IN THE COURT OF QUEEN’S BENCH OF ALBERTA

JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF EDMONTON

                                                                                               

                                                                                                 Q.B. NO. 0103 14569

BETWEEN:

 

FERRELL CHRISTENSEN

                                                                                                                       Plaintiff

 

- and -

 

 

THE NATIONAL POST COMPANY GLOBAL COMMUNICATIONS LIMITED, and DONNA LAFRAMBOISE

                                                                                                                            Defendants

 

ANSWERS TO UNDERTAKINGS OF DONNA LAFRAMBOISE

GIVEN EXAMINATIONS FOR DISCOVERY

HELD FEBRUARY 6 AND 7, 2002

 

UNDERTAKING #1

 

To make inquiries as to what happened to files in filing system containing all materials used to prepare “the article”, and if possible, to unpack Affidavit on Production, to see which documents came from which file.

 

ANSWER

 

There may have been only one manila folder. We have provided a photocopy of one side of that folder which has written on it the word ECMAS. A redacted copy of the inside of the folder on which were scribbled names and phone numbers was previously produced. The filing system used was a piece of letter-sized paper folded in half and affixed with a paper clip to a group of documents. We have provided a copy of the one letter-sized paper which remains, written on it is: “Christensen”. There were similar papers with labels such as “[Tim] Adams” and “Calgary ECMAS” no longer in possession because they were likely discarded after the story appeared. Ms. Laframboise cannot recall making notes of any kind on these folded-over sheets of paper.

 

Date Answered: September 13, 2002

 

 

UNDERTAKING #2

 

To advise what happened to original filing system and how it relates to the present production.

 

 

-2-

 

ANSWER

 

The original filing system is no longer in existence and for the reasons described above     in the Answer to Undertaking #1 it is no longer possible to relate the old filing system to the present production.

 

Date Answered:  September 13, 2002

 

 

UNDERTAKING #3

 

To determine whether there is any hard copy left behind at The National Post of materials used to

prepare "The Article".

 

ANSWER

 

         Ms. Laframboise advises that she took all the files pertaining to the story with her when she        

         left the National Post. All documents from the National post have been produced already.

 

Date Answered:    September 13, 2002

 

 

UNDERTAKING #4

 

To determine which documents were still at The National Post when Ms. Laframboise left, which

ones are copies she provided and which are both.

 

ANSWER

 

Ms. Laframboise advises that she is aware of no documents independently supplied by the National Post other than the phone records Gerald Owen provided her in May of 2002.

 

Date Answered:       September 13, 2002

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

-3-

 

UNDERTAKING #5

 

To make inquiries as to whether there are any electronic documents, and produce whatever portions fall into the producible category.

 

ANSWER

 

When Ms. Laframboise left the National Post she received electronic documents in two ways: ---->

 

(a)        files that were transferred by technical personnel onto a CD from Ms. Laftamboise’s computer; and [from internal evidence, this would include at least some e-mails]

 

(b)        e-mail files that were sent to Ms. Laframboise’s home computer.[Does this mean e-mails

 were sent from that crowded office server--months later--via the Internet? If so, then the server was never erased.]   

Ms. Laframboise has reviewed the CD and determined that there are no drafts or notes pertaining to the Christensen story with the exception of a word processing document titled “Press Council” which is included on the floppy disc included with these Answers to Undertakings. Electronic documents that were on the CD pertaining to the Christensen story were previously printed as hard copy documents and then deleted. These hard copy documents have been previously produced with the exception of a September 18, 1998 memo which is now provided.

                                                                                                                                   

Ms. Laframboise has reviewed the electronic versions of the e-mails transferred to her by the National Post and has provided electronic copies of these documents on the disk enclosed with these Answers to Undertakings. Not included are electronic copies of e-mails that required redaction because it was not technically feasible to provide those records and maintain the confidentiality of the sources. Printed copies of these redacted e-mails have been produced to the Plaintiff previously. ["the disk" is a (then-standard) floppy disk.

Since it was supplied long after she had left The Post, it must have been made at least indirectly from the noted CD.]

Date Answered: September 13, 2002                                                                                   ----->

 

UNDERTAKING #6

 

To find out whether there are any electronic records that are stored and retrievable and that the National Post not do anything that would adversely affect the ability to investigate whether or not these electronic records exist, and retrieve them.

[Implied in this answer: The Post kept no CD or other electronic record of contents of the reporter's office computer.]

