mdlo.camdlo.ca/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/2012-04-18-Col... · Web viewThe first document I would like you to look at is at tab 15. This is a medical referral and certification. This

Military Police Complaints Commission

FYNES PUBLIC INTEREST HEARINGSheld pursuant to section 250.38(1) of the National Defence

Act, in the matter of file 2011-004

LES AUDIENCES D'INTÉRÊT PUBLIQUE SUR FYNEStenues en vertu du paragraphe 250.38(1) de la Loi sur la

défense nationale pour le dossier 2011-004

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGSheld at 270 Albert St., Ottawa, Ontario

on Wednesday, April 18, 2012mercredi, le 18 avril 2012

VOLUME 12

BEFORE:

Mr. Glenn Stannard Chairperson

Ms Raymonde Cléroux Registrar

APPEARANCES:

Mr. Mark Freiman Commission counselMr. Rob FairchildMs Genevieve Coutlée Ms Beth Alexander

Ms Elizabeth Richards For Sgt Jon Bigelow, MWO Ross Tourout,Ms Korinda McLaine LCol Gilles Sansterre, WO Blair Hart, PO 2 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 Der Bonneteau, CWO (ret=d) Barry Watson

Col (ret=d) Michel W. Drapeau For Mr. Shaun FynesMr. Joshua Juneau and Mrs. Sheila Fynes

A.S.A.P. Reporting Services Inc. © 2012

200 Elgin Street, Suite 1105 333 Bay Street, Suite 900

1

23456789

1011121314151617181920212223242526272829303132333435363738394041424344454647484950

Ottawa, Ontario K2P 1L5 Toronto, Ontario M5H 2T4

(613) 564-2727 (416) 861-8720

1234

(ii)

INDEX

PAGE

SWORN: COLONEL DEREK MacAULAY 18

Examination-in-chief by Mr. Freiman 18Cross-examination by Col Drapeau 68Cross-examination by Ms Richards 71

SWORN: DR. ALICE MOHR 91

Examination-in-chief by Mr. Freiman 91Questions by the Chairperson 171Cross-examination by Col Drapeau 172Cross-examination by Ms Richards 179Re-examination by Mr. Freiman 195

SWORN: DON PERKINS 212

Examination-in-chief by Mr. Freiman 212Cross-examination by Col Drapeau 288

123456789

101112131415161718192021222324252627282930

(iii)

LIST OF EXHIBITS

NO. DESCRIPTION PAGE

P-36 Witness Book Index for Colonel MacAulay 17

P-37 Witness Book Index for Don Perkins 17

P-38 Witness Book Index for Dr. Mohr 17

P-39 Documents identified by Dr. Mohr, Practice Guideline for the Assessment and Treatment of Patients Identified with Suicidal Behaviours 17

P-40 Series of documents from Base Addictions and Counselling Units 17

P-43 Affidavit of Sheila Fynes 82

P-42 Patient's Booked Appointments 133

P-41 Report entitled "Report of the Canadian Forces ExpertPanel on Suicide Prevention." 134

P-44 Letter dated April 18, 2002. 205

123456789

101112131415161718192021222324252627282930

Ottawa, Ontario

--- Upon resuming on Wednesday, April 18, 2012

at 9:53 a.m.

THE CHAIRPERSON: Good morning.

Mr. Freiman?

MR. FREIMAN: Good morning, Mr.

Chairman. I regret that I have to start our

proceedings with a discussion of an unfortunate

situation.

You will recall, sir, that at the

commencement of the hearings there was discussion

about documentary production, its state, its volume

and its timeliness. We had some considerable

discussion about the importance of documentary

disclosure and timeliness.

I pass no judgment about any

person's motivation or how such things came to be,

but I have to report on an entirely unsatisfactory

development yesterday. After the close of the

business day, we received by e-mail upwards of 100

pages of documents that for the first time dealt

with a number of issues that we have been asking

for documentary production about for the last three

months.

Ms Coutlée will give a full

ASAP Reporting Services Inc.(613) 564-2727 (416) 861-8720

112345

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

678

chronology so as to get an idea of what happened

and when, but for me the bottom line is this:

After numerous requests and confirmations that we

have all the documents and after specifically

identifying a number of documents relating to

Corporal Langridge's mental health file and

specifically to case conferences that were said to

have taken place and for which we had no records,

yesterday after the close of business, on the eve

of the testimony of two witnesses directly affected

by these issues, for the first time we had

production of mental health records directly

relevant to their testimony, directly responsive to

a request that we made months ago.

Again, I want to be absolutely

clear I pass absolutely no judgment on any

individual and on their motivation and I have no

reason to think that there was anything intentional

in what happened, but at the same time I have to

protest in the strongest terms possible about this

development and what it does for our ability to be

prepared for the testimony of the witnesses we are

going to be hearing today.

I am going to ask Ms Coutlée to

specify what was asked for, when it was asked for


212345

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

678

and what we have received.

MS COUTLÉE: Mr. Chairman,

initially Commission counsel believed that the

medical records for Corporal Langridge were

included in the police files. As things

progressed, there were indications that these

records may not be complete. In particular, on

January 31st during an interview with Dr. Mohr,

there was a specific request made for the complete

medical file. Dr. Mohr is in charge of the mental

health department and it's in that context that we

realized we may not have all the records. Further

to that request, a first version of the medical

file was produced.

On February 23rd there was a

specific request that was made for any notes about

a case conference about Corporal Langridge held on

or about March 7, 2008. In response to that

request, we were eventually told that no notes were

found.

On March 16th Commission counsel

again, believing that the records in our possession

were not complete, made a specific request for the

complete mental health file and records for

Corporal Langridge.


312345

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

678

On March 29th additional mental

health records were received. We were told at that

time that those records had been identified by Dr.

Mohr further to the interview conducted on January

31st and that they were then, on March 29th, being

provided to the Commission.

Further to receiving these new

documents, the Commission made a further request

for confirmation that the records were now complete

and that they also included the records for the

addictions counselling.

It was yesterday between 4:35 and

4:38 that these new base addictions counselling

records were received by the Commission. These

records include a note that specifically refers to

a case conference on March 7th about Corporal

Langridge. These records were never received by

the Commission before.

MR. FREIMAN: Just one P.S.

Again, just for completeness of the record, this

morning we had a further unpleasant discovery that

one of the documents that had originally been

produced to us with respect to one of our witnesses

today in fact turned out to be the wrong document

and the correct document was given to us this


412345

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

678

morning. Unfortunately, it's a document of several

hundred pages in length.

THE CHAIRPERSON: Ms Richards, you

are, as I think it was described, the co-ordinator

of the team.

MS RICHARDS: I am the lead

counsel for the team.

THE CHAIRPERSON: Lead counsel for

the team.

MS RICHARDS: I certainly am. I

would have to say that I agree that it is not

desirable or acceptable that documents are provided

on a late basis like this. I have made some

inquiries.

What I can tell the Commission is

that there have been a number of discussions

regarding the medical records, and I can assure you

that the team has made a number of inquiries about

the medical records to ensure that they had

received the full medical records. Those inquiries

have included communications with Library and

Archives Canada and medical staff who work in the

mental health unit as well as the base unit.

It was believed by the team that

the full medical records had been produced to the


512345

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

678

Commission as of March 30th, and I am advised that

through an oversight it became apparent to them

some time this week that there were additional

documents which they thought had already been

produced but had not, and that as soon as they

became aware of that, they produced them to the

Commission.

Unfortunately, I was not aware of

that or I would have given the Commission advance

notice of that yesterday.

I can assure you that following

the hearing today I will go back and follow up with

the team again to make sure that the entire medical

record has been -- all efforts have been made to

search out the medical record and that everything

has been produced and I will follow up directly and

personally with Commission counsel on that issue.

On the second issue, I was advised

last night by Dr. Mohr, who is testifying, that a

medical article that had been provided to the

Commission at their request by her was not the

correct article and she was not aware of that until

last night.

As soon as I became aware of it, I

made copies and I provided them to Commission


612345

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

678

counsel first thing this morning. In all fairness

to them, because, as I understand it, this is an

article that Dr. Mohr is prepared to speak about

today and it relates directly to the issue of

suicide prevention in the Canadian Forces.

THE CHAIRPERSON: The documents

that were received by counsel last night, how many

pages was it, about?

MR. FREIMAN: Over 100.

THE CHAIRPERSON: When did you

receive those documents yourself?

MS RICHARDS: When the Commission

sent them to me.

THE CHAIRPERSON: You had not had

them before that.

MS RICHARDS: No.

THE CHAIRPERSON: Colonel Drapeau,

any comment?

COL (RET'D) DRAPEAU: Yes, Mr.

Chair. I will try to be charitable because we are

into the third week of the hearing itself and we

have raised this issue on a number of occasions,

and it's not only the production of documents but

the redaction of documents.

When I look to the state, which is


712345

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

678

really what my friend is representing, with a

formidable team supporting her, I really don't

understand why we haven't had full production,

never mind now but prior to the commencement of the

hearing itself.

I am as restrained as I can

possibly be in my shock, the fact that we are hours

away from having testimony of some of the

witnesses, some of them will not come back to us,

and we still have documents that are redacted to

the extreme extent that we know ourselves.

THE CHAIRPERSON: I want to ask

one question because I want to make sure. Of the

documents that were received and the 100 pages,

were there any redactions in those documents?

MR. FREIMAN: No.

THE CHAIRPERSON: So they were

just missed documents. In these ones there were no

redactions.

COL (RET'D) DRAPEAU: Thank you.

THE CHAIRPERSON: I just wanted to

make sure.

COL (RET'D) DRAPEAU: This is good

news. I am talking about not only documents

received yesterday but documents that have been


812345

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

678

received and I haven't been informed whether or not

a comprehensive, final decision has been made as to

what is redacted and what is not redacted. I can

allude to some specific document itself. We have

taken care -- and I think I am on the record as

having said so and I can be challenged if that is

not so. Mr. and Mrs. Fynes have been releasing,

without any inhibitions at all, every piece of

documentation even if it contains in some cases

information that would have, in the normal course

of events, been protected as personal information,

sensitive information, information adverse to their

late son, and supported by a team of two lawyers

which came in on the record 10 days before the

hearing itself.

If we can do that, I am at a loss

to explain how the Government of Canada cannot do

its part to release the records they have under

their control at the moment. It's not only not

desirable, I don't think it's acceptable.

THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you,

Colonel.

On the redactions I believe there

are personal things that we would redact, personal

information, but not redactions from the


912345

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

678

government. Is that correct?

MS RICHARDS: Yes. I was just

going to raise the issue. I know that these were

produced quickly, but it may be that there is

personal information that needs to be redacted from

these documents. I am happy to speak to the

Commission about it, but I note that there is some

information that has been redacted in other

documents that we may, as counsel, just want to

discuss and agree to redact in these as well.

THE CHAIRPERSON: Ms Coutlée?

MR. COUTLÉE: Mr. Chairman, when

the Commission received these documents yesterday,

the Commission proceeded on an emergency basis to

examine them and review them for any redactions.

Just to be clear for the record, the type of

information that is redacted by the Commission is

very limited. It's limited only to identifying

information such as telephone numbers for

residences, residential addresses and SIN numbers.

As a general matter, information about Corporal

Langridge himself is not redacted, only about other

persons. So these documents have been reviewed on

an emergency basis by the Commission so that the

documents that are being entered today have been


1012345

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

678

redacted by the Commission.

THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

COL (RET'D) DRAPEAU: I have no

quarrel with that, Mr. Chairman. In fact, I am

expecting such redactions.


Colonel, I appreciate the issue relative to Mr. and

Mrs. Fynes and their approach to documents and

things like that. I don't think anybody has any

quarrel with that.

As far as the government goes, I

am disappointed that the Commission has just

received them. I will accept Ms Richards at her

word that she was unaware of it and somehow the

documents got missed, whatever it was.

My question to Mr. Freiman and Ms

Coutlée is: Have all of the documentation requests

been satisfied? I think you will need to do a

review of that to determine.

MR. FREIMAN: I can tell you now

that it's very difficult ever to prove a negative.

You can't prove that there is nothing else left

because you don't know what is out there. I

continue to be extremely worried that there are

additional documents. Even on the basis of the


1112345

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

678

documents that we got yesterday, it would appear

that there should be additional documents of the

same sort for different dates and for different

events.

Given that it appears that many of

the documents come from the social work unit that

is part of the mental health unit and they have

some medical documents in there, it leads me to

believe that other copies of those same documents

and perhaps a fuller number of those sorts of

documents may still exist. But the short answer to

your question is, I have no idea whether there are

still other documents out there.

There should be more mental health

records, there should be more medical records,

there should clearly be more records discussing

Corporal Langridge himself from the perspective of

the mental health unit. It may be that they don't

exist. It may be that they have been destroyed.

It may be simply that they have yet to be

discovered.

THE CHAIRPERSON: I know you are

speaking of the search of Library and Archives and

different places. What kind of exhaustive search

can be undertaken to ensure that social work,


1212345

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

678

mental health -- and I don't want to run into a

situation where if the Commission is asked for a

mental health record, what does that really mean.

Does it include social work? Does it include

addiction?

MS RICHARDS: No. I can tell you

it hasn't been narrowed like that. There have been

broad and multiple requests for all of the

medical-related records. What I can tell you, and

I will follow up with Commission counsel, is that I

will now personally go back and confirm all of the

inquiries that have been made and, if necessary, I

will personally make the phone calls and make the

inquiries to confirm that all the records have been

searched.

THE CHAIRPERSON: I would

appreciate that, to be fair to all counsel,

including yourself. If you are receiving the same

documents the same day you are in the same position

as Colonel Drapeau and Ms Coutlée and Mr. Freiman.

MS RICHARDS: I am.

THE CHAIRPERSON: To me it shows

maybe a lack of understanding the importance of

hearings of this nature by somebody somewhere in

the food chain.


1312345

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

678

MS RICHARDS: What I would like to

say to that is, no, there is no lack of

understanding. I have no reason to believe, based

on my inquiries, that there has not been a thorough

and active search for documents. This was,

frankly, an oversight. Individuals who work on my

team and work for government are human too and it

was an oversight. It is an unfortunate one and it

is not acceptable and I will do everything within

my power to make sure it doesn't happen again.

But I do want to be clear on the

record that I have no reason to believe that there

has not been (a) a thorough search done, and (b)

the appropriate priority put to these documents.

As I said, I will go back and personally make the

inquiries and ensure that all efforts have been

made.

THE CHAIRPERSON: Okay.

Any further comments on that

issue? In light of all of that, are we able to

proceed accordingly?

MR. FREIMAN: I am prepared to do

what I can. You may note that my examination of

witnesses later today is even more disjointed than

usual, but I want to reserve the right at the end


1412345

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

678

of the day to think through whether we have gotten

the information that we need from the examination,

whether we may need to think of other ways to

ensure that all the information is there.

One of the unfortunate

consequences of all this is that there already have

been some witnesses whom I would have liked to have

shown some of these documents to and to have

questioned about some of the new documents.

Again, to be perfectly candid, I

have done what I can in whatever time we had last

night to try to assimilate the new documents and

their implications. In some cases, the

implications aren't simply on the face of the

document; they are how this document compares with

other documents, and again, as I intimated earlier,

what they may indicate about information that is

still missing.

I will do what I can, but I do

reserve the right to bring some witnesses back. I

may wish to address who should be responsible for

paying for the travel and expenses of witnesses who

have to be recalled.

THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr.

Freiman.


1512345

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

678

Colonel Drapeau, anything?

COL (RET'D) DRAPEAU: No further

comments, Mr. Chair.

THE CHAIRPERSON: Ms Richards?

MS RICHARDS: No.

THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. I

would like to proceed with the next witness if we

could.

MS COUTLÉE: Mr. Chairman, just

before we do that, we will enter the exhibits for

today.

Witness book index for Colonel

MacAulay.

THE REGISTRAR: Exhibit P-36.

MS COUTLÉE: Witness book index

for Don Perkins.


MS COUTLÉE: Witness book index

for Dr. Mohr.


MS COUTLÉE: Documents identified

by Dr. Mohr, Practice Guideline for the Assessment

and Treatment of Patients Identified with Suicidal

Behaviours.



1612345

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

678

MS COUTLÉE: I understand that an

additional Dr. Mohr document will be entered as has

been provided by Ms Richards today.

We have the series of the new

documents received last night which are the base

addiction and counselling documents.

THE REGISTRAR: That will be

Exhibit P-40.

EXHIBIT NO. P-36: Witness

Book Index for Colonel

MacAulay


Book Index for Don Perkins


Book Index for Dr. Mohr

EXHIBIT NO. P-39: Documents

identified by Dr. Mohr,

Practice Guideline for the

Assessment and Treatment of

Patients Identified with

Suicidal Behaviours

EXHIBIT NO. P-40: Series of

documents from Base

Addictions and Counselling

Units


1712345

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

678


MR. FREIMAN: Our first witness is

Colonel Derek MacAulay

SWORN: COLONEL DEREK MacAULAY

THE CHAIRPERSON: Welcome,

Colonel. As was mentioned yesterday, this must be

a good week in the promotion department. Colonel

MacAulay was promoted -- was it yesterday or last

week?

THE WITNESS: Last week, sir.

THE CHAIRPERSON: To full colonel.

Congratulations.

THE WITNESS: Thank you.

EXAMINATION-IN-CHIEF BY MR. FREIMAN:

Q. Good morning, sir.

A. Good morning, sir.

Q. Colonel, I wonder if we could

start with some general background information from

you about your military training, experience,

postings down to today.

A. Certainly. I am Colonel

Derek MacAulay of the Lord Strathcona's Horse

(Royal Canadians). I joined in 1989 and

subsequently went through armour training, was with

my regiment in 1991 in Calgary. Tours of the


1812345

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

678

regiment have included troop leader, squadron 2

i/c, adjutant of the regiment and squadron

commander, finishing off as the CO from 2008 to

2010. Extra-regimentally employed opportunities

have included time with the British Columbia

regiment as their regular support staff officer,

time in Ottawa here at the National Defence

Headquarters, and numerous courses in the military.

Q. Thank you, sir, a very

impressive background. Let's go back to your time

as commanding officer. Do I understand correctly

that you were promoted to that position in June or

July of 2008?

A. In June of 2008, sir, yes.

Q. We have had a lot of

discussion in these hearings about suicide

prevention and suicide prevention policies. I

wonder if I could ask you about any specific steps

with respect to suicide prevention policies that

you took when you assumed command in 2008 and

thereafter.

A. As you are well aware, the

responsibility of CO's is outlined in Canadian

Forces Administrative Orders that we must ensure

that we have training, that soldiers are aware of


1912345

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

678

where they can find assistance and how they can

find assistance.

When I was CO, that training took

place as part of, to the best of my knowledge, in

safety briefings, if you will. There is a weekly

safety briefing that is held at the squadron level.

That would have been a topic chosen by different

squadrons. Also, within the context of a yearly

safety mandated meeting over two days, that would

have been a subject that would have been given to

all soldiers of the day.

As far as information toward

soldiers that was posted through the means of

posters, basically providing the assistance or

numbers to call, if you will, and they were

provided throughout the regiment, and of course the

chain of command knew the steps to be taken if a

soldier was seen to show signs that he may be

suicidal. In that case, in my time during the

regiment, that would mean that the chain of

command, if aware, would take the soldier over to

the base hospital and would inform the chain of

command. If it was a serious event, i.e., an

attempt, we would do a significant incident report

to our next chain of command headquarters.


2012345

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

678

There was also opportunities as

far as training from peer counselling that was

given by exports. We always had a number of spots

on those from the regiment. There was also playing

cards. I seem to recollect playing cards -- I

think they were called "aces" -- that were provided

to basically give the information on where to find

assistance. If a soldier felt he needed some, he

could find that assistance.

Q. You have talked about raising

awareness on the part of soldiers who might be in

need of assistance and raising awareness or

ensuring that the chain of command knew what to do

when information reached one of its members about a

potential suicide risk.

What I am wondering is in between.

Let me direct your attention to tab 8 in the book

of documents in front of you. If you look at

paragraph 5 of this document -- in fact, what you

referred to, the relevant regulation with regard to

suicide prevention. It does, as you said, make

this an accountability for the commanding officer.

I would like to direct your

attention to paragraph 5 of this document. The

paragraph reads:


2112345

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

678

"Most case of suicide are

preceded by warning signs.

Some of these, such as giving

away treasured possessions or

openly expressing suicidal

thoughts or intentions, are

closely linked to suicidal

acts. Other indicators of

risk such as alcohol or

substance abuse, changes in

behavioural pattern or

depression are not unique to

suicide. Evidence of such

warning signs should not be

discounted in any individual.

Instead, the appropriate

intervention measures should

be initiated to ensure that

these people receive prompt

attention." (As read)

You have told us that there were

efforts to ensure the chain of command understood

their responsibility for addressing any information

that comes to their attention.

You have also told us about


2212345

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

678

attempts to educate members who themselves might be

at risk. In this case, we have had some evidence

of Corporal Langridge expressing or displaying

specific behaviours that are covered by paragraph

5.

The question that I have is: What

steps were in place to ensure that ordinary

soldiers who might observe this sort of behaviour

would be aware of the fact that these are signs of

suicide or potential suicide and these should be

reported? It's fine to say that we have measures

in place when the chain of command hears about such

signs, but it's important to understand what the

ordinary soldier would know in order to be aware of

the need in fact to report such behaviour to his

superior officers.

A. Just to ensure that we are

talking about the right time frame, this is not

specific -- this is after I took command in 2008.

Q. This is after you took

command. At the moment what we would like to

understand is whether there was any progression in

the policy or whether the policy stayed the same

and what they are. I asked Colonel Demers the same

questions.


2312345

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

678

A. I can't speak to progression,

but I can speak to the time frame that I was the

commanding officer.

Q. Yes.

A. You would have to speak to

Colonel Demers as far as what took place then.

Q. And we have.

A. As mentioned, to ensure that

the widest distribution of the information was

provided to the soldiers, we did that through, as I

mentioned, safety talks which were not necessarily

all the time, but it was an option on a number of

different safety issues that could be used on a

weekly basis. There was also the yearly safety, if

you will, we called "blitz" to ensure we covered a

number of larger topics, suicide being one of them.

That was given on an annual basis. Then of course,

as mentioned, providing the posters for that

information to ensure that soldiers walking through

the hallway would be able to see that information

and know where they could get it, who they could

phone if they didn't feel comfortable telling their

chain of command.

