injusticebusters logo

Brian Dueck's examination (9)


272

1524 Q So that was in someone else's territory and you

left it there?

A Yes.

1525 Q Now, ultimately, you would testify in relation

to the Ross prelim?

A No, the Queen's Bench Court.

1526 Q All right. So you never testified at the

prelim?

A No.

1527 Q And we talked about that yesterday, that you

didn't testify at the Klassen prelim?

A Right.

1528 Q But you testified at the Ross trial?

A At the trial.

1529 Q You didn't testify at the Ross prelim?

A No.

1530 Q And then there were some criminal libel charges

where you testified?

A Right.

1531 Q Have you had an opportunity to review the

transcripts of some of that?

MR. GERRAND: Well, we've reviewed what we're

advised is a transcript of a preliminary hearing

of Richard Klassen in which Superintendent Dueck

testified. We've reviewed pages 36 through 108


273

of that transcript of his evidence from that

preliminary inquiry.

1532 Q MR. BORDEN: Yes. Is there anything you want

to say after the review, about that testimony?

A I don't think so.

MR. GERRAND: We've reviewed it, yes.

MR. BORDEN: You've reviewed it. For the

record, you have reviewed it. Fine.

1533 Q Now the other matter comes down to the

disclosure which we discussed yesterday. So

I'll just ask you a few questions about

disclosure. Was it ever your job to provide to

the defence counsel for any of the plaintiffs

documents --

A No.

1534 Q -- otherwise known as disclosure?

A No.

1535 Q Did Matt or Sonja ever sit down and talk to you

about what should be disclosed to defence

counsel and what should not?

A No.

1536 Q Were there any decisions made, as far as you

knew, not to disclose documents to defence

counsel?

A No.

1537 Q Had you provided any kind of correspondence or


274

memos to the prosecutors regarding that issue of

disclosure?

A No.

1538 Q Did you presume that defence counsel would get

disclosure?

A Absolutely.

1539 Q And we talked about Stinchcombe briefly

yesterday. Stinchcombe required, of course, the

prosecution to give over disclosure and all we

have to do is look at the case and determine the

nature and scope of that obligation?

A Right.

1540 Q But what was your understanding as a police

officer in terms of disclosure?

MR. GERRAND: How is this relevant?

MR. BORDEN: I just want to see, again, who

was in charge of disclosing documents back in

1991-92.

MR. GERRAND: I think the witness has -- his

evidence is that he was not involved in the

disclosure process in any way, and I'm not sure

that he's here to give evidence as to his

interpretation of legal cases.

MR. BORDEN: That's right. I understand that.

So I'm not asking him about an interpretation of

the legal case, I said that Stinchcombe will


275

speak. I mean, it talks about the obligation,

the nature and scope of the obligation. I'm

saying, as a police officer, what was his

understanding of his duties in relation to

disclosure back in 1990-91, just in relation to

his job. He doesn't have to tell me about

Stinchcombe, what did he have to do in terms of

disclosure? Maybe he didn't have to do

anything. I just want to hear it from him.

MR. GERRAND: Okay.

A Well, I mean, our practice was that our

packages, everything relevant to the case went

to the prosecution and the prosecution then made

disclosure. I mean, certainly, that was a time

of transition with Stinchcombe, things were done

differently, things were being tested and it

certainly has evolved from there to today. But

that was our job then, no differently than

today. It goes to the prosecutor's office; they

make disclosure.

1541 Q MR. BORDEN: Okay, that wasn't for you to

decide. You knew that defence counsel was

supposed to get some disclosure but it was up to

the prosecutors to decide what to give them?

A Well, I assume they'd give them everything.

1542 Q Okay. Was there anything in all of the material


276

that you had that you thought defence counsel

should never have seen?

A No.

1543 Q Because, as you've just said, it was your

opinion, as it was then and probably as it is

now, that defence counsel should have

everything?

A That's right.

1544 Q Now there are some exceptions to that rule; do

you know of any of those exceptions? I'm not

talking about legal ones, I'm just talking about

the ones that were around in '90-91, in your

department?

A No. I don't recall. I mean we've worked with

Stinchcombe now for 12 or 13 years, as I say,

it's even evolved and changed. So I don't

remember what any exceptions might have been

then.

