TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS/ TRANSCRIPTION DE L'AUDIENCE

Transcription

1 Military Police Complaints Commission Commission d'examen des plaintes concernant la police militaire FYNES PUBLIC INTEREST HEARINGS held pursuant to section 0.() of the National Defence Act, in the matter of file 0-00/ LES AUDIENCES D'INTÉRÊT PUBLIC SUR FYNES tenues en vertu du paragraphe 0.() de la Loi sur la défense nationale pour le dossier 0-00 TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS/ TRANSCRIPTION DE L'AUDIENCE BEFORE/DEVANT: Mr. Glenn Stannard Ms Raymonde Cléroux Ms Chantale Cyr APPEARANCES/COMPARUTIONS: Ms Geneviève Coutlée Mr. Mark Freiman Ms Elizabeth Richards Ms Korinda McLaine Col (Ret d) Michel W. Drapeau Mr. Joshua Juneau Cdr David J. Statham Chairperson/Président Registrars/Greffières Commission counsel/ Avocats de la Commission For/pour Sgt Jon Bigelow, MWO Ross Tourout, LCol Gilles Sansterre, WO Blair Hart, PO Eric McLaughlin, Sgt David Mitchell, Sgt Matthew Alan Ritco, Maj Daniel Dandurand, Sgt Scott Shannon, LCol Brian Frei, LCol (Ret d) William H. Garrick, WO (Ret d) Sean Bonneteau, CWO (Ret d) Barry Watson For/pour Mr. Shaun Fynes and Mrs. Sheila Fynes HELD AT: TENUE À: 0th Floor 0e étage 0 Albert Street 0, rue Albert Ottawa, Ontario Ottawa (Ontario) October 0 octobre 0 Volume

2 - ii - TABLE OF CONTENTS/TABLE DES MATIÈRES PAGE SWORN: MAJOR DANIEL DANDURAND EXAMINATION BY MR. FREIMAN

3 - iii - EXHIBITS / PIÈCES JUSTIFICATIVES NO. DESCRIPTION PAGE P-0 Summary Investigation Report page P- January, 00 letter to Major Kate Ritter P- Witness book index for Lieutenant-Colonel Sansterre and Major Dandurand P- MPPTP Chapter, March '0 P- MPPTP Chapter, Annex A

4 0 0 Ottawa, Ontario / Ottawa (Ontario) --- Upon resuming on Wednesday, October, 0 at 00 / L'audience reprend le mercredi octobre à 00 SWORN: MAJOR DANIEL DANDURAND THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Good morning. Mr. Freiman. MR. FREIMAN: Yes. Our first and only witness for the day is Major Daniel Dandurand. THE CHAIRPERSON: Good morning, sir. MAJ DANDURAND: Good morning. THE CHAIRPERSON: Welcome. EXAMINATION BY MR. FREIMAN: Good morning, sir. MAJ DANDURAND: Good morning. MR. FREIMAN: I wonder just to get us going, sir, if you can fill us in on your background and training both in the military and in the Military Police and NIS. THE CHAIRPERSON: If you could just pull your mike down a little bit it might -- thank you.

5 0 0 MAJ DANDURAND: Okay, where would you like me to begin? I joined the Canadian Forces in. MR. FREIMAN: Let's start with that. MAJ DANDURAND: Yeah. I joined the Canadian Forces in as part of the regular officer training program. Attended Acadia University. At the time I was undergoing pilot training. Upon graduation from Acadia University I went to Moose Jaw, Saskatchewan and commenced my pilot training. Upon being unsuccessful in that I found myself looking for another source -- another military occupation. Going with my second choice in life which was to be a police officer, it was a good fit to stay in the military and proceed on with Military Police. Once I was accepted I attended the Military Police Academy in Borden, underwent my training. Was posted to Petawawa, Ontario where I spent one year on at the time what was a

6 0 0 provisionary employment period for officers. We did six months in a detachment on patrols and learning the ins and outs of a detachment. Following that went to the NIS in Ottawa for a six-month period as well. Called back about a month early due to Afghanistan in 00. I deployed to Afghanistan with my platoon as a multinational MP Platoon Commander and spent approximately eight months there. Once that was completed I came back to Canada. I was the Executive Assistant for the Provost Marshal. Upon which I was posted to the United Kingdom as the Second in Command of an MP Company. Deployed to Iraq in 00 and recovered from there in 00 and was posted back to Canada and to the NIS in Western Region as the Officer Commanding. Since that time, since 0 I've been the Commandant of the Military Police Academy. During my time in the Military Police Branch training has included my Military

7 0 0 Police Officers course, my investigators course, Major Case Management Team Commanders course out of the Canadian Police College and various other professional development seminars. MR. FREIMAN: I noticed from your curriculum vitae that you actually completed your criminal investigators course after you were appointed Officer Commanding. Is that unusual? MAJ DANDURAND: No, that is not unusual. MR. FREIMAN: Okay. So does that mean that prior to 00 you weren't engaged in criminal investigations, or does it just mean that you got your formal certificate after having done some investigations? MAJ DANDURAND: Prior to 00 I would have had experience on patrols as conducting investigations. The Military Police investigators course is designed for advanced investigations at the level of the NIS. MR. FREIMAN: Okay. So prior to obtaining your criminal investigators certificate or completing the course, had you done any serious or sensitive investigations? MAJ DANDURAND: Yes, I had.

