you sent them to her before you sent them to Dr. Christensen to get her input?

A. Certainly not.

567. Q. Why certainly not? It seems that you had a fairly ‑‑ at least from her perspective ‑‑ a fairly extensive interaction and were getting her input on various matters.

A. It's not something I would have done.

568. Q. All right. Why did you send those questions to her?

A. Because she's the main source for the story. She's is whistle blower, and I thought it would be useful for her to see the questions to see if there was anything perhaps that I missed that might be crowned worth covering in the next round.

569. Q. So it made sense to you to send the questions to check whether there was anything you missed? But it wouldn't have made sense for you to send the questions beforehand to see if there's anything you missed?

A. That's right. I'm not in the habit of having news sources vent my questions, but I'm not opposed to getting feedback.

570. Q. And you obviously, sent her Ferrel Christensen's ‑‑

A. No, I don't think that's a fair assumption. Mr. Christensen was sending out his reply to me far and wide. I have no idea how Ms. Malenfant received it.

571. Q. I'm suggesting you probably sent it because of the timing of it. This is Friday March 23rd at 1:56.

A. And when did he send me that?

572. Q. I believe we can find that. According to our Item 8, the previous morning.

A. So it's quite possible that she received that information from some other source.

573. Q. You don't remember?

A. I have no idea how she received her information.

574. Q. Well, unless you sent it. What I'm suggesting it's probably even ‑‑

A. And I'm saying I don't think it's probable. I think it's anyone's guess how she found out that he was saying those particular things about her.

575. Q. Well, you obviously centre her your questions which referred to Dr. Christensen's note. And it would then make sense that you also sent her Dr. Christensen's note to get the context of your questions, would it not?

A. Perhaps.

576. Q. So I'm suggesting that it's possible that you were the source?

A. It's possible, but it's not certain.

577. Q. I understand that, but I thought you just denied it?

MR. KOZAK: Well, you said probable the first time. The second time you said possible. She said that it's not certain.

MR. WILLIS: I'll accept that.

BY MR. WILLIS:

578. Q. Now, you're saying that we have no way of locating your side of the correspondence with Louise Malenfant because everything was all the sent, things were dumped. Is that what you're saying?

A. That's my understanding.

579. Q. Well, I'll have to explore that further with [name deleted]. And you certainly, you didn't keep copies of your side of any such correspondence?

A. No. As I said, I would have had to go into the sent box. I had to deliberately move them somewhere else or deliberately print them out, and you know, I have a busy life. I was not in the habit of doing that.[Recall: she had to do it if the sent-box was about to be emptied, which she didn't claim it was.]

580. Q. Now, the one e‑mail that we do have is at S00277, and it contains your original message. So it seems to have only been preserved because it was somehow part of Ms. Malenfant's e‑mail to you. Is that right? In other words, the reason you would have it is not because you kept your end, which you didn't, but because it was on Malenfant's correspondence? [Again: there were two such Malenfant emails.]

A. That's right.

581. Q. Now, I notice that you have referred to Ms. Malenfant as Weezie?

A. That's right.

582. Q. And then there's a little happy face symbol that people use in e‑mails. Is that how you normally addressed her?

A. Where is that?

583. Q. The colon right after Weezie. There's a colon and then a parenthesis?

MR. KOZAK: We don't have that in our copy.

BY MR. WILLIS:

584. Q. If you look after where it says Weezie, it says ‑‑

A. No, that's how she signed it. "I'm good if you are. Weezie."

585. Q. Oh, I see. And did you usually refer to her as Weezie?

A. No, I didn't, but it was a bit of humour. She referred to herself as Weezie on the phone. So this is girl talk, "Hi, Weezie." A play on Louise.

586. Q. Yes, yes, I see that. The first paragraph of your reply reads as follows: "Thanks Weezie, but don't fret too much on my behalf. I'm a big girl, and my whole career has been about doing controversial articles and being threatened with being sued." That's true?

A. Well, probably a bit of an overstatement, but certainly not the first time I've been threatened with a lawsuit.

587. Q. And even though you've been threatened with being sued a number of times, you didn't understand that you had a legal duty to keep every relevant piece of paper?

MR. KOZAK: Well, I don't agree with that statement that she has a legal duty to keep every piece of paper.

MR. WILLIS: I don't care whether you agree or not, Mr. Kozak. This is a fair question. You can argue that later.

MR. KOZAK: No, it's a question of law. You've stated to this witness that ‑‑

MR. WILLIS: I've asked the witness whether she understood that she had a legal duty to keep every relevant piece of paper. That's my question, and if she says no, so be it. You may argue as to whether she has that legal duty or not, but that's clearly not a proper objection. I'm not asking her a question of law. I'm asking her what she understood.

MR. KOZAK: I'll object to it on the basis that you've asked her that before.

MR. WILLIS: That's not a proper objection either unless I were badgering the witness which I'm not. And I'm asking her this question in a different context. You know that.

MR. KOZAK: No, I don't know it.

MR. WILLIS: Well, you ought to know it, but your objection is on the record.