MR. BORDEN: The one part of this case that we

put a lot of questions to this morning related

to reasonable and probable grounds, but now I

would like to have your client enter into an

undertaking, and the undertaking is in this

nature, it's in the nature of looking at each

plaintiff in these proceedings and advising us

in writing as to the evidence or the information


277

for the disclosure that formed the basis for the

reasonable and probable grounds that that

specific plaintiff committed the specific

offence alleged.

It would necessarily mean, Mr.

Gerrand, that your client would have to

sometime, and we've got now until September, to

go through the videos and pick out -- or to go

through the transcripts and pick out the

information that relates to each one of the

plaintiffs. And I am asking for your

cooperation in providing that.

MR. GERRAND: Well, because you've already

questioned him extensively on the basis of his

reasonable and probable grounds with respect to

each plaintiff I'm not sure that you're entitled

to that, but I'll take it under advisement and

what I may consider providing is the specific

detail from the Ross children's transcripts with

respect to each plaintiff, in terms of where in

those transcripts the specific disclosures are

made that form the basis of the reasonable and

probable grounds for Superintendent Dueck with

respect to each of those plaintiffs.

MR. BORDEN: We would love to have that. I'm

sure that as Inspector Dueck goes through that


278

material he's going to find that there were

times when something might have been said but

that wasn't enough to form the basis for

anything. Even though a name might have been

used, it might have been Diane Kvello, or it

might have been Rick Klassen, but there may not

have been any meat to what was said at that

time. So I just don't want references made to

where in the testimony those names might have

appeared, but what information was it from the

child specifically that led to the charges being

laid?

MR. GERRAND: Off the record.

(Discussion off the record)

MR. BORDEN: You have agreed to take under

advisement our request for particulars of the

information from the transcripts that would lead

to the reasonable and probable grounds for the

charges?

MR. GERRAND: Yes.

MR. BORDEN: I'll just simply leave that with

you.

UNDERTAKING #5: (TAKEN UNDER ADVISEMENT): PROVIDE

PARTICULARS AS TO WHAT INFORMATION IN THE TRANSCRIPTS OF

INTERVIEWS WITH THE CHILDREN LED TO REASONABLE & PROBABLE

GROUNDS TO LAY CHARGES IN RESPECT OF EACH PLAINTIFF


279

MR. BORDEN: Well, I'd like to break at this

time.

(Examination recessed from 12:10 p.m. to 1:20 p.m.)

1545 Q Superintendent Dueck, you are still under oath.

A Yes.

1546 Q And you have before you copies of what we have

called the Thompson notes. For the purpose of

these proceedings, are those the notes that you

saw before you became the informant of charges

against the plaintiffs?

A Without going through them I wouldn't know.

Because I'm aware that some of them came to me

during the interviewing process, the taping, and

those were turned over to prosecutors. Now, I

can't verify this, but I also understand there's

some that went right to the prosecutors.

Without going through this I can't tell you

which ones I would recognize.

MR. GERRAND: After you go through them are you

going to be able to tell which ones came to you

prior to giving the file to the prosecutors and

which ones came after?

A Well, that would be hard to say. I know I

recognize some. I recognize this page, for

instance, but I'm just not sure whether I can or

not.


280

1547 Q MR. BORDEN: Let's put it on this basis, these

are Thompson notes and we should have them

marked as an exhibit, they come from your file.

MR. GERRAND: I don't object to that. The

witness has seen at least a portion of these

notes during the course of his investigation.

MR. BORDEN: If we could have that marked,

please.

EXHIBIT P-6: BUNDLE OF DOCUMENTS KNOWN AS THE THOMPSON

NOTES

MR. GERRAND: Just for the record, in addition

to the notes there are interspersed with the

notes transcriptions of typed versions of the

words in the handwritten notes and, while they

appear to be accurate, those aren't documents

that Superintendent Dueck created.

MR. BORDEN: Yes, thank you.

1548 Q You have reviewed P-6, I know there hasn't been

a lot of time to review them. So far you have

indicated that there are some documents there

that you recognize, but it appears that not all

documents do you recall?

A Well, as I say, I haven't been able to go

through all of them, obviously. I thought they

might be in chronological order of date, some of

them are dated at the beginning, but they're


281

mixed up, so --

1549 Q And, in all fairness, it is really whatever

Thompson notes you had before the laying of the

charges that you read and which you've indicated

you did not rely on for the purpose of laying

the criminal charges?