8 0 0 MR. FREIMAN: Okay. Had you done any sudden death investigations? MAJ DANDURAND: No, I had not. MR. FREIMAN: Had you done any criminal negligence investigations? MAJ DANDURAND: Yes, I had. MR. FREIMAN: Okay. What was the context? I don't need the details but what was the allegation of criminal negligence if you were investigating? MAJ DANDURAND: I'm just pausing because due to the nature of the investigation it's rather sensitive and classified -- MR. FREIMAN: Okay. MAJ DANDURAND: -- sufficient to say that the individuals that were involved in the allegations were believed to have not performed their duty according to the norms. MR. FREIMAN: Okay. We'll leave it at that. How about investigations for negligent performance of duties as opposed to for criminal negligence? Had you had any -- had you done any of those? MAJ DANDURAND: I'm sorry. I

9 0 0 thought that's what your question was or is it -- MR. FREIMAN: Okay. Well, as I understand it there is a Criminal Code offence -- MAJ DANDURAND: Correct. MR. FREIMAN: -- called "Criminal Negligence Causing Death" or "Criminal Negligence Causing Bodily Injury" and there is a separate and distinct service offence, "Criminal" -- sorry -- "Negligent Performance of a Military Duty". MAJ DANDURAND: Yes. No, my previous answer was with respect to the National Defence Act offences. MR. FREIMAN: All right. Do you have an estimate of how many criminal investigations you might have done before you assumed -- before you came into contact with the case that is going to occupy us for the next day or two? MAJ DANDURAND: No, I don't have an estimate off the top of my head. MR. FREIMAN: Can I assume that you hadn't done any investigations for failing to provide the necessities of life? MAJ DANDURAND: Yes, that would be a safe assumption.

10 0 0 MR. FREIMAN: And would it also be a safe assumption that you hadn't done any investigations regarding the duties of an employer vis-à-vis a safe workplace? MAJ DANDURAND: Yes, that would also be a safe assumption. MR. FREIMAN: Can you tell us a little bit about the role of the Officer Commanding of an NIS detachment? What's the gamut of responsibilities involved with that position? MAJ DANDURAND: Well, the responsibilities commence with being accountable to the Commanding Officer of the NIS with respect to the investigations that are on-going in your detachment. You very much are an enabler of the work that's being done, everything from whatever the resources the individuals would require. You track the core competencies with respect to your detachment. Due to the human resource management mandate such as people posting in and out of the detachment you need to make sure that specific skillsets as they depart, as they have

11 0 0 been developed, are then either recruited into the organization or developed through the organization. You fulfil a leadership and mentoring role and, as well, ensure that questions that need to go above and outside of the detachment are fielded accordingly. MR. FREIMAN: With specific reference to on-going investigations conducted call it at ground level by NIS members, what's the role of the Officer Commanding? How much involvement in an individual investigative file would the Officer Commanding have? MAJ DANDURAND: That really depends upon a few factors. One is the individual themselves in command. The other one is with respect to the individuals between the person who is in command and the investigator, the line investigators themselves. As well, it depends upon the volume of work at the time. In the NIS all members from the newest member on the team straight up through to the Officer Commanding is considered an

12 0 0 investigator. They are trained. They are qualified and therefore when an incident occurs they may be called upon to personally actively become involved in that, investigating the initial response. So the involvement is really dependent upon that. MR. FREIMAN: Okay. Well, maybe we'll take the last and then we'll go backwards. What sort of files -- I take it the Officer Commanding is called upon to take part in a file as an investigator. That's the Officer Commanding's choice or would that be an assignment that would come from above? MAJ DANDURAND: Both. It does not happen very often that assignments are provided from above. However, due to the serious sensitivity and timing of the file it may come from above that a particular officer is involved. MR. FREIMAN: So if it comes from you what sort of file causes you to call your own number, as one might say in football? MAJ DANDURAND: Again, it really depends upon the totality of the circumstances that exist within the detachment at the time.

13 0 0 0 What would call me in is perhaps a level of experience within a particular domain, perhaps a familiarity with a particular area that's occurring whether -- not necessarily with respect to investigative history or activity in that but perhaps having experienced it within the military as such. One example would be an investigation inherited from Afghanistan continuing on due to the troops having come home would be something of rules of engagement. So if one had to make judgment calls with respect to rules of engagement or had been involved in training troops to make those judgment calls despite having never been involved in a rules of engagement investigation, you may be the best suitable person within the detachment to take that on. MR. FREIMAN: Okay. In terms of files in which you would not be an investigator or the lead investigator, what typically would be the supervisory function? What would you say about a file? How often would you hear about it; by what means? MAJ DANDURAND: Well, when I was

14 0 0 in Western Region one thing that I implemented that I had -- quite frankly I had taken from my colleagues from another service, is a -hour briefing. So for instance as the duty officer, if I'm the duty officer of the day, I would be involved right from the beginning. However, if I'm not the duty officer then I would come into the office hours later. Let's say we would sit down and have a briefing. Generally, this was when the investigators would have returned from their initial response. We would say, "What do we have and what direction do we see this investigation going in?" and more importantly, "Are there resources that are missing or particular issues that need the attention of the Office of the Officer Commanding?" So that would be right from the very beginning. Once that occurs, generally speaking, the investigators have their understanding and the benefit of the totality of the group's experience in pursuing these investigations and then they go and do their work. The day to day activity of an