But I think it's important to note

that in a regiment like the Lord Strathcona's Horse


2412345

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

678

(Royal Canadians), you normally have a very tight

team network as far as troop, in which a young

officer and young senior NCO has, in the estimate,

about 15 soldiers to take care of. So there is a

close relationship that is provided between most

soldiers and their leaders, and they know that they

can get that assistance whenever they require.

Q. Aside from the measures you

have told us about, did you institute any new

measures or any changes in the way soldiers who had

been identified as suicide risks would have been

dealt with?

A. Yes, I did. When I took

command, I instituted a policy which was dealing

with that if a soldier was found by medical trained

staff to have the potential to be suicidal, that

that person would not be watched by the duty staff

or be housed within the regimental lines.

Q. What would happen to such a

soldier?

A. I can give you an example of

a soldier who was found during my command to be

exhibiting suicidal behaviour by trained staff.

The advice that I was given by the doctor at the

time was to put him under observation of the duty


2512345

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

678

staff. I took that advice into consideration and

made a decision no. As the commander, I did not

believe that advice was good advice at the time.

Instead, we ensured that he was in a safe place.

The only place, unfortunately, at the time was in

cells with the military police on base garrison and

he was under watch of an officer at the time

because of his rank until a bed became available

and he could be seen by professionals.

Q. What was the reason for that

policy and what was the reason for rejecting the

appropriateness of the unit assuming responsibility

to watch over that person?

A. The reason was my decision,

sir, and that was based on the information that I

had at the time and the advice that I was given at

the time.

Q. I take it some of the advice

would have been medical. Is that correct?

A. Yes, sir. The advice from

the medical staff, as I stated, was to have him

under watch of the duty staff.

Q. I am not going to ask you for

the content, but would some of the advice also have

been legal?


2612345

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

678

A. It was legal, yes.

Q. You took over, as it were, in

the middle of the various developments relating to

the aftermath of the suicide of Corporal Langridge.

I would like to take you through a couple of those

events and get your perspective on those events and

any information that you might have about them.

The first issue deals with the

return of Corporal Langridge's furniture and

effects. Are you aware of that issue? Do you

recall matters coming up that related to either the

completeness of the inventory, the promptness of

the return of the furniture and effects and the

condition of that which was returned?

A. I am aware of a number of

issues concerning the furniture and effects of

Corporal Langridge throughout the first year of my

command. That is when most of the issues took

place.

As you have mentioned, there were

issues with inventory, completeness, or questions

from Mr. and Mrs. Fynes. There were issues of

disposal and when that was approved by the estates,

and of course the issue of the evidence being held

also by the military police and the furniture and


2712345

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

678

effects being held by the regiment at the request

of the family.

That also included once the

furniture and effects were released by the estate,

the transfer of those effects to the family. It

took a number of times based on discussions we had

with Mr. and Mrs. Fynes.

Q. Let's take those issues

briefly, but let's take each of the issues in

sequence. The first issue was an issue of

inventory. Can you tell us what your recollection

is of any issues that arose about the inventory and

the process of inventory and the furniture and

effects?

A. First of all, I think it's

important to highlight the fact that the inventory

was done previous to my taking command.

Q. Yes.

A. So that inventory was already

done, completed, and the furniture and effects were

being stored by the time I took command.

Having said that, we are aware and

I was aware that there were questions on some items

being missed. Specifically I do recollect a

samurai sword was of question from Mr. and Mrs.


2812345

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

678

Fynes. The regiment, I believe, to the best of my

recollection, we reverified the inventory and we

did not find samurai sword of any nature, and

that's where it basically was left as far as the

inventory of those effects.

Q. I understand -- and I am not

sure whether this is a level of detail that would

have reached you, but I should probably ask. I

understand that there was some discussion about

furniture, especially a treasured chair or ottoman

of some description. The allegation was that it

was not present in the original inventory, but

after complaints, mysteriously appeared in

subsequent inventories. Is that anything that

rings a bell with you?

A. The fact that there was a

chair, yes. I remember an issue of a chair. I

don't recollect the exact details of said chair.

Q. As I said, I am not certain

that issues of a chair would reach you except to

know that there was that issue.

There was also the issue, as you

pointed out, about the timing of the return of the

furniture and effects.

Can you tell us, from your


2912345

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

678

perspective, what those issues were and how they

were dealt with?

A. First of all, if we are

talking about timeline, the furniture and effects

were released at the end of October by the estates.

Q. Yes.

A. Upon us receiving that, we

had asked Mr. and Mrs. Fynes if they would like the

furniture and effects. It was identified that yes,

they would. That was subsequently changed prior to

Christmas that they didn't want it right away.

There was a little bit of

confusion, I seem to remember, about whether we

were to provide it or not. Subsequently in

January, Captain Angell, now Major Angell, met with

Mr. and Mrs. Fynes in Edmonton in person and

discussed the furniture and effects. At that point

in time he was instructed and the family wished us

to keep the furniture and effects until the board

of inquiry was completed. They wanted everything

to be sent together.

We said fine, we can keep it in

the regimental lines. It was secured in two secure

lockups in a secure area not accessible by

everyone.


3012345

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

678

Subsequently, in March, at a

face-to-face meeting with Major Angell and Mr. and

Mrs. Fynes, they were asked again if they would

like it and they really wished it to be kept until

the BOI was done.

We did inform them at the time,

and I believe it was at that point that we said

once they would like it, we would need 14 days to

ensure that we can make the arrangements to have it

sent because it would be a professional mover, as

per the policy of the Department of National

Defence.

The one issue that came up at that

point was Mr. and Mrs. Fynes had rented a storage

lockup in Victoria. Due to space restrictions or

accessibility of lockups in Victoria -- I guess

high demand -- they had asked if it would be paid

for by the Crown. I know Captain Angell looked

into that and it was not.

On 2 May, the BOI had finished.

Once the BOI had finished, we were contacted and we

were able to get Mr. and Mrs. Fynes the furniture

and effects by June. I believe they had it in

their possession some time mid-June.

Q. Was that timing, in your


3112345

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

678

experience, usual or unusual for the return of

furniture and effects?

A. Again, in this case I don't

know if I could say it's unusual or usual. It was

at the request of the family.

Q. From your perspective, when

could the furniture have been returned as a matter

of authority to return furniture?

A. Once the estates had released

the furniture and we had asked Mr. and Mrs. Fynes

in November if we could have returned it in

November. The only issue surrounding that is of

the first president of the BOI, Lieutenant Colonel

Vernon had asked certain things that he was going

to require for the board of inquiry be retained,

but other than that, we could have returned

everything.

Q. Are you aware of how items

that had been initially seized or subsequently

seized by the NIS in furtherance of their

investigation were treated for purposes of return

to the estate?

A. I am not sure I -- I don't

have purview on what was taken by the NIS.

Q. That is actually the


3212345

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

678

question. We are aware that there was a storage

locker or a number of storage lockers containing

furniture and effects, first of all, that had been

moved out of Corporal Langridge's off-base

accommodations and was kept there. In addition to

that, we know that there were certain items that

were in Corporal Langridge's room in the barracks,

or in the shacks, that some of those items had been

seized by the NIS, but not all. So I assume that

the ones that hadn't been seized were put into that

same storage locker for purposes of inventory. But

there were 12 or perhaps 13 items, some of them

grouped as -- a number of items together under one

label that the NIS retained for purposes of its

investigation.

My question is whether you are

aware of the sequence and the timing for taking

those items and restoring them to the estate for

purpose of return to the beneficiaries of the

estate.

A. I think there is evidence

that shows that the NIS provided a disposal request

to the regiment for items. I can't tell you if

those are the 13 you are speaking of. There was a

couple of months that went by before we approved


3312345

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

678

that disposal based on what I recollect, legal

advice that we sought to find out if we could

basically because the BOI was still pending at the

time. But once we received that advice, I believe

that we released them. But as I previously stated,

the family wanted things together, so we kept it

together.

I can't tell you which items or

articles in the inventory came from off-post or

on-post. I don't recollect being ever told that.

Q. Again, I am not sure, given

your position, that you would have been troubled

with this issue, but there is the additional issue,

as you mentioned, the BOI. You told us that the

initial president of the BOI had asked for certain

items to be retained. We know that a decision was

subsequently made to appoint a different president

for the BOI. Were there any issues of evidence or

items that the actual BOI that was convened in 2009

needed and how were they dealt with?

A. As far as the BOI itself, I

did not have purview on the actions of the BOI.

That was not within the commanding officer's

purview at all. You would have to ask both

Lieutenant-Colonel Vernon and Major Parlee the


3412345

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

678

discussions on why they chose to keep certain

items.

Q. My question really was

directed at whether the existence of the BOI and

whatever need it felt it had for evidence of

certain items had any effect on the ability of the

Canadian Forces to assemble and to return Corporal

Langridge's furniture and effects.

A. Again, you would have to ask

the BOI president why he kept them. I am not aware

of the exact reasons. That's under his purview.

Q. One specific item that may be

a little peculiar to think of categorized under

furniture and effects -- well, there are two. Let

me start with the first one. One is the will. As

I understand it, there was some issue as to who was

entitled to see the will and when. Were you

involved in that discussion and that issue?

A. No.

Q. I will defer until we have

the people from Ottawa here.

The second item was a suicide

note. Were you aware of any issue with respect to

the suicide note that was eventually identified?

A. I became aware when the


3512345

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

678

family became aware of the suicide note which was

the end of May 2009. Previous to that I had no

knowledge that a suicide note existed. Once we

knew that a suicide note existed, we attempted to

get the suicide note for the family and we received

that immediately and send that through the

assisting officer to the family.

Q. The final issue that I think

needs to be discussed, however briefly, with

respect to furniture and effects is the Jeep and

what happened to the Jeep.

MS RICHARDS: I am going to raise

the issue now. The Fynes have withdrawn any

allegation with respect to the Jeep as it relates

to this hearing, so I don't know that it's

necessary to go into that.

MR. FREIMAN: That's fine. I

don't need to go into it.

THE CHAIRPERSON: Yes. I think

allegations 22, 23 and 24 -- I think those are the

numbers -- were withdrawn.


can't always remember which are withdrawn and which

are still there.

Q. The next topic of discussion


3612345

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

678

that I would like to turn to is the issue of the

relationship between the assisting officer

appointed on behalf of the Fynes, the Fynes on the

one hand and the Canadian Forces on the other,

especially the unit that you commanded.

If I understand correctly, the

appointment of assisting officers had already taken

place well before your becoming the commanding

officer.

A. Yes, sir.

Q. We had the unique situation

of two assisting officers, one from soldiers under

your commend, Second Lieutenant, as he then was,

Brown for Ms Hamilton-Tree, and Major Parkinson,

who was not under your command, being appointed as

assisting officer for the Fynes.

Let me start with that. Did the

fact that Major Parkinson did not report to you as

part of your chain of command have any impact on

the way events unfolded? Was that an issue?

A. First of all, we need to

clarify that it is not a unique situation. If we

look at the Canadian Forces and the fallen, the

Canadian Forces attempt to provide assisting

officers to families upon a soldier's death which


3712345

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

678

could include multiple assisting officers,

depending on the family make-up. I think it's

important to clarify that this is not a unique

circumstance to have two. In fact, it was

necessary to have two because of the different

families involved.

Second, I would like to clarify

that although he wasn't in my immediate chain of

command as the assisting officer, he was reporting

to me on matters affecting Mr. and Mrs. Fynes.

Yes, he wasn't in direct chain of command, but

because of his role as assisting officer, he did

have direct and we had direct communication to him.

Q. We have had some evidence

about this. I wonder if you could tell me from

your perspective what is the role of an assisting

officer. What are the specific duties and what are

the limits beyond which an assisting officer should

not proceed?

A. The role of assisting officer

is there to in fact assist the family. Initially

assisting officers helped with arrangements to deal

with funerals, administration. They are the

contact point for units of the CF or other people

that wish to speak with the family. It's to try to


3812345

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

678

ensure that there is one main point of contact

toward the family so that they are not inundated

with people asking questions or making requests.

The role of the assisting officer

can span from a matter of days to a matter of

years, depending on the circumstances around the

specific issue. In this case, Major Parkinson

remained as the assisting officer for a significant

period of time based on the needs of the family.

We in the CF, and certainly I can

speak to in the regiment, understand that it is

very difficult to be an assisting officer. There

is a relationship built between the family and the

assisting officer throughout the time,

understandably.

We go to great lengths now, and

when I left command, to actually go through a

formal, if you will, meeting to disengage the

assisting officer from the family to ensure (a)

that the family knows where they can get assistance

because they don't have that person there any more,

and also (b) to allow the officer to carry on with

his normal duties.

Q. In the specific instance of

Major Parkinson, we are aware that at some point


3912345

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

678

there was some controversy, for lack of a better

term, with respect to the nature of the

relationship that he was establishing with Mr. and

Mrs. Fynes and the nature of the representations he

was making on their behalf. Are you aware of that

issue?

A. I would have to ask you to

specify what you mean by "nature".

Q. Let me refer you to a

document. It's at tab 15. This is a letter from

Major Parkinson to Captain Angell with a number of

cc's. This is the gist of the e-mail:

"I saw your response last

night to me which was in

response to my e-mail of 21

January '09. I want to

assure you that I understand

fully for whom I work (that

being CO LdSH) and that my

role is merely that of a

facilitator. I felt it was

vital that you understand the

Fynes' current state of mind

and it was not meant to be

some accusation against the


4012345

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

678

system I've proudly belonged

to for almost 40 years. I am

quite certain Major Parlee

and the BOI's end results

(findings) will ascertain the

truth or the falsehood of

whether they were lied to,

misled or marginalised." (As

read)

Finally, it says:

"I should also assure you and

the CO of LdSH that I am not

so close to the Fynes that it

is impairing my ability to do

my job. If it were, be most

certain that I would request

removal from the position."

(As read)

Without further context, this

seems to be evidence of some dispute or some words

being exchanged about Major Parkinson's role,

whether he is discharging his role properly. There

is also a reference to strong words about the issue

of whether Mr. and Mrs. Fynes were lied to, misled

or marginalised.


4112345

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

678

I am just asking you whether you

were aware of any issues that might lead to an

e-mail such as this.

A. I don't recollect a specific

issue. I do recollect this coming to light in

January of 2009. From my view, this is two

officers talking to one another. This is not an

accusation toward me or the regiment at the time.

Major Parkinson was conveying the feelings, if you

will, of Mr. and Mrs. Fynes at the time, which is

under his purview as an assisting officer to

transmit that without being -- taking it verbatim,

and I would take verbatim that it was the last

three, "lied to, misled or marginalised" were not

his words but that of feelings of the family.

There is always going to be, in my

opinion, difficulty, as I mentioned, with assisting

officers and families. They establish a close

relationship. In this case, it is obvious to me

that Mr. and Mrs. Fynes felt comfortable enough to

tell Major Parkinson what they felt and he was

transmitting that to us.

Q. The tone and tenor of this

e-mail really raises an issue that I would like you

to comment on, and that is the role of the


4212345

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

678

assisting officer as facilitator as opposed to the

role of the assisting officer as advocate. Do you

have any views about that dichotomy?

A. Advocate in...?

Q. On behalf of the families.

A. I'm not sure I see the

difference between those two.

Q. That's what I wanted to

clarify because I have seen some references in

other documents to a position that the assisting

officer should merely be a conduit of information

back and forth and should not take it upon himself

to advocate on behalf of the families and to

present, as it were, argument on their behalf for

how they are or should be treated.

A. Yes. I don't see the

advocate nature of Major Parkinson. I see him

transmitting the sentiments of the family.

Q. Are you aware of any

sentiment that would have stated that Colonel

Parkinson should perhaps be removed as assisting

officer because he was too close to the family?

A. Am I aware of...?

Q. Of that sentiment being

expressed among people who were advising you or


4312345

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

678

making decisions?

A. To the best of my

recollection, I think it was a discussion between

myself and Captain Angell at one point.

Q. Yes.

A. Probably after this e-mail or

specific information. It should be highlighted

that I wasn't on that e-mail.

Q. Yes.

A. But to the best of my

recollection, two facts that I would have taken

into consideration would have been (1) the fact

that we needed an assisting officer that was

geographically close to the family to provide the

best possible support, and that couldn't come from

Edmonton, and (2) were there indications that there

was significant concern to cause us to assign a new

assisting officer which would have an effect on Mr.

and Mrs. Fynes already establishing a relationship,

and so was this just an issue of an officer

transmitting his feelings or just transmitting the

feelings of the family. Those discussions went on

between the assisting officer and staff officers,

not commanders.

Q. In the final analysis, do I


4412345

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

678

understand that Major Parkinson stayed on the job,

as you say, for quite an extended period of time?

A. Yes.

Q. Was there a specific event

that marked a natural end point for his serving as

assisting officer?

A. I can't tell you because when

I left command in May of 2010, I believe he was

still providing that support to the family.

Q. So we may have to ask someone

else. With that, I would like to turn to another

issue in which you had some involvement, and that

was the BOI itself. Can you tell us what your role

was in the organization of the BOI and how it

carried out its duties?

A. My role as a commanding

officer was to support the BOI. I did not have a

specific mandate to be part of nor was I part of

the BOI in any way, nor was I asked to testify.

Q. Who would have been

responsible for the appointment of the chair or

president of the BOI?

A. That would have come from the

brigade. If we want to go back to ensure that we

are clear on the events that transpired


4512345

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

678

specifically with respect to the BOI, the BOI could

be called by the CO at the time, myself or in the

case of Colonel Demers based on timelines. The

decision was made by Colonel Demers as I understood

it when I took over, and which I also supported,

and that someone outside of the regiment conduct

the board of inquiry and not someone internal to

ensure that it was fair and procedurally correct.

That request was given to our

higher headquarters which would have been 1

Canadian Mechanized Brigade Group. It was then

their responsibility to find an appropriate person

and appropriate rank and experience to conduct the

board of inquiry.

The delay -- I took over in May.

We then have the summer which transitioned between

units. We also have people coming back. It's

important to note that the brigade at the time had

units that were repatriating back from Afghanistan

at the time. We are now into September.

We then have training once a BOI

president is appointed or found, which I believe

was not until October. In this case, the BOI

president -- the first one who I met when he came

to the regiment, as he was being supported in


4612345

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

678

regimental lines, had indicated he would probably

not be able to take on the responsibilities for a

long duration, at which point I recollect telling

him he should go back to the convening authority,

the brigade commander, to ensure that they

understood his restrictions on timelines.

I believe that, and maybe other

reasons, precipitated the requirement to find

another board of inquiry president which was then

able to start in January, taking into consideration

the training that had to take place and then

reading into the documentation prior to starting in

earnest.

Q. You say that your role was to

support the BOI. What form would that support have

taken?

A. The support the BOI received

from the regiment was they were housed in

regimental lines as far as they were in the

squadron that was deployed overseas at the time.

They then used the clerical and the offices for

their use. We also provided clerical support from

the regiment, and of course a point of contact in

Captain Angell so Major Parlee could find the

people he required or the documents that he


4712345

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

678

required.

Q. I understand the BOI would

have needed access to legal support as well. Were

you at all involved in the appointment or the

design of how legal advice would be provided to the

BOI?

A. No. You will have to ask the

president of the BOI.

Q. If I understand correctly,

his legal advice would, as it were, be outsourced.

It would not come from forces that were already

providing advice to you or to your regiment.

A. Again, I can't answer where

he received his legal advice.

Q. My understanding is that at

some point following the end of the hearings of the

BOI -- because we still don't have a final report

for them. After the BOI finished its work of

hearing evidence and assembling evidence, you

convened a summary investigation dealing with

matters that hadn't been dealt with at the BOI.

MS RICHARDS: I am going to

interject here. As Commission counsel is aware,

there is a claim of privilege over that summary

investigation.


4812345

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

678

MR. FREIMAN: I am perfectly

aware.

THE CHAIRPERSON: Before you go

into that, I don't know how much longer you have,

but I wonder if this might be a good time to take a

few minutes. I don't know how much time you have

left.

MR. FREIMAN: It won't be every

much longer.

THE CHAIRPERSON: All right. We

will take until 10 after 11 for a short health

break.

--- Short recess at 10:55 a.m.

--- Upon resuming at 11:10 a.m.

MR. FREIMAN:

Q. Colonel, before we took our

break, I was going to ask you a question, so I am

going to ask it now. Why did you convene a summary

investigation in 2009?

A. The summary investigation was

convened to go through the processes of

administration. As you are aware, there are issues

with respect to documents in Corporal Langridge's

death and I wanted to ensure that the processes

that the regiment was using were correct and to


4912345

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

678

ensure that -- or to mitigate at least the

potential of that happening again.

It should be highlighted that the

regiment had subsequent squadrons, consecutive

squadrons, from 2006 right through my tenure -- so

we had squadrons in theatre and we also had the

remainder of the regiment supporting the 2010

Olympic Games. So we had a significant amount of

soldiers participating on international and

domestic operations, and the administrative process

which we were using to ensure that the

documentation was correct. I wanted to ensure that

that was in fact being done correctly.

Like I said, it can't always get

rid of the problem. There is always going to be

unique situations. But try to mitigate it if there

was a problem with the process.

Q. The problems that you

identified, were they identified as a result of

difficulties that were encountered in the post

death context for Corporal Langridge?

A. First of all, let me clarify.

I didn't identify any problems. We identified that

there was a problem specific to Corporal Langridge.

Q. You said that you wanted the


5012345

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

678

IS to examine administrative processes so as to

avoid future issues arising, especially in the

context where there was a lot going on with the

army and the documents for an individual soldier

might be important again as a result of the all the

things that were going on.

A. It was to review the

processes, to validate them, if there was a

problem. That's why I wanted an IS at the time, to

ensure that if there was a problem, if there was a

problem, that we would become aware of it.

Q. Did you have any other

purpose in convening the 2009 investigation?

MS RICHARDS: There are two things

that I would like to --

MR. FREIMAN: May I ask the

witness to be excused while we have this

discussion.

MS RICHARDS: Certainly.

--- The witness withdrew

MS RICHARDS: First of all, to be

clear on the record, it is not this witness who

convened the summary investigation. It was

Brigadier General Corbould. So it's incorrect to

put to him that he convened the summary


5112345

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

678

investigation.

Secondly, there is a claim of

litigation privilege over the summary

investigation. I have been waiting and I

understand that we are trying to get some

information out without breaching that, but I fear

that we are now going to the point where you will

be breaching that claim of privilege.

