1 2 3 IPPERWASH PUBLIC INQUIRY 4 5 6 7 ******************** 8 9 10 BEFORE: THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE SIDNEY LINDEN, 11 COMMISSIONER 12 13 14 15 16 Held at: Forest Community Centre 17 Kimball Hall 18 Forest, Ontario 19 20 21 ******************** 22 23 24 June 2nd, 2005 25


1 Appearances 2 Derry Millar ) Commission Counsel 3 Susan Vella ) 4 Donald Worme, Q. C ) (np) 5 Katherine Hensel ) (np) 6 Jodi-Lynn Waddilove ) (np) 7 8 Murray Klippenstein ) (np) The Estate of Dudley 9 Vilko Zbogar ) (np) George and George 10 Andrew Orkin ) Family Group 11 Basil Alexander ) (np) Student-at-Law 12 13 Peter Rosenthal ) Aazhoodena and George 14 Jackie Esmonde ) Family Group 15 16 Anthony Ross ) Residents of 17 Kevin Scullion ) Aazhoodena (Army Camp) 18 William Henderson ) Kettle Point & Stony 19 Jonathon George ) Point First Nation 20 21 Kim Twohig ) Government of Ontario 22 Walter Myrka ) (np) 23 Sue Freeborn ) (np) 24 Maureen Smith ) (np) 25 Lynette D'Souza ) (np)


1 APPEARANCES (cont'd) 2 Janet Clermont ) (np) Municipality of 3 David Nash ) Lambton Shores 4 5 Peter Downard ) The Honourable Michael 6 Bill Hourigan ) Harris 7 Jennifer McAleer ) (np) 8 9 Nancy Spies ) (np) Robert Runciman 10 Alice Mrozek ) 11 Ian Smith ) 12 Harvey Stosberg ) (np) Charles Harnick 13 Jacqueline Horvat ) 14 Douglas Sulman, Q.C. ) Marcel Beaubien 15 Trevor Hinnegan ) (np) 16 17 Mark Sandler ) Ontario Provincial 18 Andrea Tuck-Jackson ) Ontario Provincial Police 19 Leslie Kaufman ) (np) 20 Ian Roland ) (np) Ontario Provincial 21 Karen Jones ) Police Association & 22 Debra Newell ) K. Deane 23 Jennifer Gleitman ) 24 Ian McGilp ) (np) 25 Annie Leeks ) (np)


1 APPEARANCES (cont'd) 2 Julian Falconer ) Aboriginal Legal 3 Brian Eyolfson ) (np) Services of Toronto 4 Julian Roy ) (np) 5 Clem Nabigon ) (np) 6 Adriel Weaver ) (np) Student-at-Law 7 8 Al J.C. O'Marra ) (np) Office of the Chief 9 Robert Ash, Q.C. ) (np) Coroner 10 11 William Horton ) Chiefs of Ontario 12 Matthew Horner ) 13 Kathleen Lickers ) (np) 14 15 Mark Frederick ) Christopher Hodgson 16 Megan Mackey ) 17 Craig Mills ) (np) 18 19 David Roebuck ) Debbie Hutton 20 Anna Perschy ) (np) 21 Melissa Panjer ) 22 Danya Cohen-Nehemia ) (np) 23 24 25


1 TABLE OF CONTENTS 2 Page 3 Exhibits 6 4 5 6 7 John Frederick Carson, Resumes 8 Cross-Examination by Ms. Kim Twohig 8 9 Cross-Examination by Mr. Peter Downard 61 10 Cross-Examination by Mr. Ian Smith 73 11 Cross-Examination by Mr. Mark Frederick 81 12 Cross-Examination by Mr. Douglas Sulman 114 13 Cross-Examination by Mr. David Roebuck 146 14 Cross-Examination by Mr. Al O'Marra 164 15 16 17 18 19 20 Certificate of Transcript 179 21 22 23 24 25


1 EXHIBITS 2 No. Description Page 3 P-459 Document No. 3000631 Trespass, September 4 04/'95 signed by Les Kobayahi 22 5 P-460 Document 1009983 Town of Bosanquet press 6 release September 05/'95 1:00 p.m. 7 "Reign of Terror continues" 66 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Previously Reserved Exhibits 17 P-437(a) Hard copy of map of OPP checkpoints 18 P-437(b) Electronic copy of map of OPP checkpoint 19 20 21 22 23 24 25


1 --- Upon commencing at 9:05 a.m. 2 3 THE REGISTRAR: This Public Inquiry is 4 now in session. The Honourable Mr. Justice Linden 5 presiding. Please be seated. 6 MR. DERRY MILLAR: Commissioner, good 7 morning. 8 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Good 9 morning. 10 MR. DERRY MILLAR: Good morning, Deputy 11 Commissioner. 12 Before we begin the staff at Kimball Hall 13 got a message that was left this morning that the 14 Elaina's restaurant believes that someone from the 15 Inquiry left a briefcase there last night. So, it's 16 there for anyone looking for a missing briefcase. 17 And Ms. Jones is going to finish her 18 examination. 19 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Thank you. 20 Good morning, Ms. Jones. 21 MS. KAREN JONES: Good morning, Mr. 22 Commissioner. Good morning Deputy Commissioner. 23 THE WITNESS: Good morning. 24 MS. KAREN JONES: Mr. Commissioner, I had 25 requested a very short period of time this morning to


1 finish off with one matter. And I'm not able to do it 2 immediately. But I would be able to do it at some point 3 in time during today. And I'm just wondering if could 4 stand that down when there's a gap between counsel, maybe 5 I can do that? 6 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I'm sure 7 we'll be able to work that out with everybody. 8 MS. KAREN JONES: Thank you very much. 9 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Ms. 10 Twohig...? 11 12 (BRIEF PAUSE) 13 14 MS. KIM TWOHIG: Good morning, Mr. 15 Commissioner. 16 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Good 17 morning. 18 19 JOHN FREDERICK CARSON, Resumes: 20 21 CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS. KIM TWOHIG: 22 Q: Good morning, Deputy Commissioner 23 Carson. 24 A: Morning. 25 Q: My name's Kim Twohig and I represent


1 the Province of Ontario. I'd like to begin by making 2 sure I understand the general thrust of your evidence and 3 then I'm going to go to some more specific issues. 4 So just on the more general, I understand 5 your evidence to be that it was the position of the OPP 6 that it would not take any steps to remove the occupiers 7 from Ipperwash Provincial Park without an injunction or 8 some other court order. 9 A: Correct. 10 Q: The OPP took this position prior to 11 the occupation and throughout the events of August and 12 September of 1995? 13 A: That was the position of the Ontario 14 Provincial Police earlier than -- well, it was -- it was 15 our position from the outset as I explained in regards to 16 the Military Base. 17 I guess I just need to qualify the -- the 18 point that depending on the type of occupation we were 19 faced with whether it would be an injunction or if it was 20 one individual who was refusing to leave. 21 It would depend on the manner and how it 22 was handled. So, there's various approaches depending on 23 the circumstances being faced. 24 Q: Yes. But you wanted some kind of 25 authority from the Court generally speaking, before you


1 would take any action to remove anybody from the Park; is 2 that right? 3 A: In -- in respect to a group who 4 refused. And, I guess -- 5 Q: Yeah. 6 A: -- I guess there would need to be 7 some differentiation between a 'individual' and a 8 'group'. 9 Q: Yes. And, it's clear from your 10 evidence that instructions were given to the Ministry of 11 Natural Resources and the Ministry of the Attorney 12 General staff at some point to seek and injunction? 13 A: Correct. 14 Q: And, in fact, that's what they did? 15 A: Yes. I -- I think that you -- there 16 is documentation or certainly notations indicating those 17 types of discussions occurred with the Ministry of 18 Natural Resources -- 19 Q: Hmm hmm. 20 A: -- in fact, early in August when -- 21 when the potential was recognized. 22 Q: Yes. I take it that no one in 23 Government suggested to you that the OPP should make any 24 attempt to remove the occupiers from the Park without an 25 injunction?


1 A: Quite frankly, I had no 2 discussion with anybody in Government in regards to any 3 means of removal. That -- 4 Q: Right. 5 A: -- that kind of discussion certainly 6 didn't take place at my level. 7 Q: But no one suggested to you that 8 anything other than your plan should be implemented? 9 A: Correct. 10 Q: And, as Incident Commander, you tried 11 from September 4th until your assignment ended on 12 September 7th to keep the occupiers in the Park? 13 A: Correct. 14 Q: And, you testified that as long as 15 they remained in the Park, the officers would not 16 approach them unless, of course, serious criminal 17 offences were taking place; is that -- 18 A: Correct. 19 Q: And, you believed that by the actions 20 of the OPP the occupiers were aware that they would be 21 well advised to remain within the Park? 22 A: Yes. 23 Q: Now, as I understand it, the factors 24 that led to the decision to send the ERT and the TRU 25 teams to the area outside the sandy parking lot on


1 September 6th were: increased activity in the area of the 2 sandy parking lot, that was one (1)? 3 A: Correct. 4 Q: Information that the occupiers were 5 planning to move into the cottage area was another? 6 A: Correct. 7 Q: The fire in the sandy parking lot 8 that threatened the safety of the cottages and the 9 cottagers? 10 A: Yes. 11 Q: And, the information about an attack 12 on a privately owned vehicle? 13 A: Yes. 14 Q: Were there any other factors that 15 I've missed? 16 A: Well, there's also the issue when 17 Sergeant Wright had driven by there and the -- the 18 discussion he had found himself in. 19 Q: Yes. 20 A: And that it was obvious that it -- it 21 was necessary for him to move on in order to avoid 22 becoming involved in an altercation. 23 Q: Right. So, the safety of the 24 officers was another factor? 25 A: Correct.


1 Q: And, all of these concerns were 2 unrelated to the Park or to Government property? 3 A: Correct. 4 Q: And, the ERT and TRU teams were sent 5 in to ensure that the occupiers didn't move out of the 6 Park into the area of the privately owned cottages, the 7 municipal road, or the municipally owned parking lot? 8 A: Correct. 9 Q: So again, you were focussed on trying 10 to keep the occupiers within the Park? 11 A: Yes. 12 Q: And, the shooting, as I understand 13 it, resulted from the occupiers coming out of the Park 14 and according to the perception of the police officers, 15 threatening the safety of the officers. 16 MR. ANTHONY ROSS: Hmm hmm. 17 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Just a 18 minute, Ms. Twohig. 19 20 (BRIEF PAUSE) 21 22 MR. ANTHONY ROSS: With respect, Mr. 23 Commissioner, I do not know that this Witness who was not 24 there can speak about the perception of the police 25 officers as his evidence.


1 Now, if you asked him about what reports 2 came back to him, those reports, I think, he can listen 3 to, but even a conclusion based on those reports is for 4 you to make. He can't tell us the perception of the 5 police officers. Thank you. 6 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Mr. Millar? 7 MR. DERRY MILLAR: Yeah. Mr. Ross was a 8 little quicker than I. He's right, Mr. Ross, I think. 9 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I think Ms. 10 Twohig agrees. I think. 11 12 CONTINUED BY MS. KIM TWOHIG: 13 Q: Yes. Thank you. I'll withdraw that 14 question. 15 So, Deputy Commissioner, you testified 16 that you were not influenced in any way by anyone in the 17 Government to make the decisions you made in relation to 18 the events surrounding the death of Dudley George? 19 A: That's correct. 20 Q: So, the altercation in the area 21 outside the Park on the night of September 6th had 22 nothing to do with pressure from the Provincial 23 Government and nothing to do with removing the occupiers 24 from the Park; is that right? 25 A: Well that's correct. In fact when


1 the crowd management team was deployed and the occupiers 2 went -- retreated back into the Park. Quite frankly the 3 crowd management team would have been withdrawn from 4 there. 5 In fact the -- the fact of the matter is 6 they were withdrawing from the area back in -- onto the 7 asphalt roadway and leaving the area when in fact the 8 altercation occurred as they were literally moving away 9 from the Park. 10 And had the occupiers stayed within the 11 confines of the Park in fact it would have been status 12 quo pending the optimistic impression that we would 13 achieve some direction by way of injunction the following 14 morning. 15 Q: Thank you. Now with respect to the 16 injunction, you had said that you thought the OPP should 17 proceed step by step and take things slowly; is that 18 right? 19 A: Correct. Correct. 20 Q: As I understand it the steps that you 21 had in mind were first, to notify the occupiers that they 22 were trespassing either with written notice, verbal 23 notice or signs? 24 A: Correct. The -- the -- obviously the 25 preference is voluntary compliance.


1 Q: Yes. And failing that, the second 2 step would be to apply to the Court for an injunction 3 Order? 4 A: Yes. 5 Q: And the third step would be use that 6 Order as a negotiation tool? 7 A: Correct. 8 Q: And finally, to only enforce the 9 Order if there was clear authority to do that and if all 10 other steps failed. 11 A: Correct. 12 Q: And as I understand it, that you said 13 that the OPP wanted a Court Order because you wanted to 14 be neutral in terms of any issues surrounding rights to 15 the Park? 16 A: Correct. 17 Q: And you wanted to be sure that the 18 OPP had authority to take action? 19 A: Yes. 20 Q: So, I take it that the OPP's position 21 regarding the injunction would have been the same whether 22 or not the occupiers of the Park had a colour of right to 23 be on Park property and whether or not there were 24 Aboriginal burial sites in the Park? 25 A: That's fair.


1 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Just a 2 minute, Ms. Twohig. 3 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Because it was the 4 second two-barrelled question in four (4) questions, Mr. 5 Commissioner, I'm just wondering if My Friend would 6 consider not asking one (1) question because we're 7 getting one answer to two (2) questions. 8 MS. KIM TWOHIG: In that case, I'll ask 9 the questions separately. 10 11 CONTINUED BY MS. KIM TWOHIG. 12 Q: So, whether or not the occupiers in 13 your view had a colour of right to be in the Park, you 14 would have wanted an injunction or a Court Order before 15 taking any action? 16 A: Well in all fairness we felt they did 17 not have colour of right. And yes, to -- to both parts. 18 Q: And whether or not there were burial 19 sites in the Park or a legitimate issue regarding burial 20 sites in the Park, you would still have wanted an 21 injunction or Court Order before taking the action; isn't 22 that right? 23 A: Correct. I -- I just, you know, want 24 to clarify that the issues between the Park and the 25 Military Base were distinctly different. And from all


1 the documentation that I could determine and from 2 information from local folks including the chief of 3 Kettle and Stony Point, there was no indication that 4 provided me any evidence that there was a rightful claim 5 or -- or some indication that would support a colour of 6 right and despite that we -- we wanted the injunction. 7 Q: Right. Even if there had been such 8 evidence though, would you have wanted some clear 9 authority to go into the Park to remove the occupiers? 10 A: I would suggest even more so. 11 Q: Okay. Now, you said in your evidence 12 that you had no direct contact with any provincial 13 cabinet ministers or their political staff regarding the 14 issues at Ipperwash Provincial Park? 15 A: That's right. 16 Q: As I understand it, your only direct 17 communications with government staff, that is civil 18 servants, was with Les Kobayashi and Peter Sturdy -- 19 A: Correct. 20 Q: -- and then at the time of the 21 injunction application Tim McCabe; is that right? 22 A: Yes. I -- I spoke on the phone with 23 McCabe, yes. 24 Q: And, your first contact with him 25 would have been on the afternoon of September 6th?


1 A: Correct. 2 Q: And, your first contact with him 3 would have been on the afternoon of September 6th? 4 A: Correct. 5 Q: That's Mr. McCabe? 6 A: Yes. 7 Q: Yeah. And, did you have any direct 8 contact with any other civil servant? 9 A: The only other one that I had spoken 10 to through -- I'm not sure through -- to the 4th to the 11 6th, but it may have been the weekend prior, may have 12 been Ron Baldwin from the Ministry of Natural Resources 13 out of the Aylmer officer. 14 Q: Okay. So, going to the specific 15 steps that we discussed, the first one was the trespass 16 notice and you testified that you wanted to ensure that 17 there was an understanding that Les Kobayashi would 18 inform the occupiers that the Park was closed and that 19 they were trespassing? 20 A: Correct. 21 Q: So, in effect, you wanted some kind 22 of formal request that the occupiers leave the Park? 23 A: Yes. In -- in any trespassing 24 process the -- the first step you -- you try to address 25 is having the landowner or the landlord direct to the


1 trespasser that you are, in fact, trespassing and request 2 that individual leave voluntarily. 3 Q: Right. So, I'd like you to refer now 4 to Exhibit P-426, which is Inquiry Document Number 5 1002419; those are the scribe notes from September 4th to 6 September 9th? 7 MR. DERRY MILLAR: It's in -- the exhibit 8 -- the exhibit is actually in Volume Number I of the 9 large volumes and it refers to your -- we marked your 10 scribe -- in effect the copy of your scribe -- I think 11 that's Volume II there, sir. 12 THE WITNESS: This is one (1). 13 MR. DERRY MILLAR: Pardon? Oh, it's one 14 (1)? Okay. And, it's at Tab... 15 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I think it's 16 twelve (12). 17 MR. DERRY MILLAR: Twelve (12). 18 THE WITNESS: Yes. 19 MR. DERRY MILLAR: Yes. 20 MS. KIM TWOHIG: Thank you, Mr. Millar. 21 22 CONTINUED BY MS. KIM TWOHIG: 23 Q: So, if you turn to page 3 of that 24 exhibit, sir. 25 A: Yes.


1 Q: I note that at 21:45, which is 9:45 2 on the evening of September 4th, there's a note that Les 3 Kobayashi arrived and briefed you and Mark Wright. And 4 it says: 5 "Getting TPA letters and signs. Signs 6 posted. Get injunction." 7 Is the reference to, "TPA" there, to the 8 Trespass to Property Act? 9 A: Yes. 10 Q: Now, if you turn to the top of page 11 5, the first entry at 22:28 says: 12 "John Carson and Bill Dennis spoke to 13 the proper wording of the trespass 14 notice and it was being typed by Bill 15 Dennis." 16 A: Yes. 17 Q: Who was Bill Dennis? 18 A: Bill Dennis was a Staff Sergeant who 19 was assisting with logistics. 20 Q: Right. And, you were giving advice 21 as to how you thought the notice should be worded? 22 A: Correct. 23 Q: I'd like to show you that notice, 24 which is Document Number 3000631. 25 A: Thank you.


1 Q: I'm wondering if you recognize that 2 document as the one you assisted in drafting? 3 A: I believe that's one and the same. 4 Q: I'm wondering if we could make that 5 an exhibit, Mr. Commissioner? 6 THE REGISTRAR: It's Exhibit P-459, Your 7 Honour. 8 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: P-459. 9 10 --- EXHIBIT NO. P-459: Document No. 3000631 11 Trespass, September 04/'95 12 signed by Les Kobayahi 13 14 CONTINUED BY MS. KIM TWOHIG: 15 Q: A little farther down on page 5, at 16 22:38, I see that there was some discussion as to how to 17 serve this notice. 18 A: Yes. 19 Q: "Maybe we can serve Bert, as he seems 20 receptive." 21 Was that a reference to Bert Manning? 22 A: Correct. 23 Q: And, I understand that you did not 24 expect Mr. Kobayashi to go into the Park alone to serve 25 this notice?


1 A: No, I would not. 2 Q: But rather you arranged for him to go 3 with Vince George late on the evening of September 4th? 4 A: Yes. 5 Q: And I understand there were other 6 officers in the area at that time who would ensure the 7 safety of Vince George and Les Kobayashi? 8 A: Correct. 9 Q: Okay. Do you know if any other 10 officers accompanied them in a vehicle down to the Park? 11 A: I wouldn't have that direct 12 knowledge. There -- there certainly would be officers, 13 other officers in the area but I believe it was just the 14 two (2) of them that actually attempted to serve notice. 15 Q: If you look at the entry at 22:45 on 16 page 6, I wondering if that assists: 17 Stan Korosec: When they first arrived 18 the Park wasn't closed. Glen showed 19 up. 20 Stan Korosec: Do you feel okay with 21 this regarding service of the papers?" 22 Do you recall whether Stan Korosec went 23 with Mr. George? 24 A: He's -- he's talk -- Korosec is 25 referring to when the occupiers first come into the Park


1 in that -- in that reference. 2 Q: I see. 3 A: But the Park in fact wasn't closed at 4 the time they came in. 5 Q: If you turn then to page 12 of 6 Exhibit 426 at 00:38 hours there's a note that: 7 "Stan Korosec: Line patched to John 8 Carson. Come back to Detachment. If 9 they won't accept it we will serve 10 verbally. 11 Stand Korosec: Advises they won't 12 accept, to come back tomorrow at noon." 13 Do you recall that conversation? 14 A: Yes, I do. 15 Q: And on page 13 it appears that they 16 arrived back at the Detachment at 1:10 hours and you were 17 advised by Vince George that: 18 "Bert Manning, intoxicated with other 19 male attended, wouldn't speak. We'll 20 meet tomorrow around noon. 21 Vince George saw Dave George was going 22 to serve. They backed up, refused to 23 be served." 24 A: Correct. 25 Q: So as I understand it, they attempted


1 to serve Bert Manning but he refused the notice and said 2 to come back the next day at noon; was that your 3 understanding? 4 A: That's right. That's right. 5 Q: And they attempted to serve David 6 George as well but he backed up and refused the noticer 7 as well? 8 A: Correct. 9 Q: On page 14 there's a reference at the 10 top of the page. 11 MR. DERRY MILLAR: Excuse me. 12 MS. KIM TWOHIG: Yes? 13 MR. DERRY MILLAR: One of the things that 14 -- and I'm sorry to interrupt My Friend but it's 15 important that everyone understand. The document that 16 was marked as Exhibit P-426 was 1002419 which the Deputy 17 Commissioner is looking at. The document that -- that 18 Ms. Twohig has is the -- a copy of the scribe notes that 19 was provided to us with some corrections made. 20 For whatever reason there are differences 21 in the -- because of the formatting or the printing, some 22 things appear -- they're not -- it's not exactly the 23 same. The words are the same except where there the -- 24 the errors have been corrected, but the pagination's not 25 the same.