BY MR. WILLIS:

588. Q. Now, how often had you been threatened with being sued before?

A. Well, on my very first magazine article, I was threatened with being sued which left an impression. I tried to interview a doctor. He responded with a lawyer's letter. We proceeded to write the story, and we never heard from the doctor again.

589. Q. May I repeat my question. How many times have you been threatened with being sued?

A. I think I had a police officer threaten to sue me as well.

590. Q. It's all right. I don't need the details. I'd just like to know how many times.

A. Up to that point, I think twice. I think my whole career has been about doing controversial articles is accurate.

591. Q. But in fact, your recollection is that you had been threatened twice with being sued?

A. Yes, I think so.

592. Q. And in either case, had the matter proceeded to the statement of claim stage?

A. No.

593. Q. So this is your initial experience, as a defendant?

A. Yes.

594. Q. And then you go on to say, "Other than being minor irritations and a little time consuming, neither the lawsuit or the Press Council complaint are of any concern to me." And was that true?

A. That's true.

595. Q. And is that true today?

A. Yes, it is.

596. Q. So if I can just refer you to your $500,000 counterclaim, when you say in paragraph 36 that as a result of what Dr. Christensen has alleged in the counterclaim, you have suffered, quote, "public humiliation, distress, serious harm to their personal and professional reputations." However that may be, and I'll explore that in a minute, yet it is still something which is not of any concern to you other than being minor irritation and a little time consuming, correct?

A. Correct.

597. Q. What public humiliation have you suffered as a result of Dr. Christensen's conduct as alleged in your counterclaim?

A. That's very difficult to gauge because it's not clear who received all of the material he was sending out and what affect that might have had.

598. Q. Well, let's cut to the chase here. May I infer that if you consider this matter merely to be a minor irritation which is a little time consuming and which other than that is of no concern to you, then I take it you do not feel humiliated by what Dr. Christensen did?

A. I felt very upset.

599. Q. So then it's more than a minor irritation that is a little time consuming?

A. I suppose at different moments, I had different feelings.

600. Q. All right. So but when you wrote this on May the 7th, when you wrote Louise Malenfant, at that point, you saw it as only a minor irritation that was time consuming?

A. That's true.

601. Q. At some point, you became upset after May the 7th?

A. May the 7? No, I suppose by then I had calmed down quite a bit. This was all going on in March when the press releases were flying and the e‑mail was flying.

602. Q. So that by May the 7th, this matter had been reduced to the status of a minor irritation that was time consuming?

A. Yes.

603. Q. And so it remains to this day?

A. That's true.

604. Q. So since May 7th, you haven't felt humiliated or distressed?

A. Not particularly.

605. Q. Okay. And before May the 7th, did you ever feel humiliated?

A. I think humiliated is a term used in lawsuits. I'm not sure it's the one that I would choose. I certainly felt that I had been unfairly attacked. But I had been called unethical to people who had no direct knowledge of this lawsuit.

606. Q. All right. But you wouldn't characterize your feelings as being humiliated?

A. No.

607. Q. Secondly, in terms of distress, before May the 7th, did you feel some distress?

A. Yes, I did.

608. Q. And did it affect ‑‑ what affect did that distress have on you?

A. In what way? What affect?

609. Q. Well, for example, your health. Were you on any medication?

A. No, no.

610. Q. Were you seeing a psychologist?

A. No.

611. Q. Did you experience any personal problems as a result of the distress you suffered?

A. No.

612. Q. Did you find yourself crying or otherwise emotionally labile as a result of what occurred?

A. No.

613. Q. Did you find yourself worrying about it to the point where it affected your work?

A. No.

614. Q. So did the distress you felt have any affect on your work at all?

A. I was concerned that there were relationships that I had with people that may have been damaged because Professor Christensen was sending this stuff to people, and I was not in a position as a journalist to be responding to him. And to this day, I don't know if some of those relationships have been adversely affected.

615. Q. That's my next question. Do you have any information that suggests that any relationship that you had with anybody has been adversely affected by ‑‑

A. No, I don't. There is a question in my mind.

616. Q. So to this day, do you have any information that any relationship you had with anybody, personal or professional, has been adversely affected by any of the conduct of Professor Christensen about which you complain in your counterclaim?

A. No.

617. Q. I take it, then, and I can infer that you are not aware of any harm that has been done to your personal or professional reputation by the conduct of Professor Christensen as set out in your counterclaim?

A. That's true.

618. Q. Now, in your undertakings, you provided a list of telephone numbers, and if I can just refer you to that undertaking, undertaking 5.

‑‑‑ Brief adjournment at 10:44 a.m.

‑‑‑ Upon resuming at 10:52 a.m.

BY MR. WILLIS:

619. Q. Now, this print up says that it's from March 19 to April 17th. One thing I notice is that the last entry on mine is April 11th. I wonder if you could just undertake to check and see if there's a portion of the printout missing. Because I assume that there were calls between April 11th and 17th, but the last entry is April 11th. And if there's anything missing, if you would undertake to produce it to me through your solicitor?

U/T A. Sure.

620. Q. And secondly, there are some redacted parts, and I assume that these are all parts that relate to the ‑‑ that are telephone conversations with the informants whose names have thus far have not yet been revealed, correct?