MR. FREIMAN: My point in all of

this is that the claim is made. I am entitled to

investigate the foundation for that claim, which

has to be a legal foundation, and the questions

that I am asking are questions that do not breach

the claim of litigation privilege, if that claim is

subsequently found to be tenable, but the questions

are extremely relevant for understanding whether

the claim is well founded. There are clear legal

principles that underlie any claim of litigation

privilege.

I am beholden to Ms Richards for

the information that it was not this witness who

convened the summary investigation, and I will

explore that issue with him if I am able when he

comes back. But the questions are entirely

appropriate. Yes, they do go to the question of


5212345

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

678

litigation privilege and they do go to test that

claim.

MS RICHARDS: Unfortunately, then,

we are back to where we were some time ago about

solicitor-client privilege and other privileges.

As you are aware, it is our

position by virtue of the National Defence Act

that, number one, this Commission does not have

jurisdiction to receive information that is subject

to a claim of privilege. Secondly, by virtue of

the Supreme Court of Canada decision in Blood

Tribe, this Commission does not have the

jurisdiction to rule on or consider whether or not

a claim of privilege is appropriate. The proper

forum for that is outside of this Commission.

MR. FREIMAN: I would ask my

friend to clarify for us where in the Act it

discusses privilege and which privileges are

articulated in the Act.

MS RICHARDS: The Act is very

clear that it refers to any privileges at law that

may exist.

MR. FREIMAN: Yes.

MS RICHARDS: As counsel is aware,

litigation privilege is a privilege that is


5312345

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

678

recognized at law.

MR. FREIMAN: Yes, and the

determination of privilege in the Supreme Court of

Canada cases, is that not confined to the

determination of solicitor-client privilege?

MS RICHARDS: I don't believe it

is, and I am happy to argue that case with you

before a court. However, I don't think this is the

time or the forum to be arguing that. I will

happily argue the case law which has said that

litigation privilege is often considered a subset

of solicitor-client privilege, so we could --

MR. FREIMAN: That isn't the

better view.

MS RICHARDS: If you would like to

have a legal argument, I am happy to have it, but

now is not the time when the witness is on the

stand and I haven't been given advance notice of

this.

THE CHAIRPERSON: The addresses

should be to myself so I can respond.

MR. FREIMAN: My submission is

that I have yet to ask a question that could

arguably be seen as seeking information about a

matter that is subject to solicitor-client


5412345

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

678

privilege or litigation privilege, and I do take

the position that the two are quite separate and

distinct and subject to different rules and

different considerations.

It is my submission that there is

nothing in the least bit offensive about

establishing facts in relation to a process over

which privilege has been claimed because the

privilege can only be claimed for those acts, those

activities, those words, those documents that

actually are, in the case of solicitor-client

privilege, the evidence of legal advice either

sought or received, and in the case of litigation

privilege, that are information that a client

assembles for purposes of litigation that is in the

cards or that a person's legal adviser assembles

for purposes of preparing for such litigation.

I don't think I have asked a

single word about anything with either of those

privileges.


MS RICHARDS: Two things I would

like to say on the record. First of all, I would

like to say it's unfortunate when counsel are

trying to work in a co-operative and collaborative


5512345

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

678

manner to deal with some of these privilege issues

that Commission counsel did not choose to give me

advance notice or have a discussion about these

issues before the witness was called to testify

today. I find that unfortunate because it leaves

me at a bit of a disadvantage to have to respond to

this issue on the fly. I had understood that we

were engaged in productive and collaborative

efforts to try and resolve these issues. I would

like to put that on the record first and foremost.

Secondly, my concern and the

reason that I have been holding off is that

Commission counsel is now asking questions about

the scope and content of the summary investigation,

and that is exactly what has been claimed in terms

of litigation privilege. That is my concern. He

is starting to ask this witness what his intention

was, what was investigated, and that does indeed go

to the matters that were investigated, the

information that was collected in contemplation of

litigation.

THE CHAIRPERSON: Mr. Freiman?

MR. FREIMAN: First of all, on the

issue of prior notice, I had absolutely no

intention of asking the witness any question that I


5612345

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

678

believe would have the effect of disclosing any

information that would fall within solicitor-client

privilege or litigation privilege. On that basis,

I don't think that this has anything to do with our

discussions about creative ways to deal with

solicitor-client privilege matters or even

litigation privilege matters.

The privilege extends to

information, documents, facts that were collected

-- let's look at litigation privilege -- in

anticipation of litigation. It does not extend to

information, facts that were collected for another

dominant purpose. The issue of what the dominant

purpose was is important and crucial.

Determining the dominant purpose

of a disputed event or a disputed set of documents

or of information is not the same thing as looking

at the content that is subject to that claim.

There are two distinct issues. One is the claim of

privilege, the other is the contents over which the

claim is made. So referring to a document or an

event over which privilege is claimed is offensive

if one is looking at those things that were in fact

collected under the rubric of privilege. It's not

offensive to ask or to try to discover whether


5712345

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

678

there is information or documentation that is

outside the claim of privilege and there is no

basis for not responding to that.

The fact that privilege has been

claimed doesn't prevent questions being asked to

determine whether there is information that doesn't

fall within the claim of privilege. That's exactly

what I am trying to do. I don't usually talk about

what the aim of my questions are, but the witness

is not present.

If there is going to be a claim of

privilege, at some point, whether before you, sir,

or before another body we will have an argument as

to what the dominant purpose of the exercise was,

and getting facts and getting information that goes

to the question of what the dominant purpose is is

not itself covered by the privilege.

It's a question: Did you do this

for litigation or didn't you do it for litigation?

If the answer is "I did it for litigation", there

is your answer. If the answer is "I did it to

provide an educational opportunity" or for whatever

other reason there was, that is not covered by the

claim of privilege.

MS RICHARDS: I thank you for that


5812345

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

678

clarification. It is exactly my fear that the

questions are intended to go into an area where we

say this Commission does not have jurisdiction. So

let me make it clear. I understand Commission

counsel to be saying that he is asking these

questions to challenge the claim of litigation

privilege. I move before the Commission now orally

to proceed with a motion to argue the

jurisdictional issue because it is our position

that those questions are improper because this

Commission does not have the jurisdiction to assess

whether or not this is a valid claim of litigation

privilege.

MR. FREIMAN: I am not asking for

any determination to be made at the moment as to

whether litigation privilege covers this or not. I

don't believe this is an opportune time for us to

argue jurisdiction either. Neither of us is

prepared for that and that wasn't what I intended

to do.

Let me be clear. If it is shown

that the dominant purpose for the collection of

this information was not litigation or the

anticipation of litigation, then these are all

matters that are centrally within the purview of


5912345

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

678

this Commission. If the witness says "It was not

my purpose in the role that I occupied vis-à-vis

this summary investigation to prepare for

litigation", then it should follow that he can be

asked what his purposes were and how the summary

investigation filled those purposes. At that point

my friend may want to stand up and say,

"Nevertheless, I challenge -- it doesn't matter

what he thinks; it's what other people think," and

at that point we will have to decide whether to

argue the jurisdiction here or elsewhere and

whether to argue the claim of litigation privilege

either here or elsewhere.

But we haven't gotten to the point

yet where we have gotten any information that there

is any reason to believe was assembled for purposes

of litigation.

MS RICHARDS: Unfortunately, one

of the fundamental problems is that this witness

did not convene this summary investigation. In

fact, I am advised that Commission counsel has been

given access to the convening document to satisfy

themselves as to whether or not this was litigation

privilege. So to attempt to do through the back

door what you can't do through the front door is


6012345

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

678

improper, and it's improper to try and ask this

witness questions about a summary investigation

that he did not convene.

I am happy to have a brief break

and I am happy to obtain a copy of the convening

order and have a discussion with Commission counsel

about it. But to try and get through this witness

something that is (a) factually incorrect, and (b)

is improper would not be an appropriate use of this

Commission's time.

MR. FREIMAN: In light of my

friend's position, I believe that the proper way of

proceeding is simply to note that it is my position

that the questions are proper, that the witness is

capable of answering the questions, but

understanding that my friend will object as soon as

I ask any of these questions and that will raise a

thorny question of jurisdiction which may or may

not be within your purview to decide. I would

prefer simply to make a note of my attempt to ask

these questions. I have articulated the reason I

was asking these questions and I will not proceed

with the theatre of asking questions that will be

objected to seriatim.

THE CHAIRPERSON: Is that on the


6112345

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

678

understanding that you may in the future on a

recall?

MR. FREIMAN: I may indeed. Ms

Richards and I are indeed engaged in discussions

which so far have been amicable and have given me

hope that they can be productive. We will add this

to them. I didn't think that it was one of the

topics, but we can add it to them. But I am

explicitly reserving my rights to raise this issue

in the future and certainly to challenge the claim

of litigation privilege with respect to these

proceedings.

THE CHAIRPERSON: Before I ask Ms

Richards a question, Colonel Drapeau?

COL (RET'D) DRAPEAU: Mr. Chair,

just to assist the Commission, I may have some

remarks that I would like to put on it. Can I

suggest that perhaps we break for lunch now? That

will allow me a chance to do a little bit of

research on my own.

THE CHAIRPERSON: Let me ask my

questions of Ms Richards and then we will probably

do something like that.

I want to make sure I that

understand. Mr. Freiman has indicated that he is


6212345

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

678

not going to go there, but had Mr. Freiman gone in

-- I want to make sure I clearly understand your

position -- and asked questions relative to the

scope or reasons why you would claim that those are

things, together with the content and results of

the IS, that would all go toward litigation

privilege.

MS RICHARDS: There are two

issues, Mr. Chairman. One is any questions that

would go to the scope and what was investigated,

but the second is the purpose of the questions.

Our position is that if the purpose of the

questions is to assess whether or not this is a

valid claim of litigation privilege, those are

improper questions because they are not within the

mandate of this Commission.

THE CHAIRPERSON: I don't think

that would be the purpose of the questions. The

purpose of the questions is for purposes of this

inquiry. Is that accurate, Mr. Freiman?

MR. FREIMAN: I'm sorry?

THE CHAIRPERSON: The litigation

privilege issue is another issue that could be

addressed at some other time.

MR. FREIMAN: The purpose of the


6312345

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

678

questions would be to delve into those facts which

are properly within the mandate of this Commission.

The objection is that facts that would otherwise be

within the mandate of the Commission on a subject

matter basis, Ms Richards is saying, are outside of

the purview of the Commission on a jurisdictional

basis because of issues of litigation privilege and

because of issues as to who can decide litigation

privilege.

My purpose in asking these

questions was to ask questions that I believe were

outside of any possible claim of litigation

privilege, and part of that would have to be to

demonstrate what the actual purpose of this

exercise was, but the purpose of the questions

themselves is to address issues that are squarely

put into contention in these hearings and that

arise out of the complaints by the Complainants and

the subject matter that is being investigated by

these hearings.

THE CHAIRPERSON: As I hear it, it

can't be toward litigation privilege because he

doesn't believe that litigation privilege applies.

MS RICHARDS: That's exactly my

problem.


6412345

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

678

THE CHAIRPERSON: Hence, your

argument is that it applies and his is that it does

not.

MS RICHARDS: Right.

THE CHAIRPERSON: And whether or

not litigation privilege is a subset of

solicitor-client privilege is another argument.

MS RICHARDS: It's not really an

argument because the legislation is clear that you

cannot receive any evidence that would be

privileged at law. Litigation privilege is

privileged at law.


will break for lunch until 1:00, and what we will

do is if there are some discussions that need to

bring conclusion to any of this, and then we will

carry on with this witness or with another witness.

MR. FREIMAN: There still has to

be an opportunity for my friends to ask questions.

I don't believe that I have anything major left to

ask at this point. Let me check my notes.

MS RICHARDS: I was going to

propose, since this is a discrete area and because

the Colonel has other matters to attend to, I think

it would be most appropriate to finish his


6512345

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

678

examination on the understanding that he could be

recalled if this issue came back again, in all

fairness to the witness.

MR. FREIMAN: Frankly, the only

area that I have left to cover is one that will be

boringly familiar to everyone here, which is just

to ask whether there were any encounters,

appointments, discussions with the CFNIS, which

should be about a one-minute question, and that

will conclude my examination.

THE CHAIRPERSON: In fairness to

Colonel Drapeau's request, in terms of information

relative to this issue, I don't require anything

for the witness obviously, but I would be

appreciative of anything you had to offer at some

point, whether it be later today or tomorrow and

that will give you a chance to prepare.

COL (RET'D) DRAPEAU: That's fine,

Mr. Chairman.

THE CHAIRPERSON: Your issue is

the same issue as they have, but that issue, as I

understand, isn't going to get broached because we

are not going to be dealing with it through a

question.

COL (RET'D) DRAPEAU: I am fine


6612345

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

678

with that.

MR. FREIMAN: I obviously can't

tell what Colonel Drapeau has in mind, but I have

some guesses, and it may be helpful toward the

resolution of some of these issues, so one would

hope that we will get some more light on this. But

we can finish with the witness.

THE CHAIRPERSON: Let's bring the

witness back in and finish the examination, as well

as Colonel Drapeau's and Ms Richards' examinations.

RESUMED: COLONEL DEREK MacAULAY

THE CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, Colonel,

we had a couple of administrative issues that we

had to take care of.

MR. FREIMAN:

Q. I am the bearer of good news

and the bearer of bad news, Colonel. The good new

is I only have about a minute's worth of questions

left. The bad news is that as a result of some of

the discussions we have had, there is a possibility

we may at some point in the future need your

assistance again. But we will try to minimize any

inconvenience if that should occur and it may well

be that the event won't occur.

I want to ask you as a final


6712345

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

678

question whether you had any interactions with the

National Investigation Service of the Canadian

Forces in connection with any of the matters they

were investigating relating to Corporal Langridge's

death or its aftermath.

A. To the best of my

recollection, I don't remember meeting anyone from

the NIS.

MR. FREIMAN: Thank you. That's

my only question.

THE CHAIRPERSON: Colonel Drapeau?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY COL DRAPEAU:

Q. Good-day, Colonel.

Congratulations on your promotion.

A. Thank you, sir.

Q. If my notes are accurate of

your testimony, you made the point that it was a

policy, when you were commanding officer of the

regiment, that if a soldier was found to be

suicidal, first of all, "he would not be watched by

us and neither would he be housed within unit

lines". Do I have that correct?

A. That's correct, sir. He

would be found by medical staff to be requiring

those conditions.


6812345

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

678

Q. Under your watch, you

basically disengage yourself if somebody was being

suicidal.

A. No, I didn't disengage myself

from someone being suicidal. What we did is ensure

that the soldier receive the best possible care.

It was my feeling, based on the advice that I had

in the environment at the time that it was not the

place of a soldier to be in unit lines and it was

not the responsibility of a crewman who is not

trained in the medical world to watch a soldier

that may be suicidal.

Q. And the responsibility from

start to finish to look after this suicidal soldier

belongs, according to your policy, to the medical,

the health care units.

A. No, the responsibility to

look after a soldier is mine ultimately as the

commanding officer. The responsibility to look

after his medical needs is the responsibility of

the medical profession.

Q. According to your policy, if

he is suicidal, that is a medical condition and

that is the end of it.

A. If he is exhibiting medical


6912345

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

678

symptoms which the medical professionals feel that

he needs treatment, that is their responsibility to

provide that treatment. I can't provide that

treatment as a commanding officer of an armoured

regiment. However, it is my responsibility to

ensure that that soldier receives the care that he

requires and it also is my responsibility as a

commanding officer to ensure that if that care is

not given, that he is provided that care.

Q. I just want to make sure I

understand the limits of it. If that soldier were

a single soldier, a young private or corporal and

he lives in the barracks itself, and if he were

found to be suicidal, you wouldn't want him to stay

within the unit lines.

A. If a soldier is found to be

suicidal no matter where he lives and the medical

staff has identified that he requires care no

matter where that is, that is the responsibility of

the medical system to provide that care. In the

case of Edmonton, most of that care is provided not

within the base but on civilian facilities. If a

doctor or a health care professional advises me

that the soldier needs to be watched no matter

where he is, that is the responsibility to provide


7012345

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

678

that medical care from the medical world.

However, as I mentioned before, in

one case in particular that I had in the regiment,

there were no beds available in the greater

Edmonton area. In that case, under advice that I

took into consideration from legal and medical

staff, we placed that individual in the care and

custody of the military police in that he was in a

cell, not the national prison, but the cell on post

and he was watched by a lieutenant 24 hours a day

specifically outside that cell until a bed could

become available.

Q. My last question: That

policy would apply whether or not he was in a

bivouac or the garrison or deployed abroad.

A. I can't speak to a squadron

that was deployed under the command of another

commanding officer. I can speak to only the

soldiers that are deployed under my command and no

matter if they were deployed under my command, it

was my policy no matter where it was.



CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS RICHARDS:

Q. Colonel, one of the


7112345

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

678

allegations that is being addressed or considered

by this Commission is that the National

Investigation Service was not an independent and

impartial police force able to conduct

investigations. I am wondering if you, in your

time as a commanding officer of the Lord

Strathcona's, had any interaction with the National

Investigation Service and have any views on their

independence in investigating the regiment.

A. The National Investigation

Service has the freedom to investigate wherever and

whomever they want. In my case during my tenure,

the National Investigation Service conducted

interviews. I am not privy to what they were

dealing with. They would arrive at the regiment

and they were given the support they required to

see the individuals they required.

It is the responsibility of me at

the time or the commanding officer to ensure that

the National Investigation Service or military

police receive unimpeded access to whoever they

need and, in fact, if I found that anybody was

trying to impede that, they would be disciplined.

So in fact they have free and open access to

whatever they need and we are not privy to what


7212345

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

678

that is, as I mentioned. It was my experience that

that is in fact what took place. The only

interaction normally was a courtesy call that they

would come to the adjutant or myself to announce

that they were actually in the building, but that

is something that any visitor does to any regiment

in the Canadian Forces.

Q. The specific allegation is

that during your time as commanding officer there

were some criminal investigations open and that the

National Investigation Service was really aimed at

exonerating the Lord Strathcona's rather than

investigating these matters impartially. Are you

aware of anyone from your regiment interfering or

in any way trying to influence the National

Investigation Service investigation?

A. I am not aware of anyone

trying to interfere. In fact, I wasn't aware of

necessarily all the investigations being conducted.

MS RICHARDS: Thank you.

THE CHAIRPERSON: Colonel, I

appreciate that circumstances were different before

and then when you have taken over, there is

obviously a change in your position to maybe others

or a change in policy. In your case, you said if


7312345

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

678

there was a soldier who had exhibited suicidal

tendencies or an attempt and required medical care,

then most of it took place off the base. What

about the counselling or the hospital and doctors

on the base? What about their interactions?

Obviously you would have to go through them.

THE WITNESS: My understanding of

what -- it might be different, but what was

available on the base is the counselling and health

care professionals. But to have someone overnight,

I wasn't aware of any capabilities to house a

soldier overnight. It's not a hospital -- unless

it's changed -- that can have patients on a 24-hour

period. Those type of patients all have to be seen

at civilian establishments.

THE CHAIRPERSON: So they go to

the hospital and whether they go and they are

formed or whether they go in for a three-day or

30-day assessment period, during that time do you

follow that up? What kind of contact do you have

with the hospital?

THE WITNESS: The contact we have

is -- there are some privileges under medical care

that we are not entitled to specific information

regarding soldiers. What we are given is the


7412345

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

678

information that a soldier is under care, where he

would be, so we can provide the support required

either to the family or that soldier during that

time.

If he is given limitations, so he

goes to see a health care professional and the

health care professional feels that although there

may have been circumstances, he is healthy enough

to work within unit lines under some restrictions,

those restrictions would be transmitted back on

what he could and could not do, and we would then

help him meet those requirements to get him better,

wherever the health care.

But the exact details of his case

are not shared and they are not privy to a

commanding officer.

THE CHAIRPERSON: In this case

where he has been in for 30 days and then

essentially released because they are not re-formed

or hasn't been readmitted but released on some

limitations and conditions, if you still had

concerns as colonel and that person is coming back

to the lines, now what would your position be?

THE WITNESS: The issue

specifically deals with if a medical health care


7512345

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

678

professional deems that he or she or the soldier

requires 24-hour care or oversight. That is where

I personally at the time drew the line. If they

say that he is fine under these conditions, he

doesn't require 24-hour care, if you will,

oversight, then he is free to work within the

building and we of course take care of him. But

when a health care professional says he needs to be

watched, then that is not the responsibility -- it

is my feeling that you shouldn't place that

responsibility on a young crewman.

THE CHAIRPERSON: What would your

definition of "watched" be?

THE WITNESS: That he had to live

or -- they stated they would live in the duty

centre lines.

THE CHAIRPERSON: The opinion of

the health care professional, would that be the one

on the base or the one from the hospital? What if

the hospital is releasing this person, what would

you do if you still had issues?

THE WITNESS: As I mentioned, I am

not privy to the details --

THE CHAIRPERSON: I am not

referring necessarily to Corporal Langridge because


7612345

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

678

you weren't there at the time.

THE WITNESS: No, but privy to the

details of an individual in his case, those details

of what is exactly the medical diagnosis is not

provided to a commanding officer.

THE CHAIRPERSON: You are not, but

the base addiction counsellors may be --

THE WITNESS: Yes.

THE CHAIRPERSON: -- or the base

surgeon may be.

THE WITNESS: They may be, yes.

THE CHAIRPERSON: If they still

had concerns and they expressed they had concerns

without divulging patient information, then what

would you do?

THE WITNESS: If they have

concerns that this soldier cannot go back to work

without being looked at all the time, my response

to them is: Then he needs to stay in; then we need

to find him a facility.

THE CHAIRPERSON: But if he has

been released from the hospital, where would he

stay?

THE WITNESS: In the case of --

THE CHAIRPERSON: You can't put


7712345

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

678

him in jail forever.

THE WITNESS: I have never had to

deal with that case, but in the case of the one I

mentioned, we had to place him in custody until a

bed became available.

THE CHAIRPERSON: For treatment or

hospital.

THE WITNESS: Yes.


Any questions?

MR. FREIMAN: No.

THE CHAIRPERSON: I thank you for

now. Whether or not you have to come back and

visit us -- I know you are heading to Edmonton, I

believe, at some point. When will you be going to

Edmonton?

THE WITNESS: Next week, sir.