1 MS. KIM TWOHIG: Thank you for that 2 advice, Mr. Millar. I'll try to give you references then 3 to the times instead of the pages. That may be more 4 helpful. 5 6 CONTINUED BY MS. KIM TWOHIG. 7 Q: At the entry then at 01:13 hours, the 8 second last entry, the second last sentence says: 9 "We will hang onto service if we get a 10 chance officially and sit down with 11 them and give it to them. But they 12 know." 13 What did you mean by, "they know"? 14 A: Oh, from the contact with -- with 15 Bert Manning and there was some discussion -- I mean 16 there -- I -- I would suggest that the indication from 17 Les Kobayashi and Vince George that what exchange took 18 place in their mind, they felt they delivered the message 19 verbally. 20 Q: Did they give you any details about 21 what was said at that time? 22 A: I'm sure they would have, but today I 23 -- I certainly can't reflect on what that was. 24 Q: Thank you. I'd like you to turn 25 next, then, to the entry at 12:12 hours on September 5th.


1 In my book it's page 34, but that may not be the same as 2 yours. 3 A: Yes. 4 Q: That indicates that Detective 5 Sergeant Mark Wright, Sergeant Brad Seltzer and Les 6 Kobayashi from the MNR have gone to the Park. 7 A: Yes. 8 Q: Was that in order to serve the notice 9 as they had been instructed to do at noon the following 10 day? 11 A: Yeah. This is in attempt to have the 12 twelve o'clock meeting. 13 Q: And, moving forward then, to my page 14 38, the entry at 15:07. This is... 15 MR. DERRY MILLAR: It's the bottom of 16 page 37, I think. 17 18 CONTINUED BY MS. KIM TWOHIG: 19 Q: Thank you. The bottom of page 37, I 20 believe, and running onto the next page. 21 The third entry, I believe says: 22 "Detective Sergeant Wright advises 23 Inspector Carson that he told the First 24 Nations people that they are 25 trespassing and that it's his


1 understanding that the MNR are seeking 2 an injunction." 3 Do you remember that information? 4 A: Yes. 5 Q: And, farther down there, it says: 6 "Les Kobayashi wanted to know if they 7 should go back to the Park today. 8 Detective Sergeant Wright feels we 9 won't accomplish anything today." 10 And then, there was a discussion of some 11 other issues. 12 Do you know why Mr. Kobayashi wanted to go 13 back or was asking if they should go back? 14 A: I'm not sure. 15 Q: So, you don't know whether or not 16 that was to attempt service again? 17 A: I -- I can't be sure. 18 Q: Okay. Do you know if any further 19 attempts were made to serve the trespass notice? 20 A: I don't believe there was any other 21 opportunity 22 Q: Okay. Now, I understand that in 23 terms of notice, signs were posted in the Park. In fact, 24 if we go back to page 21 or thereabouts, I think it's the 25 first page after Tab 2. At 8:34 hours on September 5th


1 there's an entry: 2 "Les Kobayashi advised that they have 3 posted signs that the Park is closed." 4 Do you remember that? 5 A: Yes. There -- there was certainly 6 information to that effect. 7 Q: And, the signs were the ones that 8 said: "Park closed. No unauthorized 9 persons permitted beyond this point." 10 A: I believe so, yes. 11 Q: In fact, on page 4, at 22:26 hours 12 the previous evening, the wording of the signs is set 13 out, although it appears to me that there may be a 14 typographical error. 15 Do you see that entry? 16 "Les Kobayashi displayed signs to John 17 Carson, Park Closed." 18 A: Correct. 19 Q: And, I believe that should be: 20 "No unauthorized person" 21 A: Yes. 22 Q: Thank you. So, in terms of the steps 23 in the injunction process, step 1 had been completed in 24 that the MNR and the OPP had taken steps to give notice, 25 both in writing through the trespass notice, verbally and


1 with the signs, right? 2 A: Correct. Yes. 3 Q: So, when that was unsuccessful, the 4 next step was the application for the injunction -- 5 A: Correct. 6 Q: -- is that right? 7 So, on page 24, I believe, of the exhibit 8 that you've got, the fifth entry under 09:25 hours, which 9 deals with a meeting of a number of officers that took 10 place at the command post, I understand? 11 A: Correct. 12 Q: It says: 13 "John Carson replies, MNR is working on 14 an injunction." 15 A: Yes. 16 Q: And, at the top of the next page or 17 in the next paragraph, it says: 18 "John Carson discussed issue about 19 injunction. Stated that the party the 20 injunction is against has the option to 21 appear." 22 This would only be possible, presumably, 23 if notice of the injunction were given -- 24 A: Correct. 25 Q: -- is that right?


1 And, the intention at that time was to 2 give notice? 3 A: Well, I -- I have to confess that 4 when it comes to the injunction process, I -- I -- 5 probably wasn't very well versed on the types of 6 injunction, but I -- I had some sense that there would be 7 an opportunity for the -- the third-party to have an 8 opportunity to argue at the application process. 9 So, I -- I was making -- I'm not sure how 10 I developed the information, but I certainly had some 11 sense that they would be notified by some means. 12 Q: And, you don't recall whether you 13 were informed of that or whether you gathered that from 14 your general knowledge of the Court process? 15 A: Well, I know Chief Superintendent 16 Coles certainly had some -- probably more experience in 17 that -- in that area and I -- and I may have picked up 18 bits of the process through various discussions at the -- 19 through the Division Office with him. 20 Q: Okay. Now, various times during that 21 day, and I won't take you to them, but there are entries 22 -- on my pages, 41, 42 and 49, that an affidavit in 23 support of an injunction was being prepared. 24 Do you remember receiving that information 25 throughout the day?


1 A: Yes. Yes. 2 Q: Was there any discussion as to the 3 contents of the affidavit? 4 A: The only issue around the contents 5 would be that we were asked to provide the names of the 6 individuals who were in the Park. The construction of 7 the affidavit had literally nothing to do with anyone at 8 the command post or in the Ipperwash area at all. 9 Q: Okay. 10 A: In fact, it wasn't until the next day 11 on the 6th that we were asked to provide viva voce 12 evidence at the application hearing the following day. 13 Q: Right. Now, if I can take you to 14 page 62, the entry at 14:27 hours on September 6th, 15 there's an entry about two-thirds of the way down, 14:27, 16 I believe it's on your page 62 as well, where it says: 17 "Les Kobayashi is waiting for a copy of 18 the new wording of the affidavit; he 19 will be signing it. Trevor Richardson 20 has given them photographs to 21 substantiate the affidavit. May have 22 it today. 23 Mark Wright: There will be a leg 24 time. The second party has to have an 25 opportunity to attend."


1 Do you remember that? 2 A: I -- I know we certainly had some 3 discussion about it. 4 Q: So, when he says, "there will be a 5 leg time," what did you take from that? 6 A: I think the word should have been, 7 "lag." 8 Q: Lag time. And, the lag time was in 9 order to provide service as contemplated at this time? 10 A: That's my sense, yes. 11 Q: Now, you may recall that you had told 12 Ron Fox that you would support an emergent order as you 13 or he referred to it or an ex parte order based on the 14 progression of events; do you recall that? 15 A: Yes. 16 Q: Okay. And, you told Ron Fox that you 17 were prepared to give evidence in Court in support of the 18 request for an ex parte injunction? 19 A: Right. 20 Q: Yeah. And, what led to the change to 21 the ex parte injunction as far as you're aware? 22 A: Well, getting back to my knowledge of 23 injunctions is it was probably the issue. I believe in 24 the discussions with Ron Fox, he I believe indicated 25 that, you know, the one type of injunction may take as


1 long as two (2) to achieve. 2 That certainly created some anxiety for 3 me, I can tell you that. And I certainly felt that, you 4 know, we needed the support of an injunction earlier than 5 a two (2) week period. 6 And I felt the progression of events, the 7 confrontation that took place when they first came into 8 the Park and the -- the refusal for any discussion to 9 take place to this point already indicated that, you 10 know, co-operation wasn't something that I was going to 11 see a lot of. 12 Q: Okay. I would like to take you now 13 to Exhibit 444(B) which is the transcripts of the audio 14 logger selected tracks for September 5th to 7th. This is 15 Volume II. 16 And at Tab 39 of that volume is a 17 transcript of your conversation with Mr. McCabe at 18 approximately 14:36 hours or around 2:30 in the afternoon 19 of September 6th. 20 A: Yes. 21 Q: And in this conversation, I 22 understand Mr. McCabe tells you what he needs from you in 23 terms of the injunction application. 24 If you turn to page 268 about a third of 25 the way down, Mr. McCabe says:


1 "The latest here is, I'll be interested 2 in due course to hear what the latest 3 on the scene is. But I expect to get 4 confirmed instructions to -- later this 5 afternoon to seek an ex parte 6 interlocutory injunction." 7 Do you see that? 8 A: Yes. 9 Q: And further down he says: 10 "So two (2) things. First, I think the 11 best way of approaching this rather 12 than try to provide your affidavit to 13 the Court, would be to have you in 14 attendance and just go through a series 15 of questions as to the circumstances as 16 it exists." 17 And at the bottom of the page: 18 "Mostly factual. You knows, a factual 19 narrative." 20 A: Correct. 21 Q: I'm just -- you remember that? 22 A: Oh, yes. Yes. 23 Q: Yeah. And on the next page Mr. 24 McCabe -- I'm sorry, on page 270, Mr. McCabe asks for the 25 names of the people who are occupying the Park because he


1 needs that for the title of proceeding. 2 Do you see that about halfway down? 3 A: Correct. 4 Q: Then on page 271, a little more than 5 halfway down, Mr. McCabe says: 6 "But we'll be seeking this ex parte, as 7 I say, which means without notice, and 8 in those circumstances it's important 9 to be able to show some kind of 10 urgency." 11 And you say, "yes". 12 And in -- he says then: 13 "In order to demonstrate that if the 14 order is not granted or if the time 15 necessary to give the period of notice, 16 serious consequences could occur." 17 And you say, "right". 18 And then he says: 19 "I think the thing that has gotten 20 people particularly concerned here is 21 the reports of gunfire last night." 22 Do you see that? 23 A: Yes. 24 Q: And on the next page you go onto 25 qualify that. About a third (1/3) of the way down you


1 say to Mr. McCabe: 2 "The gunfire was back in the bush. I 3 have to be frank with you that we have 4 not had a weapon pointed at us and we 5 haven't seen one fired in any direction 6 and there is no reason to believe that 7 the firing that we heard last night was 8 anything more than audio for our 9 benefit." 10 Q: Right? 11 A: Yes. 12 Q: And you continue to have some 13 discussion about that. And on the next page, 274, it's 14 two (2) pages later and about a third (1/3) of the way 15 down you say: 16 "I mean just as long as it's understood 17 in the big picture, not in isolation, 18 because I don't want people to think or 19 that your affidavit, to suggest that we 20 have been fired upon or any of those 21 kinds of things." 22 And Mr. McCabe says: 23 "Well, the information about that will 24 come from you or from the officers." 25 A: Did you understand from this that


1 there would be no Affidavit, but rather you or one (1) of 2 the other OPP officers would be giving evidence in Court? 3 A: Yes, the -- the phone call, part of 4 the phone call was to identify some of the information 5 but to put us on notice that -- or asking us to provide 6 us viva voce evidence in Court. 7 Initially it was requested that I do it 8 personally, which I was prepared to do, but in discussion 9 with Chief Superintendent Coles, because of the 10 activities going on, felt it was best that I remain at 11 the command post and have Sergeant Wright carry that out, 12 so that I could continue to take care of the duties at 13 the command post. 14 Q: Right, and just to finish up with 15 your conversation with Mr. McCabe, he says following that 16 exchange: 17 "And, you know, they won't be -- there 18 won't really be any leading questions. 19 It'll be sort of identifying yourself, 20 tell the story of what's happening 21 there." 22 And you said: 23 "Sure we can certainly do that." 24 A: Yes. 25 Q: So, he made it clear that any


1 evidence about the current circumstances would come from 2 you, not through leading questions. 3 A: Correct. 4 Q: Yeah. Did you have any conversations 5 with Mr. McCabe other than the ones we've heard on the 6 tapes? 7 A: No. 8 Q: Okay. 9 A: Not prior to September the 6th. 10 Q: So you had planned to meet with Mark 11 Wright to discuss his evidence, but I understand that 12 didn't happen because of other events? 13 A: That's right. 14 Q: Did you have any discussion at all 15 with Mark Wright about his evidence in advance of the 16 Court hearing? 17 A: I don't know if we ever had an 18 opportunity to speak about it, quite frankly. I -- I 19 really don't think that -- I don't remember the 20 opportunity presenting itself, quite frankly. 21 Q: Okay. And there was a later 22 conversation in which you informed Mr. McCabe that Mark 23 Wright would be the one who would attend in Court and you 24 gave a little bit of background about his involvement 25 with the events at Ipperwash. Do you remember that?


1 A: Yes. 2 Q: And apart from that conversation, did 3 you ever discuss with Mr. McCabe what evidence Mark 4 Wright would give or would be expected to give? 5 A: No. There was an expectation that 6 prior to the Application, I believe it was going to take 7 place at nine o'clock in the morning, the next morning, 8 that there would be an opportunity at eight o'clock to 9 meet with Mr. McCabe and have some discussion about how 10 the process was going to roll out. 11 Q: Yes. Now, if I can take you back to 12 Exhibit P-426 at Tab 5 there are notes from the evening 13 of September 6th to the morning of September 7th. 14 And on the first page at that Tab -- 15 A: What page is that on the -- the 16 notes? 17 Q: I've got page 72. 18 A: Okay. Thank you. 19 Q: There's an entry at 19:45 hours or 20 7:45 in the evening. 21 A: Yes. 22 Q: Do you see that? 23 A: Yes. 24 Q: And the first entry is: 25 "Tim McCabe called. Wants Mark Wright


1 to call him reviewing evidence for 2 tomorrow. He will be faxing a copy of 3 his injunction for us to try to serve 4 the natives to let them know what's 5 happening." 6 I take it you were off duty at this time 7 or right around this time? 8 A: That's -- that's about the time or 9 I'd just left. 10 Q: Yes. And then at 9:18 or 21:18 you 11 were back on duty, is that right, and down at the Park? 12 A: Yes. 13 Q: Okay. On page -- 14 A: Well, I think I -- I can -- I think 15 it was 21:45 actually, I arrived at the Park or the 16 parking lot. 17 18 (BRIEF PAUSE) 19 20 Q: I'm sorry. My Friends Mr. Millar and 21 Mr. Sandler have pointed out that there is an entry on 22 page 76 at 20:57 hours, which it appears, we may both 23 have forgotten about, where it says: 24 "Mark Wright: I spoke to Attorney 25 General lawyers and went over my


1 evidence." 2 And, following that: 3 "John Carson: Okay. But I want to 4 speak to you about this. John Carson 5 and Mark Wright left to speak about 6 same." 7 Do you remember that? 8 A: I don't remember having the 9 discussion, but obviously it did take place. 10 Q: So, if you don't remember having the 11 discussion, I take it you don't recall what was 12 discussed? 13 A: No. All I can -- I can only surmise, 14 given my discussion with McCabe as to what my 15 understanding of his expectations would be. 16 Q: Thank you. And, thank you, Mr. 17 Millar and Mr. Sandler, I appreciate that. 18 So, going ahead, then, to 21:18 hours, 19 there's an entry: 20 "Dale Linton called Tim McCabe. Update 21 him as to current problems, therefore 22 it would be difficult for us to go in 23 and serve any documents." 24 Did you provide Inspector Linton with 25 information that it would be difficult to serve given the


1 circumstances at that time? 2 A: No. 3 Q: So, that would have been his decision 4 according to these scribe notes? 5 A: Yes. Quite frankly, I -- I don't 6 recollect that I knew he made that call. 7 Q: And, would it be fair to say that if 8 the police were unable to serve notice of the injunction, 9 no one else could reasonably have served notice? 10 A: That's fair. 11 Q: So, all communications then, with Mr. 12 McCabe indicated that even though the Government was 13 bringing an ex parte application, Mr. McCabe wanted to 14 give the occupiers notice of the application in advance 15 of the Court hearing if at all possible? 16 A: Right. 17 Q: So, I take it then, that you heard 18 nothing about the injunction application until Mark 19 Wright called you at about 1:30 p.m. on September 7th -- 20 A: Right. 21 Q: -- do you recall that? 22 And, if I could take you back to Exhibit 23 444(B), Tab 82, there's a conversation with Mr. Wright 24 about what happened. 25 A: Yes.


1 Q: And, in that conversation, I take it 2 he was expressing some frustration about the outcome? 3 A: Yes. 4 Q: And, as you understood it from him, 5 an interim injunction was granted, but a number of 6 conditions were imposed; is that correct? 7 A: Correct. 8 Q: All right. And, I take it that 9 because you gave evidence the following day in London, 10 you had an opportunity to read the order that was made by 11 Justice Daudlin? 12 A: I believe I did. 13 Q: And, that would be Exhibit P-442. 14 I'm wondering if we could just pull that up on the 15 screen. 16 MR. DERRY MILLAR: What's the document 17 number? 18 19 (BRIEF PAUSE) 20 21 MS. KIM TWOHIG: We're just having a 22 look. Unfortunately, Mr. Commissioner, I've had some 23 technical difficulties with my computer and haven't been 24 able to call up the document numbers and I do apologize 25 for that.


1 THE REGISTRAR: 1000891. 2 MS. KIM TWOHIG: 1000891. 3 THE WITNESS: Which book is that in, 4 please? 5 MS. KIM TWOHIG: I'm not sure about that. 6 7 (BRIEF PAUSE) 8 9 MR. DERRY MILLAR: Perhaps we could just 10 get the marked exhibit, Your Honour. 11 MS. KIM TWOHIG: I was just going to 12 review, generally, the terms of it, so it may not be 13 necessary to get it, but in fairness to My Friends, I 14 wanted to -- to call it up. 15 16 (BRIEF PAUSE) 17 18 MS. KIM TWOHIG: Thank you. 19 20 CONTINUED BY MS. KIM TWOHIG: 21 Q: Now, if I could just draw your 22 attention to paragraph 5. I understand that in this 23 Order an interim injunction was granted and in paragraph 24 5 of the Order, it says that the Order remains in effect 25 until 12:00 noon on September 11th, 1995 and that was the


1 following Monday -- 2 A: Right. 3 Q: This being September 7th, the 4 Thursday before. 5 A: Correct. 6 Q: Right. And in paragraph 6: 7 "The Court orders that this proceeding 8 be continued by way of argument for an 9 interlocutory injunction effective 10 until trial, at 10:00 a.m. Monday 11 September 11th." 12 And in paragraph 7: 13 "The enforcement of this interim 14 injunction is to be stayed until 12:00 15 noon on September 11th. 16 A: Correct. 17 Q: So, even though the injunction was 18 granted, nothing could be done with respect to it until 19 the following Monday at noon? 20 A: Right. 21 Q: And that would be presumably 22 following argument about whether or not the injunction 23 should be extended? 24 A: Yes. 25 Q: And paragraph 8, the Court also


1 ordered that service is to be effected upon the occupants 2 of the Park by and without reviewing it word for word, 3 basically posting the Order and a copy of the documents 4 used in the Motion on the main gate. And if that's not 5 possible, dropping ten (10) copies of the Order and the 6 documents used by aircraft. 7 And in addition to that, in paragraph B, 8 dropping by aircraft upon the Park in the area known to 9 be occupied fifty (50) copies of the Order together with 10 a direction that a copy of the Order -- sorry, and the 11 documents used in the Motion are posted on the main gate. 12 Now, I take it that this was Justice 13 Daudlin's idea, as far as you're aware? 14 A: That's my understanding, yes. 15 Q: This was not something that had been 16 suggested by lawyers from the Ministry of the Attorney 17 General? 18 A: Not that I'm aware of. 19 Q: And as far as you are aware, the 20 method of service proposed was a concern, not only to the 21 OPP but also to the Attorney General's lawyers? 22 A: I believe so, yes. 23 Q: And some of those concerns would have 24 been -- 25 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I see Mr.