A. Yes, that's my understanding.

621. Q. And there is ‑‑ the first call and a number of subsequent calls are to the number in Edmonton, 429‑9925. Do I presume correctly that this is the number of Louise Malenfant?

A. I'm sorry, I couldn't tell you now.

622. Q. All right.

A. I think we were sent something. Would you have that in our files here?

MR. KOZAK: No.

BY MR. WILLIS:

623. Q. I think we can conclude fairly confidently just based on the frequency of the phone calls and the length of them that these are calls to Louise Malenfant. I didn't bother to check to see if that was her number at that time, but I assume it was. If it was, for example, there are a number of calls that are quite lengthy, longer than 20 minutes. One on the first page that was 21 minutes. On ‑‑ oh, I'm sorry, wait a minute. The pages are out of order. The first page is from April 11th to 17th. I'm sorry, I rescind the request for the undertaking. I didn't get ‑‑ I have the last page out of sequence from the 11th to the 17th, sorry.

A. April 11th to 17th?

624. Q. Yes. Sorry, that was a blunder on my part. But all right, if we start in March, we see ‑‑

A. We just needed the page number.

625. Q. Page 1 on March.

A. Okay.

626. Q. And we see that there was a call to 429‑9925 on March 14th lasting 23 minutes.

A. The page 1 I have is March 20th.

627. Q. Well, there are a number of pages with page 1 on it. But they can easily be put in sequence of dates. The third column from the left gives the date. So they're unambiguous despite that. If you'll start with March 12th, that's the earliest date we have.

A. And the call that you're speaking about is ‑‑

628. Q. March 14th. Now, I think I'd asked you for ‑‑ if I didn't, I think I intended to, but the phone calls that are relevant to this lawsuit, and I believe there must have been some phone calls earlier in March from or to Ms. Malenfant about this article, about at least the fax that ultimately became this article.

A. Which fax, sorry?

629. Q. About the allegations that ultimately eventuated in the article which is the subject of these proceedings. So I would ask you just to check your phone records from the beginning of March for more telephone calls to Ms. Malenfant, if it turns out that I assume correctly that 429‑9925 is her number.

U/T A. Sure.

630. Q. Thanks. Because I do recall you saying that there were some calls in early March, but we don't have them reproduced here. Now, the other thing I would like you to undertake to do is if you could advise me through your solicitor of which calls you have notes and which notes those are. There are a large number of calls, some of them quite lengthy which I believe are from or to Malenfant, and especially because we don't have the e‑mails, if you would be kind enough to advise which ones you took notes of, and identify which notes they are in your production. Or if you've lost the notes, let us know about that.

MR. KOZAK: Are you able to do that?

THE DEPONENT: Well, I'm aware of no notes at all.

BY MR. WILLIS:

631. Q. You do have some handwritten notes?

A. No. I have some handwritten notes that I took when I was interviewing the confidential sources.

632. Q. Not Ms. Malenfant?

A. No.

633. Q. So in all these conversations, you never took notes?

A. No. Someone's calling you; they have an idea for a story; they tell you things; you ask them questions.

634 Q. Okay. So you have a 23‑minute conversation on March 14th, but you don't take notes?

A. That's right.

635 Q. Now, incidently, these incoming calls that are numbered 2374. Do we know who they're from?

A. 2374?

636 Q. There are quite a few with that number?

A. I have no idea. It could be an internal extension.

637 Q. Could you just inquire because that seems to be a different looking ‑‑ it's not a telephone number. I don't know what it is.

U/T A. 2374, yes.

638 Q. Do I understand correctly that with regard to the other telephone numbers that we have in accordance that you've provided to your solicitor?

A. I was sent this, and I made little notes saying this is Louise's number. This is confidential source X's number. This is confidential source Y's number.

639 Q. Can you just tell me whose numbers they are when they're not confidential sources? I know for example 453‑1973 is Mr. Adam's number. Do you have that list somewhere?

MR. KOZAK: Unfortunately, I would have put that in the privileged documents, and I didn't bring the privileged documents.

MR. WILLIS: Could you undertake to advise me of the names associated those numbers other than, of course, those for which privilege is claimed?

THE DEPONENT: Now, just the ones to do with the case. You know, all these other numbers. Who knows who they are.

MR. WILLIS: Yes, just the Edmonton ones. Unless there are some from places other than Edmonton that relate to this case. I'm assuming that if there are in fact ‑‑

U/T THE DEPONENT: Well, there would have been Calgary with Mr. Bouvier. [LaBerge]

MR. WILLIS: Yes. If there are conversations in Edmonton or Calgary that relate to this case, I should say, if you could advise me of who the numbers belong to. I take it ‑‑ am I right in assuming that you wouldn't have had any conversations relating this article other than internal conversations with people in places other than Edmonton or Calgary? You didn't have any informant. You didn't interview anybody over the phone from any other city?

THE DEPONENT: Not that I recall.