A Right.

1550 Q So it doesn't matter whether you read two of

those notes or 90 of those notes, you did not

use them for the purpose of laying charges?

A That's right.

1551 Q In relation to Exhibit P-6, did you at least

review them at sometime to see whether those

notes were consistent with some of the

interviews and what the children were saying?

A I can't say I used them to corroborate the

interviews as much as possibly information out

of them to see what was going on.

1552 Q Do you recall the specific purpose for which you

used Exhibit P-6?

A The specific reason I used it?

1553 Q Yes.

A I had no use for them. Personally, I didn't

even want them. Mrs. Thompson kept bringing

them in. I didn't use them for anything

probably other than reading them out of


282

interest.

1554 Q For instance, did you ever have the occasion to

review them to see whether there was any

allegations against Kari Klassen in those notes?

A No, I wouldn't have relied on these notes. In

fact, I think Thompsons even indicated that

different people in their family had made some

of those notes. So they were of no use to me,

if I would have relied on that they would have

been evidence in court to support my charges,

and I didn't want that.

1555 Q Right. Or not to support your charges?

A Or to not support them.

1556 Q Because I think you will agree that one or more

accused aren't even mentioned in some of those

notes?

A That could very easily be, I don't know.

1557 Q But you did know that there were disclosures

being made to the Thompsons from '89 onwards?

A Yes, I was told that.

1558 Q So you knew, as well, that someone thought it

was appropriate that those notes be kept and

turned over to the authorities?

A You're talking about the Thompsons?

1559 Q Someone.

A Well someone did, yes, obviously.


283

1560 Q Did Carol Bunko-Ruys receive a copy of the

Thompson notes as far as you know?

A I have no idea.

1561 Q Did you ever broach the subject of the Thompson

notes with Carol Bunko-Ruys?

A We may have talked about them, I can't recall.

The Thompsons had much more contact with Carol

than I did.

1562 Q You knew notes were being made by someone in the

Thompson family, you might have been curious

about them, but you did not rely on them?

A That's right.

1563 Q Now, that brings us back to this subject, then,

of wrecked children. And I'll tell you how I'm

jumping into that. If one were to read the

notes of the Thompson family one might presume

that these are wrecked children?

A I would say so.

1564 Q So that you might have had a sense of what these

children were all about from those notes

themselves?

A Possibly, yeah.

1565 Q And when you drew the conclusion or the

inference that they were wrecked, before your

interviews with them in October-November of 1991

it might have been because you were given the


284

Thompson notes?

A My interviews were in 1990.

1566 Q Ninety, yes, sorry.

A I wasn't given any of the Thompson notes until

I'd started the interviewing.

1567 Q So at the time that you started the interviews

you really didn't have very much in front of

you?

A No.

1568 Q Okay. This is the problem I've got. I heard

you say this morning that on a number of

interviews with children you often don't use

counsellors or therapists unless the children

are "wrecked"?

A Right.

1569 Q Those were your words, "wrecked"?

A Right.

1570 Q How did you know, then, before you began to

interview Michelle that it was necessary that

there be a counsellor or a therapist there?

A I would suggest that would come from

conversation with the counsellors and with

Social Services.

1571 Q So you formed the opinion as to whether they

were wrecked -- and we'll come to the definition

of that word later -- from your conversations,


285

then, with some of the other parties?

A Sure.

1572 Q Would one of those parties have been Carol

Bunko-Ruys?

A Yes, I would say it would have been.

1573 Q And the same would apply to all three children,

in other words, Michael, Michelle, Kathy all had

Carol Bunko-Ruys there for the interviews

because of the profound nature of the abuse and

their conditions?

A That's right.

1574 Q Now, can you tell me in your own words what you

might mean by "wrecked"?

A Well, I think there are two issues here. It was

obvious that these kids had had some very

traumatic things happen to them. And secondly,

that they appeared to be quite hard to control,

as far as settling them down to be able to

interview them.

1575 Q So it would have been helpful to have at least

their own therapist there?

A That was my opinion, yes.

1576 Q Number one, she would help with the control

issue, or the behaviour issue, I should say?

A I would hope so, yes.

1577 Q And number two, she would be helpful in terms of


286

better understanding these children and how to

approach them?