ANSWER

 

Electronic records have been provided from the e-mails referred to in the Answer to Undertaking #5. The National Post has advised no back-up system for word-processing or e-mails was in place during most of the period when Donna Laframboise worked at the

 

-4-

 

National Post. A back-up system of the computer network at the National Post was instituted in September 2001, the same month Ms. Laframboise left the National Post. The National Post has advised that they will not over-write the back-up tapes for the months of September and October 2001. The National Post further advises that any documents relevant to the lawsuit would have been copied to the CD referred to in the Answer to Undertaking #5. ['Any documents' would include e-mails that had been on her office hard-drive.]    [Back]                                                        

Date Answered: September 13, 2002                                                                      

 

 

UNDERTAKING #7

 

To search for correspondence with specific individuals mentioned in letter of DecembeT 6, 2001.

 

ANSWER

 

The Readers 2001 folder contains documents pertaining to the exchange with Mr. Shakeleton. There is no record of responding to Adrian Mak. [girlfriend] sent an e-mail on April20 (titled “ECMAS Edmonton”). The e-mail is in the Stories 2001 folder. There is no record of a response to the e-mail from [girlfriend]. There are no records of discussions with Jamie Jaimenez, Tim Randles, David McCallum or Joe Woodward. Rick Fowler sent an e-mail titled “ECMAS Edmonton”, this e-mail is in toward the end of the list in the Stories 2001 folder. There is no record of a response to the e-mail from Rick Fowler.

 

Date Answered: September 13, 2002

 

 

UNDERTAKING #8

 

To produce relevant portions of disk from Ms. Laframboise’s computer, when she left.

 

ANSWER

 

Relevant electronic records have been produced as provided in the answers to Undertaking #5.

 

Date Answered:         September 13, 2002

 

 

 

 

 

-5-

 

 

 

 

UNDERTAKING #9

 

To advise whether The National Post kept a centralized record of e-mail correspondence, and if so, to advise how it worked.

 

ANSWER

 

The National Post has advised no back-up system for e-mails was in place during most of the period when Donna Laframboise worked at the National Post. A back-up system of the computer network at the National Post was instituted in September 2001, the same month Ms. Lafraxnboise left the National Post. The National Post has advised that they will not over-write the back-up tapes for the months of September and October 2001.

 

Date Answered: September 13, 2002

 

 

UNDERTAKING #10

 

To check privileged production and advise whether the defendant is claiming privilege for any memoranda where neither party is a lawyer or a lawyer’s assistant.

 

ANSWER

 

We advise that the Defendant is not claiming privilege for any memoranda where neither party is a lawyer or lawyer’s assistant.

 

Date Answered: September 13, 2002

 

 

UNDERTAKING #11

 

To advise whether correspondence between Ms. Laframboise and other people from The National Post or other National Post papers is complete.

 

ANSWER

 

Ms. Laframboise has provided electronic copies of new records not previously disclosed in the Affidavit of Records. There are no records of discussions with journalists from other National Post papers.

 

Date Answered: September 13, 2002

 

 

-6-

 

UNDERTAKING #12

 

To produce Ms. Laframboise’ s curriculum vitae

 

ANSWER

 

A copy of Ms. LafVamboise’s curriculum vitae is attached.

 

Date Answered:  September 13, 2002

 

 

UNDERTAKING #13

 

To confirm that the words in “the article” are accurate and that Paragraph 5 in “the article” is an accurate extract from “the article’, and that what is contained in the square brackets accurately reflect what they purport to reflect.

 

ANSWER

 

The material appearing in the square brackets in paragraph 5 of the Statement of Claim is correct.

 

Date Answered:  September 13,2002

 

 

UNDERTAKING #14

 

If e-mails referred to in letter of December 6th cannot be located, to make inquiries of the persons to whom replies were sent and ask if they will provide copies.

 

ANSWER

 

The e-mail exchange with Mr. Shackeleton appears to be complete and the documents are provided within the Readers 2001 folder. Ms. Laframboise advises that the only person she responded to other than Mr. Shackeleton was [girlfriend]. Ms [girlfriend] has not provided a response to a request for the materials.

 

Date Answered:  September 13, 2002

 

 

 

 

 

-7-

 

UNDERTAKING #15

 

To search for any records of long distance calls relevant to these proceedings, when they were made, and produce them, subject to any claim of privilege.

 

ANSWER

 

We have attached a redacted copy of the phone records requested.

 

Date Answered:  September 13, 2002

 

 

UNDERTAKING #16

 

To advise if transcripts of telephone conversations are accurate and advise of any inaccuracies caused by difficulties in hearing what was on the tape.