1 Falconer on his feet -- 2 OBJ MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Mr. Commissioner, 3 I'm objecting on behalf of the LST. We were moving from 4 what was in the Judge's mind to what was in the minds of 5 the lawyers for the Attorney General. 6 I imagine eventually we'll get to Mr. 7 Carson's mind, but it seems to me that if Officer Carson 8 was -- Deputy Carson wasn't present at proceedings, he's 9 -- he's not in a position to say what the lawyers for the 10 Attorney Generals did or did not argue before the Judge. 11 He can advise what the OPP's position is 12 on service and -- and what instruction he gave to people 13 under his authority, but I don't think he can go past 14 that. 15 Surely there's others who'll testify who 16 can help Ms. Twohig on that? 17 MS. KIM TWOHIG: Mr. Commissioner, 18 perhaps if My Friend would bear with me, I understand 19 that Deputy Commissioner Carson actually attended at 20 Court the following day to speak to this very issue; is 21 that right, sir? 22 THE WITNESS: Correct. 23 24 CONTINUED BY MS. KIM TWOHIG: 25 Q: So you would have had discussions


1 with Mr. McCabe prior to your appearance on September 2 7th? 3 A: Yes, I -- I was at the district 4 headquarters at London -- 5 Q: I'm sorry, September 8th. 6 A: Correct. On Friday, September the 7 8th. I was at district headquarters in London. I was 8 contacted by Superintendent Baranoski and there was an -- 9 an Application for a Variance that was going forward by 10 Mr. McCabe in London. And I was asked to literally 11 hustle down to the Courthouse and provide assistance to 12 Mr. McCabe by way of viva voce evidence in regards to 13 that variance. 14 Q: Okay. Do you know whose decision it 15 was to seek the variance? 16 A: I -- I'm assuming that it was Mr. 17 McCabe's. 18 Q: And you Base that assumption on the 19 fact that you heard that a variation would be sought from 20 him? 21 A: Well he was making application for 22 the -- for the variance but I guess what I didn't know is 23 what discussion led to the request going forward. 24 Now, there may have been discussion with 25 Chief Superintendent Coles possibly or -- or somebody


1 from the organization, but given... 2 3 (BRIEF PAUSE) 4 5 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes, Mr. 6 Ross? 7 MR. ANTHONY ROSS: Mr. Commissioner, with 8 respect, Counsel asked Deputy a specific question: "Did 9 he know?" 10 His answer is "no" then he goes on "I 11 guess I suspect"; I don't think it's helpful. 12 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well, all 13 right. Let's take -- 14 MS. KIM TWOHIG: I agree; that's fine. 15 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: -- 16 separately. 17 18 CONTINUED BY MS. KIM TWOHIG. 19 Q: Are you agree aware of the reasons 20 why Mr. McCabe did not go back to Justice Daudlin with 21 respect to the order of September 7th? 22 A: No. 23 Q: All right. What -- did -- did you 24 share your concerns or the concerns of the OPP about the 25 Order of September 7th with Mr. McCabe?


1 A: Well he certainly was aware of the 2 difficulty I had with the means of attempting service. 3 Q: From your discussions with Mr. 4 McCabe, was it your understanding that he shared those 5 concerns? 6 A: That was my impression, yes. 7 Q: Okay. So, why were you selected to 8 go to give evidence in London rather than Mark Wright? 9 A: I was in London at the time. 10 Q: And I under -- 11 A: Either could have done it. He 12 certainly could have done it as well as I -- as I. 13 Q: Now, as a result of the Government's 14 application to vary Justice Daudlin's order, we see that 15 the helicopter drop was not longer necessary; is that 16 correct? 17 A: Right. 18 Q: And on September 11th, 1995, the 19 injunction application was withdrawn in Court. 20 Were you aware of that? 21 A: That's my understanding, yes. 22 Q: Now with respect to the 23 interministerial committee, I'm wondering if you've ever 24 been a part of the committee? 25 A: I never have.


1 Q: Are you aware of the composition and 2 purpose of the committee? 3 A: Well I -- I believe the purpose was 4 to have interministerial representation in order to 5 provide some advice or assistance in the blockade type 6 issues, is how I understood that the committee -- or what 7 the objective of the committee was. 8 Q: Did you every read the minutes of the 9 committee meetings in early September 1995? 10 A: No. 11 Q: Okay. In a tape that we have of a 12 conversation between you and was it Staff Sergeant 13 Parkin? 14 A: That would be Superintendent Parkin? 15 Q: Superintendent, I'm sorry. 16 A: That's okay. 17 Q: You talk about how the people from 18 the government are saying: 19 "Why don't we treat them [being the 20 occupiers], just like a bunch of 21 bikers." 22 Do you remember that statement? 23 A: Not specifically but... 24 Q: Perhaps, I could take you then to Tab 25 21 of Exhibit 444(A).


1 (BRIEF PAUSE) 2 3 Q: Page 169, in the middle of the page, 4 Superintendent Parkins says: 5 "Apparently they want to go for the 6 regular injunction." 7 A: Yes. 8 Q: And, you say: 9 "Are we prepared to live with that?" 10 A: And, he says: 11 "Depends who you listen to. Apparently 12 the people from the Government are 13 saying, you know, why don't we treat 14 them just like a bunch of bikers?" 15 I'm -- I'm sorry, I see that was from 16 Superintendent Parkin and not from you. 17 Did you receive any information about a 18 specific person who may have made a comment like that? 19 A: I have no idea who -- who made that 20 comment. 21 Q: Okay. So, you -- you wouldn't know 22 whether, in fact, the comment was made at all and if so, 23 whether it was made by civil servants or political staff. 24 A: I -- I don't know who he's referring 25 the comment to.


1 Q: Okay. On a conversation with Ron 2 Fox, which is at Tab 37 of the same exhibit, at the very 3 end of that conversation... 4 5 (BRIEF PAUSE) 6 7 Q: I'm sorry, I may have the wrong one. 8 9 (BRIEF PAUSE) 10 11 Q: Excuse me, Mr. Commissioner, I'm just 12 looking for the reference to Larry Taman and maybe I can 13 just ask you. 14 You said that -- thank you -- at page 274 15 -- I've never been a good paper manager, that would be in 16 exhibit... 17 MR. DERRY MILLAR: 444(B). 18 MS. KIM TWOHIG: 444(B). 19 20 (BRIEF PAUSE) 21 22 MS. KIM TWOHIG: I'm indebted to My 23 Friends for giving me correct references, Tab 39. 24 25 (BRIEF PAUSE)


1 2 MS. KIM TWOHIG: I'm looking for the 3 reference to Mr. Taman, which is at the end of a 4 conversation. 5 6 CONTINUED BY MS. KIM TWOHIG: 7 Tab 37. Yes, thank you. So, I was right 8 in the first place about Tab 74, but I didn't have the 9 page -- 274 in the middle of the page. 10 A: Yes? 11 Q: Or about two-thirds (2/3) of the way 12 down, Mr. Fox says: 13 "The fellow who supported our 14 position the best was the Deputy 15 Attorney General, yeah, Larry Taman." 16 A: Yes. 17 Q: And then, he says that he's going to 18 give you or -- 19 A: But, if I -- if I could just -- 20 Q: -- Superintendent Coles. 21 A: That -- that particular discussion 22 was occurring with Coles and Fox. 23 Q: Hmm hmm. 24 A: That was after I had turned the phone 25 over to him.


1 Q: Right. Were you in the room and did 2 you hear that exchange? 3 A: I -- I was in the room, but I 4 wouldn't have heard the Fox side of the conversation. 5 Q: Do you know if the call was ever 6 continued? 7 Do you know whether Chief Superintendent 8 Coles called Mr. Fox back? 9 A: My understand -- standing is, he hung 10 up the phone, went into the detachment and -- and called 11 him right back. 12 Q: Did you receive any information at 13 all about what Larry Taman or others said at the meeting? 14 A: None. 15 Q: When you were asked about what you 16 might have done differently if you had to do things over 17 again, I believe you said that you were not have Mr. 18 Kobayashi attend all the meetings at the command post; is 19 that right? 20 A: Correct. 21 Q: At the time you had asked him to 22 attend the command post meetings, that is, in September 23 of 1995? 24 A: Correct. 25 Q: And, why was that?


1 A: Why was he asked to? 2 Q: Yes. 3 A: Well, first of all, I -- I knew Mr. 4 Kobayashi for a number of years and I knew his role as a 5 superintendent of the Provincial Parks in this area. And 6 the events taking place certainly were clearly -- he had 7 a vested interest in what taking place. 8 And my intent was to provide him with as 9 much information as possible to assist him with his part 10 of the business in regards to the injunction to -- to 11 attempt to keep him well informed and for him, likewise, 12 to keep me well informed of the activities that he was 13 trying to deal with. 14 So, it was really more of a communication 15 and a -- professional courtesy that he be involved and I 16 certainly at the front end, I didn't -- I didn't see that 17 having any negative effect on -- on the operations. It 18 could only contribute to smoother communications. 19 The idea being is if you can have a group 20 together, have a discussion as a whole, you only have to 21 discuss it once, and everybody gets the same information. 22 Q: Right. So, what made you think, in 23 hindsight, that it would be best to include him only on 24 matters that were relevant to his area? 25 A: Well, there are certainly some


1 policing matters and the analysis of the some of the 2 information that probably need to be -- be analysed very 3 carefully as to what's relevant and what's not, so that 4 the information -- I mean he was, by his presence, you 5 know, he had access to all -- pretty much all of the 6 police information which probably wasn't totally 7 appropriate. 8 I'm certainly not suggesting any -- 9 anything inappropriate on his part, but simply his 10 presence provided him that opportunity or that 11 information which really probably put him in an awkward 12 spot. 13 Q: Hmm hmm. Would it be fair to say 14 that -- that you were concerned that he might not 15 appreciate the nuances of police operations? 16 A: That's fair. 17 Q: Did he ever attempt to interfere with 18 police discretion or police operations during those 19 meetings? 20 A: Never. He -- he's very much a 21 gentleman and a professional and if he had some point of 22 view, it certainly would be discussed in a most 23 professional manner. 24 Q: All right. Do you have any reason to 25 believe that any government employees with whom you


1 communicated during these events acted other than 2 honestly and in good faith? 3 A: I have no reason to believe 4 otherwise. 5 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Mr. 6 Commissioner...? 7 8 (BRIEF PAUSE) 9 10 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: I understand why 11 Counsel for the Province of Ontario wants this Witness to 12 indicate that all of the people he had contact with are 13 honest and operate in good faith. 14 But surely that's goes way too far in 15 terms of what you can ask a witness? 16 Aren't all these people good people? 17 With great respect, how helpful is it and 18 it just goes too far. 19 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well -- 20 MS. KIM TWOHIG: Mr. Commissioner, I 21 asked if he had any reason to believe and I wanted to 22 know, for example, if he had any reason to believe that 23 any misrepresentation had been made to the Court, for 24 example, on the Application for the injunction. 25 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: That's a


1 more specific question. 2 MS. KIM TWOHIG: Maybe I could be more 3 specific. 4 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: That's a 5 more specific question I think. 6 MS. KIM TWOHIG: Yeah. 7 THE WITNESS: I have no reason to believe 8 that. 9 MS. KIM TWOHIG: No. 10 11 CONTINUED BY MS. KIM TWOHIG: 12 Q: And do you have any reason to believe 13 that communications between -- communications by 14 Government staff with you were anything less than honest 15 and candid? 16 A: I didn't get any -- no. 17 Q: Thank you. Those are my questions, 18 Mr. Commissioner. 19 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Thank you 20 very much, Ms. Twohig. 21 Are you ready to do your little bit now, 22 Ms. Jones? 23 Is Ms. Jones around? 24 MR. MARK SANDLER: Not here 25 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: No, she's


1 down in the room. 2 Okay, that's fine. We'll take a break 3 now. We'll take a break now and maybe she'll do it 4 after. We'll take a morning break now. 5 THE REGISTRAR: This Inquiry will recess 6 for fifteen (15) minutes. 7 8 --- Upon recessing at 10:12 a.m. 9 --- Upon resuming at 10:38 a.m. 10 11 THE REGISTRAR: This Inquiry is now 12 resumed. Please be seated. 13 14 (BRIEF PAUSE) 15 16 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Good 17 morning, Mr. Downard. 18 Mr. PETER DOWNARD: Good morning, sir. 19 20 CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. PETER DOWNARD: 21 Q: Sir, my name's Peter Downard and I 22 appear for the former Ontario Premier, Mike Harris. And 23 I just have a few questions for you this morning. 24 Now, Commission Counsel asked you very 25 clearly about the questions whether you were under


1 instructions from the Government -- Provincial Government 2 of the day or whether you were under pressure from the 3 Provincial Government of the day during the period 4 September 4th through 6th. 5 I don't intend to cover that ground again. 6 I would however like to ask you a few questions about the 7 period prior to September 4 and in particular the -- the 8 planning phase for Project Maple. 9 Now, sir, prior to September 4, did 10 Premier Harris or any member of his government or anyone 11 acting on their behalf, instruct you as to the number of 12 officers that should be deployed in the event of an 13 occupation of Ipperwash Provincial Park? 14 A: No, sir. 15 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Mr. 16 Commissioner...? 17 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Okay. Yes, 18 Mr. Falconer? 19 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: I would call it a 20 multi-barrelled question, but I'm not sure how many 21 barrels. It -- it is simply not possible to ask the 22 question of that nature without prompting an objection/ 23 Because when he gets to the point of all 24 the people acting on his behalf, we go down a chain that 25 starts with the top of the Government of Ontario, through


1 the Solicitor General's office all the way through the 2 OPP. 3 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: That's not 4 the case, Mr. Falconer. 5 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Well, but -- 6 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: The question 7 has been asked and its been answered now. 8 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Well, the fact that 9 it was answered during the course of my walking to the 10 microphone with great respect, Mr. Commissioner, is with 11 great respect, I don't think that's how we do it. 12 The issue is whether it was a proper 13 question. 14 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well, I 15 think -- 16 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: And -- and I 17 understand that the officer would be anxious to answer 18 the question no, but the fact of the matter is it was 19 that nature, in my submission, and if you rule against 20 me, you rule against me. 21 But I simply make the point that the 22 question simply spans absolutely every corner. 23 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: That's fine. 24 Thank you Mr. Falconer. 25 MR. DERRY MILLAR: I don't think the


1 question did span every corner. It -- the -- the 2 question was clear what the question was in -- meant. 3 And the -- I don't think it was an improper question. 4 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I think it 5 was a proper question. I want to remind Mr. Falconer 6 that this -- this is an Inquiry, it's not a trial, and I 7 believe in the circumstances of this Inquiry thus far. 8 That's a perfectly proper question and I think the 9 Witness can answer it. Carry on. 10 11 CONTINUED BY MR. PETER DOWNARD: 12 Q: Sir, prior to September 4, did 13 Premier Harris instruct you as to what should be 14 contained in the operational plan that became Project 15 Maple? 16 A: No, sir. 17 Q: Prior to September 4, did any member 18 of Premier Harris' government instruct you as to what 19 should contained in the operational plan that became 20 Project Maple? 21 A: No, sir. 22 Q: Prior to September 4, did anyone who 23 you understood to be acting on behalf of Premier Harris 24 or any member of his government, instruct you as to what 25 should be contained in Project Maple?


1 A: No, sir. Project Maple was developed 2 as a result of a discussion and direction from Chief 3 Superintendent Chris Coles and Superintendent Tony 4 Parkin. 5 I was directed to develop a plan as a 6 result of the concerns that we had at a meeting at our 7 office at the regional headquarters in London. From that 8 I assembled the team and the plan was developed. 9 Q: When you received that direction from 10 your superiors, did you understand that you were in any 11 respect being directed to take an approach to the 12 potential occupation of Ipperwash Park that was different 13 from that taken by the OPP and previously dealing with 14 First Nations incidents? 15 A: No, sir. 16 Q: Sir, did Project Maple ever change 17 prior to the shooting incident on the night of September 18 6th? 19 A: No. 20 Q: Now, sir, in your evidence -- I want 21 to move to a different topic. In your evidence you 22 referred to a -- a press release issued by the township 23 of Bosanquet on September 5th, which bore the -- the 24 title, which I suspect you were not too happy with, 25 called "Reign of Terror Continues?"


1 A: Yes. 2 Q: I'd like to provide you with a copy 3 of that, and this is Inquiry Document 100 - 4 A: Thank you. 5 Q: -- 9983. 6 Now, sir, first of all, is -- is this the 7 press release that you saw on September 5th? 8 A: Yes, I believe I saw it that day. 9 Q: If this could be the next exhibit? 10 THE REGISTRAR: Exhibit P-460. 11 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: P-460. 12 13 --- EXHIBIT NO. P-460: Document 1009983 Town of 14 Bosanquet press release 15 September 05/'95 1:00 p.m. 16 "Reign of Terror continues" 17 18 CONTINUED BY MR. PETER DOWNARD: 19 Q: Now, sir, I only wish to refer you to 20 some words in the last paragraph of the press release, 21 and the last paragraph, at least at the first part of it 22 reads: 23 "The town is demanding that the 24 provincial and Federal governments 25 initiate appropriate action to remove


1 the illegal occupiers from the land. 2 'The laws of Canada and Ontario must be 3 enforced equally for all Canadians.'" 4 And I'll -- it goes on, but I'll stop 5 there. 6 Now, am I correct, sir, that with respect 7 to the activities at Stoney Point in the summer of 1995, 8 you had previously heard this concern expressed in the 9 community or -- or you had previously heard a concern 10 expressed in the community that with respect to 11 activities at Stoney Point, laws were not being enforced 12 equally, is that right? 13 A: That was a common concern. 14 Q: And am I correct, sir, that that 15 concern was, in substance, also expressed to you 16 specifically by the formal First Nations leadership in 17 the area? 18 A: Correct. 19 Q: And in -- in particular, for example, 20 when in your call with Chief Bressette on the early 21 morning of September 5th, he said to you and I quote: 22 "You're going to continue to have 23 problems with that group until somebody 24 enforces a law against them." 25 A: Yes.


1 Q: Now, to move to a different topic, 2 with respect to the matter of a burial ground in the 3 Park, and I understand that you've -- you've testified 4 about your understanding on September 4th, 5th and 6th 5 about that, and the information you received, for 6 example, from Trevor Richardson that he had spoken to 7 Elders at Kettle Point and they said there was no burial 8 site on the -- on the Ipperwash Park part of the Stoney 9 Point land. 10 Do you recall giving that evidence? 11 A: Yes. 12 Q: Now, I want to refer you to two (2) 13 newspaper articles from the period that have previously 14 been marked as exhibits in this Inquiry. 15 The first is Exhibit P-265 and it's 16 Inquiry Document Number 2001764. 17 18 (BRIEF PAUSE) 19 20 A: Thank you. 21 Q: Now, I'm -- I'm just going to -- and 22 I apologize for the size of the -- the print, this is 23 what we get when we press the button. 24 I'm just going to direct you to a 25 particular portion of this article. You'll see that on


1 the -- the first photocopied page there -- there are two 2 and a half (2 1/2) columns? 3 A: Yes. 4 Q: I'm going to refer you to the -- the 5 third column. 6 A: Okay. 7 Q: And it's already clear that it's been 8 reviewed that in -- this article refers to an interview 9 with Kettle and Stony Point Band Administrator, Elizabeth 10 Thunder. 11 And you'll see, sir, that in the third 12 column, about half way down, or a third of the way down, 13 the paragraph reads and I quote: 14 "An archeological study turned up no 15 evidence the land was ever a tribal 16 burial ground. That has been one of 17 the motive attributed to the occupiers 18 for taking over the Park." Unquote. 19 And then it goes on to say, in making -- 20 in attributing a statement to Ms. Thunder, and that -- 21 that's what I'm -- want to ask you about. Quote: 22 "Thunder confirms that there has been 23 no historical land claim on the Park, 24 and she added that native elders are 25 unaware of any burial grounds there."