BY MR. WILLIS:

640 Q. But for example, if you look at this 429‑9925 number, we have on March 14th a call of 23 minutes. On March 22nd, a call of 50 minutes. That's almost an hour, and that was ‑‑ you see, that was at 3:03 which would be about an hour and a half after ‑‑ which would be the same day you got Ferrel Christensen's e‑mail. I'm just wondering if that helps you recall that you had a long conversation with Louise Malenfant. You got Christensen's e‑mail on March 22nd at 10:54. It was sent 10:54 Edmonton time. So I presume you got it about noon your time. And then at 3 o'clock Toronto time, you had a conversation that lasted almost an hour with 429‑9925. Do you remember now that it was Louise Malenfant to whom you spoke?

A. No, I'm sorry, I can't tell you. If you look further down, I have a call after 76 minutes from someone else, and I could not tell you who that call was with.

641 Q. But it does surprise me that you wouldn't take notes of a conversation that was that long, 50 minutes long. Wouldn't that be normal?

A. No, it was not normal procedure. ---->

642 Q. Normal journalistic procedure. I assume this discussion ‑‑ so we have no way of knowing really what this discussion was about?

A. I don't.

643 Q. You can't recall?

A. That's right.

644 Q. Do these telephone records help you recall the context of any of the discussions?

A. No.

645 Q. Again, you'll note the same number 13 minutes later on that day at 5 o'clock. And then the next morning, 10 minutes and then a little 3‑minute conversation again on the 22nd and then an incoming call on the 26th that lasted 39 minutes and so forth. And then if we go over to the 29th, there's a 15‑minute conversation at 2 o'clock. Later on that same day, 5 o'clock an 11‑minute conversation. The next day at quarter past 4, a 20‑minute conversation.

A. Sorry, what day are we on now?

646 Q. We're on March 30th. On April 16th, the day before your article comes out you have a 21‑minute conversation. On April 12th, there are incoming calls. There's a 41‑minute conversation. Does that help you ‑‑ now that you look at that, can you not recall that this was Ms. Malenfant? [The phone number was later verified as hers.]

A. I think it's probably likely.

647 Q. And you're telling me that of all these conversations, you took no notes whatsoever?

A. That's right. [Back]

648 Q. Nor did you tape them?

A. No, all the tapes have been turned over.

649 Q. But the tapes --

A. I'm sure there's one. Obviously, I couldn't tell you which one, but that tape that we have was one of those conversations.

650 Q. So there were two tapes as we know?

A. Because one of the tapes ran out. So I put the second tape in. [Back]

651 Q. And when we get that, we'll know which telephone call it was?

A. No, I don't think so.

652 Q. Will we know the day?

A. No.

653 Q. Did you tape ‑‑ did you make a practice of taping conversations and then just taping over them if they prove not to be relevant, or did you only tape some?

A. With Ms. Malenfant, I would not have taped every conversation.

654 Q. All right. Well, I have your undertaking. Thank you. Now, just one thing I wanted to explore throughout the course of your investigation. Throughout the course of your investigation, did you come to understand the difference between MERGE, the two organization, MERGE and ECMAS?

A. Not at all.

655 Q. So it was never clear in your mind which was which and what they were for?

A. I don't think I consciously thought about MERGE at all in the context of this story.

656 Q. Did you understand that there was any difference in function between MERGE and ECMAS?

A. No, as I say, I don't think I thought about it at all.

657 Q. Okay. Now, obviously, you knew ‑‑ even though you asked Dr. Christensen in your e‑mail ‑‑ I'm sorry. You knew that Dr. Christensen was a member of ECMAS, of course?

A. Yes.

658 Q. And you knew that at the time of your article, he didn't hold any official position?

A. Yes, I believe I knew that.

659 Q. You asked him whether he had ever represented himself as a spokesperson for ECMAS Edmonton in any dealings with any media, government, court, or social service official. Did you ever get any information bearing on that question?

A. I think I understood that he had done those things. I certainly didn't want to put in my article that he had without confirming it with him.

660 Q. I'm just saying, did you ever find out that he had as opposed to being spokesman for MERGE?

A. No.

661 Q. So you understood that although he was not a spokesman and although he had no position on the executive, so technically he's a member. Yet, he was a relatively prominent member of ECMAS?

A. Yes.

662 Q. But you felt that no one holding his controversial views should be a member of ECMAS?

A. No. I think the concern was that he was a prominent member. He wasn't merely someone who came to meetings but that my information is that he was a very dominant personality and that what activities the organization took part in were often very much a result of his input.

663 Q. So your advocacy of his expulsion was for a combination of two things: First his controversial views and secondly that he was a dominant or prominent member?

A. Yes.

664 Q. If he had been someone who was not a dominant or prominent member, your position would have been different?

MR. KOZAK: I don't think she has to answer that. I think it's hypothetical.

MR. WILLIS: All right.

BY MR. WILLIS:

665 Q. At the time, did you take the views that anyone with views like Dr. Christensen's had no business being a member of ECMAS?

A. No, I did not.

666 Q. Or did you take the views that anyone who was a dominant or prominent member should be expelled?

A. No, I did not.

667 Q. Of course [Tim] Adams was elected to a membership on the board. But as far as you knew, Christensen had no position of any kind officially with ECMAS, correct?

A. As far as I knew, yes.

668 Q. And nonetheless, you thought that for the good of the organization, he should be expelled?

A. Yes.

669 Q. Now, yesterday we talked about some of your own activities in the field involving pornography, and one of them is your web site, Pink Kink.