 

ANSWER

 

Ms. Laframboise has not gone back to listen to each tape with the transcript in front of her. Her present belief is that the transcripts are accurate.

 

Date Answered:  September 13, 2002

 

 

UNDERTAKING #17

 

To advise whether there was more than one conversation with Mike Leberge, and whether Tab 29 occurred just before conversation with Mr. Bouvter.

 

ANSWER

 

There was only one interview with Mike LeBerge. There was one incoming call prior to the interview from Mike LeBerge’s number, likely a voice-mail message. There was one call made by Ms. Laframboise to Mike LeBerge responding to his call. Ms. Laframboise is unable to determine whether Tab 29 occurred before the conversation with Mr. Bouvier.

 

Ms. Laframboise further advises the following dated and order of the interviews/conversations with sources for the story:

 

                    Confidential Source                                 March 21, 2001

                    Brian St. Germaine                                  March 21, 2001

                    Caroline Vanee                                        March 21, 2001

                    [Tim] Adams                                              March 21, 2001

 

-8-

 

           Confidential Source                  March 22, 2001

           Bob Bouvier                             uncertain

           Mike LeBerge                           March 22, 2001

           Confidential Source                  March 22, 2001

           Confidential Source                  March 23, 2001

           Louise Malenfant                      March 23, 2001

 

Date Answered:  September 13, 2002

 

 

UNDERTAKING #18

 

To ask [two names deleted]  as to whether they recall the date of their discussion with the defendant re. page 498, “We want to run this for Saturday.

 

ANSWER

 

[same two names deleted] advise that they have no recollection of the date of the discussion.

 

Date Answered:  September 13, 2002

 

UNDERTAKING #19

 

To advise if there is anything read in the passages read by Mr. Willis to the defendant that suggests

that sex with kids is maybe not such a bad thing.

 

ANSWER

 

Ms. Laframboise reviewed the passages read by Mr. Willis and states that there is nothing in these particular passages that suggests sex with kids is “not such a bad thing”.

 

Date Answered:  September 13, 2002

 

UNDERTAKING #20

 

If there is anything in the passages read that Mr. Willis missed, that is either disturbing or really

disturbing, or suggests that sex with kids is maybe not such a bad thing, to advise.

 

ANSWER

 

Ms. Laframboise states that there are several passages which fall into these categories on pages 109-113 of Christensen’s book.

 

-9-

Date Answered:  September 13, 2002

 

 

UNDERTAKING #21

 

To advise of names of experts that Ms. Laframboise interviewed in Toronto, and materials relied on in forming her opinion about what’s ‘disturbing” and what’s not, and to provide copies of any such materials.

 

 

ANSWER

 

Ms. Laframboise has provided a copy of a taped interview with Linda Short and Randy Ruttan, two sex educators from Toronto. A copy of notes based on the taped interview is also provided.

 

Date Answered:  September 13, 2002

 

 

UNDERTAKING #22

 

To identify materials which have been redacted from transcripts collected under Tab 19 and things that are blacked out at various places throughout the materials and to advise which of them was relied upon in the preparation of the article and to indicate reasons for wanting the source to remain confidential.

 

ANSWER

 

All of the transcripts collected under Tab 19 were relied upon for the preparation of the article. The reasons for confidentiality are that the sources did not want their names appearing in an article because they had matters before the court.

[Note that this excuse is here attributed, as in the article itself, to all four of the anonymous sources.]   [Back]

Date Answered:  September 13, 2002

 

 

UNDERTAKING #23

 

To advise when the Defendant spoke to confidential sources.

 

ANSWER

 

Ms. Laframboise spoke to confidential source produced at document U00299 on March 21, 2001; confidential source produced at document U00336 on March 22, 2001; confidential

 

 

 

-10-

 

source produced at document U00349 on March 22,2001; and, confidential source produced at document U00362 on March 22, 2001.

 

Date Answered:         September 13, 2002

 

 

UNDERTAKING #24

 

To confirm whether everyone that the witness talked to already knew that [Tim] Adams was a disbarred lawyer.

 

ANSWER

 

All four confidential sources, Mike LeBerge, Brian St. Germaine, Carolyn Vanee, and Bob

Bouvier knew that [Tim] Adams was a disbarred lawyer prior to their interviews with Ms.

Laframboise.

 

Date Answered:         September 13, 2002

 

 

UNDERTAKING #25

 

To advise whether anyone else that the witness talked to had read Dr. Christensen’s book, other than Louise Malenfant, or whether they were aware of Dr. Christensen’s views through some other source other than Louise Malenfant.