1 Unquote. 2 A: Yes. 3 Q: Now do you recall reading this 4 article during the -- the September 4th -- well, 5 September 5th and 6th period? 6 A: No, sir. 7 Q: Do you recall receiving information 8 in substance that the -- oh, I -- I beg your pardon. Mr. 9 Millar points out that this is dated September 7th. 10 So there's no -- there's no doubt as to 11 the accuracy of your last answer. 12 A: I appreciate that. 13 Q: Do you recall -- do you recall 14 receiving information during September 4 -- 4th, 5th or 15 6th that -- that the Kettle and Stony Point Council, or 16 its leadership, were of the view that the existence of a 17 burial ground in Ipperwash Provincial Park had not been 18 established? 19 A: Chief Bressette certainly was the -- 20 of -- of the view that there was no claim there, in any 21 way. I had -- I had requested, through Inspector Fox, in 22 regards to land claims -- potential land claims in that 23 area, and there -- and all the information came back, 24 there was nothing outstanding. 25 In fact, to the issue of the burial


1 ground, one individual, who was the assistant park 2 superintendent of Ipperwash Park and Pinery Park was Don 3 Matheson, who had lived in this particular area of 4 Lambton County his whole life. 5 My understanding from Don Matheson, that 6 his father was one of the original, or the original park 7 superintendent when the property was turned over to the 8 Department of Lands and Forests, originally, when it was 9 bought from a private individual, and the information 10 even from Don Matheson through what he knew in his family 11 suggested that there was nothing to indicate that there 12 had been any burial sites that he had been aware of, even 13 on a local level. 14 So, I certainly had no information from 15 any source that -- that could provide any credence to a 16 potential burial site. 17 The only burial site that -- that I was 18 aware of, that I was very cognizant of, was the cemetery 19 that exists within Ipperwash Military Base. 20 There is a -- a cemetery there, I was 21 aware the cemetery was there, I have viewed the cemetery 22 there personally, and there was an individual who was 23 buried there during my tenure when I was Detachment 24 Commander at Forest. 25 I'm sorry, I forget the gentleman's name,


1 but he had -- he had lived on Stoney Point before the 2 Military Base became a Base and he was -- it was provided 3 the family the opportunity bury him in that cemetery. 4 Q: And sir, that gentleman's name was 5 Dan George; is that right? 6 A: That -- I -- that sounds correct. 7 Q: And now, sir, I want to turn to 8 another topic. As I understand your evidence, on the -- 9 on the evening of September 4th, one piece of information 10 you got from -- is it Sergeant Korosec? 11 A: Yes. 12 Q: Was that First Nations people had 13 told Constable Speck and Constable Parks that they would 14 be arrested if they stepped into the Park and would be 15 confronted. 16 Do you recall giving that evidence? 17 A: Yes. 18 Q: And you also testified that Sergeant 19 Korosec was concerned about an OPP officer being grabbed 20 by the First Nations people if the officer tried to 21 effect service of a trespass notice on the park property? 22 A: Yes, we were aware of that. 23 Q: All right. So, when you receive this 24 -- this report that the First Nations people in 25 occupation of the Park had told officers they'd be


1 arrested if they stepped into the Park, did you take from 2 that that the occupiers were establishing a boundary? 3 A: Well, it was -- it was my impression 4 that their claim was to the Park itself, so, I guess in 5 affect, a simple answer, yes. 6 Q: And did you have the impression that 7 -- that the boundary would be that established Park 8 boundary that was physically apparent? 9 A: That would be my impression. 10 Q: Those are my questions, sir. Thank 11 you very much. 12 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Thank you 13 very much. 14 I think the next cross-examiner is Counsel 15 on behalf of Mr. Harnick. 16 MS. JACQUELINE HORVAT: We have no 17 questions. 18 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: No questions. 19 Counsel on behalf of Mr. Runciman? 20 MR. IAN SMITH: Thank you, Commissioner. 21 22 CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. IAN SMITH: 23 Q: Deputy Commissioner Carson, it's Ian 24 Smith appearing for Mr. Runciman. I just have a few 25 questions. I'll plow a little bit of the same ground


1 that Mr. Downard plowed but from the point of view of -- 2 of Mr. Runciman. 3 You've already testified that you did not 4 meet with or speak with Mr. Runciman between September 5 4th and 6th, 1995; is that correct? 6 A: That's correct. 7 Q: And but the possibility of some 8 discussion with him in the -- in your capacity as a 9 member of the Commissioned Officers Association, you did 10 not speak with or meet with him prior to September 4th? 11 A: That's correct. 12 Q: And certainly that discussion had 13 nothing to do with Ipperwash? 14 A: No, sir. 15 Q: And you testified as well that you 16 did not speak to any of Mr. Runciman's staff, his 17 executive assistant or any of his other aides in the 18 period between September 4th and 6th? 19 A: That's correct. 20 Q: Did you speak to any of those people 21 before September 4th? 22 A: No, sir. 23 Q: Do you have any -- the questions that 24 have been put to you on this topic so far have all been 25 about meetings or discussions, did you have any written


1 communication, faxes or e-mails or letters from Mr. 2 Runciman or his staff with respect to Ipperwash prior to 3 September 4th? 4 A: None. 5 Q: Any during the period September 4th 6 to 6th? 7 A: No, sir. 8 Q: Did anyone ever convey a message to 9 you on behalf of Mr. Runciman with respect to Ipperwash 10 either orally or in writing -- 11 A: No, sir. 12 Q: -- up to September 6th? 13 A: Not at all. 14 Q: How about on behalf of anyone in his 15 political staff? 16 A: No, sir. 17 Q: Did you ever receive any 18 instructions, order or direction from Mr. Runciman or his 19 staff about how to deal with the Ipperwash situation on 20 the ground? 21 A: No, sir. 22 Q: Now, you've already testified that at 23 the relevant times it wasn't part of your job to 24 communicate with the Minister's office or indeed the 25 Ministry of the Solicitor General itself at all?


1 A: Correct. 2 Q: And in fact at that time there were 3 several layers in the OPP hierarchy between you and Mr. 4 Runciman; is that fair? 5 A: That's for sure, yes. 6 Q: And those would have included at 7 least the following; Superintendent Parkin, Chief 8 Superintendent Coles, Deputy Commissioner Boose and 9 Commissioner O'Grady; is that fair? 10 A: Yes, that's fair. 11 Q: And that's basically the chain 12 between you and Mr. Runciman or the deputy solicitor 13 general? 14 A: Correct. 15 Q: And did any of those people at any 16 time convey any message to you or any instruction or 17 direction to you on behalf of Mr. Runciman or his staff 18 during the relevant periods -- 19 A: No, sir. 20 Q: -- up to and including September 6th? 21 A: No. 22 Q: Now your main operating plan we've 23 heard is -- it was called Project Maple. And you 24 developed that in the -- in the late summer, early fall 25 of 1995, correct?


1 A: Yes, it was Friday of Labour Day 2 weekend. 3 Q: Right. And did Mr. Runciman or his 4 aides or staff have any input into developing that plan? 5 A: There was -- there was no member 6 involved in that plan outside of members of the Ontario 7 Provincial Police. 8 Q: Did they ever express any 9 disagreement or in fact any opinion at all about it? 10 A: I wasn't aware they had an opinion on 11 it. 12 Q: Thank you. Now, you subsequent to 13 that, made a decision that it might be wise to arrange 14 for armoured personnel carriers? 15 A: Yes. 16 Q: And with respect to the decision to 17 seek them out, did the -- did the minister, Mr. Runciman, 18 or his staff have any role in that decision? 19 A: It was my decision, solely. 20 Q: And, apart from simply facilitating 21 the formal request from the Federal Government, did Mr. 22 Runciman have any role in that at all? 23 A: No. Just as -- as you allude, it's 24 just the -- the paper process that has to travel through 25 his -- his office.


1 Q: Now, it's also apparent to all of us 2 that it was an important part of your plan that an 3 injunction be sought in this matter and I take it that 4 that was OPP policy that pre-dated September '95 by at 5 least a couple of years? 6 A: Correct. 7 Q: And that, certainly well before 8 September 1995 you'd advised the Ministry of the Natural 9 -- Ministry of Natural Resources that if there was an 10 occupation, they should seek an injunction? 11 A: I think you can find significant 12 discussion documentation early August after the 13 altercation at the built-up area of the Military Base 14 that that type of discussion was taking place. 15 Q: Right. In fact, my notes suggest it 16 was August 1st, there's a discussion on August 1st? 17 A: That's -- that sounds about right. 18 Q: And, in fact, I think you testified 19 that it was always the plan that the Ministry of Natural 20 Resources should get an injunction? 21 A: Correct. 22 Q: And, did Mr. Runciman or his staff 23 have any input into that policy whatsoever? 24 A: Not at all. 25 Q: Did they ever oppose it to your


1 knowledge? 2 A: Not that I'm aware. 3 Q: Or express any opinion about it 4 whatsoever? 5 A: Not to me. 6 Q: And, once the -- the task of getting 7 the injunction was set in motion, to your knowledge did 8 Mr. Runciman or his staff have anything to do with 9 getting that injunction? 10 A: I don't know what their involvement 11 was. 12 Q: Right. In fact, the -- the applicant 13 was the Ministry of Natural Resources to your knowledge? 14 A: Correct. 15 Q: And, the counsel on the file was 16 supplied by the Attorney General? 17 A: That's my understanding, yes. 18 Q: Now, with respect to Ron Fox, did -- 19 did he ever give you any orders, directions, instructions 20 or anything like that with respect to how to govern 21 yourself in the Ipperwash situation? 22 A: He did not and he would not do that. 23 Q: And, did he ever convey to you any 24 instruction from Mr. Runciman or his staff? 25 A: No, sir.


1 Q: In fact, in -- in all the 2 conversations and communications we've seen between you 3 and Mr. Fox, is it fair to say that he's sharing 4 information with you or seeking information from you? 5 A: Yes. He's -- for the most part, he's 6 seeking information from myself. 7 Q: And then finally, with respect to the 8 -- the interministerial committee, did you have any idea 9 what role Mr. Runciman or any member of his political 10 staff played on that committee? 11 A: Quite frankly, I couldn't have -- at 12 that time I have -- I couldn't have told you the make-up 13 of the individuals that -- that comprised the 14 interministerial committee other than the assumption, on 15 my part, that there'd be representation from the 16 appropriate ministries so affected. 17 Q: And, did you ever take it that that 18 committee was providing you with directions, instructions 19 or orders of any kind? 20 A: Not at all. 21 Q: Thank you. Those are all my 22 questions. 23 A: Thank you. 24 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Thank you 25 very much.


1 Yes, Mr. Frederick, also on behalf of Mr. 2 Hodgson? 3 4 (BRIEF PAUSE) 5 6 CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. MARK FREDERICK: 7 Q: Thank you, Mr. Commissioner. 8 Deputy Superintendent Carson, I'm going to 9 take you through a couple of issues this morning 10 including issues about the command structure and Mr. Fox, 11 about the injunction, about how instructions were carried 12 out and issues about Mr. Fox's liaison. 13 And, in order to do that, I'm going to 14 make reference to two (2) documents, so I wonder if you'd 15 have them handy. They are they -- I believe they're 16 Exhibits 444(A) and (B), which are those transcripts of 17 the logger tape documents. I won't take you to them yet, 18 but just so you have them handy -- 19 A: Yes, I do. 20 Q: -- and nearby. 21 A: Yes. 22 Q: Now, Deputy Commissioner Carson, 23 before I start my cross-examination I just want to say 24 publicly on behalf of my client, Chris Hodgson, that -- 25 the former Minister of Natural Resources -- that he has


1 no criticism of your -- of your efforts during the sad 2 incidents at Ipperwash. 3 And none of my questions, to you, should 4 anyway imply any question of your -- any criticism of 5 yourself today. 6 I understand that you've never met Mr. 7 Hodgson, is that correct? 8 A: Correct. 9 Q: And the most significant source about 10 information about Mr. Hodgson back at that time, material 11 times, would have been through Mr. Fox; is that correct? 12 A: Yes. 13 Q: And I'm correct that Mr. Fox was an 14 OPP officer who'd been seconded to the government, First 15 Nations Advisor to the Solicitor General's Ministry, is 16 that correct? 17 A: That's correct. 18 Q: And he held the rank of Inspector, 19 which was the same rank you held at that time? 20 A: That's right. 21 Q: Now, I understand the evidence from 22 Mr. Hodgson is going to be that on the two (2) occasions 23 he attended at a meeting where Mr. Fox was present, he 24 wasn't referred to as an Inspector, but rather Mr. Fox 25 and -- and I'm -- he wasn't in uniform; would that make


1 sense to you? 2 A: Correct. He -- he would be 3 performing his duties at the Ministry office, 25 4 Grosvenor, Toronto, in civilian dress, that would be the 5 customary attire he would -- he would be in. 6 Q: What I'm going to do is I'm going to 7 refer to him, just in this cross-examination as Mr. Fox, 8 if you're okay with that? 9 A: That's fine. 10 Q: I want to understand better the 11 working relationship that you have with Mr. Fox. You 12 were the Incident Commander, as I understand it, 13 reporting through Superintendent Parkin and Chief Coles, 14 is that correct? 15 A: Yes. 16 Q: And Mr. Fox was not in that reporting 17 hierarchy? 18 A: No, sir. 19 Q: And you're agreeing with me? 20 A: Correct. 21 Q: Mr. Fox was not a front line police 22 officer, or in any way assigned to you, is that correct? 23 A: Right. 24 Q: And he was not involved in any of the 25 planning that you were overseeing at the site, dealing


1 with the police presence and actions and reaction to the 2 occupation that had been taking place? 3 A: Correct. Just for the -- for the 4 clarity of reporting, Inspector Fox had no reporting 5 relationship as far as with Chris Coles or Tony Parkin in 6 -- in that we were an operational -- an operational 7 region, and Inspector Fox was seconded to the Ministry, 8 and the matrix relationship that he would have had with 9 the Ministry, he would have reported to someone at 10 general headquarters for -- for his role within the OPP, 11 so he had -- he had no operational responsibility 12 whatsoever. 13 Q: Correct, and no role to give you any 14 instructions concerning any actions you were taking, 15 contemplating, or were discussing with respect to the 16 events at Ipperwash? 17 A: Correct. 18 Q: Rather, as you say, I believe you 19 testified that you would go to him for information about 20 land claims or agreements, or things of that nature? 21 A: Yes. 22 Q: And later you went to him, when you 23 were looking for information from him on how the process 24 was going to work for the injunction? 25 A: Yes.


1 Q: He was going to pass information from 2 you so the injunction application could proceed; is that 3 correct? 4 A: That's correct. 5 Q: Because it was always in the cards 6 that the OPP would want to move for an injunction in 7 those circumstances, the circumstances that you faced at 8 Ipperwash? 9 A: That's right. 10 Q: The only reason you needed 11 involvement of Mr. Hodgson's Ministry, the Ministry of 12 Natural Resources, was that they were effectively going - 13 - were the owner of the property on behalf of Her 14 Majesty, is that correct? 15 A: Correct. 16 Q: And you needed the injunction so that 17 you could implement the OPP's plan for dealing with this 18 occupation? 19 A: That's right. 20 Q: And not to suggest anything improper 21 from this at all, but your desire was, as you've 22 explained this morning, and I think numerous times 23 throughout, was to get an injunction quickly and 24 effectively as dictated by the circumstances that you 25 were being faced with?


1 A: That -- That's fair, yes. 2 Q: Deputy Superintendent, I -- I want to 3 -- pardon me, Deputy Commissioner, I wish to focus on 4 some of the commentary Mr. Fox and the various telephone 5 transcriptions that have been put before this Inquiry, 6 and are found in the Exhibit 444(a) and I want to make 7 reference to the logger tape, Volume I at Tab 37. 8 I'd like you to take that Volume out, but 9 be careful with it, though, because I've heard it's 10 explosive. 11 12 (BRIEF PAUSE) 13 14 Q: I take it, from looking at this 15 transcript, that it was Mr. Fox who had called you that 16 day; is that correct? 17 A: That's correct. 18 Q: And when I look at page 258, he made 19 an indication that he was calling -- he didn't want to 20 bug you. A: Yes. 21 Q: I use those words, "bug you" in -- in 22 quotations, obviously. 23 A: Right. Right. 24 Q: And that means that -- I take it at 25 that time, you wouldn't have been necessarily expecting a


1 call from him, is that right? 2 A: Correct. And I -- I would also take 3 from that he had some appreciation that I would be busy. 4 Q: You -- you had other things on your 5 mind at that point? 6 A: Yeah. Yes. 7 Q: And as I understand it, and if you go 8 over to page 259... 9 10 (BRIEF PAUSE) 11 12 Q: Mr. -- Mr. Millar points out to me 13 none of us can recall how the chain started, but there 14 may have been an earlier or later call from you to Mr. 15 Fox, probably an earlier call, and he's -- he may have 16 been calling you back, so I... 17 A: Yeah, there were -- I think that -- 18 that may be accurate. 19 Q: Okay. When I look at page 259, and 20 about midway into the page, Mr. Fox says why he's calling 21 you. He says that: 22 "They" [and I assume that he's meaning 23 the AG's department] are making moves 24 towards getting an ex parte injunction; 25 in other words, one that doesn't have


1 to be served." 2 And you respond, "Okay." 3 And Mr. Fox says: 4 "What they have to show -- what they 5 have to do is show emergent 6 circumstances." 7 And you respond, "Right." 8 Now, it's -- it's a bit disjointed in this 9 call so I'm going to move down to page 260. Mr. Fox 10 says: 11 "What he is looking for is, of course, 12 they have the affiants all lined up. 13 MNR will say it's their property, 14 here's the deed. You know all the 15 rest." 16 And you respond, "Sure." 17 And Mr. Fox says: 18 "What they need is somebody from the 19 police perspective." 20 And you respond, "Okay." 21 And Mr. Fox says: 22 "I said, well, you know, I talked to 23 John about it, I talked to Chris Cole, 24 and we agree that John is probably the 25 guy to do it because he has knowledge


1 of it." 2 Okay? 3 A: Right. 4 Q: If we go to page 261, a little 5 further on, Mr. Fox says: 6 "And what they are thinking of is 7 they'll do it -- do their presentation 8 to the judge tomorrow or tonight." 9 And you respond: 10 "Okay." 11 Do you see that? 12 A: Yes. 13 Q: And Mr. Fox says: 14 "And what they're thinking, in lieu of 15 having an affidavit from you, if you 16 would be willing to give viva voce 17 evidence." 18 And you respond: 19 "Oh, appear with them; oh, yeah." 20 A: Right. 21 Q: And Mr. Fox says: 22 "And I said, well, you know, I'm sure 23 that's okay for John." 24 And you respond, "Yes." 25 Mr. Fox says:


1 "But I provide myself, I said, 2 personally, I like to do it." 3 And you say: 4 "Yes, I don't have any problems as long 5 as the chief and Commissioner go along 6 with that." 7 And Mr. Fox says: 8 "Yeah, yeah, yeah. I said, you know, 9 we want to check that out." 10 And there's a fair amount of talk after 11 that we'll come back to, but Mr. Fox comes back to the 12 same point and he says: 13 "Anyway, I guess the upshot is what 14 Larry, Tim McCabe [and these are the 15 gentlemen from the Attorney General's 16 department -- and we're at the bottom 17 of the page] is asking me. In your 18 opinion, can we say with certainty to a 19 court, that there is a need for an 20 emergent order, that makes it an ex 21 parte order?" 22 Can you see? And you respond: 23 "Well, I think we can." 24 Do you recall that? 25 A: Yes.


1 Q: Okay. And Mr. Fox says, "Yeah." 2 A: Which page are you referring to now, 3 sir? 4 5 (BRIEF PAUSE) 6 7 A: Oh, I found it on 267, there. 8 Q: 267? Thank you. So, and you 9 indicate and I'll -- I'll quote directly from this 10 transcript. I believe you say: 11 "That's right. You know I'm prepared 12 to appear and give evidence if the 13 chief and Commissioner feel that is a 14 direction we should be going. I don't 15 see any reason we can't support that." 16 And Mr. Fox says: 17 "Well, I've done it before with 18 injunctions on strikes." 19 And you say, "Right." 20 Do you see that? 21 A: Yes. 22 Q: So, I -- Mr. Fox says: 23 "So, I mean, I don't -- I'm sure they 24 wouldn't." 25 A: And you respond, "Right."