A Yes.

1578 Q How to draw out of them information?

A I would say so, yes.

1579 Q Nevertheless, in the interviews with the

children, and by that I'm still referring to the

Ross children, much of the interviews were done

by you rather than Carol Bunko-Ruys, you

remember that?

A Yes, sure.

1580 Q Why did you take it upon yourself to do the

interviews, rather than to let her interview the

children?

A This part of the process was a police process

and I was the investigator, therefore, it was my

job to do that, I felt. Again, that's changed

since 1990, now many of them are done, you know,

with both social worker and police officer

present, the social worker doing the interview.

1581 Q All right. In terms of the interviewing of

these children, would you do it any differently

today than you had done it back in 1990?

MR. GERRAND: Don't answer that question.

1582 Q MR. BORDEN: Have there been any changes in

terms of the interviewing protocol since 1990?


287

A Yes, there have.

1583 Q What are those changes?

A Well, I don't -- protocol. There's now a team

approach to lessening the number of interviews

the children have to go through, by having the

child centre where they're all done. Number

two, there's much more training available now

than there was in 1990, both for the investi-

gators and for the social workers. I'm not sure

if types of interviewing or how interviewing is

done, I'm sure that's changed, the training in

that area.

1584 Q In these particular cases some of the children

were interviewed up to three times on video

tape; is that correct?

A That's right.

MR. GERRAND: Four times.

1585 Q MR. BORDEN: Up to four times?

A Four times, yeah.

1586 Q So that it would be fair to say that some of

those procedures have changed today?

A Well, as I say, they wouldn't be interviewed by

the therapist, by the police, that's all done in

one spot now.

1587 Q Of course, you're not that conversant in this

area now, anyway, are you?


288

A Well, I was in charge of the whole area until

last January.

1588 Q Oh, were you?

A Yes.

1589 Q Oh, I see. In charge of, then, the Youth

Division?

A I was in charge of CID, all criminal

investigations.

1590 Q Oh, I see. Which included, then, allegations of

child sexual abuse?

A That's right.

1591 Q So you work with the child centre now, you had

worked until about a year ago?

A I was in charge of CID, I said, until a year

ago, and that included the child centre.

1592 Q And for the record --

A Not a year ago, January of this year.

1593 Q For the record, CID?

A Criminal Investigations Division.

1594 Q You've indicated that that was all-inclusive,

the Criminal Investigations Division was all-

inclusive and involved also allegations of child

sexual abuse?

A That's right.

1595 Q Now there was an occasion where Michael was

tired during one of the interviews and someone


289

said to him, "Why are you tired?" He said,

"Well, I was crewing," C-R-E-W-I-N-G, he said.

Do you remember that part of the interview?

A Yeah.

1596 Q And you knew then that he was actually having --

that he was, in fact, sexually touching or

having intercourse with his own sisters, isn't

that right?

A No, I didn't know that for a fact. That's what

he said.

1597 Q That's what he said?

A Right.

1598 Q So at that time that's what he said had

happened; did you give any credence to that

whatsoever?

A Certainly.

1599 Q Do you know whether or not that was followed up

to see if, in fact, he was molesting his

sisters?

A I think there was an ongoing problem there that

was being dealt with by the Thompsons, Carol

Bunko-Ruys and Social Services.

1600 Q All right. Michael was about what age when you

first saw him?

A Ten.

1601 Q So when he was age 10 that would have been in


290

about 1989?

A Right.

1602 Q So if we take it to the fall of 1990 he would

have been 11?

A That's right.

1603 Q And the fall of 1991 he would have been 12?

A Fall of 1991 he would have been 12, that's

right.

1604 Q In the fall of '91 were you still with the Youth

Division?

A No.

1605 Q You were gone?

A That's right.

1606 Q Now did you know that Michael, in fact, was

continuing to have this problem of sexual abuse

of his own sisters, even up to age 12?

A Did I know that?

1607 Q Yes.

A I knew that -- I would say I did in some senses,

and let me explain that if I can. I had nothing

more to do with them after the charges were laid

other than Thompsons had some friends who lived

half a block from my house, and if they came by

with the children and saw me in yard they would

stop and talk to me. And there were times where

I was told, yeah, we're still having this


291

problem but we're doing this, you know. The

children themselves would say we're doing this.