THE CHAIRPERSON: Okay. We will

keep that in mind. You may need to come back and

visit us.

THE WITNESS: Yes, sir.


We will break for lunch until --

will 1:00 be fine or is there any time that is

needed? I know we have two more witnesses today.


7812345

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

678

MR. FREIMAN: I think 1:00

probably makes good sense.


will come back at 1:00.

Thank you, Colonel.

--- Luncheon recess at 11:50 a.m.

--- Upon resuming at 1:21 p.m.


MR. FREIMAN: Yes, just a brief

bit of cleanup from before lunch. Ms Richards made

reference to our having been provided with the

order convening the summary investigation that we

were discussing. I thought it would be useful just

to state for the record we were provided with the

document. The document is subject to the following

condition. It says:

"As for the terms of

reference of the summary

investigation and the

administrative action taken

after death, I'm enclosing a

severed copy."

And the letter mentions only two

paragraphs -- well, it mentions what is contained

and what isn't contained, and then says that the


7912345

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

678

document or the parts of the document that are

shown to us are shown for our purposes only and not

for disclosure for the parties, and that the

Department of Justice understands this copy will

remain in the MPCC file and will never be used

during the hearing, nor will it be shared with

anyone else. That prevents me from making any

further comments other than to say that the

severances in the document that we were provided

with are, to put it mildly, extensive.

THE CHAIRPERSON: When you say

severances, is it the same as redactions?

MR. FREIMAN: Yes. Now, I

understand there is another matter before us.

MS RICHARDS: If I can just

comment on that?

THE CHAIRPERSON: Yes, I'd like to

put that one.

MS RICHARDS: Thank you. I have a

copy of the convening order with me. I have

instructions that there is a redacted version that

my clients will be prepared to file on the record.

The opening sentence of the convening order states:

"In anticipation of

litigation, Major Chenette


8012345

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

678

will conduct a summary

investigation."

We are prepared to file a redacted

version. I will obviously have to go back and

redact it. That provides the Commission with that

first sentence that talks about the fact that the

summary investigation was conducted in anticipation

of litigation.

THE CHAIRPERSON: So that will be

filed sometime?

MS RICHARDS: Yes.

MR. FREIMAN: It will be filed,

sir.


MR. FREIMAN: I would hold up the

severed copy but I don't think I'm allowed to.

THE CHAIRPERSON: That's fine.

MR. FREIMAN: In connection with

those very same discussions, I understand from

Colonel Drapeau that he has an affidavit that he

wishes to file.


COL (RET'D) DRAPEAU: Mr. Chair, I

have an affidavit that has been sworn by Mrs. Fynes

and it goes to her having instructed counsel in


8112345

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

678

British Columbia weeks ago to discontinue the

action which is a subject of the redaction we are

talking about. The affidavit states her

irrevocable decision to discontinue and to dismiss

this action. So that is on the record.

THE CHAIRPERSON: Copies?

MS COUTLÉE: Mr. Chairman, this

will be entered as an exhibit.


EXHIBIT NO. P-43: Affidavit

of Sheila Fynes

THE CHAIRPERSON: If I could just

take a minute and read it.

MR. FREIMAN: It would make some

sense while you are reading it for me to read it

into the record as well.

THE CHAIRPERSON: If you want,

please read it.

MR. FREIMAN: I will read it. It

reads:

"Affidavit of Sheila Fynes.

I, Sheila Fynes, of Victoria,

British Columbia, a

complainant before the

Military Police Complaints


8212345

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

678

Commission (MPCC) make oath

and say:

"1. My husband Shaun Fynes

and I have initiated

litigation in the province of

British Columbia at the

Federal Court of Canada

regarding damages claimed

against the Attorney General

of Canada in some of the

matters examined by the

current MPCC public interest

hearings.

"2. In March, 2012 my

husband and I instructed

counsel Mr. Michael

Hargreaves of Jones Emery

Hargreaves and Swan to

discontinue the said action.

"3. Counsel Hargreaves has

confirmed to me that he has

informed counsel representing

the Attorney General of our

decision to discontinue this

claim.


8312345

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

678

"4. Counsel Hargreaves has

advised me that consultations

are currently taking place

between him and counsel for

the Attorney General in order

to obtain an order from the

court to discontinue the said

action.

"5. I am disclosing this

privileged information for

the sole purpose of informing

the MPCC of our irrevocable

decision to discontinue and

dismiss the said action.

"6. To be clear, my husband

and I have no intention to

relitigate the matters

covered by the discontinued

claim."

And it's sworn and dated on

today's date.


MS RICHARDS: I don't think it's

necessary to obviously cross-examine Mr. Fynes. I

can tell you as an officer of the court that the


8412345

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

678

latest information that I have is as of today that

action has not been discontinued or dismissed, and

obviously once I receive information that it has

been, I will have communications with Commission

counsel about the implications of that.

MR. FREIMAN: Just so that it is

clear on the record, it's my expectation that once

it is clear and I'm not going to parse whether the

affidavit is sufficient for that purpose, but once

it is clear that the Fynes have made it impossible

for themselves to relitigate -- to litigate or

relitigate the issues before this Commission and

the ones that were the subject matter of the claim,

then litigation privilege which covers litigation

from the time that it is a real possibility -- I

think the words used in the case law that it's in

the cards -- from that point onward to the point of

dismissal, litigation privilege holds.

When the action disappears, so

does the privilege that may have attached to any

documents associated thereto. That certainly will

be the position that Commission counsel will be

maintaining, and in our view, the necessary

implication of that is that all documents that have

been redacted for purposes of litigation privilege


8512345

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

678

should now be unredacted.

MS RICHARDS: I don't think much

turns on it and I hesitate to appear to be

challenging my friend, but I believe the law is

that the action or any related litigation. I don't

anticipate that that's going to be an issue.

What I can say as you are probably

aware and I would assume my friend is aware, I am

restricted by solicitor-client privilege and

settlement privilege from having discussed this

before this matter had been brought to the

Commission. However, perhaps this highlights the

needs for counsel to have discussions in a

cooperative manner before these matters are raised

on the record.


COL (RET'D) DRAPEAU: If I may,

this goes to the point of anticipated litigation.

From our perspective there is no such anticipation

from this point onwards. And in an abundance of

clarity, Mr. Hargreaves will file with the

Commission a statement in fact in support of my

statement that there is no more anticipated

litigation on the claim that has been filed with

the Federal Court in British Columbia.


8612345

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

678

THE CHAIRPERSON: Okay. I believe

the next step will be to confirm whether or not the

action is -- really there is nothing more to be

said until you come back and that has been

determined.

MS RICHARDS: Until the action has

been discontinued or dismissed?

THE CHAIRPERSON: I think that we

need confirmation that that has happened.

MS RICHARDS: That's right.

THE CHAIRPERSON: Do you have

confirmation one way or another that that has

happened, Colonel Drapeau?

COL (RET'D) DRAPEAU: On the

record I can tell you in fact quite the reverse.

The negotiation to arrive to a consent order by the

judge is being stalled for whatever reason it is,

but from this point onwards, the claimants, the

Plaintiffs are on record saying they have no

intention to relitigate this issue and any claims

of litigation privilege as far as I'm concerned

becomes null and void from this point onwards.

The confirmation, the order from

the court will just put the icing on the cake. The

court will obviously not go against consent of the


8712345

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

678

two parties that this matter not be litigated, and

the two Plaintiffs do not want to. And I have said

to you in affidavit evidence that their decision is

irrevocable.

THE CHAIRPERSON: I appreciate

that and I understand what you are saying, and I

appreciate what Mr. and Mr. Fynes' actions are and

I accept that. But I will need to hear I think the

next part of it in response to that and I won't

expect that today. But the issue is that their

position is that the privilege should be lifted at

this point and you will have to come back with some

other information subsequent to that.

MS RICHARDS: As I said --

THE CHAIRPERSON: At this stage, I

need to know from you relative to the litigation

issue.

MS RICHARDS: Right. Just to be

clear on the record, I'm not at liberty to discuss

what ongoing discussions may or may not be between

the parties. Mrs. Fynes can, but I can't on behalf

of my clients. And until I'm -- and I'm sure my

friend did not intend to insinuate that there was

some improper purpose going on behalf of the

Government of Canada in terms of those


8812345

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

678

negotiations.

THE CHAIRPERSON: I didn't take

anything from that.


COL (RET'D) DRAPEAU: And I don't

--

MS RICHARD: If I could just

finish. But I can tell you our position is until

the matter has been resolved and there has either

been a notice of discontinuance or an order

dismissing, there is litigation in place.

COL (RET'D) DRAPEAU: Just to be

clear, I don't insinuate. If I have to say that, I

will say it very clearly on the record, believe you

me. At the moment, we are awaiting for consent

from counsel for the Attorney General. Our

position is clear. We want it discontinued. We

have said so over almost six weeks ago and now you

have now affidavit evidence that says that we have

no intention to relitigate -- we got one step done

-- no intention to relitigate this issue if and

when discontinued.

THE CHAIRPERSON: Can you help me

as to what the holdup may be? Do you have any

idea?


8912345

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

678

COL (RET'D) DRAPEAU: I think, Mr.

Chair, the correspondence that is forthcoming from

Mr. Hargreaves will enlighten you on that aspect, I

suspect.

THE CHAIRPERSON: I expect --

COL (RET'D) DRAPEAU: Today or

tomorrow.

THE CHAIRPERSON: -- when I get

that, then, we will -- and then maybe you will have

a conversation with your clients so we can try to

move forward, please.

MS RICHARDS: Yes.


MR. FREIMAN: Has the witness

arrived? We will check. I have to say there was a

misunderstanding as to the sequence of witnesses.

The Department of Justice has been extremely

helpful in helping us to resolve the

misunderstanding and Dr. Mohr, whom we had

anticipated would be the next witness but

Department of Justice thought would be the third

witness today, has been made available. She is on

her way over. She may in fact have already

arrived. And I do take this opportunity to

acknowledge the cooperation and the assistance of


9012345

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

678

the Department of Justice.


Could we have somebody check the room just in case

they snuck by the Commissionaire? You never know.

MS RICHARDS: She should be here

momentarily.

MR. FREIMAN: With your

permission, Mr. Chairman, while we are waiting, I

think I'm going to set up. As you will see, I have

a rather daunting task of keeping some papers

straight, so I'm going to set them up in some

semblance of order near to the rostrum.

THE CHAIRPERSON: What we will do

is we will recess until the witness arrives, and I

expect it to be momentarily, Mr. Colonel Drapeau.

I'm not leaving the room, so feel free.

--- Recess taken at 1:36 p.m.


THE CHAIRPERSON: Welcome and

thank you for advancing your time to be here. It's

greatly appreciated. Mr. Freiman?

SWORN: DR. ALICE MOHR


MR. FREIMAN: Let me add my thanks

and my apologies about the confusion about the


9112345

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

678

schedule.

Q. While we are talking about

these sorts of things, let me just say, Dr. Mohr,

you and I are about to embark on an excellent

adventure. In view of issues of documents, I have

to warn you in advance that I'm dealing with lots

of pieces of paper, lots of different references

and we may have to stumble along a little bit.

From your information, we have

compiled some of the new documents in front of you.

You will recognize almost all of them because most

of the new documents that we have put in front of

you to the far left are documents that were

produced, I think, from your office or with your --

those are the new documents.

Unfortunately, my excellent staff

compiled that book with the tabs after I had

defaced the loose sheets that I got last night, and

I have to work from my loose sheets, and when Ms

Alexander returns, it will probably be an exercise

in translation where I will name the document and

she will tell me what tab it's on.

Since this is the person who is

going to be implicated in the adventure, Ms

Alexander, I was just mentioning that I have been


9212345

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

678

working from the loose documents rather than the

conveniently bound document, so I may have to act

as bingo caller, and tell you the name or

description of the document and you are going to

have to tell me what tab it appears at. As I say,

it should be an excellent adventure.

Dr. Mohr, what if we can start out

by having you tell us a little bit about your

background, your qualifications, and especially the

position that you occupied in 2008.

A. My name is Alice Mohr. I

have a PhD in psychology from the University of

Calgary. I was hired as a contract employee to the

Department of National Defence to work in their

mental health department in early 2002. I have

remained there full-time ever since. In 2008, my

position was as the OTSSC team leader or clinic

leader and it remains today.

Q. Can you tell us what that

means?

A. Okay. You don't have a

separate book for acronyms?

Q. It would be too heavy and it

would need its own acronym for an index.

A. Okay. The OTSSC is the


9312345

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

678

Operational Trauma and Stress Support Centre. We

specialize in -- at that time, one of five in

Canada -- trauma that's related to operations

primarily.

Q. Am I correct in saying that

that acronym and that conceptualization is

gradually replacing the acronym PTSD for purposes

of this sort of work that you do, or am I wrong

about that?

A. I'm not even sure I

understand you. But the OTSSC, we deal with any --

PTSD isn't the only.

Q. Sorry. Let me go back. I

thought that I was using acronyms, but I didn't.

The concept of OSI, occupational stress injury, is

gradually displacing PTSD, post-traumatic stress

disorder, as a diagnostic and analytic tool in the

work you do, or do the two still work in

conjunction with each other?

A. The term "OSI," it's not a

true clinical term. It isn't something that we

ever use as a diagnosis. It isn't encouraged to be

used as a diagnosis.

The term "OSI", operational stress

injury, was coined several years ago, I believe, by


9412345

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

678

someone by the name of Jim Jameson in his work with

the OSISS, operational stress injury and stress

support, which is a peer support network, and they

were looking for a less stigmatizing term for

service members to identify with to come forth and

talk to peers about in relation to any mental

health effects they were suffering after a tour.

So it's a different branch. The

OTSSC was stood up long before the term "OSI" came

into vogue. It's used loosely as an umbrella term

that encompasses PTSD, depression and perhaps

anxiety and other tour related stresses, but it is

not a clinical term.

Q. Maybe we could talk, then,

about what you mentioned, the stigma of PTSD.

Could you tell me a little bit about what is the

stigma of PTSD?

A. Specifically, I don't know if

I could speak to the stigma of PTSD. I would say

that there is a generally accepted level of stigma

associated with any mental health disorder, both in

the military and in Canada as a whole in the

regular population.

Q. But you mentioned

specifically that OSI was one strategy to lessen


9512345

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

678

the stigma of PTSD.

A. Correct. And prior to a

diagnosis, the OSISS groups was formed to provide a

maybe a first avenue for soldiers to speak to a

peer, so they would train these individuals who

were peer supports, and if a soldier was

experiencing some kind of mental stress, they could

seek the services of an OSISS, so prior to making a

specific appointment to come in for a mental health

assessment.

Q. You also mentioned what I'm

going to call the trinity of conditions, PTSD,

depression and anxiety.

Do I understand correctly that all

of those are captured under the concept of OSI, or

did I misunderstand that?

A. No. They would be captured

under that as well as any other, but they would be

the top three.

Q. I hadn't thought to get into

it yet, but we might as well get into it now. You

talked about differentiating between OSI, which

isn't a diagnostic tool, and it's not a true

diagnosis. PTSD, depression and anxiety, are they

each true diagnoses?


9612345

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

678

A. Yes, that would follow from

the DSM-IV-TR that psychiatrists and psychologists

use now for mental health disorders.

Q. Can you tell me: Other than

for purposes of attaching a convenient label, what

is the importance of calling certain person's

behaviour in the world as manifesting anxiety or

depression or a combination of anxiety and

depression or saying that it's a manifestation of

post-traumatic stress disorder? Other than calling

it by a name for therapeutic purposes, for

treatment purposes, what's the difference?

A. What's the difference in the

diagnosis?

Q. What's the difference for

purposes of a treating professional looking to put

together a treatment plan, looking to construct

therapy for a patient, or in this case, a soldier

who presents with OSI, something is bothering him,

something of a mental nature implicating his mental

health. What's the importance of attaching a label

to it in terms of actual treatment strategies?

A. First off, you would have an

idea of where you were starting from and the

primary symptoms that you might be dealing with


9712345

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

678

and, of course, then, for pharmacological reasons,

you would also want to know what the primary

symptoms would be. That would be why you would

have a diagnosis.

Q. But my understanding is that

many of the symptoms, if not all of them, are

common to, let's say, depression and PTSD would

manifest themselves in a plethora of similar

symptoms, would they not?

A. PTSD is an anxiety disorder,

so there are anxiety components. As well, there

are many depression symptoms in the diagnosis of

PTSD, correct. The difference would be in that

diagnosis that why you would diagnosis PTSD versus

depression, say.

Q. Depression plus anxiety.

A. Yes. Is that in

post-traumatic stress disorder, the symptoms would

be as a result of the traumatic event or events,

and they would be linked to the traumatic event.

Q. It would identify the trigger

for the symptoms.

A. Yes, it would, but it goes a

little deeper than that.

Q. Maybe we will come back to


9812345

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

678

that.

A. Okay.

Q. You talked about your

expertise in terms of the Operational Trauma Stress

Support Centre. I understand that you also have

some or had some role in 2008 in connection with

the mental health clinic at the base in Edmonton.

Can you explain what that role or

connection was?

A. I actually don't remember the

exact dates, but at different times, when there

hasn't been like a team leader for mental health

services, I have been assigned that role.

Q. Is that a role you currently

occupy?

A. No. As a matter of fact,

that role is -- rather than having a clinical

leader over mental health services, it has been

separated into a -- we call it a prof tech network,

and that role --

Q. Another acronym.

A. Yes. And it's discipline

specific, well, discipline and information

specific, I guess, and it would be held when there

is a military psychiatrist available.


9912345

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

678

Q. Let's go back to 2008 though.

First of all, just for my information, when we were

provided with the mental health records recently,

we were informed that they were gathered by you

because of your position at the mental health unit.

Was that accurate, or has that

changed in the meanwhile?

A. I would say it was more as my

role as the team leader and that I was asked to

provide the information at the Board of Inquiry, so

I made a photocopy of documents and had them at the

base.

Q. I understand. That's really

the first issue. The area I would like to talk to

you first is actually the mental health service

delivery in Edmonton.

A. Sure.

Q. So I would like to understand

the relationship of the various professionals, the

structure, but I would also like to understand the

record keeping arrangements that attach to -- am I

correct in calling it a mental health unit, or does

it have a different name?

A. We call it mental health

services.


10012345

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

678

Q. Mental health services. All

right. Maybe we could just start by having you

tell us: In 2008, what were the components of

mental health services?

A. Mental health services is

basically broken into two broad groups: Primary

and secondary care, so primary care in 2008

consisted of psychosocial services, two programs,

psychosocial services and an addictions program.

The secondary services which are

the OTSSC and GMH, general mental health, would

require -- so the main difference there is the

secondary services are specialty services and you,

theoretically, according to the model, require a

referral to get into the service.

Q. Roughly speaking, and I

understand that this may not have actually

corresponded to what might happen on the day-to-day

basis, but would it be correct to say that roughly

speaking, if someone was looking for primary

support or primary care to deal either with an

urgent mental health issue or an urgent addictions

issue, they would be referred to one of the two

primary components.

A. Yes. Initially, they would


10112345

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

678

be, and at primary care or psychosocial services,

they accept people on -- and at that time,

addictions -- on a walk-in, so there is no

restriction to accessing the care.

Q. So that's the primary,

walk-in, come one, come all. "You think you need

us, we will see you."

A. Correct.

Q. If you want to go from

primary to secondary, you need in theory at least a

referral?

A. Correct.

Q. Sort of like our own public

health service where in theory you need a referral

for a specialist.

A. Yes.

Q. What are the specialties?

A. The specialties would be the

OTSSC or general mental health. If an individual

went into psychosocial services and -- so

psychosocial services provides a number of

services, one of which is counselling and crisis

counselling. For the military, they are called

administrative duties, which are pre-deployment

assessments, post-deployment assessments and


10212345

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

678

assessments for compassionate or contingency moves.

Q. If I can just stop you.

That's sort of like the routine processing of

soldiers coming or going or where there are

specific military events that require some medical

input, is that more or less correct?

A. Yes, more or less. Where are

we going?

Q. I've got you off-track. I'm

just trying to understand what the secondary

treatment facilities and if you would need a

referral for.

A. All right. Should an

individual seek psychosocial services and it's

determined by the clinician that the issues are

requiring more detailed information, a full

assessment by a psychiatrist or a psychologist,

they will initiate a referral in conjunction with

the GDMO or the general duty medical officer to

have a referral to our OTSSC or general mental

health.

Q. I'm going to try to work with

you and the documents to try to figure out that

process for Corporal Langridge.

Before I do that, maybe I could


10312345

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

678

just ask you to explain how the boundary between

the addictions and the psychosocial primary care

would work on a practical level, and let me explain

the question I'm asking and why.

With respect to Corporal

Langridge, we have had considerable evidence

already, and I suspect we will hear more from you

today and maybe from a number of the witnesses that

will follow, about Corporal Langridge's challenges

in the mental health area.

It's clear that he had challenges

in what you are calling psychosocial and it's clear

that he had challenges in which you are calling

addictions. If I understand correctly, which is

always a very dangerous assumption when dealing

with me, both addictions and the major sorts of

conditions you would be dealing with in

psychosocial can be DSM1 diagnoses, so they are

both mental health issues.

A person with addictions issues

falls under one of the DSM1 axis and can be

diagnosed as much. A person with a depression, a

person with anxiety and I suspect a person with

PTSD could have any one or all three of those

conditions also under the axis 1 of the DSM-IV. Is


10412345

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

678

that correct?

A. Sorry. Are you trying to say

that people that are accessing psychosocial

services or addiction services could actually have

a diagnosis under axis 1?

Q. Yes.

A. Yes.

Q. So they are axis 1 diagnoses

potentially and there is a cross-over or one

patient can have challenges -- I will call them

mental health challenges -- in both areas, both

addictions and, let's say, anxiety, depression,

PTSD. We'll just use that cluster for a moment.

A. Yes, a person could have more

than one problem. Okay.

Q. Was there any arrangement in

place to recognize the cross-over, recognize the

possibility of a single patient with a spectrum of

serious mental health challenges, serious enough to

be axis 1 diagnoses?

You are looking at me in

puzzlement, so I'm going to have to explain myself

obviously. I'm still stuck at the entry point

where the primary services are divided between

addictions and psychosocial, and I guess I'm asking


10512345

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

678

whether that dividing line is a bright line or

whether it's a semi-permeable membrane, or whether

it's open season.