15 0 0 investigation does not necessarily come to the attention of the Officer Commanding. What would come to the attention are critical developments, very unanticipated turns in an investigation perhaps and, as well, on a weekly basis the case manager and the command team would sit down and provide a situational report as to where we sit with an investigation and that would form part of our case file management matrix which would then go up to our Headquarters so that they can understand the full picture of what is being worked on by the detachment. MR. FREIMAN: How about briefing up? What sort of briefing would you be expected to give to those above you in the chain of command. MAJ DANDURAND: Well, any involvement with my Headquarters was quite regular. I would say even daily depending upon what was going on in our detachment. There is always a new file happening. There is always a file closing. There is always a file that requires some advice. So with respect to if you take it

16 0 0 in isolation one investigation, briefing up that occurred weekly through the reports and returns that we would provide as a minimum. And again, much like the investigators would brief me on any significant developments I would then assess if that required to be briefed to the Commanding Officer. MR. FREIMAN: Are those briefings regularly recorded anywhere or are they simply oral or written and there is no permanent record kept of them? MAJ DANDURAND: Significant -- no, they're not necessarily recorded. And the word briefing used in describing this interaction with the chain of command may be a bit of a formal word. This is -- to paint a situation or to provide an example would be the significant development that an investigator would bring to my attention would be recorded in the general occurrence. That would then be verbally provided to me because it already exists within the general occurrence. I would then take that and brief the chain of command which they would themselves

17 0 0 also have access to the general occurrence and dive into and see if they wanted to look at it any closer. So, no, there is no actual written notes of that per se. MR. FREIMAN: Okay. Was any part of your responsibility as Officer Commanding involved with public affairs and communications? MAJ DANDURAND: Yes. MR. FREIMAN: Can you tell me what sort of involvement you had with that? What was the nature of your responsibility vis-à-vis public affairs and communications? MAJ DANDURAND: With respect to public affairs it was my duty to maintain a flow of information to our public affairs representatives that were assigned to the NIS in order just to make sure that they had situational awareness. That's it. MR. FREIMAN: Okay. What about vis-à-vis the Canadian Forces in general? Did you have any liaison or briefing responsibilities vis-à-vis the chain of command in Western Region? MAJ DANDURAND: No, I never had

18 0 0 any responsibilities to them. My responsibilities were with respect to ensuring that any potential involvement of Western Area's chain of command that could impinge or encroach upon my investigation was dealt with. I mean my interactions, for instance, with public affairs officers within Western Area were strictly designed to ensure that if they were starting to delve into a particular public affairs topic or public relations topic that was in my view an NIS mandate that they were reminded and very clear that NIS public affairs has the lead. MR. FREIMAN: Was there any policy about joint briefings with the chain of command or the Canadian Forces non-nis where there were topics that -- as you said, areas where there could be an overlap of activity? MAJ DANDURAND: Yes, there was. MR. FREIMAN: And how was that taken care of? MAJ DANDURAND: Well, it starts with the briefing protocol which is a protocol that sets out the interactions between commanders

19 0 0 and, well, the NIS Western Region. Every detachment has these and what they're meant to do is to meet these commanders and these people within the various chains of command in the areas that our interactions are going to occur with to make sure that we're meeting first off on a pleasant note, not on a sad note or on a very difficult and contentious note to establish how the communication would go. Sometimes commanders don't have experience in dealing with the NIS. They've been dealing as they've come up through the ranks with Military Police and they know of the NIS's existence but often they don't understand how their actions or inactions can either help or not help the NIS do its duty. The intent of those protocols, those conversations, those meetings, they last approximately about an hour depending upon the dialogue between the commanders. Then it's their chance to ask all forms of questions. Outlined in there are various topics such as the construct and the chain of command of the NIS, how the division of areas are.

20 0 0 Some of our commanders have vast areas of responsibility particularly, for instance, in the air force. So they may have interactions with multiple OCs from the NIS whereas army tend to be along more compartmentalized lines and the navy, obviously, on both coasts. So their understanding of how the NIS is constructed will better help them in the future understand who they need to call if they should have a question. MR. FREIMAN: Were your dealings with the chain of command face to face or were they through an intermediary? I don't mean the NIS chain of command. I mean the CF chain of command. MAJ DANDURAND: They were face -- they were both -- I used face to face meetings. Obviously preferable, but due to the vast area that I had responsibility for from Thunder Bay all the way through to the Northwest Territories and all the provinces in between with the exception of British Columbia, that was underneath another Officer Commanding. It was often unrealistic to be face to face with people. So my annual meetings

21 0 0 I'd always strive to be face to face with people but if I had a situation that required immediate attention of somebody I would pick up the phone and call. MR. FREIMAN: So where physically were you based in these days? Was it in Edmonton? MAJ DANDURAND: Correct. MR. FREIMAN: Okay. Let's talk about 00. You came upon the scene in July of 00, as I understand this. Is that correct? MAJ DANDURAND: That's correct. I believe it was in the month of July. MR. FREIMAN: Okay. At that point was there any part of the 00 investigation that, to your knowledge -- this is into the Langridge suicide -- was there any part of that investigation that, to your knowledge, was still ongoing? MAJ DANDURAND: To my knowledge, no. MR. FREIMAN: Okay. So, had you been briefed on that file when you came in, or was it already treated as a closed file that didn't require your briefing? MAJ DANDURAND: No, I had not been

22 0 0 briefed on that. MR. FREIMAN: Okay. By the fall of -- let's say by the spring of 00, had you had occasion to work on any files with Master Corporal Ritco as he then was? MAJ DANDURAND: Not that I can recall. If memory serves me correctly, I believe Sergeant Ritco was posted to -- not posted, but assigned to the major crimes unit at K Division by that time, by the time I had arrived, and if it wasn't exactly when I had arrived, it would have been in around that period because our annual posting season tends to be from May to September. MR. FREIMAN: Mm-hmm. MAJ DANDURAND: So it was very much a time of transition in there, but by the time my feet were on the ground running in September, I don't believe he was around. MR. FREIMAN: All right. So -- THE CHAIRPERSON: Sorry. You said you don't believe he was there? MAJ DANDURAND: I don't believe he was physically working within the Western Region Detachment, I think he was working at K Division by that point.