I know that we discussed at one time that when

Michael turned 12 possibly they would have to

lay a criminal charge against him, but until the

age of 12 they couldn't.

1608 Q But there was one thing that they could have

done and that is to remove Michael from the

girls; is that correct?

A Well, again, that's a call made by child care

specialists, and I'm not one of those.

1609 Q All right. You knew that the Department of

Social Services was involved intimately in the

affairs of these children?

A Absolutely.

1610 Q And that the Department of Social Services knew

what was happening in the Thompson household?

A Well I assume they did, yes.

1611 Q And what you're saying is that they have their

job and you have yours?

A That's right.

1612 Q Now you investigate sexual abuse of children

from the criminal law perspective?

A That's right.

1613 Q And if you determine that someone is actually

abusing another person in a home you can lay a


292

charge?

A That's right.

1614 Q Providing they're of the right age?

A That's right.

1615 Q And if they're not 12 but are younger than 12,

then it's up to other authorities to look after

it?

A I would say so, yeah.

1616 Q Ultimately, that meant that someone in the

division would have to handle that aspect?

A Now, which division?

1617 Q Social Services, I'm sorry.

A Okay, sure.

1618 Q Some names that you gave me this morning, I

think one was Anita Gross?

A That's right.

1619 Q And there was a Sheila Gagne?

A That's another name I remember, yeah.

1620 Q I heard the name Carol Bunko-Ruys used in

relation to the children?

A Well Carol is a therapist, she's not a social

worker.

1621 Q But she had some kind of affiliation with the

Department of Social Services?

A I assume she still did. Well, she was

contracted with them, yes.


293

1622 Q And there was another person, now she was the

expert, as I recall it, in the area of ritual

abuse, what was her name, Liz Newton?

A Liz Newton.

1623 Q So anyone of those parties, I suppose, you

thought having this knowledge of what's going on

at the Thompson house, could handle that?

A I would hope so, yes.

1624 Q And because the children were seen by you from

time to time, you knew that they were still

together?

A That's right.

1625 Q Was there anything -- how can I put this? The

children were kept together, Michael and his two

sisters?

A In the same home.

1626 Q Yes. Did that have anything to do with the

criminal charges against the Klassens and

Kvellos?

A Not as far as I know.

1627 Q Did anyone ever say to you it's better to keep

them there because we've got to keep a lid on

all these charges that had to be stayed or

withdrawn?

A No.

1628 Q Did there ever reach a point after the charges


294

against the Kvellos and Klassens were stayed

where you said to Anita Gross or Sheila Gagne,

Liz Newton, or Carol Bunko-Ruys, "Get the

children away from Michael"?

A No, I didn't. Nor did I tell them to keep them

together.

1629 Q But you thought that they knew their job?

A That's right.

1630 Q And if their job, if investigations determined

that Michael and two girls should stay that was

the way it was?

A I would liken it to a social worker coming and

telling a police officer how to do his job.

1631 Q Okay. But sometimes, you know, people aren't

doing their jobs well. It's not as though some

police officers don't do their jobs well?

A Right.

1632 Q And sometimes you just appreciate it when

someone from another profession points it out.

Did you point out to any of the social workers,

and I've mentioned four people here, that they

weren't doing their job well enough when it came

to Michael and his two sisters living together?

A No, I didn't.

1633 Q All right. And that's the end of it, you

thought that Michael continued to sexually abuse


295

his sisters, but you also thought that Social

Services was on top of it?

A I can't say that I thought that he continued to

abuse them. I mean when they stopped at the

kerb to talk I wasn't questioning them as to

whether that was happening. I recall a couple

of times where a comment was made, "I'm still

being touched," or that sort of thing. The

Thompsons were present when that was said, it

was indicated that something was being done

about that.

1634 Q So I get it from that that it must have been one

of the girls that said that because you used the

words, "I am still being touched."

A Right.

1635 Q So either Michelle or Kathy were still

complaining to you later on, after the charges

were stayed, "I'm still being touched."

A I wouldn't say that it was said as a complaint.

I mean that's a definition again. I guess we're

splitting hairs, but, you know, it's a statement

that was made.

1636 Q Sure. There's times when you can split hairs

and times when you can't. But when they're

saying, "I'm still being touched," what did you

feel that meant?