A. I have a portion of my web site which is a multi‑media version of a chapter of my book.

670 Q. I've got the printout here. It's from last year. Although, I know I've looked at it more recently. I'm showing you the Pink Kink catalogue and the context of it. Is this what we were talking about yesterday?

A. When yesterday?

671 Q. There's a portion of your web site when I asked you about Pink Kink and the romance novels?

A. I think the Pink Kink has just come up today as a term.

672 Q. Anyway, we were talking yesterday about romance novels and violence with women. And was Pink Kink what we were referring to?

A. I'm not sure what you were referring to.

673 Q. Well, in terms of your own activities ‑‑ I'm not sure how to describe it ‑‑ your own activities with reference to pornography specifically as it involves romance novels that is done through your web site and in part through your Pink Kink catalogue?

MR. KOZAK: Can you just advise me as to how this is relevant to the issue in the pleadings?

MR. WILLIS: Well, the witness is claiming damages as a plaintiff for what has occurred to her as result of what our client as done. And this, of course, relates to this whole issue of pornography and children. And what we find is that she has some fairly controversial views herself ‑‑

THE DEPONENT: Nothing to do with children, sir.

MR. WILLIS: No, of course not but having to do with women and violence and domination and submission which could be equally relevant to advocacy for men's agencies.

MR. KOZAK: I'm instructing her not an answer the questions. I don't see the relevance of this.

MR. WILLIS: Well, she can answer this far. Is this a printout from your web site that relates to what you discussed yesterday, your interests that relate to pornography?

MR. KOZAK: Don't answer that.

MR. WILLIS: See now let me ask you this: Yesterday we asked about the views of Dr. Christensen in his book about pornography, and the context was this. I suggested to the witness, and she agreed, that she had very liberal views about pornography and particularly pornography that involved violence, domination, and submission. The extract I've just shown the witness, the Pink Kink catalogue, contains the following sections: Female bondage, women tied up, chained, or otherwise restrained; male bondage, men tide up, chained or otherwise restrained; female disciplined, women spanked, threatened with whips, etc.; male discipline, men spanked, threatened with whips, etc; female dominance, men sexually submissive and/or sexually humiliated; male dominance, women sexually submissive and/or sexually humiliated; female nonconsensual sex, women having sex against their will. And so on and so forth. Now, this witness has set herself up as a judge of who ought to be from a PR point of view expelled from organizations involving advocacy for men. And she herself considers herself a prominent and sympathetic advocate. [Next] And I'm entitled to explore whether her own views are not, to her knowledge, far more controversial than Dr. Christensen's views in a small section of an academic publication of 11 years previously.

MR. KOZAK: I don't see how it's relevant to the issues raised in the pleadings.

MR. WILLIS: Your objection is on the record. Nonetheless, I would ask, so that your objection may be dealt with in the subsequent application, that my printout from the web site be at least identified as being an accurate printout from the web site on that date so that it may be shown to the Court appropriately.

MR. KOZAK: For the purpose of allowing you to proceed with any intended application, I'll allow the witness to identify the documents for that purpose only.

MR. WILLIS: We can do this conveniently with our other upcoming application.

MR. KOZAK: It's entirely up to you.

THE DEPONENT: This appears to be an accurate printout of a portion of my web site from, it appears to be, June 2001.

MR. WILLIS: Might that be entered as Exhibit D1 for the limited purpose put on the record by my friend.

EXHIBIT NO. D1: An accurate printout of a portion of Ms. Laframboise's web site from June 2001.

BY MR. WILLIS:

674 Q. Now, I found something that I thought was in your interview with [Tim] Adams, but it was not. If I can refer you to Item R00127 of your production which is from No. 16.

A. Yes, we have it.

675 Q. Now, just before I ask you about that, there's just something that occurs to me about this question of your e‑mails. Did the National Post have a policy that they communicated to you about the copy of e‑mails that you sent? I think you said that they were always bothering you to dump them or clean them up, the sent items?

A. Just empty our folders in general.

676 Q. Did the National Post have any policy that you understood either formal or informal about what reporters ought to do with copies of e‑mails or other materials sent by them?

A. Not that I'm aware.

677 Q. When you talk about journalistic practice, did the National Post have any policy whatsoever that they communicated to you about either ethics generally or about practices, professional practices, to which you were required or to which it was suggested that you adhere?

A. Not that I'm aware.

678 Q. If I can get back to this [Tim] Adams story. In paragraph 3, Mr. Adams says, "I question Ms. Malenfant's motives. Had she mentioned her intentions to me instead of everyone else, I would have withdrawn my tendency for VP rather than invite the embarrassment and humiliation that will be suffered by my family, children, ECMAS, and their families. I have worked hard to re‑establish myself after the events of 1996 and have helped many people in difficult situations when they had no one else to turn and no money. The idea that I just use ECMAS to make money is ridiculous. I made a net income of about $10,000 for my paralegal services, only a small portion was from ECMAS contacts (this is not my only source of income) the figures have not changed much." Now, first of all, when you got this e‑mail from Mr. Adams, did you phone him, and talk to him about it?