 

ANSWER

 

Ms. Laframboise has reviewed the producible documents and believes there is no indication in these documents tat anyone other than Louise Malefant, had read the book. Ms. Laframboise has reviewed the producible documents and states that one of the confidential sources states they were aware of Dr. Christensen’s views from a source other than Louise Malenfant.

 

Date Answered: September 13, 2002

 

 

UNDERTAKING #26

 

To ask Louise Malenfant to provide copies of any in correspondence from Ms. Laframboise to her or any notes she has of conversations between the witness and her.

 

 

- 11 -

 

ANSWER

 

Ms. Malenfant has not responded to a request for the materials.

 

Date Answered:            September 13, 2002

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

IN THE COURT OF QUEEN’S BENCH OF ALBERTA

JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF EDMONTON

 

                                                                                                   Q.B. NO. 0103 14569

BETWEEN:

 

FERRELL CHRISTENSEN

                                                                                                                         Plaintiff

- and -

 

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

 

Defendants

 

ANSWERS TO UNDERTAKINGS

FROM EXAMINATIONS OF DONNA LAFRAMBOISE

HELD OCTOBER 21 AND 22. 2002

 

 

UNDERTAKING NO. 27

 

Check records and advise how many drafts of the article were made and when they were completed. (Page 253)

 

ANSWER:

 

We have reviewed the relevant documents, as set out in the Defendant's Affidavit of Records, and advise that it is not possible to determine with certainty the number of drafts of the article and dates of these drafts. Based on our review of the above mentioned documents there appear to have been five (5) drafts dated:

                                                                                                                      

1.        March 26, 2001
2.        March 27,2001
3.        March 27,2001
4.        March 30,2001
5.        April 10, 2001

 

In addition to these five (5) dated drafts there are five (5) undated drafts.

 

DATE ANSWERED: June 13, 2003

 

 

 

-2-

 

UNDERTAKING NO. 28

 

Check interview tapes to see how much of interviews with Ms. Malenfant and the Law Society person remains and provide Plaintiff’s counsel with an accurate transcript. (Page 256)

 

ANSWER:

 

We have reviewed the interview tapes, as set out in the Defendant’s Affidavit of

           Records, and advise that there are no recordings on these tapes of an interview      

           with Ms. Malenfant or any person from the Law Society. [Two transcript pages (linked

earlier here) ostensibly from the taped Malenfant interview--just two pages--were turned over for the lawsuit; also, a few lines of hand-written notes evidently taken during a conversation with her. To judge from adjacent notes, the latter identify as the taped Malenfant interview the 51-minute phone call made at 3:03 PM on Thursday, March 22. This was one day before the reporter was sent my defamation warning and--we'll see shortly--warned not to destroy any relevant records. Note also that not just one but both tapes involving Ms. Malenfant were allegedly mistakenly erased:]   [Next] 

DATE ANSWERED:     June 13, 2003

 

 

UNDERTAKING NO. 29

 

Advise through solicitor if there are specific incidents that help form the basis of the impression that Christensen was not terribly persuasive or credible. (Page 301)

 

ANSWER:

 

Ms. Laframboise advises that her impression is that the female columnists at both the Edmonton Journal and Calgary Herald have long been universally hostile to the Plaintiff. It was also Ms. Laframboise’s impression that CHED radio host, Leslie Primeau, who does an evening spot and who is usually pretty sympathetic to the male perspective on gender issues had the Plaintiff on her show a couple of times a few years ago. During this show Ms. Primeau “ripped the Plaintiff to shreds”, it was a case not of mild disagreement, but scathing denouncement. [For the record, I had no personal contact of consequence with any of these three before they attacked me publicly. And as is very plain from the content of those attacks (I produced the print articles by two of them for this suit), their reasons were purely ideological:  They attacked me because of views which, ironically, the reporter shares with me--just the same type of attack as she herself has experienced from what she calls "hardline feminists". Ms. Lafamboise has once again just accepted nasty hearsay from Ms. Malenfant (who never even heard that Primeau program--but several who did can attest to her purely ideological motives) as if it were all fact--FC] 

 

DATE ANSWERED:      June 13, 2003

 

 

 

-3-

 

UNDERTAKING NO. 30

[Note that, long after (Sept. 13, 2002--see Undertaking 5 above) she had given my lawyer all of the e-mails that allegedly she had kept, she was still able to come up with another: the one she had originally sent to me:]

Search records to try and provide Plaintiff's counsel with Laframboise's copy of

Laframboise e-maiI to Christensen on March 23, 2001. (Page 415)

 

ANSWER:

 

See attached print-out of e-mail sent from Ms. Laframboise to the Defendant on March 23, 2001.

