IN THE COURT OF
QUEEN’S BENCH OF
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