1 Q: And Mr. Fox says: 2 "Personally, I like to give evidence in 3 person because -- you know what I'm 4 saying?" 5 And you respond, "Right. Okay." 6 Mr. Fox says: 7 "So, that's it in a nutshell." 8 So -- so, the reason he called, appears to 9 be to get you to agree to give viva voce evidence on the 10 ex parte injunction; is that correct? 11 A: That's part of it, yes. And -- and 12 also to intro a call I'm going to be receiving from Tim 13 McCabe. 14 Q: He thinks the -- the viva voce 15 evidence would be more effective for a judge in an 16 affidavit, correct? 17 A: That's -- that's my understanding. 18 Q: And as it turns out, as you've told 19 us this morning, Detective Sergeant Wright was the one 20 who eventually gave viva voce evidence? 21 A: That's right. 22 Q: Was it your impression that Mr. Fox 23 had wanted to give the evidence himself, personally or -- 24 A: Oh no, no, no. Fox was indicating 25 that in other experiences he had, he -- he prefers to


1 provide it himself as opposed to -- by means of 2 affidavit. He was referring to some strikes and other 3 events that he -- he had been involved with, in his 4 experience. 5 Q: I want to take you to another part of 6 the transcript where Mr. Fox is reporting to replay a 7 conversation he allegedly had with my client Mr. Hodgson, 8 and the reference is at page 265. And he says, I'll just 9 find exactly where it is, about midway in the page he 10 says: 11 "You know what the prick says to me 12 [and I apologize for the vulgarities] 13 Well I've just been told that I can 14 have no influence over the police doing 15 their job, so I'm suggesting you let me 16 worry about political implications. 17 You say, "Oh." 18 Mr. Fox says: 19 "I can't hold my tongue." 20 You say: 21 "Okay, I say, little prick. I have shoes 22 older to you -- older than you." 23 Do you see that? 24 A: Yes. 25 MR. DERRY MILLAR: It says that --


1 actually it says in the transcript "I -- I thought you" 2 3 CONTINUED BY MR. MARK FREDERICK: 4 Q: "I thought you little prick, I have 5 shoes older than you." 6 Right? 7 A: Correct. 8 Q: And I said: 9 "With all due respect, Minister." 10 So here's what Mr. Fox says, he says: 11 "I can't -- he can't hold his tongue." 12 And would you -- would you agree with me 13 though that the type of language he's using, the type of 14 -- the type of tone he's taking with this minister might 15 be not in keeping with the general tone that the OPP 16 would take with people in the Government? 17 A: I -- I would -- 18 MR. ANTHONY ROSS: No. 19 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes, Mr. 20 Henderson? 21 MR. WILLIAM HENDERSON: Mr. Ross seems to 22 think I'm closer, Commissioner. The -- the evidence that 23 is there in transcript form is Inspector Fox 24 communicating what he was thinking to Deputy, or 25 Inspector Carson as he then was.


1 It doesn't indicate at all that he used 2 that language communicating with government ministers or 3 at the meeting, which seems to be the assumption under -- 4 underlying My Friend's question. 5 MR. MARK FREDERICK: Okay. 6 7 CONTINUED BY MR. MARK FREDERICK: 8 Q: Maybe I'll address it this way then. 9 In speaking to you in this way, is it fair to say that 10 Mr. Fox seems to want to -- to some extent convey to you 11 an impression that he is able to evaluate the big shots, 12 to be a player at the table? 13 OBJ MR. DERRY MILLAR: Well, I don't think 14 that's a fair -- I object to that question. 15 I don't think that's a fair question. The 16 -- it's -- it's -- this witness can answer what -- about 17 what he did. This witness can't answer what Mr. Fox may 18 have thought, may have been doing or whatever. It's up - 19 - it's Mr. Fox who will be here who can answer the 20 question what he was thinking. 21 MR. MARK FREDERICK: But I think I wasn't 22 asking that. I think I was asking your impression -- 23 whether you were receiving the impression that Mr. Fox 24 was saying these things in order to convey that he had 25 some sort of ability to make an assessment of these


1 people. 2 MR. DERRY MILLAR: Well I don't think 3 that's -- that's -- I have the same objection. I don't 4 think this is a proper question for this witness. 5 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Could you 6 move on -- 7 MR. MARK FREDERICK: I will. 8 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: -- please. 9 10 CONTINUED BY MR. MARK FREDERICK. 11 Q: I want to take you to -- move onto 12 page 266 to follow up. Mr. Fox says, he says: 13 "I said John, I can't believe it. I 14 mean you don't back away. Let's do the 15 bloody job right." 16 And you respond, "Yeah, exactly." 17 Do you see that? 18 A: Yes. 19 Q: And Mr. Fox says: 20 "Well even if we got this enjoining 21 order, like how long will the police 22 sit on it? Two weeks he says. [And I 23 think he's referring to Mr. Hodgson]. 24 I was told by the police about this -- 25 I was told the police knew about this


1 before it happened. And I said that's 2 not correct. 3 Well he said that's my information, 4 with respect, it's wrong." 5 Do you see that? 6 A: Yes. 7 Q: So, here you have Mr. Fox telling the 8 minister, repeating to you, him telling the minister that 9 the police did not know that the militants would be going 10 into the Park before it happened. 11 Do you see that? 12 A: Correct. 13 Q: But that wasn't correct, though, was 14 it sir? 15 A: I'm sorry? 16 Q: That wasn't correct. There had been 17 information given to the police beforehand that the 18 militants, would in fact, were contemplating going into 19 the Park. 20 A: Well, just to clarify that point, we 21 certainly believed they would. The time and date was 22 anybody's guess. 23 Q: That's right. 24 A: You know, certainly our -- our guess 25 wasn't too far off the estimate, but could we predict


1 that with any certainty? It was... 2 Q: Well, we may be arguing about whether 3 you knew about the date and time but you certainly knew, 4 in fact, and you certainly had suspicion, and I think Mr. 5 Fox himself had conveyed to you earlier on, that the 6 militants were planning to go and take over the Park; is 7 that fair? 8 A: Yes. 9 Q: And I think the reference comes from 10 the -- your testimony on May 16th, at page 116. I'm just 11 going to read you a quote from line 8 at page 116. And 12 speaking about Document 1000935, which was an e-mail from 13 Ron Fox of August 2nd, 1995 and Anthony Parkin dated 14 August 1st, 1995 regarding Camp Ipperwash update. 15 And you had testified that that note had 16 referred to a conversation Ron Fox had with you. I refer 17 to it now because, and I'm quoting from your transcript, 18 we're at the conversation you did have with Mr. Fox and 19 he refers to a problem with the water supply and that 20 there was an unconfirmed threat as it's written, quote: 21 "The militants were planning to take 22 over occupation of the Park." 23 A: Correct. 24 Q: So, what Mr. Fox said to the -- to 25 the minister on September 6th was, and I'll just read it


1 again. He says: 2 "I was told the police knew about this 3 before it happened and I said that's 4 not correct. And he said, well, that's 5 my information with respect, it's 6 wrong." 7 So, my take on the evidence is that Mr. 8 Fox was not correct in his statement to the Minister. 9 Would you agree with that? 10 A: Technically, no. From the 11 perspective, we knew there was intention of the occupiers 12 to go into the Park. I think the point as I understand 13 the conversation I had with Fox, was yes, we knew they 14 were going into the Park but exactly when we didn't know. 15 So, it's a matter of semantics if you -- 16 is it about general knowledge that there's intention that 17 this is going to take place or not. 18 MR. DERRY MILLAR: Commissioner -- 19 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes, Mr. 20 Millar? 21 MR. DERRY MILLAR: -- in fairness to the 22 Witness, I think My Friend should read the whole quote 23 from Mr. Fox and what Mr. Fox said to the Minister. 24 He's only read the first three (3) lines 25 and it's -- Mr. Fox explains what he said to the Minister


1 in the balance of that very same quote. 2 MR. MARK SANDLER: I was about to make the 3 very same suggestion -- 4 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Right. 5 MR. MARK SANDLER: -- because I'm not 6 sure that it's -- it's an accurate suggestion to put to 7 Deputy Commissioner Carson having regard to the entire 8 answer that Mr. -- 9 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: That's fine. 10 MR. MARK SANDLER: -- Fox gives. 11 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes, Mr. 12 Frederick, want to put the whole quote to him? 13 14 CONTINUED BY MR. MARK FREDERICK: 15 Q: The rest of the quote goes: 16 " I said the police certainly had a 17 supposition -- I said the police 18 certainly had a supposition that the 19 logical next step for these protesters 20 was to take over the Park. I said, in 21 fact, I've had discussions with the 22 incident commander about that, but I 23 said did we have anything to Base that 24 on other than the odd little threat and 25 innuendo that came up. No. When we


1 did -- what we did is based it on our 2 knowledge of native people." 3 You see that? 4 A: Correct. 5 MR. MARK SANDLER: It keeps going. 6 7 CONTINUED BY MR. MARK FREDERICK: 8 Q: "And this was the likelihood", he 9 says at the top of page 267. 10 11 A: Right. 12 Q: And, in fact, the OPP had put a 13 contingency in place because they expected some 14 occupation of the Park to take place; is that right? 15 A: Yes. 16 Q: So, to that extent, the OPP had a 17 relatively reasonable expectation that there would have 18 been an occupation of the Park taking place, and known 19 about that prior to September 6th; is that correct? 20 A: Yes. 21 22 (BRIEF PAUSE) 23 24 Q: Now, you had -- your discussion with 25 Mr. Fox continued for some point, but at some point Chief


1 Coles took over the coal -- the call, I should say. 2 And if we look to page 269, you see that. 3 And, he says -- and I understand you're in 4 the room and he's sitting next to you; is that right? 5 A: Well, I -- I wouldn't say he was 6 sitting next to me. The -- the configuration of the 7 command trailer was, you -- you -- they were -- the 8 phones were fixed to the wall and there's a counter where 9 you can stand to write, but you -- you literally need to 10 stand and you're writing at standing level as opposed to 11 a desk. 12 I believe Coles was sitting in a chair 13 while I was standing at the phone so, like, we're not, 14 like, side by side, just for physical understanding. 15 Q: The point is, he's -- you're not on a 16 speaker phone, but you're chatting and he's listening to 17 you chat. 18 A: Oh, he'd be able to hear my side of 19 the conversation, yes. 20 Q: And, he says -- he gets on at page 21 269 and he says: 22 "Yeah. I'm just sitting here listening 23 and I haven't heard what John has go 24 to tell me. Now, I've got a concern 25 that what we want to be careful what


1 we're doing here and we don't give them 2 -- the people that you're talking to -- 3 we don't give them the information too 4 fast." 5 And, you respond or -- Mr. Fox says, I 6 should say, "Hmm hmm." 7 And, Chief Coles says: 8 "The problem is that Ron is that if 9 you're not careful, you're going to run 10 the issue there as opposed to myself 11 and the Commissioner running it here 12 and so we'd better be careful. 13 I have no objection to it because I 14 know you have no objection to you 15 phoning John, but the only trouble if 16 you're not going to be the fastest 17 source of information we've got. 18 Mr. Fox says, "Hmm hmm." 19 "And now, what -- with them we're going 20 to end it up in it. We're going to end 21 up running it politically -- and I 22 don't want that." 23 And, I'll continue along up at the top of 24 page 270. It says: 25 "Because they're going to ask you


1 questions." 2 MR. DERRY MILLAR: You're skipping again. 3 MR. MARK FREDERICK: "They're going to 4 ask you questions. You're going to try 5 to find the answer." 6 MR. DERRY MILLAR: If -- if he's going to 7 read from the transcript, you should read -- 8 9 CONTINUED BY MR. MARK FREDERICK: 10 MR. MARK FREDERICK: I'll -- I'll read it 11 all, that's fine. 12 "Hmm hmm. And I don't want that." 13 Your answer here is -- Mr. Fox says, 14 "Yes." 15 The chief says: 16 "It's a dangerous -- if you think about 17 it." 18 The answer is, "Yeah, well..." 19 And, the chief says: 20 "Because they're going to -- they're 21 going to ask you questions. You're 22 going to try and find the answer and 23 the quickest way for you to do it is to 24 come here to John. John's going to 25 give you an honest answer.


1 The trouble now is that it's all our -- 2 what we're doing here, sometimes too 3 much information is a dangerous thing." 4 And, Mr. Fox says: 5 "Well, clearly it is, Chris, and, you 6 know, I don't know, you've heard 7 somebody else. Maybe you have and 8 that's why you and I are having this 9 conversation." 10 Would it be fair to say you are sitting 11 there listening to Chief Coles, is Chief Coles giving Mr. 12 Fox a warning about the way he's playing the situation? 13 14 (BRIEF PAUSE) 15 16 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Just wait 17 for a minute. Give Mr. Ross a chance to get to the 18 microphone. 19 MR. DERRY MILLAR: I think, Deputy 20 Commissioner Carson is learning that now. 21 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes, Mr. 22 Ross? 23 MR. ANTHONY ROSS: Mr. Commissioner, 24 that's a wrong approach to this -- this whole thing. We 25 have to recognize that Deputy Carson has now got the full


1 tape. He's got the full conversation of what was 2 happening between Coles and Fox. 3 And for this Counsel to be asking him when 4 he can only hear one (1) side of a conversation of what 5 conclusions can be drawn, I think it's unfair and there 6 is no way that Deputy Carson can really give an -- an 7 informed answer at this stage having seen the transcript 8 which shows the other side of the conversation. 9 How can he, sort of, separate his mind and 10 say, I'm going to think back to the 6th of September and 11 I'm going to partition what I heard then when he has 12 heard this tape so many times after? 13 I think it's practically impossible. 14 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes. I see 15 Mr. Sandler on his feet. Do you want to just -- can -- 16 MR. MARK SANDLER: I was just going to 17 say, we're going to hear from Chief Superintendent Coles. 18 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yeah. 19 MR. MARK SANDLER: We're going to hear 20 from Superintendent Fox and my respectful submission is 21 that while technically you could hear this kind of 22 evidence given -- 23 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes. 24 MR. MARK SANDLER: -- but greater 25 latitude. I don't find it terribly helpful when you're


1 going to hear from the people who can directly speak to 2 those issues, in my submission. 3 MR. MARK FREDERICK: Well, we're going to 4 hear, and the questions will lead onto the fact that 5 Superintendent Carson, at one -- at this point Mr. Fox 6 was effectively told not to have any more communications 7 with Superintendent -- pardon me, Deputy Commissioner 8 Carson and he never got another telephone call from him. 9 So, what I'm leading to is, I think it's 10 perfectly fair for this witness who I am sure has heard 11 more warnings than even I have as Counsel, to tell us 12 whether he took from what the chief was saying, that in 13 fact Mr. Fox was being warned about the manner he was 14 conducting himself. 15 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: We have to 16 ask the question in a way that confines it to information 17 that in Mr. Ross' point is well taken, but I think you 18 could ask the question, and maybe it's not possible, but 19 if you ask the question correctly, we'll see -- 20 MR. MARK FREDERICK: Well -- 21 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: -- what kind 22 of answer you get. 23 24 CONTINUED BY MR. MARK FREDERICK: 25 Q: See if I can put it that way, then,


1 Deputy Commissioner. You're out there, running the 2 scene, you're getting telephone calls from Mr. Fox as 3 we've gone through, and he's giving you bits of 4 information and relaying bits of information. 5 And Chief Coles was obviously concerned 6 about that. You took that from his comments; would that 7 be fair? 8 A: It was clear from Coles that he was 9 certainly anxious about the flow of information that was 10 occurring and certainly as a result of this telephone 11 conversation, that changed. 12 Q: Okay. And he was concerned about the 13 way Mr. Fox was relaying information; is that correct? 14 A: I -- 15 Q: I'm not saying Mr. Fox did this on 16 purpose -- 17 A: Well I think the concern was that 18 some information was going up through the MNR Natural 19 Resources side and it was, for lack of a better term, 20 almost a feeding frenzy on information and I think my 21 impression was that Coles was becoming annoyed about how 22 this was occupying my -- my time and my efforts. 23 Q: That's right, because you had to deal 24 with it on the ground and Mr. Coles -- Chief Coles, I 25 should say, didn't want to you lose control of the


1 situation for wanton exchanges of information; would that 2 be fair? 3 A: I guess my -- my impression was he 4 just didn't want me -- he didn't want me involved in how 5 the information got to Fox. 6 7 (BRIEF PAUSE) 8 9 Q: Did you and the Chief ever have a 10 discussion at or around this time concerning Mr. Fox and 11 what he was up to, up in Toronto? 12 A: In what respect? 13 Q: In terms of his discussions and his 14 conveying information? 15 A: Well we -- there was certainly some 16 discussion around the information that was going up and 17 for the most part it was over the issue of the automatic 18 gunfire. 19 Q: That seemed to be something that was 20 fanning the flames of concern; is that fair? 21 A: Well depending on interpretation and, 22 you know, how much, you know, what -- what weight or 23 factors you -- you apply to the gunfire in the Military 24 Base could be taken with a whole range of conclusions and 25 obviously this was a point that was getting a lot of


1 attention and creating a lot of concern and we were 2 certainly trying to not necessarily withhold information 3 but we wanted to make sure that there was a context to 4 the information that was being provided. 5 Q: So the Chief -- did the Chief express 6 to you, then, he had some concern about the way Mr. Fox 7 was conducting himself? 8 A: I didn't get that impression. 9 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: That's not-- 10 MR. MARK SANDLER: With respect, that's 11 not what the Witness said. 12 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: That's not 13 what he said, no, no. 14 MR. MARK FREDERICK: But I'm still 15 looking for an answer to the question about whether the 16 Chief -- 17 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well -- 18 MR. MARK FREDERICK: -- said to him he 19 had any concern about the way Mr. Fox was conducting 20 himself. It's a different question. 21 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well -- 22 MR. DERRY MILLAR: He had then answered 23 the question, "I didn't get that impression." 24 25 (BRIEF PAUSE)


1 2 CONTINUED BY MR. MARK FREDERICK: 3 Q: Did the Chief ever express to you the 4 fact that you would likely not get any further telephone 5 calls from Mr. Fox? 6 A: Not in those words, but -- but it was 7 clear that he felt that either himself or Superintendent 8 Parkin would be the contact instead of, for lack of a 9 better word, bothering me at the command post. 10 Q: And was the reason simply that, 11 again, as you said earlier on, you had a lot of things on 12 your plate. Did he give you any other reason why Mr. Fox 13 wasn't going to be in contact with you? 14 A: Well I -- I know he was -- he was 15 concerned about the -- the information going up. Ron Fox 16 was calling me to verify information because of other 17 information coming up the MNR side and that there was -- 18 it was going to be very disruptive and he didn't want 19 this competition for information at the -- at the 20 Ministry level. 21 So that was my impression of his concern 22 is -- is all the effort that all this was taking and that 23 he -- he wanted to prevent me from being involved in 24 that. 25 Q: And I take it -- did he express to


1 you that he didn't want Mr. Fox specifically to convey 2 information back -- 3 A: To me? 4 Q: -- without going through -- no, no, 5 he didn't want Mr. Fox to convey information from you 6 back to whomever Mr. Fox was chatting with. 7 He wanted it rather to go through himself 8 and -- and Mr. Parkin; is that correct? 9 A: Yes. It was my understanding that 10 that's who Fox would call after that particular phone 11 call. 12 Q: Now, Deputy Commissioner, I 13 anticipate the evidence of Mr. Hodgson will be that he 14 took up the issue with Mr. Fox at a meeting at the 15 solicitor general's office on the morning of September 16 6th in reaction to Mr. Fox's suggestions that materials 17 for an injunction might be served on the occupiers by 18 helicopter. 19 And, specifically, Mr. Hodgson had a 20 concern that dropping legal materials from a height might 21 cause injury to somebody on the ground. Did Mr. Fox ever 22 convey that information to you? 23 A: No, sir. 24 Q: In fact, you gave evidence of having 25 a similar concern; is that right?