A. We use a very collaborative

approach in our mental health services. Just prior

to 2008, the OTSSC, the general mental health, the

psychosocial and the BAC were all in the same

hallway.

The divisions and programs were

more on paper than by people and that actual

clinicians could be double-hatted in programs, so

being in one program versus another doesn't mean

that there is less care or less professional care.

Q. No, not at all. I'm actually

looking in terms of information sharing and

therapeutic collaboration, and I would like to

understand how that was achieved in 2008.

A. Okay. The psychosocial team

and the -- let's call it -- primary and the

secondary teams are regular case conferences.

The secondary team had always an

addiction counsellor present to inform our

treatment regarding addiction issues or

collaborating in the care of any individuals who

had more axis 1 and substance use issues.


10612345

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

678

Q. You have talked about this

collaborative approach. Did that collaborative

approach have a structure for it? Were there

regularly structures for the exchange of

information or was it just a factor of people being

around and you could yell across the hallway?

A. There would be informal

collaboration most certainly. There is a formal

case conference where the team meets once a week.

Q. At those case conferences,

who gets discussed? Does everyone discussed? Is

it like rounds, interesting cases that might affect

various members of the group?

A. Our goal is to discuss or

present all new cases, all discharges, and then any

questions that arise in cases on a regular basis,

so if we are seeing someone for a long time and

they are resistant to treatment or to the -- I

don't mean that in a negative way, but they are not

getting well as quickly as we would like, then they

can be discussed to get the team's ideas and

opinions on maybe other approaches.

Q. Can you help us with the

records for those case conferences? What sort of a

record is kept of a case conference?


10712345

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

678

A. There is a case conference

note.

Q. Here is where I'm going to

need your assistance, Dr. Mohr. I have seen

exactly one case conference note with respect to

Corporal Langridge and I doubt that it's even a

case conference. I'm going to show you the

document. I will get Ms Alexander to call out the

bingo number.

MS ALEXANDER: Tab 3 of the small

book.

MR. FREIMAN:

Q. The big book I have the bingo

numbers. The secret code is only for the small

book. This is, I can tell you, Dr. Mohr, the only

document refers to a case conference, and I take it

is not a --

THE CHAIRPERSON: Excuse me. I

don't think I have -- is it the small book?

MR. FREIMAN: Just so that you

understand, sir, we had some discussion with

probably more heat than light this morning about

new documents. These are the new documents.

Q. As I said, this little sheet

is the only piece of paper that I have seen that


10812345

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

678

even refers to a case conference. There may be at

tab 16 of your big book something that --

A. No, that's the --

Q. It will be around there.

Maybe 19.

A. There is another case

conference note from our mental health secondary

services.

Q. Can you --

A. I'm looking for it.

Q. Fourteen. The mental health

allocation meeting outcome, is that a possible

A. In the big book?

Q. In the big book.

A. No. Would you like me to

explain what this is?

Q. Yes, please.

A. This is an in-house document

that was developed for when we receive assessment

referrals. This note is attached to them and we

have a multidisciplinary case allocation meeting

two times a week, Tuesday and Thursday mornings,

for approximately half an hour, and we read the

referral and try to determine the best course of

action for it.


10912345

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

678

Q. That's sort of at the entry

point into your system.

A. Yes.

Q. I see there are other

instructions, seeing BAC, and it talks about a

psychologist seeing him, and we will get to that in

a moment, but I just want to clarify our record

keeping functions.

The document that I showed you,

tab 3 of the small book, that's also not a case

conference note, is it? It looks like it's social

work note or an additional note refers to a case

conference.

A. Correct.

Q. Even before you find one, and

I'm sure you will be able to, how many case

conference notes should we see with respect to

Corporal Langridge?

A. I would -- well, one, I would

think.

Q. Only one?

A. One from our department

because he would be seen -- there would be a case

conference following the assessment and prior to

the finalization of the report.


11012345

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

678

Q. Let me understand that. What

report are we talking about?

A. If he was referred to our

secondary mental health services, which he was, for

an assessment, at the completion of the data

gathering during the assessment process, that

information is brought to the case conference and

discussed with the team.

Q. We have seen an assessment

authored by Dr. Elwell that he was unable to

complete until sometime after Corporal Langridge's

suicide, would that have been the end product,

then, of the process that was initiated by the case

conference, or is there some other report or some

other assessment?

A. Yes. There was an assessment

scheduled and never completed.

Q. Our discussion is going

exactly as I thought it would and exactly as our

documents do. We are going in a number of

directions. Let's nail that down, then I want to

go back to records.

We are going to see a series of

notes and a series of steps taken starting with the

referral for secondary services that will be


11112345

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

678

accompanied by a case conference note, as I

understand it, to discuss what the issues are, what

the plan to address them are, how the assessment is

going to take place. The intention would have been

to complete a series of tests and other procedures

that you will talk to us about, and at some point

at the end point of the process, Dr. Elwell would

have produced a report that would be responsive to

the initial assessment request.

A. Dr. Elwell or --

Q. Or someone.

A. Someone, yes.

Q. In this case, we will check

in a minute for the exact time that the process was

initiated, but my recollection is that the referral

-- well, we might as well get it right. Thirteen,

yes. Is that the document that would have

initiated the referral for secondary services?

A. Yes.

Q. This document is dated the

12th day of June, 2007.

A. Correct.

Q. We will go through the

schedule. For a moment, though, it's enough for us

to know that the actual report that responded to


11212345

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

678

this referral of June 12, 2007 was completed some

time in April, I think, of 2008 after Corporal

Langridge's death.

In the meanwhile, as you have told

us, an assessment was begun, or a number of tests

were begun -- maybe you didn't say this. The

assessment wasn't complete, and I understand it

wasn't complete because there was still testing

that was to be done, or was there something else

that was being awaited?

A. There was an appointment

scheduled for August with the psychologist, so that

was done, some psychometric testing was done.

Q. Some issues arose, as I

understand, as to the group's confidence in the

assessment itself.

A. Correct. The psychologist at

the time was requested to do more investigation,

conduct further clinical interviews. He was

released from his responsibilities. Then Corporal

Langridge -- there is a note in here somewhere --

was contacted and provided with three alternate

assessment dates, and he chose the latest.

Then he, I believe, did not show

up for that appointment. Another appointment was


11312345

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

678

made, or he cancelled, and another appointment was

made that he didn't show up for, and then he was

seen by Dr. Elwell in the November time frame, yes.

Q. Unless I'm mistaken, there

was no further attempt to complete the psychometric

testing perhaps he had already seen Dr. Elwell.

A. Not after that, not after

that, but it could have been initiated at any time

at the request of Dr. Elwell.

Q. Do I understand correctly

that once Dr. Elwell saw the patient, unless he

felt the need for further psychometric testing, you

would assume that there was no such need.

A. Dr. Elwell or one of his

therapist because it would only be done to inform

the treatment process or try to get to some, like,

added information on a clinical interview, and a

psychometric testing is typically done by

psychologist and not as usually asked for by

psychiatrists.

Also, I think that it should be

noted that in DND, the assessments by a

psychologist and a psychiatrist hold equal weight.

THE CHAIRPERSON: Sorry. They are

which?


11412345

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

678

THE WITNESS: They hold equal

weight. So psychologist can do an assessment and

make a diagnosis. It stands as firm as an

assessment and a diagnosis by a psychiatrist.

MR. FREIMAN:

Q. Does that apply with respect

to PTSD as well?

A. Yes.

Q. We heard evidence from a

physician early on in the process that in his view,

only a psychiatrist can diagnosis PTSD and that a

psychologist or a social worker or any other member

of the medical community other than a psychiatrist

cannot diagnosis PTSD. Do you agree or disagree

with that?

A. I disagree, but it isn't for

me to agree or disagree. It's a matter of your

college and what is in your scope of practice.

Certainly in Alberta in our scope of practice, we

can diagnose.

Q. Just to close the loop, when

we say diagnosis of PTSD, that also applies, of

course, to our diagnosis that there is no PTSD.

A. Correct.

Q. Because I'm skipping all over


11512345

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

678

the place, I think maybe I will pick up a point

that you made, and that was about missed

appointments that that Corporal Langridge missed a

number of appointments that he had been scheduled

to take.

I will look with you in a moment

at the document itself that you gave us just

recently, but before we look at that, am I correct

that missing appointments is in fact a common

behaviour that people with serious mental

challenges, especially with people at risk of

suicide, often indulge in? They just don't come to

appointments

A. I don't know if it's common,

but I would say it isn't uncommon.

Q. Let me refer you to a

document. Do you recognize this cover?

A. Yes.

Q. This is a Report of the

Canadian Forces Expert Panel on Suicide Prevention.

This is one of the documents that we got last

night. I'm going to ask you in a minute about it,

but before we talk about it, let's look at it. At

page 22 under E:

"The first weeks and months


11612345

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

678

after a suicide attempt are a

period of markedly higher

risk for repetition of

suicidal behaviour. This

period should thus be

characterized by intensive

efforts to optimize

medications, engage in

diagnosis and suicidality

specific psychotherapy,

enhance social support,

reinforce coping skills,

resolve interpersonal

conflicts, etc. These

interventions will only work

if the patient consistently

shows up for care. Not

surprisingly, failure to keep

follow-up appointments is

common in patients who go on

to commit suicide.

Patients fail to follow-up

for many reasons, including

ambivalence about receiving

care, limited or slow


11712345

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

678

improvement, chaotic social

circumstances, competing

demands for their time and

energy, treatment

side-effects, and so on.

Their primary diagnosis or

certain character traits may

interfere with their ability

to connect with the therapist

and do the hard work that

effective psychotherapy

requires. Anxiety or

avoidance may also serve as a

barrier. For these reasons,

simply holding the patient

responsible for ensuring

their own follow-up is not a

viable option."

I know that you are going to have

some comment about the strategies followed by your

clinic.

The first point to note, I think

you will agree with me, is that patients at risk

for suicide and those who have recently made an

attempted self harm, it is, as you said, not


11812345

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

678

uncommon that they will not show up for

appointments and the success of their therapy and

their appointments depends on their showing up

consistently for appointments.

The jackpot question is: What

measures did your clinic or the mental health

services have in place with respect to

appointments, follow-up on appointments, and

ensuring that patients got the psychosocial

services they needed?

A. Typically, patients following

a suicide attempt or the disclosure of suicidal

intent, clients are offered daily appointments, so

we would regularly see people -- I mean, it isn't

-- it would be common practice to offer a client

daily appointments or we leave it to the clinical

judgment of the person seeing them and contracts

are made on a session by session basis.

Q. Should we be able to track

both of those situations? Should we be able to

track the number of appointments that Corporal

Langridge was offered and the number of

appointments that he may have missed?

A. On the scheduler?

Q. On this scheduler.


11912345

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

678

A. Yes.

Q. This is another document.

This is a document entitled "Scheduler, Patient's

Booked Appointments." My understanding, Dr. Mohr,

is that you had previously been good enough to

provide us with a document respecting Corporal

Langridge's appointments, but this morning, you

provided counsel and counsel kindly provided me a

fuller version of this schedule that deals with all

of the appointments, not just mental health

appointments.

I have to confess my sins: In the

hour that that I had till I started our discussion

today, I did not have an opportunity to go through

this scheduler in order to see what it disclosed

with respect to appointments.

We know that the suicide attempt

occurred on the 25th of June, 2007. If we can use

that perhaps as a marker for when -- at least on

the suicide part of his diagnosis, he might have

been referred for treatment.

Can you help us to follow through

and see what appointments there were and which

appointments were kept?

A. Okay. I have not studied


12012345

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

678

this document either, but it would look like on

June 26th --

Q. He would have seen Dr. Rajoo,

correct?

A. He was scheduled to see Dr.

Rajoo and did not show up.

Q. That would probably be

attributable to the fact that he was involuntarily

a guest at Royal Alexandra Hospital.

A. June 27th, there was an

appointment with Dr. Tran.

Q. Yes.

A. June 27th, there was an

appointment with Laura Loc who is a mental health

nurse and was working crisis.

Then July 4th with Don Perkins in

BAC.

Q. That's a notation where we

see absent.

A. Absent, correct. There must

have been another appointment because an hour

later, he did show up with an appointment with

Laura Loc.

Q. Who is Laura Loc?

A. Is the mental health nurse.


12112345

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

678

THE CHAIRPERSON: Just so I

understand, are all the appointments on here

related to Stuart Langridge?

THE WITNESS: Yes.

THE CHAIRPERSON: I see the scale

on the side, I just don't know what it --

THE WITNESS: Yes. I requested a

printout off our CFHIS system just prior to leaving

of appointment in case it was of any use.

THE CHAIRPERSON: Just so that I

understand, on the left hand side, RAJ would be the

doctor?

THE WITNESS: Correct.

THE CHAIRPERSON: And underneath

that, the ED-CD, what is that number for?

THE WITNESS: That this would be

the location of the appointment, and then on the

first page, we have the resource and the location,

the type of appointment, the date, the time, the

status of the client, when they arrived, and then

how long they were seen and when they left,

although that part isn't always entered in.

THE CHAIRPERSON: Okay. Thank

you.

MR. FREIMAN: Let's continue.


12212345

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

678

Q. So he saw the psychiatric

nurse on July 4th.

A. Yes.

Q. And then the next that we see

is another July 4th meeting with OSI?

A. That would be with a doctor

OSI or something, I believe, that we had working

there at the time.

Q. Okay.

A. Then another medical

appointment with a Dr. Tran.

Q. Which he appears to not have

completed.

A. Five minutes it looks like.

Q. With Dr. OSI, when it says

"patient left," it looks like it was 29 minutes,

and that would have been on a scheduled hour

appointment?

A. You know, I don't know.

Q. After that, we find August

11th. He is going again to the mental health

nurse.

A. Yes, July 11th.

Q. And on that same day, he saw

Mr. Perkins at the base addictions clinic.


12312345

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

678

A. Correct.

Q. Then again on that same day,

he came and left before the end of an appointment

with one of the doctors?

A. Yes.

Q. Then five days later, who

would LEI be?

A. Okay. That was the

psychologist.

Q. So he had an appointment,

presumably, to begin an assessment?

A. Yes.

Q. Then another appointment with

the doctor, it says patient left on the 18th of

July. Does "patient left" literally mean that the

patient left before the end of his --

A. No, not at all, no. It's

just that whoever was entering the numbers

indicated that the patient left.

Q. Okay.

A. So it could have been the

admin assistant -- at this time, the CFHIS system

was new, all appointments weren't necessarily

registered. There was another two mental health

appointments that I know of with psychology that


12412345

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

678

were not on here.

At that time, our base addictions

counsellors had a walk-in policy and you did not

need an appointment, so people could be seen every

day, two times a day, four times a day. It was

like a personal sponsor for addiction.

Q. I understand. I'm not going

to take us through each and every occurrence. If

Corporal Langridge were being seen on a daily basis

as a follow-up to his suicide attempt, would that

be with the psychiatric nurse? Who would we expect

to see in the code for the service that is offered?

A. It could be any one of the

mental health team. It could be the addictions

counsellors who have training. It could be the

mental health nurse. It could be a social worker.

It could be a psychologist.

Q. I think I have to correct

myself. I had assumed that "patient left" meant

that a patient hadn't made all his appointments,

but if we look at this chart, prior to February

2008, and we will discuss that in a moment, it

would appear that for the most part, Corporal

Langridge presented himself at his appointments as

requested. There are a couple that he appears to


12512345

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

678

have missed, but there were an impressive number of

services he does appear to have --

A. Availed himself.

Q. Yes. For each of these

visits, would there be a record taken, would there

be a chart, a note, something to indicate why he

was there and what happened?

A. There should be.

Q. If I were looking to find

these notes, which I can tell you I do not believe

I have seen a single one of, or maybe there are a

couple -- sorry. There are a couple because we are

putting a whole bunch of things in here together,

and we will look at some of them, but I can't

confidently say that I have not seen anything close

to the number of notes or even indications of

attendance that the scheduler would suggest should

have been created. Where would the notes be kept?

A. The notes would be in the

addiction file or the psychosocial services file or

the mental health file.

Q. My understanding this morning

that each of those files was searched.

A. Was searched?

Q. That was my understanding.


12612345

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

678

Counsel informed us that in response to requests

that we have made for, first, all the medical

records, then with more precision for all the

mental health records, then for more precision for

all the addictions records, then with even more

precision for notes of any and all case conferences

including the case conference in early March 2008

that all of those searches have been conducted and

have produced the records that they have produced.

A. Okay. I can't comment. I

don't know what happened to any files.

Q. But just to be clear, the

normal practice should be that when there is a

medical appointment, somebody makes notes of it.

A. Correct.

Q. And says what happened at

that meeting. I think I interrupted my

interruption of an interruption at the point where

we were going to discuss the follow-up mechanism

that the mental health services has. If we go back

to the suicide prevention document, at page 22,

there is a handwritten note in the margin that I

suspect is in your handwriting.

A. Yes.

Q. Which says, "Clinic and + we


12712345

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

678

telephone every no-show or PCNS."

A. Correct. I guess you want to

explain what that --

Q. Yes.

A. Okay. If a client that we

deem to be at risk, no-shows -- actually, I will

correct myself. If a client no-shows for an

appointment, it's the clinician's responsibility to

try to contact that client by telephone, and if

there is a reason to be alarmed, then the clinician

would follow-up with the PCN or the primary care

nurse of the unit that the service member is

affiliated with to try to alert them.

Q. You are going to have to be

extremely patient with me while I try to find a

document.

A. Okay.

Q. Tab 35. You had started the

chronology, and in my backwards way, I will

complete by going to the beginning later, but we

are right in the middle of the story, and this is

for an appointment or a series of appointments --

A. Correct, with psychology.

Q. -- with psychology. Putting

one and one together, I either get two or 11, I had


12812345

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

678

deduced that this is a record of the attempts to

follow-up with Corporal Langridge for his

psychological testing.

A. Correct, and prior to the

panel on requesting clinicians and no other person

to contact a member if there is at a missed

appointment, right? If that's where you are going.

Q. No. Not in the least.

A. There. I'm not psychic.

Q. However, I do want to

follow-up on it. I just wanted to establish, first

of all, that that was these appointments were

about.

We know that with respect to the

date of October 10th, I believe we know, that was a

date upon which a military police person was sent

out from the unit by the RSM to find Corporal

Langridge because he had missed a medical

appointment and that was the instance at which the

person dispatched found Corporal Langridge in a

drowsy state, difficult to awaken, he lapsed into

sleep, was even more difficult to awaken was

subsequently taken by her to the Royal Alexandra

Hospital yet again for what turned out to be a

three day stay subsequent to what was thought to be


12912345

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

678

a suicide attempt.

That's just to give you the

background. So I guess we will start where you

thought I was going to go, but I hadn't though of

it, but I'm going to ask you: Under the new

protocol, would the regimental sergeant-major would

the military police be involved in follow-up for a

missed appointment?

A. They could be in some

situations.

Q. I'm struggling just to

understand what the change in the protocol was and

what motivates only a clinician contacting the

patient.

A. Not only. In this case, the

clinician doesn't know Corporal Langridge yet,

okay? For everything other than first assessments,

the clinician knows and has a relationship and has

built some rapport with their clients.

We ask clients or gauge on a

session by session and make notation in the patient

update note if there is any suicidal or homicidal

intent. That's just the way we do business in

secondary health service and I believe that's now

been implemented in psychosocial.


13012345

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

678

If you have a client that is

considered high risk, that is, has indicated to you

that there is suicidal intent, and you have

difficulty getting a hold of them from a missed

appointment, it would be likely that the clinician

would try to call, I would say, first the PCN, the

primary care nurse, because they are likely

involved, and then the primary care nurse acts as

the liaison with the unit.

Q. Maybe you can't tell us yet

because we haven't gone through the entire trail,

but was it clear to the psychology team, the

clinicians who were in charge of the testing, that

there was a potential suicide risk involved with

Corporal Langridge?

A. I don't know. I believe that

in the draft report that was a month earlier, that

was denied, but I don't know what happened.

Q. Let's, then -- -

THE CHAIRPERSON: Mr. Freiman, in

the next 5 minutes or so, when you find time for a

break.

MR. FREIMAN: Perfect. You have

anticipated a natural break insofar as there is

possible for the one to be in this examination.


13112345

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

678

THE CHAIRPERSON: We will break

until 3:00.



MR. FREIMAN: Mr. Chairman, I seem

to have the role of apologizing at the beginning of

every speaking opportunity today, so I'm going to

apologize on two bases.

First, I'm going to recognize that

my friend Ms Richards has informed me that contrary

to my representations that we don't have the notes

for hardly any of Corporal Langridge's medical

appointments, she assures me that we have the notes

for most, if not all, of the appointments.

Far be it to contradict the

statement that I'm not in a position to verify, so

I accept that. We will do a reconciliation and

come back and indicate whether there are any

discrepancies and if there is still some records

that we can't find, so I do apologize if I have

misstated myself and thereby embarrassed anyone.

Secondly, I have to apologize to

the witness because I'm going to sit down for a

couple of minutes. I know Colonel Drapeau has a

matter he wants to raise, and it will likely be of


13212345

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

678

very little interest to the witness, but there we

are.

THE CHAIRPERSON: Is this matter

best addressed now or at the end of the day without

the witness?

COL (RET'D) DRAPEAU: Your

discretion, Mr. Chair. I want to enter something

into evidence, which is a letter from Mr.

Hargreaves.

THE CHAIRPERSON: I think it's

best without interrupting the witness. I think

it's fair. I do want to hear it.

MR. FREIMAN: So my third order of

business is that I'm informed that I have not

entered into evidence a couple of the documents

that we have been referring to, so I would ask the

Registrar to assign an exhibit number to the

documents that's marked "Scheduler" that we have

been looking at.

THE REGISTRAR: Exhibit P-42 for

the Patient's Booked Appointments."

EXHIBIT P-42: Patient's

Booked Appointments

MR. FREIMAN: The final document

that needs to be entered separately is a photocopy


13312345

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

678

of a report entitled "Report of the Canadian Forces

Expert Panel on Suicide Prevention."


EXHIBIT P-41: Report

entitled "Report of the

Canadian Forces Expert Panel

on Suicide Prevention."

THE CHAIRPERSON: Did we not

already have -- is it a completely different

document than the one we have before?

MR. FREIMAN: Absolutely.

THE CHAIRPERSON: So it's a

complete different --

MR. FREIMAN: The scheduler.