A. I don't believe so.

679 Q. In your article ‑‑ now, perhaps I've missed something, but did you mention that his allegation that his net income from paralegal service was only about 10,000 and only a small portion of that was from ECMAS contacts?

A. I don't believe so. Let's just double check. It's been a while. Okay. In the last column of the story, we have [Tim] Adams ‑‑ with respect to [Tim] Adams, quote, "He admits he makes contact with a quarter of his paralegal clients through ECMAS but denies he's motivated by financial gain, quote ‑‑" This is a quote from [Tim] Adams, "'Nothing could be further from the truth.' In fact, he runs support group meetings and...'I spend probably six hours on every Tuesday. We have a formal meeting, and then we have a less formal gathering afterwards. Let's all volunteer time', he says." In fact, that quote comes from the following paragraph in the e‑mail that you just directed my attention to.

680 Q. Now, you understood, didn't you, that a lot of the people who are in these men's groups have difficulties because they've run out of money and can't afford lawyers?

A. Yes.

681 Q. And I think you understood in an article you wrote about a man named Darren White who killed himself that part of the problem was that he couldn't afford proper legal advice and got improper legal advice from a helping group in BC, correct?

A. I don't think I want to go on the record as saying he got improper advice.

682 Q. That was in issue as to Mr. White's suicide as to one of the issues was his difficulties in getting and paying for legal advice?

A. That's true.

683 Q. And this is a common difficulty in these men's groups?

A. It is. [Back]

684 Q. And of course, naturally, the activities of lawyers and whether or not people can afford them and how to get legal advice is a major issue for these men many of whom have been ruined financially by their domestic disputes, correct?

A. Correct.

685 Q. And so the availability of some kind of legal advice for people who can't afford it is an important issue for these groups?

A. Yes.

686 Q. And as a man like the availability of someone like Mr. Adams who at least has a law degree is, to your knowledge, unusual. Most of these groups do not have lawyers who volunteer or anyone with legal skills who is on the board or will help out?

A. I don't think I can speak to that.

687 Q. You're not aware, at any rate, that ECMAS or any other group had any legal help from anyone other than Mr. Adams?

A. No, I don't think that would be correct.

688 Q. All right. Do you know of anyone else who was associated with ECMAS who had any legal competence who was helping people?

A. Not with ECMAS.

689 Q. Nor with MERGE or anyone else in Alberta?

A. I think my understanding of Calgary ECMAS is that they had an explicit policy that lawyers were not allowed to get their clients from support group meetings. I'm not sure whether that meant that the lawyers were attending those meetings or not. [(In fact, as noted next,

Calgary-ECMAS had no support meetings.) So she expects us to believe that she believes there may well be lawyers willing to put in lots of time helping people free at support meetings, and that they would do so despite knowing it meant they couldn't have any of the attendees as clients. If such were the case, the huge problem--well documented by her--of impoverished fathers without such help would not exist.]

690 Q. Well, all right. But you're not aware

that ECMAS Calgary had any source of legal advice for its members?

A. Not that I'm aware.

691 Q. All right. So if they wanted legal advice, they'd have to pay a lawyer like everybody else?

A. Presumably. [Back]

692 Q. Now, but of course, one of the problems is that many of them had got to the point, as you knew, where they couldn't afford a lawyer?

A. That's true.

693 Q. And in fact, you knew that Ms. Malenfant spent her time, though she is not a lawyer, assisting men who had problems with the legal system involving custody and accusations and so forth, correct?

A. That's true. [Back]

694 Q. And you knew that Ms. Malenfant got money from these people who she helped?

A. I think at one point, she suggested to me that she asked people for donations, but I have no direct knowledge. --->

695 Q. Did you know that Ms. Malenfant actually visited lawyers, offering to work with them, and providing them with copies of her materials which ‑‑

A. I don't believe I knew that, no.

696 Q. Did you ask Ms. Malenfant how she related to what commercial relationship she had with the people she was helping?

A. I don't believe so. [Back] 697 Q. Now, you knew that Ms. Malenfant had come to Edmonton being subsidized by Dr. Christensen, didn't you?

A. That's true.

697 Q. And did you ask her how much he paid her?

A. I don't remember asking her. I remember the issue coming up yesterday.

698 Q. And did you know that ‑‑ so did you know how much she was getting paid by him?

A. As I suggested yesterday, my understanding was that it was something in the range of a thousand dollars a month. [$2000]

699 Q. You never asked her that question?

A. Not that I can recall.

700 Q. But you knew that Dr. Christensen had stopped paying her because of this dispute that had come about?

A. Yes.

701 Q. And so that for some months, she wasn't getting paid by Dr. Christensen?

A. That would follow.

702 Q. Did you know how she was making a living?

A. Did have I firsthand knowledge? No.

703 Q. Did you ask her?

A. I don't believe so.

704 Q. Now, a number of people wrote to you and suggested that her motives should be questioned. That's correct? I can show them to you. There are at least six or seven e‑mails we have here where people suggest to you that you should examine the motives of Louise Malenfant in being a so‑called whistle blower. Do you recall that?