1 A: The evidence I gave on Friday the 8th 2 I believe would speak to that, yes. 3 Q: And I understand from Mr. Hodgson 4 will also give evidence that to the best of his knowledge 5 no one from the government ordered any confrontation and 6 certainly not him. Does that agree with your 7 understanding? You never got any instructions? 8 A: I received no instruction from Mr. 9 Hodgson. 10 Q: Or from his staff or from anyone else 11 in the Ministry concerning what you were going to have to 12 do in order to carry out your responsibilities and 13 duties? 14 A: That's accurate. 15 Q: Thank you. 16 A: Thank you, sir. 17 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Thank you. 18 I think is it -- is Ms. Hutton up now? 19 Counsel 20 of -- I don't have my list. 21 MR. DERRY MILLAR: I have it here. I 22 think it's Mr. Sulman. 23 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Mr. Sulman-- 24 MR. DERRY MILLAR: On behalf of -- 25 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: - on behalf


1 of Mr. Beaubien. 2 MR. DERRY MILLAR: On behalf of Mr. 3 Beaubien and then Mr. Roebuck on behalf of -- 4 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: That's fine. 5 I see Mr. Roebuck here. I saw Mr. Roebuck here. There 6 he is, over there, yes. Okay, Mr. Sulman. 7 MR. DOUGLAS SULMAN: Good morning, Mr. 8 Commissioner and good morning Deputy Commissioner Carson. 9 THE WITNESS: Good morning. 10 11 CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. DOUGLAS SULMAN: 12 Q: I represent Mr. Beaubien who is the 13 MPP for the area at the time and I really only intend to 14 refer to one (1) document. I have some clarifying 15 questions for you but only one (1) document and that is 16 the -- the scribe notes of September 4th to 9th. 17 And I'll refer to those in a bit. But 18 they may be in a different form for you so if you could 19 bring those forward and have them at the -- at the ready. 20 I'll look to My Friend in case I don't the exact page 21 numbers or maybe do it by time. 22 Sir, you had previously served in the 23 Forest Detachment and returned to the Forest Detachment 24 in 1993 as an inspector, correct? 25 A: I was -- I was the Detachment


1 Commander from '89 to '93 and I was promoted to Inspector 2 at London in May 10th or '93 and subsequently assigned as 3 incident commander to the Ipperwash incident which 4 certainly brought me back to the Forest area. 5 Q: Okay. What I'm -- what I'm 6 interested in is in an area that encompassed Forest, 7 which is not served by a municipal police force where 8 there would be a local police chief, instead it's served 9 by the OPP. 10 Would your role had been the equivalent, 11 at that time, of the local municipal police chief? 12 A: When I was the Detachment Commander, 13 yes. 14 Q: Okay. And when you came back the 15 second time, I take it that your role was more than -- 16 in 1993, was more than simply an operational role. It 17 also involved communication with community leaders? 18 A: Well, it was from the perspective of 19 all aspects of this incident. 20 Q: Okay. But when you say, "this 21 incident" we're back to 1993? 22 A: Right, the occupation of the Military 23 Base. 24 Q: Okay, yes. And I believe you told us 25 that exactly that, that your role from your posting in


1 1993 was, in fact, to liaise with community, local 2 political elected leaders, correct? 3 A: Correct, yes, 4 Q: And, in fact, when the Project Maple 5 organizational materials were put together two (2) years 6 later in 1995, that was one (1) of the keys points, it 7 stressed the need for consultation with stakeholders, 8 correct? 9 A: Yes, sir. 10 Q: And you're the point man on that 11 liaison, I take it? 12 A: Correct. 13 Q: Okay. And in fact, you did tell us 14 that you communicated with Mayor Fred Thomas of 15 Bosanquet? 16 A: Yes. 17 Q: And Mayor Gord Minnielly of Forest? 18 A: Yes. 19 Q: Mayor Tom Lawson of Grand Bend? 20 A: Yes. 21 Q: Rosemary Ur? 22 A: Yes. 23 Q: And, in fact, Chief Tom Bressette? 24 All of whom were elected representatives of local 25 citizens, correct?


1 A: That's correct. 2 Q: And that was in the period from your 3 posting in '93 right through to '95, right? 4 A: Correct. 5 Q: And this group of elected 6 representatives who you liaised with, after June 1995, 7 would then include the local MPP Marcel Beaubien, 8 correct? 9 A: Yes. 10 Q: Okay. And the communications between 11 these local political leaders that was in the form of 12 telephone calls, letters and personal meetings with the 13 individuals, correct? 14 A: Yes. Oh yes. 15 Q: And the purpose of the communication 16 with these elected political leaders was so you could 17 maintain an ongoing liaison with all the stakeholders in 18 the local community, right? 19 A: That's correct. 20 Q: And these political leaders were the 21 elected representatives of those stakeholders, right? 22 A: Yes. Yes they were. 23 Q: And this is -- and where there is 24 what you called, it may have been a week ago or longer 25 now, but you call -- you referred to something called,


1 "all round community interest". 2 A: Yes. 3 Q: And where there's all round community 4 interest in an incident, it's not at all unusual for 5 community leaders to speak to you, and you speak to them, 6 correct? 7 A: That's fair, yes. 8 Q: And when we speak of all round 9 community interest, we didn't go into any detail of what 10 that means, but I suggest to you that it would be an 11 interest in things like property rights, local economic 12 interests such as tourism, an event that might affect 13 jobs, businesses and property? 14 A: All of those things, sure. 15 Q: Okay. And the occupation of the 16 Canadian Forces Base Ipperwash is a prime example of an 17 all round community interest in the period of '93 to '95, 18 right? 19 A: Very much so. 20 Q: Okay. And -- but community, we're 21 talking about an area that would include Forest, Grand 22 Bend, Kettle and Stony Point reservations also, correct? 23 A: Oh, yes. 24 Q: Okay. So, it's not unusual, or it 25 wasn't unusual at that time for you to hear from the


1 elected representatives on the occupation of the Army 2 Base, was it? 3 A: It was brought to my attention 4 regularly. 5 Q: I would think so. And when the 6 occupation of the Army Base extended to the Ipperwash 7 Provincial Park, the same would apply, that it wouldn't 8 be unusual for you to hear from elected representatives 9 of the local stakeholders? 10 A: Very much so. 11 Q: And it wouldn't be unusual for them 12 to contact you? 13 A: No. 14 Q: Okay. And these local political 15 representatives would call you to seek information from 16 you on issues of all-round community interest, right? 17 A: Correct. 18 Q: And I take that you gave them such 19 information as you deemed appropriate in keeping with 20 your sworn statutory duties under the Police Services 21 Act, correct? 22 A: Yes. 23 Q: Now, at this juncture, I want to 24 distinguish a bit between matters of all-round community 25 interest like we have in Army Base occupation, Provincial


1 Park occupation, and matters that only involve one (1) or 2 two (2) or a few people, such as a victim and a 3 perpetrator in something like an assault or a break and 4 enter. 5 A: Right. 6 Q: You wouldn't give that kind of 7 information out to these people? 8 A: No, no. 9 Q: Okay. 10 A: I think the other piece that you 11 haven't mentioned but certainly was in the public 12 interest at that time, it was also the West Ipperwash 13 suit that was occurring at that time, that brought all of 14 these issues to a -- certainly a much higher anxiety 15 level, I would suggest. 16 Q: Okay. I may be able to check some 17 things off as a result of that answer. 18 But sir, while -- while you'd provide 19 information on -- on issues of local community interest 20 in liaising with these elected representatives of the 21 local stakeholders, you'd also received information from 22 the representatives about their constituent's concerns 23 and activities, correct? 24 A: Oh, yes. 25 Q: And, these meetings, letters,


1 discussions, were a source of information, which you 2 could use in formulating strategy for operational 3 matters, correct? 4 A: Correct. 5 Q: And, simply put, these meetings, 6 discussions with local elected representatives were a two 7 (2) way communication and were a key part of your plan to 8 have an ongoing liaison with stakeholders, right? 9 A: Very much so. 10 Q: And, was there in your mind, a 11 difference between a liaison where elected people give 12 and receive information and a situation if a local 13 elected person tried to give you instructions on how to 14 conduct an operational matter? 15 A: The liaison approach was to do our 16 best to keep the community informed to the best of our 17 ability and to understand any concerns that may be coming 18 from the community so that we could respond to those 19 concerns and -- and answer questions that may need to be 20 answered to provide that information back. It's 21 certainly a -- a two-way feedback process, in -- in my 22 view. 23 Q: And, I suggest to you, sir, that it's 24 a far different situation, the two-way feedback and the 25 liaison process that you just -- just described, than if


1 a local elected person tried to give you instructions on 2 how to conduct an operational matter? 3 A: That's a totally different issue. 4 Q: Right. And, taking instructions from 5 a person other than a superior officer in the OPP 6 following your chain of command would be inconsistent 7 with your sworn obligations under the Police Services 8 Act, correct? 9 A: It would -- it would be an offence, 10 quite frankly. 11 Q: Okay. And you haven't committed such 12 an offence in the days from September 4th to September 13 7th, 1995, correct? 14 A: I hope I can say that for my career. 15 Q: When Fred -- Mayor Fred Thomas -- do 16 you recall meeting with him at the Forest command centre 17 on September 6th, 1995? 18 A: Yes. 19 Q: He came there about, in accordance 20 with materials we've had and I won't pull them all 21 forward, but it was about 8:17 in the morning? 22 A: That sounds about right. 23 Q: Okay. And, when he came there, did 24 he express his constituents' concerns to you and ask 25 questions of you?


1 A: Oh, yes. 2 Q: And, was that meeting in general 3 keeping with the liaison that you told us about, exchange 4 of communication? 5 A: Oh, yes. I -- I certainly -- I 6 certainly would have taken the opportunity to share with 7 him, I mean, as I did with Chief Bressette, quite 8 frankly. I -- I made a point of calling him, of -- of 9 being proactive. 10 I think, if I'm not mistaken, Mayor Thomas 11 came to the command post on his own. But it certainly 12 was something I would have expected, either in person or 13 by phone, to -- to answer any question because we had 14 already had meetings prior to with Mayor Thomas. 15 And I -- I understood the anxieties that 16 were at play here and I certainly didn't have any 17 difficulty with Mr. Thomas coming to the command post so 18 that I had that opportunity to have that one-on-one 19 discussion with him so that he could understand the -- 20 the situation as we knew it. 21 Q: Okay. And when he attended on 22 September 6th, did Mayor Thomas give you any instructions 23 or try to give you any orders on how to carry out your 24 police operations at Ipperwash Park or at the Army Base? 25 A: No, he did not.


1 Q: Okay. And, had he done so, again it 2 would have been inconsistent with your -- if you'd taken 3 those orders, it would have been inconsistent with your 4 obligation under the Police Services Act? 5 A: Correct. 6 Q: Okay. And, you saw nothing wrong or 7 improper in the meeting with Mayor Thomas on September 8 6th, I take it? 9 A: I saw nothing inappropriate 10 whatsoever. 11 Q: In fact, would -- would it be fair to 12 characterize it as a very important informational 13 meeting? 14 A: From a public perspective, I think 15 it's essential, quite frankly. 16 Q: Okay. Thank you. And, on September 17 6th later in the day, at about 6:30 p.m. or as notes will 18 show as 18:42, Marcel Beaubien the local member of 19 Parliament attended at the same command post at Forest 20 and there was a meeting held that had Park Superintendent 21 Les Kobayashi and Inspector Linton? 22 A: Yes. 23 Q: Can you recall that? 24 A: Yes. 25 Q: And was he invited to that meeting


1 Mr. Beaubien? 2 A: I believe he appeared unannounced if 3 I'm not mistaken. 4 Q: Okay. He didn't force his way into 5 the meeting? 6 A: Oh no, oh no. No, no. 7 Q: Okay. And you were content to meet 8 with him? 9 A: Oh, yes. 10 Q: Yeah. He wasn't forcing anything on 11 you? 12 A: No, no. He appeared at the Forest 13 Detachment and it was brought to my attention he was 14 there and he was certainly invited in. 15 Q: And this was the same type of 16 meeting, sir, that you had with Fred Thomas earlier in 17 the day? 18 A: Correct. 19 Q: Okay. And in fact Mr. Beaubien was 20 providing you with information about the state of his 21 constituent's feelings and concerns, right? 22 A: Yes. He certainly expressed those. 23 Q: Okay. In fact if we take ourselves 24 back to September 6th, 1995 that was a time when there 25 were rumours that the cottagers might arm themselves to


1 protect themselves and might in fact even march on the 2 Park, right? 3 A: There were rumours to that affect, 4 yes. 5 Q: Okay. And at this meeting with Mr. 6 Beaubien, you were simply exchanging information with 7 him? 8 A: Correct. 9 Q: Okay. And had you met with Mr. 10 Beaubien prior to this September 6th meeting in regards 11 to citizens' concerns over the Army Base occupation or -- 12 or the land claims of West Ipperwash Beach? 13 A: Well, in fact the exact date but it 14 seems to me my best guess was around August the 11th or 15 in that neighbourhood, Superintendent Parkin, myself, 16 Staff Sergeant Lacroix met Mr. Beaubien at his 17 constituency office in Petrolia to discuss a number of 18 issues; Ipperwash being one, West Ipperwash being 19 another, and also some issues that were occurring in the 20 Walpole Island area at that time. 21 Q: Okay. And these, sir, I -- again I 22 take it are in the nature of liaison and public 23 informational meetings? 24 A: Yes. There had been a number of 25 issues raised in the community and it was just an


1 opportunity to reassure Mr. Beaubien so that he 2 understood the steps that we were taking to deal with a 3 number of these issues so that he could respond to the 4 queries that he was getting. 5 Q: Okay. And these weren't meetings 6 where he would attempt to give you instructions of any 7 kind of police operations? 8 A: He never attempted to do that, no. 9 Q: Okay. Thank you, sir. And I 10 understand that prior to the September 6th meeting, 11 Staff Sergeant Lacroix had met with Mr. Beaubien on 12 several occasions. 13 A: Oh yes. 14 Q: In my recollection of your evidence 15 is that, maybe you didn't put it quite this way but 16 correct me if I'm wrong, that Mr. -- Staff Sergeant 17 Lacroix and Mr. Beaubien were both francophones, knew 18 each other well from Mr. Beaubien's time as mayor of 19 Petrolia and the fact that Mr. Beaubien's office was 20 directly across from the -- the street from the OPP 21 station? 22 A: Yes. His constituency office 23 literally faced the OPP Detachment on Highway 21 in 24 Petrolia. And Staff Sergeant Lacroix had been a quite a 25 longtime resident of the Town of Petrolia and -- and


1 certainly they would have known each other. 2 Q: Okay. And their conversations that 3 are related to us in some of the materials, took place in 4 Petrolia, not in Forest, correct? 5 A: Correct. 6 Q: And in the telephone transcripts and 7 I just wanted to talk about them generally, there's no 8 need to pull them forward. 9 What we have so I understand it, is a 10 record from Staff Sergeant Lacroix, he's speaking to you 11 on the telephone and he's simply relating to you his 12 conversations with Beaubien. 13 A: Right. 14 Q: And you weren't present at any of 15 those -- those meetings he was relating to you? 16 A: Correct. 17 Q: Okay. So, you can't tell us with any 18 certainty what was actually said in those meetings. You 19 can only tell us what Staff Sergeant Lacroix conveyed to 20 you? 21 A: That's right. 22 Q: Okay. So, I'm better then to wait 23 until Staff Sergeant Lacroix's on the stand and Mr. 24 Beaubien to get what actually was said in the meetings? 25 A: Yes.


1 Q: Okay. But, in -- what was related 2 from Staff Sergeant Lacroix to you, there was no 3 indication that Mr. Beaubien was trying to give him any 4 instructions on how to carry out police operational 5 matters, correct? 6 A: I didn't get that impression. 7 Q: Okay. Now, in the conversations 8 between you and Staff Sergeant Lacroix, on his meetings 9 with Mr. Beaubien, I take it that it was once again just 10 a source of information for you, that you're receiving 11 from Staff Sergeant Lacroix, just once again, some more 12 input on what community sentiment and feelings were, as 13 conveyed to him, from Mr. Beaubien? 14 A: That's fair. 15 Q: And he's just -- I take it you find 16 from these conversations with Mr. Beaubien that he's also 17 getting lots of input from his constituents, and he's 18 passing those concerns along to Staff Sergeant Lacroix? 19 A: Yes, it -- it's quite clear that he's 20 receiving a significant amount of information. 21 Q: Right. And maybe to sum it up, it's 22 -- I trust that when Mayor Fred Thomas, Chief Tom 23 Bressette, Marcel Beaubien, other elected officials pass 24 information along to you about concerns of their 25 constituents, the cottagers, who are close in proximity


1 to Ipperwash beach, it's really just a more efficient 2 means for you to get information than if you had to hear 3 from each individual cottager, community member, and 4 citizen? 5 A: Well, it -- it is that, but it's also 6 a -- a valuable component that allows the -- the police 7 to evaluate the information that we may have from other 8 sources, and it may validate or support other concerns 9 that we are aware of, or it may bring to our attention 10 something that we are totally not aware of. 11 Q: Sure. 12 A: It also provides us a vehicle to 13 provide information that can be distributed through the 14 community by another means. 15 Q: Right. These -- but maybe if I can 16 put it to you this way, in summary, when these elected 17 political leaders communicate to you, or meet with you in 18 some forum, they're really conduits for information. 19 You get information from them, and 20 information goes through them back out to the community, 21 right? 22 A: Correct. 23 Q: But they're not there to tell you how 24 to do your job? 25 A: Oh, absolutely.


1 Q: And you never felt that in any of 2 your meetings with Marcel Beaubien? 3 A: No, sir. 4 Q: Okay. If we can go back to the 5 scribe notes, do you have them in front of you, sir? 6 A: Yes, I do. 7 Q: Okay. Now, I have them by page 8 number and I'm not sure whether that's how you have them, 9 but if I can do it by time, maybe that's the best way? 10 MR. DERRY MILLAR: Yeah, it's Exhibit 4 - 11 - P-426 and our -- it -- for -- it would be -- because 12 there is differences, it's due to format -- 13 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes. 14 MR. DERRY MILLAR: -- between what My 15 Friend is referring to and what Deputy Commissioner 16 Carson has, and what's in our exhibit book, it would be 17 better to refer to it by date and time. 18 MR. DOUGLAS SULMAN: Certainly. 19 20 CONTINUED BY MR. DOUGLAS SULMAN: 21 Q: So what I'm going to ask you to just 22 turn up in front of you is September 6th at 1842 hours. 23 MR. DERRY MILLAR: The page would help, 24 though, to get within the range. 25 MR. DOUGLAS SULMAN: That's right. And


1 for others who have the same format I have, it's page 69 2 at the top right hand corner. 3 THE WITNESS: Yes. 4 5 CONTINUED BY MR. DOUGLAS SULMAN: 6 Q: Do you have that in front of you, 7 sir? 8 A: Yes, I do. 9 Q: Okay. So I have the scribe notes in 10 front of me now and -- and this is really -- this is the 11 meeting, that I referred to just briefly earlier, between 12 Inspector Linton -- maybe I'll give you a moment to get 13 that up on the screen but it's Les Kobayashi, and Marcel 14 Beaubien, and you. 15 A: Correct. 16 Q: Right, okay. And what I have, and 17 what we all have in front of us, are scribe notes which I 18 believe you've described in some detail earlier, that 19 they are not verbatim, they are simply what you've told 20 the scribe to write down, but they're not written word 21 for word, and they're not a transcript as we have. 22 A: No, they're -- they're expected to 23 be, for lack of a better term, the gist of the 24 conversation. 25 Q: Exactly, okay. And let me look to --


1 what I have is the second paragraph. It would be line 3 2 of -- of the notes; let's see if it's up there. 3 Yes, that's in the same format, except 4 it's line 4 in those format. It starts with the word 5 "trailer" and it says: 6 "Marcel Beaubien advised that he had 7 sent a fax to the Premier." 8 I'll stop there. And I want to be fair to 9 you before I get to the next question. 10 I anticipate that we will hear evidence 11 from Mr. Beaubien, and from Bill King, that a fax was not 12 sent to the Premier but was rather sent to Mr. King, in 13 the Premier's office. I just make that distinction that 14 you will hear that evidence. 15 So again, the gist here says Marcel 16 Beaubien advised that he had sent a fax to the premier 17 recognizing these scribe notes are gist and not verbatim, 18 I suggest to you, sir, that what Mr. Beaubien actually 19 said to you on that day was that he sent a fax to the 20 premier's office. 21 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: Excuse me, 22 Commissioner. 23 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: We have some 24 comment. 25 Yes, Mr. Falconer...?