THE CHAIRPERSON: No, no, the

suicide prevention. It's a completely different

document.

MR. FREIMAN: Completely

different. The document that appears in the

collection that the Commission prepared for you and

for the witness was entered in there. It's an

American publication on suicide prevention,

although I may have a question or two that arises

from that as well.

MS RICHARDS: The affidavit?


13412345

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

678

THE REGISTRAR: Yes, it was

entered earlier as P-43.

MS RICHARDS: Thank you. My

apologies.

MR. FREIMAN:

Q. I'm only going to ask you

questions about that, Dr. Mohr. Since I read the

book, I might as well get some joy from the

pleasant two hours that I spent.

I would like to, then, take us

back to the beginning of the process that we have

been describing. In the break, I have, by the way,

verified and it is a document in our collection.

Dr. Elwell's report, which is back end of this

process we are about to talk about, appears at tab

48 and it's dated April 8, 2008.

I'm not going to refer to it right

now, but so you can satisfy yourself, that's where

it ends. What I would like to do now is to look at

where it begins.

There is a couple of possibilities

that I would like to go over with you just so that

we can be on the same page and be sure that we both

have the same understanding.

The first document I would like


13512345

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

678

you to look at is at tab 15. This is a medical

referral and certification. This arises from a

failed drug test for Corporal Langridge. The

reason that I ask you about it is that it begins

with the notation:

"I acknowledge that I have

been directed to report to a

CF medical care provider for

assessment regarding use of

illegal drugs (cocaine)."

Would this be a referral that

would send the member to your clinic, to the base

addictions clinic, or to the base addictions

counsellor, or would it send the soldier simply to

a family practitioner associated with the CDU?

A. With the medical

practitioner, yes.

Q. If I understand correctly,

the first step from this process would be for

Corporal Langridge to go see Dr. Rajoo who was his

family physician.

A. Or some doctor.

Q. Some doctor.

A. Yes.

Q. In the event, it was Dr.


13612345

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

678

Rajoo. Let me just see if I can find the next

relevant document. This will take me a moment.

Look at tab 13. This is a

document that is dated June 12th, and it's a

referral from Dr. Rajoo, and it's a referral for

28-year old male, lowered mood, lowered -- I don't

know what "CJ" is -- lowered appetite, no suicidal

ideation, no harm, lowered libido and reflects his

medications.

This document precedes the medical

referral that we just looked at tab 15, so it can't

really be in response to that referral, but it does

refer the patient to Dr. Elwell, who is the

psychiatrist.

We have a request for a medical

referral, would this second document, the document

at tab 13, be the document that initiates the

process whereby Corporal Langridge is assessed?

A. Yes.

Q. If we look at tab 14, and

here is where I get confused. This is the medical

health allocation meeting outcome, and you told us

that this typically is the document that initiates

the process, allows the members of the team to

confer about the patient and at least to start


13712345

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

678

thinking about a treatment plan. Am I right?

A. Yes. We receive this 2006,

which is the consultant's request; this from Dr.

Rajoo at tab 13 comes into our clinic. This mental

health allocation meeting outcome is -- this is

strictly an in-house ease of use form for our case

allocation meetings and was actually developed by

one of the admin assistants because they -- well,

to protect the document.

It serves as a cover for this

information on the 2006, which is confidential, and

provides, then, the admin assistant with just the

outcome of our meeting like who to book with and

who should see the client first, whatever. It may

say a lot. It may say first available and nothing

else.

Q. Let's add one more document,

and I'm going to need assistance for the tab

number. Tab 13 of your slim book of document.

This is a document that is dated

one day prior to the mental health allocation

meeting outcome and it appears to be, again, a

military referral -- we will read it together.

It's dated 13th June, 2007, signed by Don Perkins,

who is the program manager and a base addictions


13812345

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

678

counsellor. The first line of Mr. Perkins's note

is:

"You have requested/or have

been assessed as requiring

attendance at the Secondary

Substance Intervention

Workshop. This is considered

a medical appointment."

And it talks about what is

necessary for attendance.

I draw your attention to this

because it appears to be me to be the only form

that indicates that base addictions is involved in

the treatment of Corporal Langridge before we get

to the mental health meeting outcome, and indeed if

we look at the mental health allocation meeting

outcome, under "Other instructions," we see "Seeing

BAC."

At this point, what we know IS

there is a request by Dr. Rajoo that appears to

pre-date any involvement with addictions because it

is -- let's make sure that we are correct, but I

think I'm correct. I think that request is made on

the 12th.

A. 12th of June, yes.


13912345

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

678

Q. Shortly thereafter on the

13th of June, Don Perkins makes his first entry

onto the scene dealing with addictions, and then on

the 14th of June, Corporal Langridge is discussed

at --

A. At our case allocation.

Q. -- your case allocation. Can

you take me through this document to let me

understand what's happening now and what the plan

is based on the meeting?

A. Based on our mental health

allegation meeting?

Q. Yes.

A. Is that we were preparing to,

based on the referral, start with a psychology

assessment, so we at different times receive

referrals with the name of a psychiatrist or a

psychologist or for one program over another, and

it remains up to the discretion of the team to

determine who they are going to see first.

In this case, it was decided that

he would go through a psychology assessment, that

he was seeing BAC, while he is waiting, and that he

would see Laura, mental health nurse, for weekly

appointments until he received his psychology


14012345

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

678

assessment.

Q. Obviously you can't tell from

this document, but, typically, what would be the

reason for adding a weekly meeting with Laura until

he got his psychological assessment?

A. There might be a few reasons.

I don't know in this case because I don't know, but

I could say broadly that if the client requests to

be seen, if we deem that there is a need for them

to be seen because of the length of time to get the

psychological assessment, if they need care, we

provide care in the meantime.

Q. The reason I'm taking this

laborious tour through is I have yet to really any

information about Corporal Langridge in any of the

documents other than he needs a psychiatric

assessment because of a number of, sounds like,

irregular mood matters.

We have seen the base addictions

clinic has seen Corporal Langridge as well and

clearly, that was communicated to the meeting, but,

again, you don't know. But, typically, what else

would be available to help think through the

treatment plan?

A. That he would have had some


14112345

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

678

appointments. I don't know what would have

prompted the SSI workshop, but it wouldn't be

unusual for somebody to be toying with BAC -- I

mean that in that they may by ambivalent about

whether or not they want to stop their substance

use and they are coming in to meet with an

addictions counsellor or perhaps the unit has told

them if they have been in trouble or they are

suspected of alcohol misuse or substance misuse of

any kind that they should see an addictions

counsellor or that they have been caught with

illegal substances or have been intoxicated or some

substance misuse. They would have been sent to

BAC, so I would expect there to be some BAC

information prior to this because there would have

had to be, I believe, a meeting.

Q. You have anticipated,

actually, my next my question. Can you, with

reference to your scheduler, identify any good

candidates for the kinds of meetings that you say

you would have expected to have happened before the

case conference? We certainly see a meeting with

BAC with Don Perkins on the --

A. -- the 11th.

Q. And on the 13th.


14212345

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

678

A. Yes.

Q. I don't see the 11th. I do

see the 13th.

A. Let's see. And a July 4th,

an appointment that was missed.

Q. But what I'm asking is --

A. Oh, this is June. Sorry. I

apologize.

Q. What we are looking for is

some indication that somebody was preparing some

background for the folks who were going to think

through what happened or what's going to happen

next. Let me ask you a different thing.

A. The June 5th appointment with

Don Perkins.

Q. Yes. Let me just ask you a

different way: Would you expect there to be a

medical file that would accompany a presentation at

the first assessment or the --

A. -- first meeting.

Q. First meeting, your team

meeting, the mental health allegation meeting.

Rather than spending a lot of time, here is what

I'm looking to try to understand: Would the

referral to you, which we see appears to be on the


14312345

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

678

basis of Dr. Rajoo's note about some mood issues,

would that turn Corporal Langridge into a patient

of the mental health services multidisciplinary

team to address his mental health concerns, or

would it turn him into a person referred for a

psychological assessment by a psychological

clinician? Are you treating him, or are you

assessing him?

A. Okay. We start treatment

with an assessment.

MS RICHARDS: I'm not interrupting

or objecting. I'm wondering if I can be of

assistance.

MR. FREIMAN: Please.

MS RICHARDS: Because we do have

another medical note which I think will shine light

on the issue you are trying to get around, which

is, as I understand it, is why did he go to mental

health on June 12th.

If you may recall, we have heard

evidence and there is a medical note that I can

refer you to. I think it may assist your

questioning, that on June 4th at his regular

appointment at the CDU, Corporal Langridge

requested a medical release, and I believe the


14412345

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

678

evidence before the Commission is that that was

what precipitated the referral to mental health. I

hope that assists you to --

MR. FREIMAN: It absolutely does

assist me.

MS RICHARDS: And that just for

the record is --

MR. FREIMAN: Dr. Tran, June the

14th.

MS RICHARDS: That is Document

1127, page 9, I believe. I apologize. I hope that

assists.

MR. FREIMAN: Actually, that

allows me to really cut to the chase.

Q. Based on that, would there

have been an understanding that the assessment

that's being asked for is an assessment in aid of

determining whether Corporal Langridge should be

given medical release from the military?

A. It could be. We wouldn't

know based on that referral that he had requested

release. It could be that -- was it from Dr.

Rajoo, or whoever sent it, knew that and perhaps

Corporal Langridge complained of those problems and

the medical officer wanted to rule out that there


14512345

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

678

were no problems.

Typically if somebody is known to

have medical problems, the military will keep them

until there is some resolution.

Q. Again, let me be sure that I

understand: In an instance where a soldier is

referred to you secondarily to a request for a

medical release, in a situation like this one, you

are going to get a referral that simply asks for a

psychological assessment. Doesn't necessarily say

the soldier wants out of the army.

A. Right, and in this case, no.

Q. Your understanding is that

one of the goals of sending such a soldier to have

an assessment is to get a clearer picture of what

his medical condition is and whether it warrants a

release or whether it warrants treatment before

there can be a release. Did I understand that

correctly?

A. It could. I don't mean to

infer that every soldier who asks for a release is

referred for a psychological assessment.

Q. No. In this case, as my

friend Ms Richards's pointed out, the medical

records do seem to indicate that you have a request


14612345

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

678

to have a medical release and there is a subsequent

referral for a psychological assessment.

A. Yes.

Q. If you were back in Edmonton

and at the clinic, would you be able to follow the

chronology of what happened to Stuart Langridge by

pulling up a file that says Stuart Langridge that

would give you in one place all the events that

happened with him after he was referred for a

psychological assessment?

A. No. I will explain that if

you like.

Q. Please.

A. What I did not mention about

psychosocial services is that psychosocial

services, an individual when they go, they have

their own file. That file is completely

confidential, so the medical officers or the

physicians are not privy, the chain of command is

not privy to the information in that file.

Addiction has its own file as

well, and then when a client is referred to mental

health services, we start a file, and that file --

each session is documented, but it may be scanned

now as it stands now into the CFHIS into the main


14712345

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

678

medical document, the 2034 because once you are

referred for a mental health assessment, if there

are conditions that would affect your employment,

we call them MELs, medical employment limitation,

or if you are a danger to yourself or others or

unable to do certain parts of your job, it has to

be documented, so that is not confidential.

Q. I think you have told me

something I didn't know before. You have the main

medical file.

A. Yes, the 2034.

Q. You have a mental health

file?

A. Correct, for secondary

services.

Q. For secondary services, and

would that have been the file that you went through

in order to help Ms Richards compile -- sorry. It

would probably be Ms Babin who is doing the

compiling to help the Department of Justice to

compile the records that the Commission had asked

for. Would it be the mental health file that you

produced to us?

A. The mental health file, yes,

or what I had left of it.


14812345

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

678

Q. Who else would have a portion

of the file?

A. That is a mystery to me. I

don't know. It would have gone into --

MS RICHARDS: I have some recent

information on that. While you may have known this

already, but I am advised that once a person is

deceased, and I believe it's only the Canadian

Forces, their medical files is sent to Library and

Archives Canada, and it is maintained at Library

and Archives Canada for a period of 99 years, so

earlier this morning when I referred to the fact

that inquiries have been made of both Library and

Archives Canada as well as the department, that is

why I expressed my confidence that numerous and

multiple inquiries have been made for the medical

file.

THE WITNESS: Yes. So what I had

and produced was simply the documents that I needed

to prepare for the Board of Inquiry because prior

to that, I had no knowledge of Corporal Langridge.

MR. FREIMAN:

Q. Let me just be clear: You

had no knowledge at all about Corporal Langridge

prior?


14912345

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

678

A. He was not a client of mine.

Q. Were you present at any

meetings, any case conferences where he was

discussed?

A. I do not remember exactly,

but I attend most of them on Thursdays, so if I was

there on that Thursday, we don't keep a record of

who is in attendance.

Q. We have discovered that.

Let's move on though. We have dealt with the main

medical file and we are pretty confident we have

all of that. We have now talked about the mental

health file, which we now understand we have your

portion of it, the portion that you relied upon to

assist the Board of Inquiry. There may be some

more of it elsewhere.

A. There could be.

Q. You said psychosocial keeps

its own records as well?

A. Correct.

Q. Where are they housed?

A. They are housed in the base

clinic, and then when the individual is posted, the

file goes with them to the next clinic or upon

request or its placed in a dead file, and then I


15012345

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

678

think it might be sent to the archive too if the

client is released or deceased.

Q. Finally, you have the base

addictions clinic material. Were you involved in

the search that produced some documents for us

yesterday from the base addictions clinic?

A. No.

Q. Where would the BAC files be

housed physically?

A. The same at the psychosocial

files. They are collocated in the same building

and they are the --

Q. In the same building but in

difference office, I take it.

A. Yes, in a different office,

different file cabinet.

Q. Thank you. That really

clarifies matters and we will make it easier for

discussions trying to locate the missing documents.

Given that you weren't his

clinician, I'm not going to ask you questions that

I thought might be helpful to the Commission, but I

do want to ask you this: From your description of

the typical process, should I conclude that the

people performing the psychological assessment


15112345

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

678

would not necessarily be involved actively in

treatment, wouldn't have full treatment knowledge?

Again, let me clarify: I think we

have established that at least one purpose of the

psychological assessment whether known to you or

not was for purposes of evaluating a request for a

medical release that was made by Corporal

Langridge.

I'm going to characterize that as

a non-therapeutic purpose.

A. And unknown to us at the time

of --

Q. You weren't. When you

compiled the assessment especially if you don't

know what it's going to be used for, do you

consider it to be a therapeutic assessment?

A. Used, yes, to inform.

Q. To inform whoever the

treating clinician is going to be.

A. Correct. Is there a mental

health disorder or not? If so, what can we find

out that will aid treatment, and the information

would be revised session by session.

Q. We know that that evaluation

was not completed for a number of reasons.


15212345

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

678

A. Correct.

Q. I guess what I'm trying to

understand is whether when we are looking for,

then, for treatment decisions specifically geared

at some of the behaviours exhibited by a soldier in

the position of Corporal Langridge, would we be

looking to the mental health team for understanding

of the treatment, or would CDU practitioner who was

the primary point of contact for Corporal

Langridge? Who is quarterbacking the treatment?

A. The physician.

Q. The physician. Okay. In

this process, what role does Dr. Elwell play

therapeutically?

A. Consultant to the physician.

Q. From the material that you

have and from your recollection, were you aware

that Corporal Langridge had a history of a suicide

attempt?

I know you weren't his treating

clinician, but you sat in on a number of meetings.

Can I assume that you were generally familiar with

some of the challenges that he presented for his

treatment team?

A. Yes. I can't remember


15312345

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

678

specifics, but in general way.

Q. I am trying to put my finger

on whether anyone in that treatment team would have

been aware of the suicide risk.

A. His addiction counsellor.

Q. Yes. My next question is:

Would that knowledge have been shared within the

mental health services community, that Corporal

Langridge was a suicide risk or had a suicide

history?

A. I think that's documented in

the psychosocial notes of Shannon Newing and of --

I cannot remember specifically if I read by Dennis

Strilchuk.

Q. Yes. In fact, we have a

number of other notes. I want to draw your

attention to some of them. Again, I'm probably

going to need a good deal of assistance.

I have, unfortunately, two more

loose documents, and these are my fault, nobody

else's, that I didn't include in your book of

documents. They have been distributed and are on

the table.

They are both on stationery headed

"Mental Health Services, Patient Update Report."


15412345

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

678

They are dated 11 January and 18 January. These

are Mr. Perkins's notes and Mr. Perkins was a base

addictions counsellor, and at least in one

document, he signed himself as a program manager.

I really just want to look at the

second part, not the case notes, so much as MSE.

What does MSE mean?

A. Mental status exam.

Q. We read:

"Risk Assessment, high.

Assessment and Plan, member

has attempted suicide before

and I believe he is at

extremely high risk at this

time. Recommend alternative

(Medical Intervention) for

this member."

Would this be the sort of report

that would come to the attention of a weekly

meeting of the mental health team?

A. It may, but it would more

likely be that Mr. Perkins would have brought this

to the attention of the primary care nurse to

provide some medical intervention, like,

immediately.


15512345

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

678

Q. We see a similar mental

status assessment on the 18 January document, and

it says:

"Risk Assessment, High,

Assessment and Plan, member

has attempted suicide before

and I believe he is at


time. Recommend alternative

(Medical Intervention) for

this member."

When you read medical

intervention, what do you understand by that?

A. I would interpret that to

meaning that the quarterback, as you called him, be

involved or the primary care nurse who works in the

care delivery unit or some other -- that they

consider forming him if they cannot get an

agreement, a contract by the individual.

Q. What I was trying to clarify,

and I think you have clarified for me is that the

weekly meetings or the regular meetings of the

mental health services team would not be crisis

intervention meetings. They wouldn't be designed

to fix a problem that was discovered by one of the


15612345

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

678

members.

A. No.

Q. Let me fast forward, then,

with you, and you will be relieved to know we have

just ditched about an hour's worth of boring

questions. Let's move forward to March 2008.

You have seen in a document that I

have shown you wherein the note that there was a

conference apparently on the 7th of March and

certain decisions were taken. Let me see if I can

find it for you. It looks like this. Does it have

a number? Number 3 in the little book.

A. Okay.

Q. Is this a BAC document?

A. Yes.

Q. We have been unable to

identify who the author might be.

A. I believe that that would be

Leo Etienne's writing.

Q. He is the one person that I

was very sorry has testified before we had a chance

to talk to him about this.

Just to clarify a couple of this

for you: If there is note on March 5th and we know

that the member was on the base by the 5th of


15712345

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

678

March, March 7th is a Friday, am I correct in

assuming, then, that this may be a note that

records what would have happened the day previous?

A. Could be.

Q. Would there normally be a

case conference on a Friday morning?

A. Oh, no. No, it would be

Thursday typically, but unless the addictions

counsellors had their own case conference, I mean,

we don't know. It could have been a discipline

specific conference where they brought up --

Q. From what we heard from Mr.

Etienne, and we weren't in possession of all the

information that we are now, it seems unlikely that

there was an addictions specific case conference.

A. Okay. Then it may have been

a case conference the day before and that it may

have been either a psychosocial because they have

case conferences on Thursday, they are collated

with addictions, or it may have been at our

secondary mental health services.

Q. We have to start parsing the

very few documents that we do have. Let me start

by asking you whether you have any recollection of

a case conference in March 2008 dealing with


15812345

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

678

Corporal Langridge and options for further steps in

his treatment?

A. No, I don't have specific

recollection.

Q. We know from a number of

documents that there was at least a request by

Corporal Langridge to be admitted for residential

treatment. We know that there is an Alberta

Hospital note that says the Alberta Hospital was

willing to keep Corporal Langridge in hospital

until such a residential treatment could be

arranged, but according to the Alberta Hospital

note, the military wants him back are the words

that we have seen in the note.

We have also seen a nursing note

stating that Corporal Langridge was returned to the

base for a trial of good behaviour to see if he was

capable of going on a residential treatment course.

There seems to be a good deal of controversy about

any further facts and about what they mean, but

those at least are details that we have seen from

notes in one document or another. We will rely on

just what was in the documents.

Does that series of circumstances

and issues refresh your memory at all about any


15912345

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

678

discussions that might have occurred about Corporal

Langridge's future?

A. No, because treatment is

typically, at that time, was discussed and decided

usually between the base addiction counsellor and

the physician and/or the base surgeon.

Q. We also have a note from Mr.

Etienne from elsewhere saying that he was going to

take this question to the case conference.

A. Whether or not --

Q. There are two questions, I

think. First was the initial request for him to

receive treatment in British Columbia at

Edgewood, and in an anticipation

of that, to be given a day off to visit with his

mother at his expense and then to go off to

Edgewood.

We have a note from Mr. Etienne

that says, "We will take to case conference." We

believe in addition to that, there was the request

by Corporal Langridge about treatment quite aside

from whether he was going to British Columbia to

visit his mother. Mr. Etienne has told us that he

believes he took that to a case conference and his

recollection much else is pretty fuzzy other than


16012345

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

678

that Dr. Lamoureux might have been involved. If we

know that Dr. Lamoureux was involved, does that

help us to identify what sort of a case conference

it might be?

A. No. It may have been a

meeting on the base. Unfortunately, many things

can be referred to as a case conference. Dr.

Lamoureux would be involved as a signing authority

and to give physician authority and approval for

the Edgewood treatment and he is also a signing

authority on the base as the deputy base surgeon in

a civilian position.

Q. Let me ask me the last

question that arises from this: The suggestion

that is quoted in the March 7th note that "member

needs to stabilize before being sent to treatment

so that he will be successful."

Do you recall any discussions

about attempting to stabilize Corporal Langridge?

A. No, I don't, not

specifically.

Q. Do you recall anything at all

about Corporal Langridge in and around March 2008?

A. No, I don't.

Q. Let's move on to the BOI.


16112345

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

678

You were requested to assist the BOI. Can you tell

us what the contact was that you received and what

you understood the BOI wanted to have from you?

A. It was a Major Parlee who

contacted me. I believe there might have been a

request for mental health records. In my role as

the OTSSC program lead, I was asked to review them

because the assessment report was unfinished or

never completed. I may have been asked to explain

some mental health terminology.

Q. The BOI draft report, because

I don't believe the final report has been issued

yet, comes to a pretty definitive conclusion. It

says the panel concludes Corporal Langridge did not

have PTSD. Was that a conclusion that you voiced

or an opinion that you voiced as part of your

testimony at the BOI?