A. I think several people did. I think that's fair to say.

705 Q. And did you, in your conversations with her, inquire as to her motives?

A. I didn't inquire because she talked very clearly about why she felt that this was an issue that should be raised.

706 Q. Did you understand that she was ‑‑ that she saw herself as competing with [Tim] adams for money from people in ECMAS?

A. No, I don't think I could say that I understood that.

707 Q. Did you ask her whether she received money from anybody at ECMAS or MERGE or any other men in trouble with the legal system?

A. I do not believe so.

708 Q. Wouldn't that be an obvious thing to ask her if you were going to test her motives for attacking Adams and Christensen?

A. No.

709 Q. Well, in your article, you spend a good deal of time talking about Adams obtaining clients or referrals from ECMAS, correct? Because you thought that was an important matter for people to know.

A. A good deal of time obtaining clients?

710 Q. Well, a good portion of your article is devoted to Christensen supposedly recommending that people see Adams; Adams charging $90 an hour, Adams getting some of his clients from ECMAS and so forth?

A. Right. But I think there is a distinction between whether people were encouraged to use [Tim] Adams and whether he actually obtained them as clients.

711 Q. What about Malenfant whose picture is prominently indicated in the article? Wouldn't it be relevant as to whether she herself was getting paid for trying to help people with the legal system though she has no legal training?

A. The story, sir, was that Mr. Adams, with his criminal background, had been elected vice president. That was the story. That was not in dispute.

712 Q. But as we know, Ms. Malenfant has a criminal background too, correct? And in addition, Ms. Malenfant has a child who at one point was seized by the authorities. So everyone has some problems with the authorities. You're saying Ms. Malenfant's problems are not relevant but Mr. Adams's were to this story?

A. Absolutely.

713 Q. Now, the picture of Ms. Malenfant. I think you told me earlier that you had no control over what picture was in the article?

A. That's true.

714 Q. Did you have any input?

A. The way ‑‑ I had input in the sense that I took a form over to photos and said these are the people in the story. Can we find photos of any of these people? And then it was out of my hands as to which photos got used.

715 Q. Did you suggest that Weezie's photo be the one that was used?

A. No.

716 Q. You didn't make any suggestion?

A. No, not that anyone would have listened anyway.

717 Q. However, in fact, the documents show a lot of frustration on your part that there was a delay in having the story publish, correct?

A. Correct.

718 Q. At one point, you suggested as you said only half joking that you felt suicidal about the delay?

A. That's right.

719 Q. And you felt you were letting Weezie down, hanging her out to dry as a valuable source. You said that in one of your ‑‑

A. I think I said something to that effect.

MR. KOZAK: Was there a reference to Weezie?

MR. WILLIS: I'm sorry, I'm just referring her ‑‑ just using girl talk, if that's all right. I'm trying to experiment with what literally identifies Ms. Malenfant.

MR. KOZAK: Well, if you're going to make a specific reference to a document, then I would prefer if you use the actual term.

MR. WILLIS: I didn't make a specific reference. Had I been going to, I would have used the actual term. But it wasn't necessary because the witness was kind enough to make the admission that I sought. In your undertakings, there is something that you've produced. I'm just going to ask you about it. One of the documents that you produced, and I'm not ‑‑ it's a note to Allison McLean from you, dated September 18th, 1998, re: research assistance in Winnipeg.

MR. KOZAK: The document number or the undertaking number?

MR. WILLIS: It's produced in response to undertaking ‑‑ so this document that I now show you. It was on the disk, but for some reason it was printed out. Because when I looked on the disk, I didn't see it. Maybe I just missed it.

MR. KOZAK: Well, this comes from the three and a half inch floppy disk.

MR. WILLIS: Okay. Because I looked at the three and a half inch floppy disk. Maybe I just didn't look in the right place. Well, we better enter it as Exhibit D2 because it doesn't have a clear connection to the undertaking.

EXHIBIT NO. D2: A note to Allison McLean from Ms. Laframboise, dated September 18th, 1998, re: research assistance in Winnipeg.

BY MR. WILLIS:

720 Q. Now, in this document, your request of Allison McLean whether it might be possible to pay Ms. Malenfant honorarium or stipend for her efforts. Was that ever done?

A. No.

721 Q. Did she get any honorarium or stipend for any of her efforts?

A. Not that I'm aware of.

722 Q. Did you try to get her an honorarium or stipend for this story?

A. No.

723 Q. What about reimbursement? Did she have any expenses for which she was reimbursed in this ‑‑ for in the story that is the subject of these proceedings?

A. Not that I'm aware of.

724 Q. Would you undertake to check your records, and if in fact, any payments were made to anybody with regard to the preparation of the story, if you would advise me?

U/T A. Sure.

725 Q. Do I infer correctly that it never occurred to you that Ms. Malenfant might have a financial motive in her whistle blowing activities?