1 MR. JULIAN FALCONER: With respect, 2 unless this Witness was party to Mr. King's activities or 3 Mr. King -- or was party to some communications with 4 Premier Harris' office on who was getting the facts, 5 apprising this Witness before he answers the question of 6 what someone else will testify about, that Deputy Carson 7 had nothing to do with, can be nothing other than meant 8 to shake the Witness' answer to -- to get not this 9 Witness' evidence, but to get him to align himself with 10 evidence that's about to come. 11 It couldn't be for any other reason but to 12 educate him about somebody else's evidence over which he 13 has nothing to do with. 14 So, with respect, while it's a convoluted 15 objection, my concern is, the simple question should have 16 been: Are you sure it's not the premier's office instead 17 of telling him about evidence he could have no 18 involvement. 19 It's -- I'm just concerned he's tailoring 20 the Deputy Commissioner's evidence, not -- not 21 advertently, of course. I'm not -- I'm not trying attack 22 to My Friend's integrity, I have that concern. 23 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I think that 24 you could put the question in a more objective way. 25 MR. DOUGLAS SULMAN: Well I -- I was


1 trying to be -- 2 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes. 3 MR. DOUGLAS SULMAN: -- fair to the -- 4 he's not my witness -- 5 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: No, I know. 6 MR. DOUGLAS SULMAN: -- and I was trying 7 to be fair to him in that if I put it the other way, sir, 8 and then, well, you can see the problem. 9 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Well, yeah. 10 11 CONTINUED BY MR. DOUGLAS SULMAN: 12 Q: I can put it to you clearly. I 13 suggest to you that what Mr. Beaubien actually said to 14 you was that he sent a fax to the premier's office. 15 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: You're 16 waiting to be instructed whether to answer the question 17 or not, are you? Do you have any question on this, Mr. 18 Millar, as to how this -- I think that's a fair question. 19 MR. DERRY MILLAR: That's fair. 20 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I think 21 that's all right. 22 THE WITNESS: In all fairness, I can't be 23 sure whether he did or did not use that terminology. 24 25 CONTINUED BY MR. DOUGLAS SULMAN:


1 Q: Okay. And -- and, that's a fair 2 response. 3 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: That's fine. 4 5 CONTINUED BY MR. DOUGLAS SULMAN: 6 Q: Now, sir, you were aware that some 7 cottagers in the area were very frustrated as we 8 discussed earlier. 9 A: Oh, yes. 10 Q: And were on the verge of taking 11 matters into their own hands; right? 12 A: Yes. 13 Q: And you were aware that Mr. Beaubien 14 had met with some of the cottagers to calm them down; 15 correct? 16 A: Well, if I recall it correctly, he 17 had had a meeting with the cottagers a week prior and 18 that afternoon, excuse me, that's the same afternoon that 19 Detective Sergeant Wright encountered a group of people 20 at the TOC site for that very issue. 21 Q: Right. And the goal was to avoid 22 exactly that situation where the cottagers might come 23 towards the -- and -- and actually march on the Park; 24 correct? 25 A: Well, we certainly wanted to avoid


1 any public confrontation, that -- that was for certain. 2 Q: And -- 3 A: But we were certainly well aware of 4 the community anxiety that was taking place. I mean, 5 this -- this had been an ongoing issue before the 6 Provincial Park issue came into the degree it did on 7 September the 4th because of issues that had been 8 occurring in West Ipperwash around the lawsuit that was 9 underway and arguments that had been taking place pretty 10 consistently through the summer in regards to the West 11 Ipperwash beach access, too. 12 Q: Right. And what I -- I understand 13 what the OPP role is; I'm asking you whether you were 14 aware that Mr. Beaubien had the same objective and was 15 trying to calm cottagers down? 16 A: Oh, very much so. He -- he was 17 certainly -- I know he was inundated with -- with calls 18 of concern about this. 19 Q: Okay. So if we continue to look at 20 the -- the scribe notes, and for me it would be the next 21 page, it would be at the top of page 70. In fact, a 22 little way down page 70 about the fifth paragraph. 23 And, I don't need to read it verbatim, but 24 you had told Mr. Beaubien, it says, again it's the gist 25 of it:


1 "John Carson reported to Marcel 2 Beaubien that we have thirty (30) 3 people on the ground." 4 Do you see that, about the sixth paragraph 5 down in your sheet, I would think? 6 A: Yes. 7 Q: Okay. And I take it the reason that 8 you were giving him this information is back to that 9 conduit of information, that you hoped that he would 10 convey that to the concerned citizens, in order to 11 further keep the cottagers from taking action on their 12 own, or matters into their own hands? 13 A: Well that, and it -- it was the same 14 information that we had discussed with Mr. Thomas as 15 well, about, you know, the process we -- we had under 16 way, the injunction, and I believe I explained how the 17 injunction process would work, and the -- the type of 18 things we were doing to address the issue, so -- so that, 19 yes, as -- as he dealt with people who were calling in, 20 he could relay the information and -- and hopefully allay 21 some of the concerns. 22 Q: But I suggest to you that you were 23 giving him that information so he could, as you probably 24 put it, convey it to the public, but not because you were 25 reporting to him in any way?


1 A: Oh, I didn't feel I was reporting to 2 him. 3 Q: Okay, good. When it says, at the top 4 of that page again, and maybe we'll scroll it back a bit, 5 "Marcel Beaubien wondered if there was 6 anything else he could do." 7 I suggest to you what he -- what that 8 refers to is what we just talked about, him conveying 9 information to the public to calm them down, is that 10 correct? 11 12 (BRIEF PAUSE) 13 14 A: I don't -- I don't, quite frankly, 15 recall the -- the context of that particular part of the 16 discussion as to, you know, what other opportunities -- 17 that's probably the only thing he is really is able to do 18 for us, quite frankly. 19 Q: Okay. And likewise, at the bottom of 20 the page where it says, Linton -- if you could just 21 scroll that. 22 "Dale Linton advised Marcel Beaubien 23 that we -- we appreciates everything 24 that he has done." 25 A: Yeah.


1 Q: I take it that's again referring to 2 the same actions -- 3 A: Yes. 4 Q: -- the conveyance of information. 5 A: Sure. 6 Q: Okay. And I understand the time 7 frame of this conversation, back in September 1995, that 8 there had been an incident between a native group and the 9 RCMP Detachment that was generally called Gustafson Lake. 10 A: Yes. 11 Q: And that incident was in the press at 12 the time? 13 A: Yes, it was an ongoing incident. 14 Q: And is that an incident, from your 15 understanding, where the Canadian Armed Forces got 16 involved in some capacity? 17 A: The Armed Forces provided light 18 armoured vehicles for the RCMP for their operations 19 there. 20 Q: Okay. And if you go down that page 21 again, it says two (2) paragraphs up, three (3) 22 paragraphs up from the bottom, it says: 23 Marcel Beaubien states that he doesn't 24 mind taking controversy if situation 25 can't be handled by police services,


1 something has to be done to handle the 2 situation." 3 And I just -- I'm trying to understand 4 what he was conveying to you at the time. Was the 5 implication to you that he was referring to a use of the 6 Armed Forces here, as in Gustafson Lake? 7 A: Well, the suggestion that if the 8 police services can't handle it, doesn't leave much 9 option. I -- I can only suppose that that was the only 10 other inference. 11 Q: Right. I -- I can't imagine and put 12 to you a scenario that would be different than the police 13 handing -- handling it or Armed Forces being brought in. 14 A: Correct. 15 Q: Okay. And then the scribe notes 16 right in that area -- same paragraph go on to say: 17 "John Carson states that we want it 18 resolved, but we don't want anyone to 19 get hurt." 20 Do you see that? 21 A: Yes, I certainly emphasized that. 22 Q: And -- and Mr. Beaubien concurred in 23 this desire, correct? 24 A: Oh, yes. 25 Q: Okay. Now at this meeting, did Mr.


1 Beaubien advocate that you use force to remove the 2 natives from the Park later that evening? 3 A: Absolutely not. 4 Q: And did he tell you he was passing on 5 instructions from the Premier of Ontario, Mr. Harris, on 6 how to conduct police operations at Ipperwash Provincial 7 Park or anywhere in this area? 8 A: Absolutely not. 9 Q: In fact, it -- isn't it true that Mr. 10 Beaubien did not advocate any position for the OPP to 11 take in relation to police operations at the Park? 12 A: Correct. 13 Q: And did you take any actions, or 14 instruct anyone to take any action, on the evening of 15 September 6th as a result of this meeting with Mr. 16 Beaubien? 17 A: No, sir. 18 Q: Was there anything that Mr. Beaubien 19 said or did at that meeting that caused the OPP to call 20 out the TRU team that evening? 21 A: None whatsoever. 22 Q: Okay. And was there anything that 23 Mr. Beaubien said or did at the meeting that instructed 24 or directed you, on behalf the government of Ontario, to 25 engage in a confrontation with the occupiers or use


1 firearms? 2 A: No, sir. 3 Q: Thank you. And had he given any such 4 instructions or direction with regard to police 5 operations, what would your duty have been, as a sworn 6 officer of the OPP, with regard to such instructions? 7 A: In no uncertain terms, I would not 8 have accepted any instruction from Mr. Beaubien or any 9 other elected official in relation to my responsibility 10 as a police officer. 11 Q: Thank you, sir. And, in fact, you 12 didn't accept any such instructions or directions; 13 correct? 14 A: I did not. 15 Q: In September, was there any 16 regulation, OPP policy or standing order that would 17 prevent you from meeting with elected local 18 representatives, such as Mr. Beaubien? 19 A: No, sir. 20 Q: And as I asked you with regard to 21 your meeting with Mayor Thomas, I'll ask you the same 22 question again. 23 Did you see anything improper in meeting 24 with Marcel Beaubien on -- in Forest at the command post 25 on September 6th, 1995?


1 A: I did not. 2 Q: Finally, if an officer or inspector 3 or incident commander found himself or herself in a 4 similar situation of all round community interest such as 5 you faced in those days in early September 1995, would 6 you recommend that he or she be free to communicate with 7 political representatives, be they from a native band, 8 civic officials, provincial elected officials or Federal 9 elected officials? 10 A: I think there needs to be a means to 11 have access to whatever information is available from 12 whatever source it is available. 13 Q: Okay. And would you recommend that 14 not only should he or she not be restricted or prohibited 15 from such discussions, but rather be encouraged to 16 participate in such discussions or -- and liaison? 17 A: That's fair. 18 Q: I suggest that these discussions are 19 not only far from improper but, in fact, are very 20 important in tense situations of all round community 21 interest; right? 22 A: Correct. 23 Q: Thank you, sir. 24 A: Thank you. 25 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Thank you


1 very much. 2 I think this would be a good time to take 3 a lunch break. 4 MR. DERRY MILLAR: Yes. 5 THE REGISTRAR: This Inquiry stands 6 adjourned until 1:30. 7 8 --- Upon recessing at 12:12 p.m. 9 --- Upon resuming at 1:31 p.m. 10 11 THE REGISTRAR: This Inquiry is now 12 resumed. Please be seated. 13 MR. DERRY MILLAR: Commissioner, before 14 we continue there's a minor housekeeping matter. 15 We're going to mark as Exhibit 437(A), a 16 hard copy of the map that was created during Deputy 17 Carson's examination-in-chief with respect to the 18 checkpoints, et cetera, and so the hard copy will be 19 437(A) and the electronic copy 437(B). 20 THE REGISTRAR: Very good, Your Honour. 21 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Thank you 22 very much. 23 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes, Mr. 24 Roebuck? 25


1 CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. DAVID ROEBUCK: 2 Q: Thank you, Mr. Commissioner. 3 Deputy Commissioner Carson, I'm David 4 Roebuck and I represent Deb Hutton who, in 1995, was on 5 the staff of then Premier Harris. 6 Sir, in the time period of September 4th 7 to 6th, 1995, I take it you knew that there was going to 8 be meetings of this interministerial committee? 9 A: Yes. 10 Q: And that, you -- you knew that one 11 (1) of the -- the subjects for discussion at that 12 committee was the possibility of obtaining an injunction 13 with respect to the occupation at Ipperwash Park? 14 A: Correct. 15 Q: And, you -- you knew that law 16 officers of the Crown would be advising the 17 interministerial committee as to whether or not the facts 18 warranted the granting of an injunction? 19 A: Quite frankly, I didn't know who 20 would be at that particular meeting and the mechanics of 21 how that might play out. 22 Q: Well, I'm not suggesting that they 23 would necessarily be at any particular meeting, but I 24 take it it would be your expectation that the committee 25 would be getting advice from law officers as to the


1 Crown, as to whether or not the facts that were 2 presenting themselves at the Park warranted the granting 3 of an injunction? 4 A: I'm not sure you could put it in 5 those terms, but I guess just to explain it in -- in 6 my -- 7 Q: Please, please. 8 A: -- my simplistic thought of this was 9 that the Ministry of Natural Resources was responsible 10 for getting the injunction and through the support of the 11 interministerial committee, that would occur. 12 Quite frankly, I -- I guess I -- I had 13 never turned my mind to the fact that, you know, legal 14 counsel on behalf of AG or -- or any other ministry, how 15 -- who the players were in regards to how that was going 16 to play out. 17 Quite frankly, I was probably very unaware 18 of how that occurs. 19 Q: And -- and, that's -- that's fair 20 enough. Even if we remove the role of the lawyers, which 21 -- I'm naturally reluctant to do, but if -- if we took 22 the lawyers outside of it, you understood that someone 23 was going to have to be looking at the facts as they were 24 emerging at the Park to determine whether or not the 25 Court would reasonably grant an injunction?


1 A: Oh, yes, of course. 2 Q: And -- and, I think you've testified 3 that you -- you understood that an injunction might be 4 granted on a -- an urgent basis, i.e., with very short 5 notice or it might be granted on a longer track basis 6 with the longer notice, right? 7 A: Yes. Yes, that's right. 8 Q: And -- and, the nature of the facts 9 that were emerging at Ipperwash Park would be critical in 10 determining whether an injunction would be granted at all 11 and whether it would be a short -- a short notice or a 12 more standard notice? 13 A: Correct. 14 Q: All right. So, I think you'll agree 15 with me, then, that it was essential that the 16 interministerial committee be receiving the most accurate 17 and the most up-to-date information as to events 18 unfolding at the site at Ipperwash Park? 19 A: Fair enough. 20 Q: And that, you, as -- as the person in 21 charge from the OPP point of view were -- was a logical 22 conduit of information to the interministerial committee? 23 A: Correct. 24 Q: All right. The -- and, there has 25 been discussion about the role of the OPP in terms of


1 negotiations, generally with matters at the Park. 2 And, I think you'll agree with me that it 3 was not -- you did not perceive it to be the role of the 4 OPP in September of 1995 to be involved in negotiations 5 in any substantive way in respect to issues of -- of 6 potential land claims? 7 A: Correct. 8 Q: And you've -- you've told us that you 9 received information that seemed to negate any current 10 issues of land claim but even if that had been the case, 11 you -- you didn't see the role of the OPP to be involved 12 in that? 13 A: No. We didn't feel we had a respon - 14 - authority to be any part of the adjudicative process. 15 Q: All right. And as I understand it, 16 the -- one (1) of the reasons that you wanted the MNR to 17 go forward and to obtain injunction is that the role of 18 the OPP would then be based on a clear direction of -- of 19 a court authority as opposed to interpreting or 20 negotiating land claims? 21 A: Exactly. 22 Q: All right. And the -- in -- in 23 respect to issues of land claims, burial -- burial 24 grounds, things of those nature, I think you'll agree 25 with me that both in 1993 and in September of 1995, you


1 regarded those as matters properly for the Government? 2 A: Correct. 3 Q: That -- that for example in 1993, the 4 then Government didn't decide to take any steps to end 5 the occupation of the Camp? 6 A: That's right. 7 Q: And that was, in your view, a 8 Government decision, not a police decision? 9 A: That's right. 10 Q: And -- and in -- in 1993 I believe 11 you're aware that in June of 1993 there was to be a 12 letter served by the Minister of National Resources on 13 the Kettle Point Band advising that the Park was not part 14 of the land claim issue and that the Park had been 15 properly purchased? 16 Were you aware of that? 17 A: I'd certainly have to check my notes 18 on that. I -- I'm not -- I'm not sure if I had that 19 particular detail or not. 20 Q: All right. But -- I don't want to -- 21 my point is really in terms of the process rather than 22 the detail. I take it if that was the -- if that was the 23 position of the then NDP Government, that you would 24 regard that as properly the role of the Government, not a 25 choice for the OPP.


1 A: Yes, correct. Well there -- there 2 was certainly insinuation in May, June of '93 that the 3 land claim was far beyond the boundaries of Ipperwash 4 Military Base. 5 Q: Right. 6 A: And so certainly those kinds of 7 discussion were occurring. 8 Q: And one (1) technological point, you 9 -- you -- you mentioned this morning that the phone that 10 you were using at the command post was a wall phone. 11 A: Yes. 12 Q: And one (1) of My Friends I think 13 asked you that you weren't on a speaker. I take it that 14 the wall phone had no speaker capabilities; is that 15 right? 16 A: I can't be certain but it was never 17 used as a speaker phone and I wasn't aware of it having 18 that kind of capability. 19 Q: All right. And so the -- to the 20 extent that information was given to you by Mr. Fox on 21 the 5th and 6th of September, others in the room might 22 have heard your reactions but what was -- what you 23 received would only have been conveyed to others through 24 either handwritten or typed scribe notes? 25 A: Or by voice.


1 Q: By your voice? 2 A: If -- if I received information from 3 Fox. 4 Q: Yes. Yes. 5 A: So, either I -- the only way 6 information from Fox could've been perceived by others 7 was through the scribe notes or someone hearing me speak 8 it. 9 Q: All right. I take your point. 10 Now, I want to deal with the time period 11 the 4th of September and the morning of the 5th of 12 September 1995. 13 And as incident commander with an emerging 14 situation at Ipperwash Park, were you at that time 15 assessing the information that was available to you 16 regarding the occupation so as to consider the steps that 17 you should take to prepare for future events? 18 A: Yes. 19 Q: And the -- I want to put -- put this 20 in context and if -- if it requires me to just touch 21 upon, briefly, some of the points you've already made, I 22 assure you that there is a question and I won't be too 23 long in getting to it, but I want to put the question in 24 some context, sir. 25 The -- am I correct that approximately six


1 (6) weeks after the barracks at the adjacent Federal 2 Military Camp had been taken over, on the evening of the 3 4th of September there was a situation where officers at 4 the Provincial Park were approached by First Nations 5 people who were then claiming ownership of the Park? 6 A: Yes. 7 Q: And that, as you've said, there were 8 -- was reported to you that there were strenuous verbal 9 discussions and a request that the OPP leave the Park? 10 A: Yes. 11 Q: And it was reported to you that there 12 had been a smashed rear window of an OPP cruiser? 13 A: Correct. 14 Q: And it was reported to you that there 15 had been a flare thrown at an OPP officer? 16 A: Yes, there was. 17 Q: And in order to avoid anyone being 18 hurt or an escalation of the situation the OPP, who were 19 in the Park, withdrew? 20 A: Correct. 21 Q: And early -- am I correct that it had 22 been reported to you that earlier that day the member -- 23 members of the public who were in the Park were asked to 24 withdraw? 25 A: Well it was at this time that they


1 cleared -- they cleared the -- the campers in the Park 2 were being cleared because it was the end of the season, 3 but the day use people were, I believe, asked to leave at 4 that time. 5 Q: Right. And -- and there was 6 information given to you that the occupiers of the Park 7 had cut a hole in a fence? 8 A: Yes. 9 Q: And that some trees had been knocked 10 down across Matheson Drive? 11 A: That occurred later. 12 Q: All right. And the -- it was 13 reported to you that a suggestion had been made that 14 Raven's Wood was next? 15 A: Yes. 16 Q: And there were, as you knew, cottages 17 in very close proximity to the Park? 18 A: Yes, sir. 19 Q: And there was -- there was some 20 reports to you of the use of alcohol by occupiers at the 21 Park? 22 A: Yes. 23 Q: And there was a report to you of -- 24 of a gun in a trunk, earlier in the afternoon of 25 September 4th?


1 A: Correct. 2 Q: And the -- it was reported to you 3 that the occupiers would not speak to the police and had 4 refused service of a notice of trespass? 5 A: That's right. 6 Q: And you -- I think you've told us 7 that you spoke with Chief Tom Bressette who had indicated 8 that, from his point of view, there was no land claim in 9 process with respect to the Park? 10 A: Yes. That discussion took -- took 11 place early morning of September 5th. 12 Q: So those were some of, not all, but 13 some of the emerging situations that were confronting you 14 during the 4th of September and the early morning of the 15 5th; is this correct? 16 A: That's correct. 17 Q: And you had experienced it with 18 respect to the occupation of parts of the Military Camp 19 in 1993? 20 A: Yes, I had been involved in that 21 since the beginning. 22 Q: And you had some involvement with 23 respect to the occupation of the Military barracks in -- 24 earlier in 1995? 25 A: Yes, I did.