296

A I felt they were making a statement to me that

this was still happening.

1637 Q And oftentimes when children make statements

about things like that, they're asking for help

aren't they?

A I would say so, yes.

1638 Q All right. Well, nevertheless, at the end of

the day Michael continued to live in the

Thompson household past the age of 12; is that

correct?

A I'm not sure.

1639 Q All right. Was there any time that you read a

document that seemed to indicate that one of the

plaintiffs may not have had anything to do with

Michelle, Michael, Kathy in terms of sexual

assaults or sexual abuse?

A A document? I don't know what you're talking

about, I haven't seen any document. That

they've said it, that the girls said this?

1640 Q Anybody.

MR. GERRAND: What time are you talking about?

1641 Q MR. BORDEN: Prior to the charges being laid?

A No, no.

1642 Q Prior to the charges being laid is there

anything you ever saw that said these Klassens

or one of them couldn't possibly have done this?


297

A No.

1643 Q I just thought that when you go to lay criminal

charges that you take into account a number of

things, not just interviews with children but

what other people are telling you.

A Exactly.

1644 Q You take a lot of things into account, but for

the record, you've already told us that you just

took into account, essentially, the testimony in

the interviews?

A Right.

1645 Q And the Yelland reports; right?

A Basically, yes, sure.

1646 Q All right, that's fine. I want to just go back

to the Yelland reports. Did you know that the

children had been examined at one point of time,

and I'm talking about Michelle and Kathy, when

they were in the Klassen household?

A I wasn't aware of that, no.

1647 Q So no one told you that you should actually look

at the condition that they were in when they

were in the Klassen household and then look at

the condition they were in when they were in the

Thompson household; did anyone point that out to

you?

A No. I'm not following that.


298

1648 Q Well, fine. Let's assume that a young girl,

when she's examined in one home is fine but when

she's examined after she goes to a different

home she's not fine.

A Okay.

1649 Q So now you have in home A fine, home B not fine.

A Okay.

1650 Q It would seem to draw the inference that

something has happened in home B?

A Had I know that exam was there.

1651 Q And no one pointed that out to you?

A No.

MR. BORDEN: Well, just give me a five-minute

break and I think we're ready to close.

(Examination recessed briefly, then reconvened)

MR. BORDEN: All right. Well, subject to the

undertakings we'll adjourn this examination sine

die.

MR. GERRAND: Before we do that, as I've

indicated yesterday I am prepared to put on the

record that the defendants Dueck and the Board

of Police Commissioners are prepared to agree

that the unrepresented plaintiff, Richard

Klassen, can adopt the questions and answers

that have been given by Superintendent Dueck on

this examination, and use the same as if he had


299

conducted the same.

MR. BORDEN: Yes. I understand your client

has not counterclaimed?

MR. GERRAND: That's correct.

MR. BORDEN: So, if he had, I'd be here for

another three or four hours. But nevertheless,

there's nothing to be done until the next time.

I guess that's all I can say until Mr. Klassen

deals with his part of it.

MR. KLASSEN: And for the record, then, I guess

before the break we discussed a date in

September.

MR. GERRAND: We don't need to do this on the

record, Mr. Klassen. As indicated we will agree

to a date in early September. If you've got a

calendar we'll pick a date.

(Discussion off the record)

MR. GERRAND: Do you have an idea, Mr. Klassen,

how long you expect to examine Inspector Dueck?

MR. KLASSEN: I'm going to be going through a

lot more of the documents, per se, than what Mr.

Borden did. And in relation most specifically

about Kari and myself, and some of the other

plaintiffs as well, that he didn't touch on.

MR. GERRAND: No, we'll make it clear that you

are representing yourself, you're not


300

representing any other plaintiffs and --

MR. KLASSEN: Yes, but there are --

MR. GERRAND: Please, when I'm speaking, Mr.

Klassen, please wait until I've finished

speaking before you speak in order that it can

be clear for the record. But I would like to

let you know that your examination is related to

your claim not to the other plaintiffs' claims,

Mr. Borden is representing those plaintiffs. So

to the extent that your questions relate to your

claim, that's fine.