23 0 0 0 THE CHAIRPERSON: Okay, thanks. MR. FREIMAN: Did you ever have any face-to-face meetings with Sergeant Ritco? MAJ DANDURAND: Sergeant Rit -- yes, I would say we did, but I can't say that they were formal meetings. We were still responsible for administrating our secondments and our exchanges, so Sergeant Ritco's claims would have to be processed by us, so he would come in every few weeks and, if I happened to be in the office, I would see him in the halls for a few minutes. MR. FREIMAN: Okay. Did you at any time up to the closing of the 00 and 00 files, have a meeting with Sergeant Ritco to discuss the 00 investigation? MAJ DANDURAND: Yes, I believe I did sit down with him, if I can recall, about maybe once to specifically ask him what he did on the investigation. MR. FREIMAN: How about Sergeant Bigelow; did you have a chance to discuss the investigation with him at any point? MAJ DANDURAND: No, I had not. Again, I met Sergeant Bigelow when I was on my house hunting trip and it was at that point that I

24 0 0 was informed that he would be posted to Ottawa. MR. FREIMAN: And what about Warrant Tourout? MAJ DANDURAND: No. Again, Warrant Tourout never worked for me. He was posted I believe that same year. MR. FREIMAN: Do you remember when you would have had your meeting with Sergeant Ritco? MAJ DANDURAND: No, I do not. MR. FREIMAN: Okay. Do you remember what the subject matter was rather than -- other than the file in general; was there any specific point that you were discussing with him? Was there a trigger for the meeting that you can recall? MAJ DANDURAND: I believe the trigger -- yes, there would have been a trigger and I think it was the issue of the suicide note. And that would have caused me to, at the next opportunity when he comes in to do some administration, to just pull him aside and ask him what had happened. MR. FREIMAN: Okay. We'll get to

25 0 0 the suicide note in a moment. Let's go back to your first engagement with this matter. As I understand it, some time in early 00 there was a request by the BOI for the 00 file. Do you recall the discussions around that? MAJ DANDURAND: Not specifically, no. MR. FREIMAN: Maybe we should have a look at Tab in the books on your right. You'll see they're tabbed volumes. Just so you'll understand the architecture of the books, the volumes on your right are tabbed loose volumes, the volumes on your left are the GO files from 00, 00 and 00 and a couple of stray things as well. MAJ DANDURAND: Okay. MR. FREIMAN: So, if I ask for "at Tab...", it's almost always going to be on your right. This is the first document that I was able to find where you appear to be involved and you can see it's Major Parlee introducing himself and he's asking you for a copy of the NIS report in relation to the incident.

26 0 0 From your experience, would that be something usual for a BOI to be given access to a GO file? MAJ DANDURAND: Yes, it is. MR. FREIMAN: Okay. And does the BOI have a right to the entire GO file or does it only get portions of it? MAJ DANDURAND: My understanding is they have access to the whole thing. MR. FREIMAN: All right. At a certain point there's a request that -- oh, sorry, let's have a look at the 00 GO file, and it will be on your left, the February -- sorry, 00 at page. I just want to look at the cover letter that goes with this. You're sending a cover letter to Major Parlee, and there's nothing remarkable about it, except in the second paragraph -- are you with me? MAJ DANDURAND: No, I'm not. MR. FREIMAN: Are we in the 00? You may find there are some blank pages because they don't scan well, so look at the end of the blank pages and that will be page. So, you see those --

27 MAJ DANDURAND: Is that page of? 0 0 MR. FREIMAN: of, that's correct. Just go over the very next page from that. There it is. MAJ DANDURAND: Okay. MR. FREIMAN: Sometimes in these files they don't scan the images so we get blank pages and then we get mechanically photocopied pages. MAJ DANDURAND: Yes. MR. FREIMAN: Paragraph is a summary. I think, and I just want to confirm with you, that that summary is simply taken from the concluding remarks of the 00 file, or would you have actually read the entire file in order to acquaint yourself with what was going on? I can tell you that all those facts appear in the concluding remarks of the 00 file. So, I'm not sure whether you can remember now whether you actually acquainted yourself with the file at this point, or whether this was simply a transmission? MAJ DANDURAND: I don't -- I don't believe I drafted this letter.