 

DATE ANSWERED:     June 13, 2003  [The emails sent from the reporter's office computer were to Mike LaBerge (2), Bob Bouvier (2), David Shackleton (3), Post employees (2) and the one (to me) described here.] [Back]                                        

UNDERTAKING NO. 31

 

Make inquiries to refresh memory to confirm time that the March 23, 2001 email was sent to Christensen. (Page 416)

 

ANSWER:

 

See attached print-out of e-mail sent from Ms. Laframboise to the Defendant on March 23, 2001 which shows the time sent at “14:25”.  

 

DATE ANSWERED:    June 13, 2003

 

 

UNDERTAKING NO.32

 

To check answer to undertaking 5, which is a printout from March 19 to April

17 to see if a portion of the printout is missing. (Page 435)

 

ANSWER:

 

See attached telephone log printout. Ms. Laframboise has reviewed the telephone log for March 19, 2001 to April 17, 2001 and has provided the fourth page.

 

 

DATE ANSWERED:      June 13, 2003

 

 

 

 

-4-

UNDERTAKING NO. 33

 

Check telephone records from the beginning of March for more telephone calls to Ms. Malenfant, if it turns out that 429-9925 is her number. (Page 437)

 

ANSWER:

 

Ms. Laframboise advises that 780-429-9925 was Ms. Malenfants number at the time the story was written. Ms. Laframboise has reviewed the telephone logs for the period March 12, 2001 to March 18, 2001 and advises that these logs show she placed; one 23-minute call to Ms. Malenfant on March 14 and another 46-second call on March 16. There appear to be no incoming calls from Ms. Malenfant during that period. [There are in fact about a dozen calls between them, not counting what may be cases of brief messages left on an answering machine.]

 

DATE ANSWERED:       June 13, 2003

 

 

UNDERTAKING NO. 34

 

To make inquiries as to the identity of the caller from calls numbered “2374". (Page 439)

 

ANSWER:

 

Ms. Laframboise advises that her number at the National Post was 416-383-2374. 2374 was Ms. Laframboise’s internal extension at the National Post. Ms. Laframboise advises that she cannot determine with certainty where these calls originated from but believes the calls originated from within the newsroom.

 

DATE ANSWERED:       June 13, 2003

 

 

UNDERTAKING NO. 35

 

Advise of the names associated with telephone numbers other than those for which privilege is claimed. (Page 440)

 

ANSWER:

 

Ms. Laframboise advises that the following names are associated with the following numbers:

 

Brian St. Germaine:  780-439-6448

Caroline Vanee:        780-987-5270

 

-5-

 

[the girlfriend]:            780-[xxx-xxxx]

Bob Bouvier:              780-988-4105 and 780-465-1530

[Tim] Adams:              780-453-1973

Mike LeBerge:          403-301-3739

 

DATE ANSWERED:   June 13, 2003

 

 

UNDERTAKING NO. 36

 

Check records and advise, if in fact, any payments were made to anybody with regard to the preparation of the story. (Page 462)

 

ANSWER:

 

Ms. Laframboise advises that she has no knowledge of any payments being made to any individual with respect to this story and further advises that she is aware of no documentation of this sort.

 

DATE ANSWERED:        June 13, 2003

 

 

UNDERTAKING NO. 37

 

Check records and advise of the length of telephone conversation between

Laframboise and Malenfant which occurred after the last discoveries.

(Page 466)

 

ANSWER:

 

Ms. Laframboise advises that she reviewed her telephone records and states that the records show that there was one 2-minute call to Ms. Malenfant on February 18, 2002 and another 1-minutes call on that same date. Further on February 28, 2002 Ms. Laframboise placed a call to Ms. Malenfant that was 79 minutes in length.

 

DATE ANSWERED:      June 13, 2003

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

-6-

 

UNDERTAKING NO. 38

 

If checking the records of the telephone conversation between Laframboise and

Malenfant which occurred after the last discoveries refreshes memory as to anything relevant to these proceedings said during this telephone conversation to advise. (Page 467)

 

ANSWER:

 

Ms. Laframboise advises that her memory is not significantly improved by reviewingthe above information and further advises that she cant recall anything relevant to these proceedings.

 

DATE ANSWERED:   June 13, 2003