MR. KLASSEN: So you'll be objecting if I

attempt to, even though the investigation of the

other plaintiffs certainly would have had to do,

as well, with the malice that I'm claiming in

mine, as well. The investigation of the other

plaintiffs deals with the whole of his malice --

MR. GERRAND: We'll deal with each question as

it comes but you're going to have to restrict

your questions to those matters that relate to

your claim. I appreciate that there may be

matters that relate to your claim that impact on

the other plaintiffs, those will be fair

questions. Do you remember what my question was

to you in terms of --

MR. KLASSEN: How many days?


301

MR. GERRAND: Yes.

MR. KLASSEN: And I was trying to explain that

when you cut me off, sir. The fact that I'm

going to be going through some documents more so

than he did, and I'm going to be doing that by

Power Point, for the convenience of all parties

so we don't have to pass a document back and

forth.

MR. GERRAND: Just a minute here --

MR. KLASSEN: I will attempt -- if you're

objecting to that that would be fine, to object

to it now.

MR. GERRAND: I'm not agreeing. I don't know

how you -- I'm computer illiterate and I don't

know how you are going to copy documents onto

some electronic means and attempt to project

them onto the wall, that's all beyond me. So my

preference is if you're going to deal with

documents they better be copies of documents

that are disclosed by the parties in the

proceeding.

MR. KLASSEN: And absolutely, they would be,

but the copy of the document, by projector,

would be up on the screen so we can all look at

it and go through it. There would also be short

clips of the video dealing specifically with me.


302

And we'll go for identification first, of

course, like always, and then the tape would be

played, it could be a four-minute tape dealing

with me, and I'll ask questions then pertaining

to that specific video as well, and each and

every video, including the video of where I am

interviewed by then Sergeant Dueck at the police

station in Red Deer.

So I suspect it will take some

time and I'm suggesting a couple of days to do

this.

MR. GERRAND: I appreciate that you're not a

solicitor, Mr. Klassen, and I appreciate that

you, as an individual, have a right to pursue

litigation in your own behalf, but I'll say this

to you, an examination for discovery is a

restricted proceeding in which the scope and

nature of questions which you are entitled to

ask is limited. An examination for discovery is

not a demonstrative exercise for presenting your

case. And I will be -- you're going to have to

comply with the rules with respect to examina-

tions for discovery, just as any other litigant

would in the examination process. And the

things that you describe to me as things that

you plan to do, I'll tell you it's unlikely that


303

we're going to go very far with that kind of an

exercise. Because it's my fear that what you've

described to me would be outside the reasonable

scope of an examination for discovery. And the

likelihood is that if we go very far in that

kind of an exercise I will object to the

proceeding and we'll have to get a judge to rule

on it.

So my suggestion would be that

you carefully consider the manner in which you

propose to proceed with the examination on

September 10th, when it's reconvened. I'm happy

to have Superintendent Dueck answer all

reasonable, proper questions that you put to him

but we're not going to be here for an

inquisition or a presentation of your case.

MR. KLASSEN: And I'll just go one step

further, then, if I can. If I were to ask Mr.

Dueck -- and I'm not asking you now, so please

don't answer -- if I were to ask Mr. Dueck,

hypothetically speaking, about lawyers and

whether someone asked him to speak to a lawyer,

he ignored that request, and I want to show the

video, are you suggesting that that is an

improper question and not the right procedure to

do something today?


304

MR. GERRAND: We'll deal with it at the time.

MR. KLASSEN: Certainly, I understand the scope

of the Rules of Court, and I intend to fully

examine Mr. Dueck, which I hope I'm entitled to

do. But, I would do it like I said before,

trying to take as little time as possible and

for the convenience of all parties.

MR. GERRAND: Okay.

MR. KLASSEN: So, then, it is adjourned, then,

until --

MR. GERRAND: We'll be back September 10th at

10:00 o'clock here.

(Examination for discovery adjourned sine die at 2:00

p.m.)

*********************


305

CERTIFICATE OF COURT REPORTER:

I, LORAINE SMITH, do hereby certify that the foregoing

transcript of evidence and proceedings contained on pages

numbered one to three hundred & four (1 - 304) inclusive,

is to the best of my knowledge and belief a true and

correct transcription of my shorthand notes taken at the

Examination for Discovery of BRIAN GEORGE DUECK.

(Q.B. No. 271 of 1994, J.C.S.)

-------------------------------------

Loraine Smith

Certified Official Court Reporter

< < < Previous