28 0 0 MR. FREIMAN: All right. Well -- MAJ DANDURAND: I have no recollection of drafting this letter and two reasons that I don't believe I did is, first off, the manner in which it is written I don't -- in addressees above the subject line, I don't -- that's not my style of writing, right there, "Attention Major Parlee". MR. FREIMAN: Mm-hmm. MAJ DANDURAND: If it was to Major Parlee specifically, I would have said, "BOI President for...", whatever BOI. And, secondly, I would have signed this myself. MR. FREIMAN: Okay. Well, we've seen throughout these proceedings, there's nothing unusual about it, that letters are routinely drafted for signature by someone else. MAJ DANDURAND: Right. MR. FREIMAN: And so I take it that's what happened here. MS RICHARDS: Sorry, just to be clear, counsel, I think the point is that Major Dandurand didn't sign this letter. MR. FREIMAN: Okay. That's fine. At some point though there was a

29 0 0 request from the Board of Inquiry, and we can look at Tab where Major Parlee tells you: "In the course of conducting the Langridge BOI...'" MR. FREIMAN: He's come across: "...evidence that indicates there was a suicide note left in Corporal Langridge's room. The NIS report does not have any record of the suicide note. Can you confirm there was or was not a suicide note found?" MR. FREIMAN: Now -- THE CHAIRPERSON: What tab are you at? MR. FREIMAN: Tab. THE CHAIRPERSON: Of...? MR. FREIMAN: Of the document books. COL (RET'D) DRAPEAU: Last page. MR. FREIMAN: Last page. THE CHAIRPERSON: Okay. MR. FREIMAN: By this time he's addressing you by your first name, so I take it

30 0 0 you would have had occasion to have actually spoken to him? MAJ DANDURAND: Oh yes, I had. MR. FREIMAN: So, was this the first that you were aware of a suicide note, or were you already aware there was a suicide note on the file? MAJ DANDURAND: I can't recall right now if I actually knew when he wrote this -- when he wrote this, however, I would have checked immediately upon receipt of this . MR. FREIMAN: All right. And if we look at the same you are -- the same chain, if we look at the dated Friday the th of March at, this is sent to Major Bolduc, I'm sorry, to lieutenant colonel Labelle, and it introduces the question asked: "Do we have authority to disclose the suicide note?". Can you tell me why it was necessary -- was -- is the request for a suicide note unusual? Was there something? Why was it that you needed permission to release the suicide note? MAJ DANDURAND: Well, this was an unusual request because when we -- for two

31 0 0 reasons. One, when we have BOIs and we disclose the totality of our general occurrence, printing it of, select all in the system and hit print and then we give it to them. I would have at the time assumed that the suicide note was in the GO scanned in and that would be sufficient for them. What was happening in the Western Region at the time with BOIs is there was -- there were a lot of requests for holdings from our evidence for a BOI, things such as photographs of the deceased at the scenery. MR. FREIMAN: Yes. MAJ DANDURAND: And that was viewed by me as well above and beyond the scope of what the BOI should be entitled to and what I was engaging there and at the same time are dialogues in other matters with respect to these practices and how this was happening. So, I was being very careful on how to disclose things that we were holding as evidence in our evidence lock up. MR. FREIMAN: Well, were you aware or are you aware now that there is in fact the scanned suicide note in the 0 file?

32 0 0 MAJ DANDURAND: Yes, I am. MR. FREIMAN: Okay. So, I am struggling with why either Major Parlee was unable to find it in what you sent him or why you were unable to locate it in what had been sent to him as well? I mean it's there. It's not as if there is no discussion of the suicide note, but it's there. MAJ DANDURAND: Yes, it is. MR. FREIMAN: So, what was the issue of sending it to him because you already had it? MAJ DANDURAND: I can't recall at this time. MR. FREIMAN: Alright. You request the permission and that same -- that same chain on the th of March at 0, which is just over the page previous, you send an to Major Bolduc and you talk about they're just looking for evidence above and beyond what we normally give to BOIs. Is that the incident that are the issue that you were telling us about, that people were requesting more or were requesting evidence? MAJ DANDURAND: Yes, it is.

33 0 0 0 MR. FREIMAN: And what was the issue about giving evidence or giving a copy of evidence to a BOI? MAJ DANDURAND: From my understanding, the issue is that the general occurrence is the start point for the BOI and they have entitlement to see it all and they have entitlement to call any witnesses they wish, which would obviously be identified in our general occurrence, particularly from the entities, but they would be able to gauge the depth of the involvement of the individuals from the general occurrence. MR. FREIMAN: Yes. MAJ DANDURAND: And they would be able to gauge the involvement and subject matter knowledge from the investigators assigned. We often provided investigators who would accompany the evidence to the BOI. However, it was at the time very -- it was very uncommon for us to be reaching into the evidence lock up to hand over evidence because we didn't -- we needed to maintain continuity of that. MR. FREIMAN: Okay. This maybe the first time we'll talk about it and we'll come

34 0 0 back to it, but what was the status of the suicide note as evidence at this point? MAJ DANDURAND: At this point, in my mind, it was still classified as evidence. MR. FREIMAN: Of what? MAJ DANDURAND: Simply as a classification not necessarily of anything because thought had been given to whether we should be disposing of it or not at that time. MR. FREIMAN: Alright. But isn't evidence defined as an information or a thing that tends to prove or disprove a matter in issuing a criminal investigation? MAJ DANDURAND: Yes, I would agree with that. MR. FREIMAN: Alright. And there was no criminal investigation ongoing? MAJ DANDURAND: No, there was not. MR. FREIMAN: Alright. In any event, we know that it wasn't until April that the suicide note itself was provided and we can see the exchange. Well, let's -- I don't want to go through in painful details, so I can tell you that Major Parlee on the th of March wrote a formal

35 0 0 letter requesting a certified true copy of the suicide note found in Corporal Langridge's room. And if we look at tab, we'll see it wasn't till the th of April that this was actioned. That's then. No, I'm sorry, it's, the th of April at. And you'll see that's on the second page of that chain that we -- THE PRESIDENT: It's of? MR. FREIMAN: At of the -- right here. THE PRESIDENT: And what date? MR. FREIMAN: It's an chain that seems to have been assembled in a funny way. It starts with the letter that we looked at, the January th letter. The next letter that we see is April th. Do we have concurrence? THE PRESIDENT: Yes. MR. FREIMAN: I can tell you that the formal request was the th of March. Do you recall what took so long? MAJ DANDURAND: No, I don't. MR. FREIMAN: Alright. It would appear that the suicide note was delivered that same day, the th of April, and the BOI appears