A. I don't recall conclusively

saying he had or did not have PTSD, although the

documents I reviewed did not indicate to me that he

had PTSD.

Q. If I can differentiate

between a number of statements, there is a

statement that says individual X has PTSD, there is

a statement that says individual X does not have


16212345

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

678

PTSD, there is a third statement that might say --

and I'm not suggesting they are said by the same

person. These are just a range of possible

statements.

There is third statement that

might be said there, "I have seen no proof that

Corporal Langridge has PTSD," and there is a fourth

statement that could say, "I have seen no proof

that Corporal Langridge does not have PTSD."

How many of those statements would

you be able to make, based on your review of Dr.

Lai's incomplete report?

A. Strictly, strictly speaking

by the DSM-IV-TR, I would say that I see no proof

that Corporal Langridge had PTSD.

Q. Am I correct that that is a

less forceful statement in saying Corporal

Langridge did not have PTSD, or is it not?

A. That would be less forceful.

Q. Let me just ask you again in

general in terms of understanding the review

process. I'm not going to take you through all the

various tests and results and the grammatical and

spelling errors that might come into a report, but

if I understood correctly, one of the questions


16312345

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

678

that arose in your mind with respect to the work

that Dr. Lai was assuming disconnect between the

interview data and the test data and that that

disconnect needed to be explored or explained.

A. Correct.

Q. Am I correct that you never

had an opportunity to interview Corporal Langridge

yourself?

A. You are correct.

Q. And you never had a chance to

see him in a therapeutic context at all.

A. Correct.

Q. Insofar as there had to be a

harmonization between the interview data and the

test data, that at least would have required

someone to do an interview or to have done an

interview and that wasn't done. I'm not suggesting

you should have done it, but you didn't have the

benefit of that.

There is also an observation, I

believe, in what you did and looking at the

marginal notes that refers to an inconsistency with

a report past history as reported in previous tests

and previous questionnaires that have been filled

out.


16412345

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

678

I just want to take you to a

couple of those because they --

THE CHAIRPERSON: Mr. Freiman,

before we do that, I just looked at the time and we

have a witness sitting in the wings, and if we are

not going to get to him today, I would like to

release him. I don't know where we are at.

MR. FREIMAN: I suspect I have 10

more minutes, no more than that, and I'm not sure

how much time my friends have.

COL (RET'D) DRAPEAU: Maximum 10

minutes.

MS RICHARDS: I think I may have

more.

MR. FREIMAN: If you have more

than 10 minutes, then I think, as reluctant as I am

to release the next witness, because I don't want

to cause problems, I think we will have to do that.

THE CHAIRPERSON: Yes. I believe

there is a flight returning late in the afternoon

tomorrow, so if we could deal with him first thing

in the morning. He has been here for a little

while.


understand that he has a number of friends in the


16512345

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

678

area and he might be very pleased to have an

opportunity to renew those.

MS RICHARDS: There is just one

issue that I will just raise now and I know Mr.

Freiman is aware of this. However, I think we have

to proceed with caution in the continuing

discussions.

Testimony that Dr. Mohr gave

before the Board of Inquiry is not receivable

before this Commission and I think Mr. Freiman is

walking at line very carefully, but I would just

put that on the record, again, that it's not

appropriate to put to her what she testified before

the Board of Inquiry, although the same subject

areas can be canvassed in a different way.

MR. FREIMAN: I don't think that I

have asked a single question about what Dr. Mohr

actually said at the Board of Inquiry.

MS RICHARDS: I think you didn't

intent to, but it was --

THE CHAIRPERSON: We might have

skirted the one question around the PTSD, but

that's fine.

MS RICHARDS: That's it. I just

raise it so that we are all cognisant of that


16612345

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

678

restriction.

THE CHAIRPERSON: We are close.

Could somebody take care of Mr. Perkins and we will

start -- we have the other issue tomorrow maybe,

but it's close to 9:30 as we can.

MR. FREIMAN: The other issue may

turn out not to be very time consuming depending on

who appears to take part in the discussions. I can

tell you: I think it's true that we have made a

good deal of progress that will allow us to deal

with that issue very quickly in the absence of

other participants in the discussion.

THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. We

will proceed.

MR. FREIMAN: Dr. Mohr, we are

within sight of the finish line. I should have

actually used the opportunity to see if I could

find the document in question. If you give me a

minute, I will find it, and I just have a couple of

quick questions about it.

THE CHAIRPERSON: While he is

looking, I won't have forgotten about your request

to read at the end, Colonel Drapeau.

MR. FREIMAN:

Q. Just remind us where we are.


16712345

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

678

I said that I had formed the impression from the

notes that I saw that one issue you had with Dr.

Lai's report was the inconsistency between some of

the history and some of the narrative given to Dr.

Lai with what had been recorded in previous

interviews and previous tests. Am I right about

that?

A. Yes.

Q. I would like to take you to

tab 11, which is a -- I think it's a summary of a

previous test or series of tests. This would have

been 2004, 2005, at a material time -- sorry. It

would be after or about the time that Corporal

Langridge was returning from a deployment.

A. Yes. Tab 10 is what's called

the Enhanced Post-deployment Screening

Questionnaire. Every soldier between four to six

months post-deployment is provided with this, and

it's computer scored, and what you have at tab 11

is the computer scoring of that.

It's a series of questions that

have embedded in it scales of depression, anxiety,

post-traumatic stress disorder, physical health and

other areas of functioning.

Q. One of the things you would


16812345

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

678

have done when assessing Dr. Lai's report would be

to compare these results and these answers with

some of what was indicated at around the time that

Dr. Lai was perform his testing.

A. We may have, yes.

Q. There isn't a lot that I want

to do with this, but I just want to take you to

page 3 of 11, which is the second side of the first

page at tab 11.

This is called the Enhanced

Post-deployment Screening: Survey Report

"Snapshot," which I understand is sort of an

executive summary. This is condensed down to a

level of no detail just some conclusions and some

assessments.

A. Right. When it's finished

and computer scored, this document is provided to a

mental health clinician and each soldier has a

confidential one hour meeting with the mental

health clinician. It would flag, perhaps, areas of

interest.

Q. We know that if not based on

this survey than based on another one, there was a

decision to refer Corporal Langridge to some

follow-up because of some answers that he gave. I


16912345

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

678

don't think it was this one.

A. It was after his first

deployment.

Q. Right. On this deployment, I

would just like you to look at the top box, "Mental

Health Diagnoses."

"Depression, no.

Suicidality, not at all.

Panic attacks, none. Panic

disorder, no. Generalized

anxiety, no. PTSD

likelihood, low. Problem

drinking risk, low risk."

On the basis of this snapshot, we

would expect to see a mentally healthy individual

who at least does not report any behaviours and

doesn't answer questions in a manner that is

consistent with depression, suicidality, panic

attacks, panic disorders, anxiety, generalized

anxiety, and is unlikely to manifest signs of PTSD

and is at a low risk with problems with alcohol.

Let's take out the PTSD for a

moment. I would like to suggest to you that we

know from subsequent records that Corporal

Langridge was depressed clinically. We know that


17012345

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

678

he did attempt suicide. We know that he was

subject to panic attacks. Don't know whether he

was ever diagnosed with a panic disorder, and

certainly that he was diagnosed with general

anxiety and that his drinking was described as

chronic and that he was in fact an alcoholic.

It occurs to me that if one were

to base one's predictions of the future on a

document like this, one might be gravely

disappointed. Would you agree with me?

A. It doesn't seem reflective of

what the future.

MR. FREIMAN: Thank you. Those

are my questions.

THE CHAIRPERSON: Just before you

go on while we are right at this thing.

QUESTIONS BY THE CHAIRPERSON:

Q. In looking at the questions

at tab 10, obviously, this is a self assessment, if

you want it call it that.

A. Yes.

Q. The questions, I don't see

anything here that specifically asks about drugs or

alcohol or of any -- maybe it's five or six.

A. Yes, on page 12.


17112345

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

678

Q. I haven't got that far yet.

Okay. There we go. It really boils down to how

much an individual would want to -- regardless if

it was Corporal Langridge, but any of the soldiers

that took it depends on how much they want to

divulge of their personal self in the survey.

A. Absolutely, yes.

Q. The scoring of that kind of a

-- especially if somebody who has some problems, it

would be difficult to pick that out, wouldn't it,

unless you had some additional information?

A. Correct, that's why no

psychometric test can be used or should ever be

used in isolation of a clinical interview. They

are only used to support information that you get

or, you know, to tease it out, give you extra

information. They are not ever to be used

independently.

THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. I'm

sorry. Colonel Drapeau?

COL (RET'D) DRAPEAU: Thank you,

Mr. Chair.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY COL (RET'D) DRAPEAU:

Q. You said that at DND, not

only at base Edmonton, if psychologists or


17212345

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

678

psychiatrist could make a diagnosis of PTSD,

correct?

A. Yes.

Q. What is it that you as a

psychologist could not do?

A. Prescribe medication.

Q. That's the only difference.

A. Yes.

Q. Would your methodology to

diagnose PTSD be roughly the same as what a

psychiatrist would use?

A. Yes, the clinical interview

would be very similar.

Q. You would access the same

information; you weigh it in the same matter pretty

well?

A. Correct.

Q. How long, then, would it take

you to do a PTSD diagnosis? Walk me through the

phases or the activities you have to do.

A. We would do a clinical

interview for either psychology or psychiatry.

That would be the bulk of the assessment process.

Q. So somebody just came on your

radar today with the -- you need to make a


17312345

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

678

diagnosis, so you would interview him first.

A. Correct.

Q. How long would that be?

A. Two to three hours for a

first interview, and if we don't make it through

all questioning --

Q. When you say we, you mean you

are assisted by somebody?

A. I.

Q. Two or three hours?

A. Correct.

Q. Then what's next?

A. So a psychiatrist, then, may

formulate the information that they gathered during

the clinical interview to make an impression and

then a diagnosis based on the 5 axial system that's

used in the DSM-IV diagnosis, so axis 1 is where

you would diagnose a major depressive disorder,

PTSD.

If you were unsure, you might rule

out PTSD or rule out major depression or rule out

schizophrenia or anything that you were unclear of,

and that you would see a person in subsequent

sessions. So you may see them for more clinical

assessment or you may start to see them right away


17412345

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

678

in treatment and then formulate your hypothesis and

continue to refine it over subsequent sessions.

Q. Would it be right to say that

there is common cases that are complex and others

that are more apparent, straightforward?

A. Correct, yes.

Q. So a straightforward case

would take you how long from start to finish before

you could sign a report?

A. A straightforward case would

entail the three hour interview. If a psychologist

was doing it as opposed to a psychiatrist, there

would be some psychometrics to --

Q. How long does it take?

A. That's another couple of

hours.

Q. Okay.

A. Then any corroborating

information that we may have found out might be a

good thing to collect that could, you know, change

the timing, and then that would be it, a report

could be dictated or --

Q. A more complicated would take

you more time?

A. Yes.


17512345

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

678

Q. And you have to meet the

individual again in a clinical setting before you

could make up your mind.

A. That's true.

Q. And consult with colleagues,

presumably, too?

A. Yes. We don't really have a

deadline on that because in more complicated cases,

we would continue to see the person. There is no

rush, theoretically. There is no rush on the

diagnosis because the difficulties they are

presenting with, you attempt to be helping them

therapeutically with those on a --

Q. Help me again. I presume if

you make a diagnosis of PTSD, they would be a

scale, some people at the initial stage suffering

part of it and other people really, really -- it's

evident that they are suffering and they are a

victim of and the severity of their symptoms is

such that --

A. Yes, it ranges. For PTSD, I

will just give you a snapshot of this. It may be

important. There are 17 symptoms that are in the

criteria. You need six across three areas on a

continuum of mild to severe to meet the criteria


17612345

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

678

for a diagnosis.

Q. I'm talking about the case

that there is not the extreme where there is no

doubt that a person -- but some of those which are

borderlines sort of thing. Possibly you could make

a mistake either by diagnosing someone with it or

not diagnosing someone with it, or are you

medically certain that --

A. As much as you might be on

any mental health disorder because I think that you

could see a number of psychiatrist for -- and I'm

not talking about this case or PTSD, but with a

variety of symptoms and different people may come

to it with a different angle.

In the case of PTSD, one thing

that makes it easier as opposed to difficult is the

disclosure of a traumatic event, and that is, in

this case, if I speak specifically, that Corporal

Langridge denied that there was a traumatic event

on his --

Q. In your practice, because you

have a considerable amount of experience, is it

possible that people could come to you and for

whatever reason do not disclose or only disclose in

part what may have affected them in their lives?


17712345

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

678

A. Yes.

Q. So it's self-disclose, but if

somebody doesn't want to for a variety of reason,

then your diagnosis is based on not faulty, but

based on partial information.

A. Correct.

Q. Certainly, Stuart Langridge,

you don't really know if that is the case or not?

A. I do not.

Q. Is it possible for you to

make a diagnostic of the PTSD from just reviewing

the file, somebody's works, somebody else's

opinions? Can you arrive at a -- if not a

diagnostic -- a confirmation of diagnostic by just

looking at the file without ever seeing --

A. I think that you could make

an impression and provide an opinion, but I would

not deem to make a diagnosis base without seeing a

person.

Q. What do you mean between

impression as opposed to opinion?

A. This would relate to the BOI.

Q. I'm talking in the abstract.

A. In the abstract, if myself or

another clinician were reviewing a file, you may,


17812345

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

678

based on what you read, come to a series of

impressions of what was going on. You may form a

hypothesis and, you know, a working hypothesis,

say, until you met the person.

COL (RET'D) DRAPEAU: That's all

my questions, Doctor. Thank you very much.

THE CHAIRPERSON: Ms Richards,

just so that you are aware, I have a note and we

have some issues just for tomorrow, so we are

probably going to do Mr. Perkins today.

MS RICHARDS: Thank you, Dr. Mohr.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS RICHARDS:

Q. I understand from your

testimony that you have been with the Canadian

Forces mental health clinic for 10 years.

A. Correct.

Q. In the course of that 10

years, can you give us an idea of how many cases of

PTSD you have been involved in diagnosing or

treating in the order of magnitude?

A. I don't know, many.

Q. In terms of the experience

within your mental health clinic, is it fair to say

that the Canadian Forces mental health clinic would

be cutting edge or a leading clinic in terms of


17912345

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

678

diagnosing and treating PTSD?

A. Yes, especially combat

trauma.

Q. I just wanted to take you

through some of the documents you have provided.

At tab 1, you have been given an OTSSC assessment

interview. Can you explain what this is?

A. Okay. Several years ago,

many years prior to this document, a committee was

stood up -- let me see if I get the name right --

standardization for the assessment and treatment of

-- it wasn't called operational stress injury,

PTSD maybe or mental health disorders.

Our goal was that if a service

member was referred for an assessment to our OTSSC

that regardless -- and there was five in Canada --

of which centre they were referred to, they would

receive approximately the same clinical interview

and the report on their main med doc would be

similar across Canada.

Q. If I could get you to turn to

page 4 of 12. There is a portion here that refers

to PTSD.

A. Correct.

Q. We have spent a fair amount


18012345

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

678

of time in this hearing today talking about PTSD.

I'm wondering if you can help us by explaining, as

a treating or diagnosing clinician, what is it that

you are looking for when you meet a patient and you

are doing this assessment and intake? What are the

signs and symptoms of PTSD that you are taking into

consideration?

A. In a clinical interview, you

would have asked the individual: "What brings you

in today? Why now?" If you said, "I'm having

intrusive experiences since I got back from

Afghanistan. I haven't had a good night's sleep.

I'm having nightmares of this incident. I was

involved in a blast, say."

You would get the history of that,

and then on the next page here. "So you

experienced a blast or you were in a LAV being

blown up." That would suffice as a criterion A

event, so you would look for that -- not

specifically, but some event that was considered

traumatic, so outside the range of normal human

experiences.

Q. In terms of the criterion A,

because we have heard a lot about that, I have

heard it defined as an event that induces fear,


18112345

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

678

horror and helplessness. Is that a clinical term?

A. Yes and no. It's part of the

DSM-IV-TR criteria, so it isn't enough that you

experience a traumatic event. Most soldiers,

actually, return from Afghanistan and have been in

many events that maybe you or I would consider

traumatic and anecdotally, I can say that I have

heard them say to me, "Oh, I finally got to do what

I trained to do for so many years. It was

exciting." They had an adrenaline rush, et cetera,

and they didn't develop PTSD. But for some

individuals, that isn't the case.

Their response to the traumatic

event is that it has induced in them intense fear,

horror, a sense of helplessness in their ability to

-- or fear of death for themselves or for others,

right? So that's sort of the part two to the

traumatic event, so it's quite a bit more intense

than, "I was really stressed out on my tour."

Q. Once you have that, is there

anything else that you look for?

A. If we are considering a

diagnosis of PTSD, that they meet -- and they are

actually outlined on here, so, B, you need to have

one of the following of B, three of the C,


18212345

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

678

avoidance, and D, two of the hyperarousal criteria.

However, what else we look for is

-- and what's very pertinent to a diagnosis of PTSD

is that these symptoms need to be related to the

trauma somehow, so we look for qualitative

information that demonstrates the relationship.

I will give you an example like

dreams, say. "I have nightmares all the time.

Okay. What are they about?" In PTSD, the

nightmares will typically be of the specific

incident or incidents or they are going to be

thematic, that would be very common.

Q. Is that the kind of

information you look for when you do your

assessment of the patient?

A. Absolutely, and that's the

kind of information that I would expect in a report

to give it the robustness needed for the diagnosis

rather than it looking like a checklist of

symptoms.

"I feel depressed. I have poor

concentration." "'How is your concentration have

been effected prior to now? At work, I used to be

able to multitask, now I can't," and some flushing

out of the symptoms.


18312345

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

678

Q. In your 10 years experience

in treating in particular soldiers who are coming

there, are they generally able to provide that type

of information?

A. Yes.

Q. You were asked some questions

about the enhanced post-deployment screening.

A. Correct.

Q. Can you just explain, I think

you may have, what is the purpose of the enhanced

post-deployment screening?

A. The enhanced post-deployment

screening was initiated in 2002 to help prevent --

for a lack of a better word or phrase -- soldiers

falling through the cracks, so it gave us at mental

health services and at DND medical services a

systematic approach to interviewing each and every

soldier post-deployment, to give them the

opportunity the get help if they needed help, and

as the gentleman pointed out, it's based on what

they say. If you don't want to disclose, there is

nothing -- we can only work with the information

that's given to us.

But at a period of four to six

months, each soldier and in part of their unit and


18412345

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

678

also this was brought in to help decrease

perceptions about stigma because everybody in the

unit comes in, so every soldier comes in and fills

out this questionnaire, it's computer scored, and

then is given the opportunity for a one hour

confidential interview with the mental health

worker. During that hour, they can disclose any

difficulties that they might be having,

post-deployment or about anything else for that

matter.

Q. Why is it four to six months

after they come back?

A. Because right after

deployments, many soldiers experience common

reactions. They may have dreams. They may be

angry and irritable. Those are some common

symptoms. They are common is in the short run and

we like to emphasize to soldiers that they are not

normal in the long run, that it isn't expected to

live with chronic distress and that we would expect

those common reactions to fall out in the time

period by four months to six months.

Although, actually, in their third

location decompression, it's emphasized to them too

that should they ever be uncomfortable with any


18512345

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

678

symptoms, they have access to mental health

services at any time.

Q. Commission counsel took you

to the reference in here to the PTSD likelihood.

Is this screening intended to catch possible

post-traumatic stress disorder in soldiers?

A. Not specifically, but it does

have embedded in it a post-traumatic checklist.

Q. Have you had a chance to look

at this?

A. This specific one?

Q. Yes.

A. I have glanced at it, yes.

Q. One of the issues that is

being discussed or one of the assertions that

Corporal Langridge, I believe, had made while he

was alive, we see self-reported that he may have

PTSD arising from his deployment in Afghanistan.

As a clinician, when you see this

enhanced post-deployment screening report, is there

anything in here that you would look at to see

whether that's likely or not?

A. Yes, I would look at

definitely the -- I would look at the whole thing

and I would definitely look at, of course, the


18612345

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

678

likelihood of PTSD, but other things that would

load on it would be, you know, the anxiety.

So if a person didn't want to

disclose, you know, that a traumatic event or they

couldn't remember it or whatever, they may have

other symptoms and we would want to follow through

on those just to make sure.

Q. In this case, if I could ask

you to turn to page 7 of that report, there is a

heading here that says "PCL-C(PTSD Checklist)"

A. Right.

Q. What do that results here

tell you as a clinician?

A. It looks like that this is --

that symptoms were endorsed and the event that was

being -- maybe, this is only speculation as an

index events, say, was as part of private life. It

says stressful event occurred as part of private

life and not something on the tour; that's on page

7.

And that the score 32 and the

basement score on the PCL is 17. If you endorse no

to every item, you have a score of 17.

Q. Sorry. Mr. Chairman, I think

we are talking about two different reports because


18712345

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

678

you are looking at 5, which is the -- just for the

record, the one you were looking at tab 5 is the Op

Palladium. That was post-Bosnia.

A. Yes. So this score is even

lower and it's 23.

COL (RET'D) DRAPEAU: Where would

I find this?

MS RICHARDS: Tab 11, page 7.

Q. Again, Commission counsel had

asked you about whether or not these results in

2005 were a good predictor of future mental health.

Is that the intention of this?

A. No, it's a snapshot, as any

assessment. And as I also mentioned, that even

after an assessment should there be -- should it

become clear in therapy or subsequent treatment,

that maybe the diagnosis is incorrect, it can be

amended. There is no --

Q. Of course. Of course, I

would assume there could be intervening events

after the 2005 report that would impact on a

soldier's mental health.

A. Could be, yes.

Q. If I could just ask you to

look at the draft psychological assessment at tab


18812345

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

678

17. You have just referred to this briefly that

you were asked to comment on it. My understanding

is that there was a case conference at which Dr.

Lai presented this draft assessment to the treating

team.

A. Yes.

Q. Do you have any information

about that?

A. Just what was documented in

the case conference note, which there wasn't enough

information -- or it wasn't clear based on the

information provided the team nor in this draft

document to make a definitive diagnosis for PTSD.

Q. Do you know what the

recommendation was as a result of that?