A. Well, as this memo suggests, prior to mid September 1998, I had already established the relationship with Ms. Malenfant. I knew that Ms. Malenfant was, much of the time, receiving social assistance. And no, I did not consider the financial gain. [Ms. Malenfant told me that she had a Bachelor's degree in sociology. But she had

never done any professional or clinical work and, though clearly intelligent, had spent her adult life

working at odd jobs and on welfare when not doing activist work tied to "family rights":] [Back]

726 Q. Did you ever ask her how much she got paid in Winnipeg?

A. No, I did not.

727 Q. Did she ever tell you about somebody who once paid her $20,000 for her assistance?

A. No, I don't think so.

728 Q. You just never asked? You never said look, are you making any money out of this, from these men?

A. No, I don't believe so.

729 Q. I'm having trouble with that. Why wouldn't you ask her that question when clearly it would show ‑‑ it would affect her motives in dealing with a person like Adams or in trying to get elected to a board?

A. Sorry, what was the beginning of the question?

730 Q. Why wouldn't you check to see whether she had some financial motives in her conduct with regard to ECMAS?

A. Because prior to mid September, '98, I'd already seen the kind of work she did, and it did not seem to me that financial gain was her motive.

731 Q. But of course, you never asked? So you had no way of ‑‑ you never asked whether there was any financial component in what she was doing?

A. No, I did not.

732 Q. Did you ever check into ‑‑ what story did she tell you about herself and her daughter, about her daughter having been seized and so on?

A. That was some time ago. I think my understanding was that Louise, at some point, had a drinking problem, that as a result, her life was pretty chaotic. I understood that her daughter had been seized. Although, it seemed to me that the seizure had been related somehow to a sexual abuse allegation by a third‑party, I believe.

733 Q. That was the story that she told, wasn't it, that there was some kind of allegation of sexual abuse by a third‑party, and that her daughter, as a result, was apprehended. And over the course of a long struggle, she got her daughter back. That was roughly the story she told you, wasn't it?

A. Yes.

734 Q. Did you ever check that story out?

A. No, I did not.

735 Q. In any way?

A. The story was not verifiable. Childrens Aid's files are not available to the press.

736 Q. Are you satisfied that the story was not verifiable? In other words, that there weren't other sources that you could have checked in Winnipeg who would have known what happened? Well, in fact, did you make any efforts to check any sources? Did you make any effort of any kind to verify Ms. Malenfant's story?

MR. KOZAK: Are you intending to put a document to this witness from your production?

MR. WILLIS: No, but I have some information from my own privileged inquiries made by me personally on the basis of which I'm asking these questions. Otherwise, I certainly wouldn't ask them. All I'm asking this witness is if she made any efforts to check out Ms. Malenfant's story.

MR. KOZAK: So you have no document that you intend to tender in evidence?

MR. WILLIS: Not at this time. If I get such a document, of course I will produce it to you subject to any claim of privilege or whatever I decide to do. Obviously, if there's a document that I'm going to tender, you'll receive proper notice of it in due course. But if there were such a document, I would put it to the witness, as I believe I would be obliged to do. I'm not trying to sandbag the witness in that regard. I'm just trying to find out if she did anything to check it out. Did you?

THE DEPONENT: No.

BY MR. WILLIS:

737 Q. Did you ask Ms. Malenfant to waive any confidentiality so you could check out her story?

A. No.

738 Q. Now, yesterday, you told me about a conversation that you had with Ms. Malenfant after our last discoveries in which you phoned her to tell her that sorry, I couldn't meet with you. How long was that conversation?

A. I don't remember.

739 Q. Would you check your records and advise me through your solicitor?

A. How would I check my records?

740 Q. You'll have the same kind of records that presumably you produced to me. You'll have telephone records, will you not? So you'll be able to tell because you phoned Ms. Malenfant from long distance.

MR. KOZAK: Was it long distance? You'll recall that.

MR. WILLIS: Yes, she said that it was because she said that she called Ms. Malenfant to say sorry, I couldn't meet you when I was in Edmonton.

THE DEPONENT: I could check those records.

U/T MR. KOZAK: We'll check the records. I'm not certain that what she said yesterday necessarily meant that she called from here. It's equally consistent that she could have been in Edmonton to say I'm on my way out, but we'll check the records.

MR. WILLIS: My recollection is that her memory was sufficiently vague, that that's right. I inferred ‑‑ my recollection was that she spoke of when I was in Edmonton, I'm sorry I couldn't meet with you. And I inferred from that that that meant she'd left Edmonton, and it was a long distance call.

THE DEPONENT: Sure.

BY MR. WILLIS:

741 Q. So if you would be kind enough to check your records, and let me know?

A. Yes.

742 Q. And if that refreshes your memory, and if anything relevant to these proceedings was said in your conversation, if you would advise me through your solicitor?

U/T A. Mm‑hmm.

MR. WILLIS: Thank you. Ms. Laframboise, subject to questions which may arise out of the further production of documents either as a result of court applications or your forthcoming revised affidavit of records, subject to any questions which may arise out of your undertakings, and subject to any questions which may arise out of the Court's direction that you answer questions on the advice of counsel you refused to answer, those are all my questions.

‑‑‑ Whereupon proceedings adjourned at 11:51 a.m.

I HEREBY CERTIFY THE FOREGOING

to be a true and accurate

transcription of my shorthand notes

to the best of my skill and ability.

Kim Barker, CSR(A)

Computer-Aided Transcription