36 0 0 or either the Regiment of the BOI appears to have given the suicide note to the family. Was that done with your concurrence? MAJ DANDURAND: Yes, I believe it was. MR. FREIMAN: Alright. Did they need your concurrence to release the suicide note to the family? MAJ DANDURAND: At the time? I believe they did. MR. FREIMAN: Shortly thereafter there was a good deal of media attention focused on the fact that the suicide note had not been released in May of, sorry, in 00, there had been months since the death. Do you remember how you became involved in any of these discussions? Well, let's -- MAJ DANDURAND: Actually, I'll answer the question. MR. FREIMAN: Yes. MAJ DANDURAND: No, right now, I don't. MR. FREIMAN: Alright. Let me

37 0 0 just go back a little bit. In the documents, there is a back and forth that you may or may not recall and we don't have to look at it in the original. It was just about what needed to be gone through in order to release the suicide note. There was the discussion first with the BOI and then a larger discussion as to whether it was necessary for an ATIP request in order to release the suicide note. Do you recall discussions about the issue of an ATIP request as a pre-condition for releasing the suicide note? MAJ DANDURAND: No, not at this time, I don't. MR. FREIMAN: Alright. MAJ DANDURAND: Can you refer me to a document that would -- MR. FREIMAN: Yes, I will. Let's look at again and look at the May chain and I think it's arranged in reverse chronological order and I am just trying to get it right. Yes. So, and -- alright. So, we'll start with the one at the bottom of the page of page, if you see a page at the bottom. This is. It's

38 0 0 actually the third page in in your notes. So, if you take, the first page is the January ; the second page is an April th ; the third page is a series of May th s. It's -- yes, you are looking at it, on the right hand side. Do you see it? There are two s on the page. The first one is dated Thursday, May at ; the second is dated Thursday, May at 0 p.m. Got it? MAJ DANDURAND: Are they s from Captain Angell? MR. FREIMAN: Yes. Well, from Captain Angell to Warrant Officer Ross and then -- MAJ DANDURAND: Okay. MR. FREIMAN: -- from Captain Angell to you. So, the original message at the bottom of the note, captain Angell who is the Adjudant for the Lord Stratchona Horse Guard Canadian writes to Warrant Officer Ross and says: "I'm sure you can appreciate the sensitive nature of this request. The family already has a copy of the note. They want to possess the original.

39 0 0 As an ATI request will only get them a copy, this is not really an option. Is there any other option we can explore?" And then, over the page, if you turn it over, you will see a response from Warrant Officer Ross to Captain Angell: "Concerning the family's desire to have the suicide note, the best course of action will be to have the AO to the family making ATI request on their behalf. Should you have any further questions, please feel free to contact me." And, then we go back to the top of the previous page, which is Warrant Officer Ross sending a response to Captain Angell with a carbon copy to you and he says: "Sir, we appreciate the sensitivity of this matter. However, the original note is still retained as evidence.

40 0 0 I do not foresee the original note being turned over. That being said, I will make some further inquiries when I am back in the office tomorrow." So -- MS RICHARDS: Just for the sake of clarity before you move on, I think you have read the s backwards. MR. FREIMAN: Hum, hum. MS RICHARDS: I think the very last one is the first , the middle one is the response to the first and the top was the latest . MR. FREIMAN: You're right. You're right. So, the original message was from Warrant Officer Ross to Captain Angell with a copy to you, suggesting that a request be made to ATI, Captain Angell's response saying: "We've already got the information and we want the original." It's not going to get -- ATI is only going to give them a copy, they want the paper and Warrant Officer Ross responds that:

41 0 0 "It's still evidence and we don't foresee releasing it." Does that refresh your memory as to some of the concerns and some of the discussion? MAJ DANDURAND: I do. I do have some recollection of this, but not -- not in great detail. MR. FREIMAN: Alright. That's fair enough. Do you have a recollection, at this point, of a discussion about the suicide note as evidence? MAJ DANDURAND: Yes. MR. FREIMAN: Alright. And do you remember the nature of the discussion that was had? MAJ DANDURAND: I just remember discussing very briefly with Warrant Officer Ross that the question was: "Is this still classified as evidence?" And our interpretation of the -- of our procedures for evidentiary holdings at the time was that it was. But I do -- I do remember having our conversation on the phone and I do believe it

42 0 0 was because I wasn't in the office at the time. MR. FREIMAN: Okay. So, can you reconstruct what your understanding of the rules for evidence or the classification of material as evidence and release of those materials was at the time that prevented the release of the note? MAJ DANDURAND: Well, at the time I had a -- I had a belief that if we were holding it, particularly this amount of time after the fact, that we would have released all personal belongings back to the rightful owners and anything that we were holding at that time we would have -- we would have by then been holding only because it was evidence. Now, I can say that today, my understanding of all of this is much different. MR. FREIMAN: Right. There is a lengthy chain that we can find at tab, and that's going to be in Volume. And as is often the case, this chain goes from back to front. So, chronologically, the first page in the chain will be all the way back at of. And we can start at the bottom of -- you'll see page or page of at the top or at the bottom. And this follows up, there is