1 Q: And I take it that, in addition to 2 that very specific experience, you had other experience 3 prior to 1995 in terms of occupations, matters of a 4 similar nature? 5 A: Yes. 6 Q: All right. And based upon your -- 7 your experience as -- as it existed on the 4th of 8 September or the morning of the 5th, did you expect the 9 occupation at the Ipperwash Park to proceed in an orderly 10 and totally predictable fashion? 11 A: I -- I certainly couldn't bank on 12 that, no. 13 Q: All right. And I -- I -- I want you 14 to -- to answer the following question and this is 15 difficult without the wisdom of hindsight. In other 16 words, you've been an officer -- senior officer for 17 another ten (10) years since these events, you may have 18 had other experiences involving emergency situations. 19 We all know that there have been matters 20 in the press that deal with police preparedness, matters 21 of -- of that nature and I'm asking you as fairly as you 22 can to -- to put yourself back to -- to where you were on 23 the 4th of September or the morning of the 5th and tell 24 the Commissioner what -- to what degree you placed 25 importance on being prepared for any eventuality that


1 might arise at the Park? 2 A: Well, I guess from -- from a 3 preparedness point of view, I had been involved in major 4 incidents. I -- in -- in 1995 I had been an inspector 5 for two (2) years and by that time I had not only been 6 involved in the Ipperwash incident, but a number of other 7 major occurrences, whether it be barricaded gunmen or 8 attempted suicide type situations, a number of events 9 and I had been a crisis negotiator prior to my role as an 10 incident commander for probably six (6) or seven (7) -- 11 probably at least that many years. 12 So I certainly had a number of incidents 13 that I had experienced and was certainly well -- I had -- 14 I had a number of courses to support that work as far as 15 preparedness in emergency situations. 16 As far as being prepared or the type of 17 preparation, you -- you must always look at a situation, 18 try to determine the worst-case scenario and prepare for 19 any and all eventualities, as given the facts, the best 20 you know it, at that particular point in time, so that 21 you can develop contingencies, so that you can react 22 having thought the things through in advance versus 23 reacting to activities of the moment. 24 I'm not sure if that answers what kind 25 of --


1 Q: Yes. 2 A: -- what you were thinking. 3 Q: And -- and -- and, who would have to 4 answer if, on September the 4th or thereafter, events had 5 taken -- taken place and it turned out that the OPP was 6 hampered in its reaction by a lack of men or material; 7 who would have to answer for that? 8 A: That -- that would be directed to 9 myself. 10 Q: All right. And I take it you were 11 cognizant of that as the events unfolded? 12 A: Very much. 13 Q: All right. And -- and, I -- again, 14 this may not be an exhaustive list, but I want to cover - 15 - and again, I apologize for repeating some of the -- the 16 points in your -- in your evidence but, as I understand, 17 on the 4th of September and on the morning of the 5th, 18 that you directed certain steps to be taken including 19 these, and if can -- acknowledge it if I'm correct, you 20 directed that there be set up a perimeter security and 21 checkpoints? 22 A: Yes. 23 Q: And you called in four (4) ER teams 24 or sixty (60) officers so that there could be two (2) 25 shifts of thirty (30) officers on a twelve (12) hour


1 basis? 2 A: Correct. 3 Q: You had warrants obtained for arrest 4 of some of the occupiers on charges related to incidents 5 that occurred on September the 4th? 6 A: Yes. 7 Q: And you made arrangements for a 8 helicopter to provide surveillance capabilities and a 9 marine unit as well? 10 A: Yes. 11 Q: You made arrangements to have a St. 12 John's ambulance in place? 13 A: Well they -- they provided a St. 14 John's ambulance -- the -- the vehicle St. John's 15 provided wasn't a full ambulance capability. Although I 16 was under the impression it was. 17 Q: All right. 18 A: For clarity. 19 Q: If -- if it hadn't been made 20 available I take it you would have included that in your 21 planning? 22 A: Correct. 23 Q: And -- and you -- you looked into the 24 possibility of obtaining a light armoured vehicle as a 25 contingency in case you had to evacuate officers?


1 A: Yes. 2 Q: And you made arrangement to obtain 3 night vision goggles? 4 A: Yes. 5 Q: You discussed using a TRU, T-R-U team 6 as a backup? 7 A: Correct. 8 Q: And you discussed where you might 9 position those officers and their firearms? 10 A: Yes. 11 Q: And -- and these were steps that were 12 taken by you, if I'm correct, before the conversation 13 that you had with Mr. Fox on the morning of -- or on the 14 morning of September 5th, 1995? 15 A: Correct. 16 Q: So it would seem to follow, and I'm 17 not leading you, by suggesting that you took those steps 18 without relying upon anything that was told to you in the 19 conversation with Mr. Fox? 20 A: Inspector Fox had -- 21 Q: Inspector Fox. 22 A: -- he had no -- no involvement in any 23 of that decision making or the planning whatsoever. 24 Q: And -- and I take it that those steps 25 were taken because of your experience and your


1 appreciation that circumstances could change very 2 quickly; is that correct? 3 A: Yes. Very much so. 4 Q: And that it would be better to be 5 over prepared than under prepared? 6 A: For sure. 7 Q: All right. I just have one (1) or 8 two (2) small points. The -- there was -- My Friend, Mr. 9 Sulman, earlier today took you to some notes in, I 10 believe, the typed notes, what we call the scribe notes, 11 that referenced a fax of Mr. Beaubien to the Premier. 12 And I don't think you need to go to the documents on this 13 point. 14 There -- there is, as well, handwritten 15 scribe notes as -- as you're aware -- 16 A: Yes. 17 Q: -- and I'm just going to give the -- 18 the reference, you don't need to look -- to look this up 19 because it's not part of my question. But there's a 20 reference in handwritten scribe notes, Mr. Commissioner, 21 Exhibit P-427, Document -- Inquiry Document 1000152 at 22 page 468 which has a similar reference to the reference 23 in the typewritten notes, but not identical. 24 It -- it says: 25 "Fax sent to Premier, five (5) minutes


1 after sent called and stated they will 2 be on it." 3 My question to you is simply this. I'm 4 giving it background to give context, sir. 5 The -- in the meeting that you had with 6 Mr. Kobayashi, Linton and Beaubien at approximately 6:45 7 on September the 6th, did anyone from the Premier -- or 8 anyone from the Premier's office call to speak to Mr. 9 Beaubien; did anyone get back to Mr. Beaubien during the 10 course of that meeting? 11 A: Not that I'm aware of. 12 Q: All right. And -- and finally just a 13 general point about the CMU, Crowd Management Unit? 14 A: Correct. 15 Q: Am I correct that that is a unit 16 which is designed to be used both in peaceful situations 17 which may emerge into violence as well as violent 18 situations? 19 A: Oh, very much so, yes. 20 Q: And am I correct that the -- one (1) 21 of the -- one (1) of the reasons for involving the CMU is 22 to prevent situations from becoming violent, by 23 demonstrating a presence at the scene? 24 A: Very much so. And I guess an example 25 of that would be this past November in Ottawa. We


1 deployed a number of crowd management officers in regards 2 to the President Bush visit to the city. 3 And it was -- they were deployed for that 4 very purpose. 5 Q: And the -- the mere presence of the 6 Force is -- was -- is not a projection by the OPP of a 7 message that they -- they're looking for a fight, it's a 8 projection of an intent to avoid problems? 9 A: With any luck at all, the mere 10 presence would be the deterrent effect. 11 Q: Thank you very much. 12 A: Thank you, sir. 13 Q: Thank you, Mr. Commissioner. 14 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Thank you 15 very much. 16 I think the next cross-examiner is -- the 17 municipality has no questions? 18 MR. DAVID NASH: No questions. 19 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: That's fine. 20 The Chief Coroner...? 21 22 (BRIEF PAUSE) 23 24 MR. AL O'MARRA: Thank you, Mr. 25 Commissioner.


1 CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. AL O'MARRA: 2 Q: Good afternoon, Deputy Commissioner 3 Carson. My name is Al O'Marra and I appear on behalf of 4 the Chief Coroner. 5 My questions this afternoon, sir, are with 6 respect to the planning process in dealing with public 7 order event and this was, it's fair to say, a planned 8 event to your knowledge in the sense that you had some 9 knowledge that there was going to be an occupation, you 10 just didn't know when it was going to occur? 11 A: Well, I guess it -- I guess I'm a 12 little cautious about your definition of what a planned 13 event is. 14 Q: Right. 15 A: We certainly had a belief that an 16 occupation was going to occur. Whether it occurred on 17 Labour Day, the following day or a week later, we -- we 18 certainly didn't have that specific of -- of information. 19 Q: But that and event was -- was going 20 to occur, based on your knowledge, just not when it was 21 going to occur? 22 A: Yes. 23 Q: Okay. And -- and in terms of a 24 planned event, you -- you planned to respond to it when 25 it did occur?


1 A: Yes. 2 Q: Okay. And if I could just refer to 3 your typed planning minutes, these are for September 1, 4 1995. The exhibit number is P-421 and this is document 5 3000574. 6 A: Can you help me where I might find 7 that? 8 Q: Oh, I don't know where it is in your 9 list. Perhaps we could put it on the screen? 10 P-421. 11 A: Oh, actually I just found it here. 12 Q: Oh. 13 14 (BRIEF PAUSE) 15 16 Q: And this -- I'll just refer to the -- 17 the beginning of it, Mr. Carson and you've given evidence 18 on this, quite extensively, in terms of the objective 19 with respect to your plan, it was to contain and 20 negotiate a peaceful resolution? 21 A: Yes. 22 Q: That's the overall objective. And is 23 it fair to say that, contained within that objective is 24 the corresponding objectives to, within the plan, 25 minimize the potential for -- for injury or, first of


1 all, potential for violence? 2 A: Of course. 3 Q: And injury and death? 4 A: Sure. 5 Q: Okay. And, as well, to respond 6 effectively if it were to occur? 7 A: Yes. 8 Q: And you also spoke to us earlier in 9 your evidence in-chief about the theories that that you 10 had in terms of how this occupation may unfold. 11 I think you outlined for us three (3) 12 scenarios? 13 A: Sure. 14 Q: Could you just repeat those again? 15 A: Well there was various scenarios 16 where individuals might come in alone and basically 17 refuse to leave. 18 There could be situations where a number 19 of people would come in and be asked, and they may or may 20 not leave. 21 There is a situation where a group may 22 occupy the area and while they refuse to leave, we'd be 23 able to stay present or cohabit in the Park itself or a 24 situation where a group entered, refused to leave and, 25 because of behaviour, not be feasible for the police to


1 stay within the Park itself. 2 Q: And, I -- I take it within those 3 theories there was -- within each of those, the potential 4 for some conflict? 5 A: That's always the potential, yes. 6 Q: And -- and -- and violence? 7 A: Yes. 8 Q: Okay. And in terms of your planning, 9 as you've already answered just recently to Mr. Roebuck, 10 you -- you plan for the worst-case scenario? 11 A: Correct. 12 Q: Okay. If I could turn to page 2 of 13 your minutes; it's articulated there that there is the 14 potential for violence, as you recognized? 15 A: Yes. 16 Q: Okay. And you also indicated that in 17 the event shots are fired, the area will have to be 18 secured, this area could grow in no time. This is the 19 worst-case scenario? 20 A: Right. 21 Q: So the worst-case scenario is shots 22 fired and the expansion of the area that you had to 23 control? 24 A: Right. 25 Q: Okay. And you also, underneath, just


1 below that, indicate concerns should be -- and we 2 clarified that it's raised now, not after the fact in the 3 event of -- of an inquest. And in reference to the 4 inquest, you're speaking of a circumstance where someone 5 may die? 6 A: I'm sorry, I missed the point there. 7 Q: The reference underneath is concerns 8 being raised now during your planning discussion and 9 looking at a worst-case scenario, not after the fact in 10 the event of an inquest? 11 A: What -- what you're -- what you're 12 picking up on there is that I was sharing with the group 13 that any concerns they had I wanted to have them on the 14 table so we could think them through and make some 15 decisions at this point, not after the fact. 16 Q: After a worst-case scenario, somebody 17 dying? 18 A: Right. 19 Q: Okay. And that's -- my only 20 reference to that is the use of the phrase 'inquest'. 21 A: Right. 22 Q: You're speaking of that kind of 23 circumstance? 24 A: Yes. Yes. 25 Q: And what I'd like to focus on, just


1 in terms of the planning, you've gone through it in great 2 detail, is just the planning insofar as it dealt with 3 responding effectively to violence occurring and as -- as 4 a result, injuries, to either officers, occupants, 5 civilians? 6 A: Yes. 7 Q: Just in terms of the -- the planning 8 around that? 9 A: I -- I'm -- I'm missing the point 10 here. 11 Q: What were the plans around -- you -- 12 you agreed with me earlier that in terms of the overall 13 objective -- 14 A: Yes. 15 Q: -- the subset to that -- 16 A: Right. 17 Q: -- was being able to, if violence 18 occurred, to respond effectively to those who were 19 injured? 20 A: Right. 21 Q: And that's what I'm asking you: What 22 were the nature of the plans with respect to that? 23 A: Well, they're implicit in -- in the 24 role that we play. I would suggest that our officers, 25 first of all, all have basic first aid training and


1 there's certainly first aid kits readily available to all 2 officers in every vehicle that we own. 3 Also, the tactical team has a -- a medic 4 who accompanies the team. So when you see some of the 5 discussion in this report, what you see is some 6 discussion about evacuating officers and concern about 7 officers. I think I used the term 'being boxed in' at 8 one (1) point. Not only boxed in the Park but there's 9 some discussion here at some point about the Matheson 10 Drive and the fence that's required -- or the fence 11 that's there and -- and the position our officers would 12 be. 13 So the -- if we came under fire what we'd 14 have to do is provide the resources, such as TRU, in 15 order to extract an injured member and then evacuate him 16 by ambulance. 17 Q: Okay. You mentioned the medic. Now, 18 as I understand it, I expect we will hear from Mr. 19 Slomer, he was a registered nurse paramedic? 20 A: Yes, correct. 21 Q: And was that the practice at that 22 time to have someone like him work in conjunction with 23 TRU in responding to gun calls? 24 A: What you'll find, it's -- it -- it -- 25 has developed over time, but Mr. Slomer has responded


1 with a tactical team for a number of years and he had 2 been by this particular time in '95. It wasn't a 3 mandatory part of the program, it is something that 4 developed over time. 5 He -- he started out as a volunteer 6 assisting and our other two (2) tactical teams in Barrie 7 and also in Belleville. The Belleville team has an 8 individual, actually, who's a doctor, who will go with 9 the team if at all possible. And whenever they are 10 available they do go, but, unfortunately, because of the 11 nature of the fact that they have other jobs, sometimes 12 that's logistically impossible. 13 But whenever they are available, they do - 14 - they do move with the team. 15 Q: Are you speaking, I'm sorry, are you 16 speaking of the circumstances that exist now or is this 17 back in '95? 18 A: In '95, that's what I'm talking 19 about. 20 Q: In '95? 21 A: Yes. 22 Q: Okay. And there were references in 23 the notes about ambulance services being - being 24 required? 25 A: Correct.


1 Q: Okay. Ambulance service, we 2 understand, was notified in the days leading up to 3 September 6th? 4 A: Correct. 5 Q: Okay. Now we also heard in evidence 6 from, of course, the medical staff and physicians at the 7 Strathroy Middlesex General Hospital and I believe their 8 evidence was the nature of being apprised, literally 9 minutes before the arrival of -- of anyone injured -- 10 A: Right. 11 Q: -- at the hospital. That they had -- 12 there is no pre-event alert to them -- 13 A: Right. 14 Q: Was that -- was that part of this 15 plan, that the health care providers or resources in the 16 area be alerted to the potential that they could be 17 called on to respond to those who are injured? 18 A: That's -- other than the ambulance 19 services, no. 20 Q: Now, and -- and is that -- can you -- 21 can you explain as to -- as to -- as to why that wouldn't 22 have occurred, in terms of planning to an event, if a 23 subset of your objective is to respond effectively to 24 those who might be injured, either police or civilian? 25 A: Well the difficulty is, you have no


1 ability to predict when the services will or will not be 2 required. 3 Quite frankly, if -- if it was necessary 4 to notify the hospital every time we did a call, they'd 5 be on standby an awful lot of the time. 6 Q: Hmm hmm. 7 A: Certainly as soon as there's an 8 injury occurs through the ambulance service that 9 notification would take place. 10 In this particular case, relative to the 11 ambulance service, I was well aware that the ambulance 12 service was on a on-call status after certain hours of 13 the day. 14 So that was certainly shared with the team 15 and the ambulance service was notified that we were in 16 the area with additional officers and there certainly was 17 a potential for altercation. 18 Q: Just going back to the -- to the 19 medic and his relationship with the -- their relationship 20 with the TRU team -- 21 A: Correct. 22 Q: - and coming forward to today. Has 23 there been an expanded role with -- within the OPP of 24 that kind of joint relationship between medics, EMS, 25 paramedics and either TRU or your ERT teams?


1 A: The same individuals, Ted Slomer and 2 the doctor we have out of Bracebridge (phonetic), still 3 respond with our teams. But as was the case in 1995, 4 they still have occupations to look after as well so, 5 again, it's on as available basis. 6 Q: Yes. 7 A: Quite frankly, there is no ability to 8 hire paramedics to be a member of the team. That simply 9 has not been a financial viability at this point in time. 10 We certainly would like to be able to do that, quite 11 frankly, but that's not possible. 12 Q: I meant perhaps not so much in terms 13 of having actual medics on staff or part of your -- your 14 police services, but rather having a relationship with 15 those services much as you had with Mr. Slomer, on 16 contract, to be available. 17 A: Well the difficulty is, the tactical 18 team -- there's three (3) tactical teams in Ontario for 19 the Ontario Provincial Police. 20 Those teams move at an instants notice 21 anywhere in the Province. For example, this past weekend 22 it was necessary for my personnel to direct deployment to 23 northern Ontario for two (2) teams. 24 So we don't have the ability to demand or 25 expect EMS personnel to be available to deploy anywhere


1 at any time. 2 So, whenever the event would occur, in -- 3 in that local area, there certainly should be 4 notification to the appropriate services in that 5 location. 6 Q: Is there any relationship with the -- 7 with the ERT teams? 8 A: It would be in the same -- it would 9 be the same scenario. 10 Q: Okay. And certainly acknowledging 11 the vast areas that you have to police, what of a 12 relationship with local hospital committees and -- and 13 services in terms of -- of creating a liaison with those 14 services for pre-alerts if public or events happen within 15 their region or district; has that occurred? 16 A: To my knowledge that has not 17 occurred. 18 Q: You gave evidence about some reviews 19 that took place after the fact to learn lessons from the 20 event, one of which occurred in February of '96 -- 21 A: Yes. 22 Q: -- which you participated. 23 A: Right. 24 Q: The other, as you understood it, 25 conducted by Inspector Connolly of which you don't have,


1 I guess, information to? 2 A: Right. Right. 3 Q: I understood that in the aftermath of 4 the event that Commissioner O'Grady indicated, amongst 5 other things, that once settle -- the area was secure, 6 that an emergency preparedness review was to take place. 7 Did you -- were you aware of that? 8 A: No. 9 Q: Okay. So I take it that you've not 10 seen any emergency preparedness review report? 11 A: No. I don't know if you're referring 12 to the Connolly report or not, if that's -- if that fits 13 that expectation, I'm -- I'm not sure what you're 14 referring to. 15 Q: I don't know, sir. I'm just 16 referring to the words that Commissioner OGrady used, 17 "Emergency preparedness review." 18 A: Well now if you're talking about an 19 emergency preparedness review as far as the bureau within 20 general headquarters and the general response across the 21 Province, there was -- certainly, there has been 22 restructuring of our emergency preparedness bureau out of 23 general headquarters, if that's -- if that's what you're 24 referring to. 25 Q: No. I think it was in the context of


1 operational issues. 2 A: Correct. But what happens is the -- 3 the bureau that provides support to the tactical teams, 4 ERT teams, is managed -- the -- the program is managed 5 out of general headquarters so I suspect that's -- I'm 6 aware of an emergency service review in that context. 7 Q: Okay. In your role as deputy 8 commissioner for field and traffic services, I understand 9 ERT comes under your -- your responsibilities? 10 A: It does. 11 Q: Okay. And have there -- have there 12 been any changes or recommendations in terms of -- of how 13 events are planned for -- the public or events are 14 planned for and the arrangement for medical services? 15 A: Quite frankly I can't speak to the 16 medical services components, specifically. Whenever 17 there is a major event, whether it's -- for example, I 18 mentioned earlier the Bush visit or the Pope's visit, you 19 know, whether it's going to be massive numbers, certainly 20 in those planning situations EMS is a part of that 21 planning process. 22 Q: Okay. Thank you, sir. Those are my 23 questions. 24 A: Thank you. 25 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Thank you,


1 Mr. O'Marra. 2 MR. DERRY MILLAR: Commissioner, this 3 morning when we started it had been the -- we had 4 approximately a little over six and a half (6 1/2) hours 5 worth of material and Mr. Orkin and I spoke with respect 6 to the cross-examination of Mr. Klippenstein who's going 7 to do it on behalf of the George Family. And Mr. Orkin 8 asked if I thought that we would reach Mr. Klippenstein 9 this afternoon with -- and I thought that we would not. 10 And so I -- Mr. Klippenstein was going to 11 drive up if we thought that we would and I said I didn't 12 think we would. So he's not here. So I suggest that we 13 adjourn until Monday morning at 10:30. 14 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: That's fine. 15 MR. DERRY MILLAR: It's been a long week 16 for -- 17 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Everybody. 18 MR. DERRY MILLAR: -- for everybody, 19 particularly the Witness. 20 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Yes. 21 MR. DERRY MILLAR: And with your 22 permission that's what I propose we do. 23 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I think 24 that's a good idea. I think we'll adjourn. 25 Just a minute, Mr. Orkin has something to


1 say before we do. 2 MR. ANDREW ORKIN: Thank you, 3 Commissioner. I just want to acknowledge the Commission 4 Counsel's consideration and yours in this regard. 5 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Thank you 6 very much, Mr. Orkin. 7 We'll adjourn now until Monday morning at 8 10:30. Thank you all very much. 9 10 (WITNESS RETIRES) 11 12 THE REGISTRAR: This Public Inquiry is 13 adjourned until Monday, June the 6th, at 10:30 a.m. 14 15 --- Upon adjourning at 2:16 p.m. 16 17 Certified Correct 18 19 20 _____________________ 21 Dustin Warnock 22 23 24 25