43 0 0 0 information on an earlier that the AO had been informed that legalities prevented the release of the suicide note and there is a bit of an exchange then at the bottom of page of Colonel Hammond sends an to Lieutenant Colonel Bradley saying: "Are we sure no one gave a copy to a member of the family earlier? It's a bit shocking if we did not." And after that there is a response from Lieutenant Colonel Bradley: "The letter surfaced from the NIS at the end of the BOI, never made its way into the testimony earlier as being in existence. To the best of what I know, they were the only ones with a copy. When we found out, we quickly figured that although not mandated to do so, it would clearly be in the family's interest to have this and also so that they wouldn't

44 0 0 find out when the BOI documentation was released at the end and really be unhappy." So, that's the background of it. And if you turn back at page of, there is -- at the bottom, there is an from Colonel Hammond up to Brigadier General Jorgensen and he recounts a long trail of s. It starts with a note from the family of Corporal Langridge about months ago saying they've just received the copy of the suicide note from the president of BOI, which is not quite complete and they want the original with the NIS: "The family note that our actions were cruel, calice and disrespectful. PAO is preparing renewed MRLs." And there is a question for you: "Then, can we release the original ASAP at this point?" And your response, several minutes after that is: "Colonel, I just got

45 0 0 authority from Lieutenant Colonel Bell this afternoon, we'll be taking action Monday. It's worthwhile to note this letter is held as evidence and it is not routine for us to divulge or release evidence in a case and evidence is held for several years. Should you wish to discuss in greater detail, please let me know." And not to belabour the point, but what was the source of your understanding about it not being routine to divulge or release evidence and that evidence is held for several years? MAJ DANDURAND: Well, this would have come from a conversation with members of my detachment who are experienced in this domain and that's where I based my understanding of what we should be doing at the time. MR. FREIMAN: Okay. So, and do I understand you were simply passing on information that others had given to you? Had you ever come across this issue?

46 0 0 MAJ DANDURAND: I had never come across this issue before. MR. FREIMAN: There is a further discussion and I think because you were copied throughout the chain, you would have seen the at the -- on page of from Colonel MacAulay to Brigadier General Poulton who says: "Sir, I don't have all the SA" -- which I understand to be situational awareness -- "but this may be as much about NIS culture as it is about CF administrative stovepipes." Did you have any understanding of what that refers to? MAJ DANDURAND: No, I don't. MR. FREIMAN: Okay. At the top of that page, there is a request to the Provost- Marshal saying that the CLS wants an investigation as to why the NIS would held the note from the BOI and the family for some months. And on the first page -- MAJ DANDURAND: Sorry; where are you looking? MR. FREIMAN: I am looking at the top of of. You see, for LFPM? MAJ DANDURAND: Okay, Land Forces

47 0 0 Provost-Marshal? MR. FREIMAN: Right. MAJ DANDURAND: Yes. MR. FREIMAN: CLS would like an investigation -- an explanation for why the NIS would held the note from the BOI and the family for some months. And the response on -- oh! for some reason, you are not copied on the response from Lieutenant Colonel Lander now. MAJ DANDURAND: I am not in the original under; am I? MR. FREIMAN: You're in -- you're in there somewhere. MAJ DANDURAND: I'm in there at the very beginning. MR. FREIMAN: Right. MAJ DANDURAND: Right. MR. FREIMAN: Okay. And then you seem to drop off at some point in the -- on the 0th of May. So I guess the question remains, there is an explanation from Lieutenant-Colonel Lander that he gives to the Brigadier-General, to a number of other individuals at Land Force

48 Western. 0 0 Now, what was Lieutenant-Colonel Lander's position at Land Force Provost Marshal? MAJ DANDURAND: That was his position. He was the Land Staff Provost Marshal. MR. FREIMAN: Okay. MAJ DANDURAND: He's the adviser to the -- at the time what was the CLS. MR. FREIMAN: He had to get his information from somewhere. Do you know where he got his information from? MAJ DANDURAND: I know he has access to SAMPIS. And the second thing that I vaguely recall is a conversation with him on the phone. MR. FREIMAN: Okay. I want to -- MAJ DANDURAND: It would not be -- it would not be uncommon for advisers to call the source directly, particularly when it involves NIS, because we're only one chain -- one level in the chain of command removed from the Headquarters. MR. FREIMAN: Right. MAJ DANDURAND: And they would -- there's a strong working relationship between

49 0 0 Officers Commanding and the various MP advisers throughout Canada. MR. FREIMAN: Do you have any doubt that Lieutenant-Colonel Lander would have called you to get information that he could report up to the Land Force -- through the chain of command? MAJ DANDURAND: I can't specifically recall him calling me, but it would not have been uncommon. MR. FREIMAN: Well, the reason I'm asking is I'm struggling to understand what the response is and the basis for the response. Here's what Lieutenant-Colonel Landers says: "The incident occurred March '0. The MP investigation was concluded in July '0. It appears the MP investigative team did not reveal the existence of the note to the family, as it, in their opinion, would not have added anything to the information already passed

50 0 0 during the normal victim services provided and they felt it may have had -- even had a negative effect. The fact the note existed was passed to the BOI with the original documentation provided by CFNIS. The BOI asked for a copy and were provided one February '0 once permission from the Deputy Provost Marshal police was granted. The OC of CFNIS Western Region is conducting a detailed quality assurance review of the file and the investigation it represents, which should be completed by June '0. This will include the decision not to reveal the existence of the note to the family by the investigative team. The original note is no longer deemed evidence and is

51 0 0 in the process of being passed to the family in accordance with their request." Do you have any understanding as to the basis of those -- of that information that was passed on? MAJ DANDURAND: I have no understanding of why we would say that it's not in the interests of the family to pass on. It was not uncommon for us to discuss with people such as executors or close family representatives of family when we did seize materials from the scene if they were of a sensitive or potentially embarrassing type for us to discuss with them did you want these or did you want us to dispose of them. And that may be -- I don't want -- even want to speculate as to what Colonel Lander was thinking. With respect to the quality assurance, yes, we were conducting a quality assurance at the time and I believe we have copies of it. MR. FREIMAN: So let me ask you a

52 0 0 couple of follow-up questions on that. This note appears to be conveying information from the investigators who conducted the investigation about the reasons why they withheld the suicide note. I can tell you there's nothing that corresponds to this explanation anywhere in the 00 file, so its source had to be something other than a review of the GO file. Do you have any idea of who or what could have been consulted in order to come up with this explanation? MAJ DANDURAND: No, I don't. MR. FREIMAN: Okay. The next question, I guess, that requires a bit of pursuing is the issue of the quality assurance review. When was a decision made to have such a review, why was it made and by whom was it made? MAJ DANDURAND: Okay. Who made the decision, it would have been a discussion, I believe, if memory serves me correctly, between Colonel Sansterre, who was the Commanding Officer at the time, and the Headquarters and myself, possibly other -- possibly Warrant Officer Ross at the time, who was, I believe, in an acting

53 0 0 0 capacity for the detachment Master Warrant Officer position as the chief investigator. So that answers who. What were your other two questions? MR. FREIMAN: Why? MAJ DANDURAND: Why the quality assurance? The quality assurance process is there as an audit on a file in order to identify what potential shortcomings exist in an investigation. It's understood that every single investigation can be done better. And in our view, the issue of this suicide note and as well our in-depth knowledge of the investigation in itself due to the fact that it was now going to be called into question was not as fresh in everybody's mind as what a quality assurance would afford us. MR. FREIMAN: So who does the quality assurance or, in this case, who did the quality assurance? MAJ DANDURAND: Well, by position and by -- by capability, it's the detachment's Master Warrant Officer in the detachments.

54 0 0 Now, we have a Standard Operating Procedure within the NIS that every two months you're to take a file and quality assure it. And that runs it through the entire gamut of the checklist of the investigation so that nothing is missed and it's a methodical examination of the file. The chief investigator is the one that conducts it for a couple of reasons, first off, due to their years of experience and their -- and their ability to be critical, and secondly because if they -- the process of a quality assurance is very laborious. MR. FREIMAN: Yes. MAJ DANDURAND: It involves essentially taking that individual out of the stream of work, normal activity for the detachment for anywhere from five to, I would say, 0 days, working days. So what that means is that person's locked in an office and they -- and they do their job in order to come up with the final product. That product is then forwarded on to our Headquarters and it's designed in order to

55 0 0 highlight our lessons that we have to learn. MR. FREIMAN: So who would have been the Master Warrant Officer at the time who would have conducted this quality assurance review? MAJ DANDURAND: That would have been Warrant Officer Ross? MR. FREIMAN: Okay. And his is the name that we saw in the correspondence with Captain Angell. MAJ DANDURAND: Yeah. We would have had a -- we had had Master Warrant Officer Watson promoted and posted to the Regiment and, due to that, there was a vacancy and we were -- we were left vacant for almost a year in that position. And Warrant Officer Ross was viewed as a very capable and suitable stand-in for that position while we awaited the ability to pull somebody in. MR. FREIMAN: All right. So let's look at Tab, please. It's in Volume. We were having trouble a few minutes ago locating the source of some of the information in Lieutenant-Colonel Landers' . Perhaps we can go back.

56 0 0 I'm sorry. We've already looked at some of this, so let's look at some -- at a further discussion. Let's look at, you know, the -- let's look at some of this chain that we haven't looked at before. And I'd like to look with you at the note at May,. See if I can find it. Sorry. The -- my Pause THE CHAIRPERSON: There's. MR. FREIMAN: That's close, but that's not the one I'm looking for. I think I'm probably in the wrong -- okay. I'm told that I'm looking at Tab instead of. THE CHAIRPERSON: Mr. Freiman, I'm getting a request for a break. Might this be a good time while we go through that? We'll break until 0: Upon recessing at 0 / Suspension à Upon resuming at 0 / Reprise à 0 THE CHAIRPERSON: Okay, thank you. MR. FREIMAN: Mr. Chairman, before we recommence, I believe we still have some

57 0 0 evidence that needs to be entered as exhibits. MS COUTLÉE: Mr. Chairman, I'll just enter the exhibits. So we have Summary Investigation Report, page. MS CLÉROUX: Exhibit P-0. EXHIBIT NO. P-0: Summary Investigation Report, page MS COUTLÉE: January, 00 letter to Major Kate Ritter. MS CLÉROUX: Exhibit P-. EXHIBIT NO. P-: January, 00 letter to Major Kate Ritter MS COUTLÉE: Witness book index for Lieutenant-Colonel Sansterre and Major Dandurand. MS CLÉROUX: Exhibit P-. EXHIBIT NO. P-: Witness book index for Lieutenant-Colonel Sansterre and Major Dandurand MS COUTLÉE: MPPTP Chapter, March '0. MS CLÉROUX: Exhibit P-.