A. To continue to see Corporal

Langridge. I don't remember exactly, but was to

continue the assessment or interview process to

determine whether or not there was PTSD or if it

was the symptoms were better described under a

diagnosis of major depression, and I think marriage

counselling was --

Q. You said lack of information,

do you know specifically what the lack of

information was that the treatment team was


18912345

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

678

concerned about?

A. That there was no criterion

A, there was no traumatic events discussed in this

report, that the tour to Afghanistan was described

as more hectic and intense and some scary moments

but did not actually witness any shootings or

events nor did he have to deal with critical events

at close proximity, so it's likely that Mr. Lai

brought that up and it was determined that, you

know, more investigation needed to be done to rule

out in case there was something that he was not

disclosing and make appropriate diagnosis.

Q. In your clinical opinion, is

it possible to diagnose somebody with PTSD if there

is no report of a criterion A?

A. No, because we diagnose

according to the DSM-IV. That's not to say that it

may not have come up, you know, five years later or

two years later.

Sure, there are instances of

people having PTSD and not disclosing a criterion A

event for whatever reason, but you need it to make

the diagnosis, so until you have that, you would be

diagnosing something else.

Q. You have had a chance to


19012345

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

678

review the full medical record for Corporal

Langridge, is that correct?

A. Yes.

Q. In terms of treatment, and I

think you were asked some questions from Commission

counsel about what difference does a diagnosis

make. You have seen the treatment that Corporal

Langridge received through the course of his

medical records. Would a diagnosis of PTSD alter

that treatment based on your clinical opinion?

A. He was receiving treatment

from Ms Newing, an approach called DBT that would

have been best suited for his problems at the time.

From what I gather, there was a lot of chaos,

problems with coping strategies, and regardless if

he had been diagnosed with PTSD, the first phase of

treatment would be to try to help him settle out

some of the chaos in his life because he wouldn't

have been stable enough likely to deal directly

with trauma treatment.

So at some point in PTSD

treatment, you need to directly talk about the

trauma, which it's our intention to have somebody

in as good of frame of mind and stable enough. So

if you had PTSD and if you were using alcohol or


19112345

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

678

substances to avoid thinking about the traumatic

event, then we would have to deal with that to some

extent so that we could then go further in the

treatment for trauma.

Q. I think you answered my next

question, which was going to be: What impact, if

any, would alcohol or drug use have on your ability

to treat somebody for PTSD?

A. It would prevent the

treatment of the traumatic event. Yes, you need to

be straight to get the best out of treatment and to

have the insight to make changes that would be

necessary, in treatment, in general.

Q. You were taken to a note, I

don't think you need to go back to it, but it was a

note on March 7th talking about stabilization

before Corporal Langridge was sent off to rehab.

I understand your testimony was

you don't know about that specific incident, but as

a clinician, are you familiar with that concept of

stabilization and what that would mean for a

patient before they go for treatment?

A. There is different kinds of

stabilization, so in this place, I don't know, but

I know that we do send clients away indeed for


19212345

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

678

addiction treatment and detox them, that for

addiction treatment, prior detox isn't a

prerequisite, that failure in a prior program

doesn't prevent us from sending a client again for

treatment, so stabilization could have referred to

certain motivational factors, perhaps, with respect

to termination of substance use.

Stabilization could also mean

getting personal, you know, whatever events in your

life might have been in turmoil. If he had just

come out of being away for a month, maybe he needed

a few days to clean up affairs, maybe learn some

coping strategies. Because it was such a

relatively short period of time for an unsuccessful

first visit, they wanted to work on motivation to

ensure the success of the second visit.

Q. You had said that it's

possible to send a member for a second rehab

treatment. In your experience at the clinic, does

that occur that the Canadian Forces will send

members for more than one attempt at rehab?

A. Absolutely.

Q. Why do you say absolutely?

A. We have no limits. We have

no limits on psychotherapy. We have no limits on


19312345

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

678

number of sessions. If we can't provide the

service, we will pay to have you outsourced. DND

really take seriously, I believe, the medical

treatment of the service members and they have

taken it upon themselves to provide all the medical

treatment, so there is no -- we keep trying.

Q. I understand you have

reviewed Corporal Langridge's medical records, you

have provided us with this detailed scheduler list

of the number of appointments he had. As a

clinician and somebody who was in a team leader

position in and around that time, do you have any

concerns about the level of medical treatment or

care that was offered to Corporal Langridge?

A. On the face of it, it looks

like he received a fair amount of medical

appointments, attended a fair amount of medical

appointments. The team was concerned, you know,

that the addiction counsellors were concerned about

suicide as everyone is, whoever has a client that

expressed suicidal intent.

I feel that everything that could

have been done was done, although those words may

fall empty in the light of what happened.

MS RICHARDS: Thank you. Those


19412345

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

678

are all my questions.


RE-EXAMINATION BY MR. FREIMAN:

Q. A couple of questions

arising. My friend Ms Richards took you through

some of the comments and observations that were

made at the case conference regarding Dr. Lai's

draft report.

Did I understand correctly that

the major criticism was that not enough had been

done in the interview process in order to rule out

PTSD, that there remained matters that needed to be

explored before you could either rule in or rule

out PTSD?

A. Correct.

Q. That would have been

accomplished by means of additional interviews.

A. It could have been.

Q. But it needed some more work.

Am I correct in saying that on the current state of

the psychometric and clinical interviewing

documentation, there was more work that needed to

be done?

A. Yes.

Q. I wanted to ask you, and this


19512345

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

678

is with respect to disclosure of a criterion A

incident. In your experience, are soldiers open

about their emotional life, or are they closed

about their emotional life, as a class? Can you

make a generalization or not?

A. I could say that as a class,

we have very healthy young men.

Q. I don't think that's actually

what I was asking. I was asking whether as a

class, soldiers by virtue of their culture, maybe

by virtue of their health are likely to find it

easy to express their own emotions and emotional

issues that may exist in their lives or can you not

make a generalization?

A. No, I wouldn't make a

generalization. I would say that we have noticed

anecdotally in the clinic that men and women

service members are coming in earlier for

treatment, that it seems easier that the new cohort

of men especially would be more in touch with their

emotional feelings and more inclined to talk about

them than the older cohort.

Q. Let me put it a different

way: If we had it has a hypothesis and not as a

fact, but if we were looking at the speculative


19612345

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

678

hypothesis that a soldier might be holding in

certain information, especially information that

was especially painful for him, in order to know

whether that was the case or not, am I correct that

what would be called for would be good interview

technique and persistent and sensitive questions

aimed at eliciting the kind of information that was

necessary or ruling out the possibility that there

was anything being hidden?

Am I also correct that that's the

one thing that Dr. Lai was not able to do to your

satisfaction?

A. Or did not report it in that

report, yes, and that we tried subsequently, then,

to have another psychologist follow-up on.

Q. As we saw, that never

happened for a number of reasons, and we saw that

in fact, not showing up at medical appointments is

not surprising for a person with suicidal ideation,

and we also know that there were a number of

hospitalizations in the interview as well.

A. Correct.

Q. In your discussion with Ms

Richards about PTSD and its influence on treatment,

I think as you went through the discussion, your


19712345

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

678

view appeared to be, and please correct me if I'm

wrong, that in the initial stages of treatment,

there wouldn't be a great deal of difference.

A. Yes.

Q. Whether one was dealing with

PTSD or anxiety or anxiety with depression. You

still have to do the same things. You have to do

the same work?

A. Yes.

Q. Insofar as Corporal Langridge

was concerned, what would be done for him or

attempted to be done for him would be roughly the

same.

A. Yes.

Q. One goal of the psychological

assessment is obviously to provide tools for a

clinician to better treat the soldier in question?

A. Yes.

Q. The more you know, the easier

it is to treat.

A. Yes.

Q. Where the assessment was

never completed, so it wasn't available for Dr.

Elwell if he would have wanted to rely on that for

treatment, but even if it was available, whether


19812345

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

678

you said PTSD or did not say PTSD, at least for the

initial stages, it wouldn't have made much

difference for the goal of helping the therapist to

treat the patient.

A. I don't think so.

Q. We know, though, that there

was a second goal for this psychological

assessment, and we have seen that that was in order

to help evaluate the medical release, that Corporal

Langridge had expressed an opinion about wanting,

correct?

A. Yes, I guess, that was new

information to me.

Q. In terms of that goal, there

is a difference, isn't there, as to whether there

is an assessment of PTSD or not? I want to suggest

to you that if there was is a PTSD assessment, that

kicks in the potential for a number of benefits

associated with the medical release that would not

be there if the cause of the anxiety or the

depression was, as you mentioned in your discussion

with Ms Richards, the result of private life as

opposed to tour, that's correct, isn't it?

A. If the mental health issues

are the result of operational duties, correct.


19912345

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

678

Q. That does really make a big

difference.

A. It could, yes.

Q. Finally, I would like to

discuss with you some of what Ms Richards asked you

about stabilization and your understanding and you

had some hypothesis as to what stabilization might

mean in a context like this.

First, let me just clarify. You

were dealing with this in the abstract and as a

hypothetical rather than having any knowledge of

what the actual stabilization involved would have

been.

A. Correct.

Q. Some of the suggestions that

you made related to clearing up clutter in the

soldier's personal life as it were.

A. It could be.

Q. Bringing order to chaos or

more order to chaos. That's one possible

stabilization goal. Another is improving

motivation and making the soldier more open to the

experience to which he was about to be exposed.

Just put those to the side.

There has in the past been


20012345

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

678

suggestions that stabilization might also mean

detox, or I think you quite rightly said that some

of the residential programs in fact combine detox

with treatment. Are you familiar with the fact

that the program at Guelph Homewood in fact is one

of the programs that that does both detox and does

treatment.

We won't talk about that as a

possible meaning of stabilization. Based on the

other things that you proposed, then, during the

period of stabilization, would you as a clinician

expect that some measures would be put into place

whose goal it was to achieve those results, that

the stabilization would feature something, some

initiative designed to bring order into the chaos

of a chaotic personal life?

A. I would infer that

stabilization would include some -- that there

would have been plans as to how it would occur,

whatever stabilization meant.

Q. The same would be true if the

goal was motivation. There would be some plan to

achieve that stabilization.

A. Yes.

Q. I hesitate to do this because


20112345

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

678

you are not -- this is out of your discipline, but

would a structure involving reporting every two

hours, in your clinical judgment, respond to any of

those goals of stabilization? A soldier is asked

to be physically present at a stated location and

report in every two hours.

A. That sounds like somebody was

worried about suicide.

Q. Yes. And sleeping in a room

in the command structure with the door open and

visible to the duty desk. Would that, in your

clinical judgment, be a therapeutically designed to

achieve stabilization in the sense that you were

talking about?

A. That would not be under the

hospice of a mental health clinician to arrange

something like that.

Q. It wouldn't be a recognized

treatment that you are aware of for the issues that

we are talking about.

A. It wouldn't be a recognized

treatment insomuch as we or couldn't order that but

may recommend to the client or the chain of command

-- that would not likely be us -- but to the

primary care nurse or the physician that the


20212345

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

678

individual needed to pull in some personal

resources to keep them safe or herself safe.

Q. You have returned to it, so

I'm going to return with you. In your estimation,

then, my impression is that you see these measures

as having a more likely connection with a fear of

personal causing harm to himself rather than as

part of a therapeutic program.

A. On the face of it.

MR. FREIMAN: Thank you.

THE CHAIRPERSON: Ms Richards or

Corporal Drapeau? Anything?

COL (RET'D) DRAPEAU: No comments.

MS RICHARDS: I just have an issue

arising from that last line of questioning that you

had with Commission counsel.

Q. He put some hypotheticals to

you about stabilization and certain conditions. If

added to that hypothetical you were made aware that

a patient while he was hospitalized for 30 days at

the Alberta Hospital had been routinely using

cocaine, prior to these conditions being put in

place, would that at all change your opinion or

view on what those possible conditions were aimed

at?


20312345

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

678

A. Perhaps, then, because they

may have been trying to prevent use of illegal

substances.


THE CHAIRPERSON: I believe that

ends our requirement and testimony for you and I

want to thank you, Doctor, for your attendance and

patience.

I want to thank you very much for

the work you do.

THE WITNESS: Thank you.

THE CHAIRPERSON: What I'm going

to take literally a 5 minute break. When we come

back, Colonel Drapeau, you can deal with your issue

that you want dealt with, and then we will call on

Mr. Perkins.




COL (RET'D) DRAPEAU: Mr. Chair, I

have a letter which I would like to enter into

evidence and with your leave, I would like to read

it for the record, please.

THE CHAIRPERSON: We are going to

make that an exhibit.


20412345

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

678

THE REGISTRAR: Yes, that will be

Exhibit P-44.

EXHIBIT NO. P-44: Letter

dated April 18, 2002.

THE CHAIRPERSON: Is there a copy

for me?

THE REGISTRAR: You didn't get a

copy?

THE CHAIRPERSON: No.

THE REGISTRAR: I'm so sorry.


COL (RET'D) DRAPEAU: This letter

is signed by Michael G. Hargreaves, a lawyer with

the firm Jones Emery Hargreaves and Swan in British

Columbia dated April 18, 2002, as addressed to me,

or at least to my office, Michel Drapeau, law

office. And it refers specifically to the Federal

Court action T-1953-11. And I read.

"I hereby confirm that I am

the solicitor of Sheila Fynes

and Shaun Fynes with respect

to the above-captioned

Federal Court action

commenced by us in Vancouver.

In March of this year, I


20512345

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

678

received instructions from my

clients to offer to

discontinue the action

against all defendants on the

basis that the defendants

would waive any entitlements

to costs.

"The result of those

instructions was that I spoke

with counsel appointed by the

Department Of Justice and

conveyed that position. The

response that I received was

that a discontinuance would

not be acceptable but that a

consent dismissal order with

no costs payable by any party

would be agreeable.

"I obtained instructions to

agree to that outcome and so

advised the Department of

Justice. Matters were left

on the basis that the

Department of Justice would

draft and send to me for my


20612345

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

678

review and approval the

documents required to give

effect to the settlement,

that is to say a consent

dismissal order.

"As of March 23, 2012, my

clear understanding, based on

my discussions with Mr. Alma

of the Department of Justice,

was that we had an agreement

to end the Federal Court

litigation by way of a

consent dismissal order

without costs, as I advised

you by e-mail on March 23rd

the only remaining issue

related to the precise

language to be contained in

the order. Unfortunately, on

March 27th, 2012, Mr. Alma

sent to me by fax certain

documents to give effect to

the assessment. Included

within these documents and

not the subject of prior


20712345

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

678

discussion was a form of

release to be executed by Mr.

and Mrs. Fynes both in their

personal and representative

capacities. At no time prior

to receipt of this facsimile

had there been any discussion

between Mr. Alma and myself

with respect to a release.

"I subsequently spoke with

Mr. Alma and pointed this out

to him. He explained to me

that he had assumed that the

release would be part of the

disposition of the action.

He acknowledged to me that he

had not raised that with me

during our discussion, and

that it had not been referred

to by either side at the time

that we had come to an

agreement.

"I last spoke with Mr. Alma

this morning, following up on

conversation I had with him


20812345

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

678

on April 12, 2012. As of

April 12th, Mr. Alma

indicated to me that he would

be seeking instructions to

proceed with the settlement

without the necessity of a

release. I have consistently

maintained to Mr. Alma since

receipt of the release that

we have a settlement that

does not require nor include

a release and that I expected

his clients to honour the

agreement.

"I spoke with him this

morning to see whether he had

yet obtained further

instructions and he advised

me that he had not. I

confirm that I am ready,

willing and able to give

detailed evidence with

respect to the negotiation

that resulted in what I view

as a binding agreement


20912345

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

678

whereby the Federal Court

action which we commenced on

behalf of the Fynes is to be

dismissed by consent, with no

costs payable to any party.

In my view, the only reason

this has not yet been carried

out into complete effect is

the attempt by the defendants

to unilaterally alter the

terms of the agreement after

the agreement was made.

"I am quite happy to provide

a statutory declaration or

other evidence as you may

deem appropriate.

"Yours truly, Michael G.

Hargreaves."

And a copy was sent to Glenn

Standard, yourself, sir, by e-mail this afternoon

and a copy also Sheila Fynes by e-mail.

THE CHAIRPERSON: It's noted that

it's read into the record. No further comment from

you on that, other than that?

COL (RET'D) DRAPEAU: No further


21012345

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

678

comment, Mr. Chair.

THE CHAIRPERSON: Mr. Freiman,

anything to add? Or Ms Richards?

MS RICHARDS: All I would add is

obviously since I have been given this, the counsel

for the department or for the government of Canada

has not been -- I assume, he is not copied on this,

has not been shown a copy of this. I don't know

what his position is on it. All I can say for the

record is that it does appear that there continues

to be a dispute between the parties with regard to

this issue. I am hopeful that this will be

resolved quickly, but until I have information that

it has been, this doesn't change my position.

THE CHAIRPERSON: Has this been

forwarded to Mr. Alma?

COL (RET'D) DRAPEAU: I cannot

speak to that, Mr. Chair. My friend may want to

provide a copy to Mr. Alma. I certainly have no

problem. It's part of the public record now. But

I cannot speak for Mr. Hargreaves.

THE CHAIRPERSON: I would expect

that it's your client that you may wish to you get

that to Mr. Alma. You have had the discussion with

him. I think that I can't.


21112345

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

678

COL (RET'D) DRAPEAU: I will

arrange for that.

THE CHAIRPERSON: You have control

of the document. I can't control what Ms Richards

does with the document.

COL (RET'D) DRAPEAU: Consider it

done.

THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. I

expect more to follow. Mr. Freiman, your next

witness?

MR. FREIMAN: I take this as a

continuing adventure in flight. Our next witness

is Mr. Don Perkins.

SWORN: DON PERKINS

THE CHAIRPERSON: Welcome, Mr.

Perkins. You may be seated. And sorry for the

long delay. I appreciate it and hopefully we will

get you out of here so that you can do your

business tonight.


Q. Mr. Perkins, thank you for

your patience. I apologize for the lateness of the

hour, but sometimes these things happen. And since

today seems to be my day for apologies, I also want

to warn you in advance that we may have to go a


21212345

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

678

little slowly because we have a whole bunch of

documents and not all of them are in one place and

I'm still digesting some of them. I believe you

have in front of you a book of documents and I

would ask that the registrar or someone just like

her place the second volume of the new documents

that might be helpful to Mr. Perkins.

THE REGISTRAR: It's Exhibit P-43

which was distributed this morning.

MR. FREIMAN:

Q. Mr. Perkins, by way of

getting us started, can you tell us a little bit

about your background in the military and your

background as an addictions counsellor going up to

2008 after the spring of 2008? That's as far as

you need to go.

A. I started in the military in

1970 working as in the finance field and kind of

got into an addiction problem myself by the late

70s. I had a severe car accident and finally was

-- while I was in Toronto was offered to go to

treatment again at which time I did, and I guess I

got it right. The resulting of this led to me

getting curious about why I had an addiction and I

started working for the base education officer at


21312345

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

678

the time who I got posted to Ottawa.

And it was a gentleman by the name

of Major Perry, or Lieutenant Commander Perry over

at NEHQ, pardon me. And he seemed to like what I

did and they started sending me to different

training courses, first as an educator and then

they started sending on counselling courses all the

time as a secondary duty to my finance trade. I

continued doing this in Ottawa and continued with

it when I was posted on ship in the west coast.

When I was alongside I would work with the base as

their assistant base alcohol counsellor. They

continued to train me and in 1991, I got out of the

military, went to work as a executive director of a

treatment program in Calgary. Worked for there 18

months at which time I left there for a year, came

back and worked for the Department of -- or Health

and Welfare Canada with their First Nations

communities. I would a zone consultant for Treaty

7 for alcohol and drugs.

Stayed there for a number of years

and when I left there I took over as training

coordinator of an organization called the Society

of Aboriginal Addictions Recovery where I would

provide training in different communities through


21412345

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

678

contractors that I hired.

Upon leaving that -- I left there

as the director of the program, executive director

of the program. And from there, I had applied for

a job to work at the base in Edmonton and went

through the competition and won the competition

there. And that was in 1999. And from 1999 till

the date in question, I was working there as an

addiction counsellor. That's the short form.

Q. I'm sure there is many

colourful additions to that short form. Can you

help us by describing what a base addictions

counsellor does?

A. What our role is, in a lot of

cases, the medical people identify people who might

have an alcohol or drug problem. If they see this,

they usually refer them over to our department for

an assessment. We perform an assessment on the

individual and look at severity of an illness, if

there is one, and advise the doctors on an

appropriate level of care for that individual.

One of the -- we had a good very

relationship with the doctors on the base and a lot

of times if we found that there was indeed a

dependency issue, they would go along with our lead


21512345

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

678

and arrange for the necessary treatment to be done.

Q. I would like to talk to you a

little bit some of the duties, responsibilities,

limitations of your job as a base addictions

counsellor. First, are you able to order treatment

on your own?

A. No.

Q. So if you form the opinion

that a member has a problem that requires

treatment, what do you do?

A. What we do is we develop --

we have an assessment that we come up to a

diagnosis of dependancy or not. What we do is we

write it up through the use of assessment

instruments and an intake form that we do with the

individuals. We write that up and we send that

recommendation in to the doctors recommending that

they do take treatment.

With us on the base, we had a lot

of latitude with that in the sense that the

doctors, I guess, were competent or felt confident

in what we were doing. They saw us as the experts

and pretty well rubber-stamped, if we made a

recommendation of certain types of treatments for

individuals.


21612345

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

678

Q. Let's pass, then, to another

issue which is one about communication between you

and other health professionals and between you and

the military. First of all, was the work that you

did covered by the concept of medical

confidentiality?

A. Yes, it was, sir.

Q. On that basis, were you at

liberty to exchange information with a treating

physician for a soldier?

A. Certainly.

Q. Were you at liberty to

exchange that information without the consent of

the soldier in question?

A. Within the confines of our

own unit. If I was to go outside of that like say

to talk to a doctor or somebody on the street, I

would need a release of information from the

individual concerned.

Q. But if you are dealing with

the medical community on base, do I understand that

you didn't need a release of confidentiality?

A. That's right, sir.

Q. Now let's talk about the

relationship with the military and with the chain


21712345

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

678

of command, and by chain of command, I want to talk

about the RSM and move up. What were the limits,

if any, on your ability to communicate the chain of

command?

A. I couldn't. If I had

anything to say or concerns that I had, I would

have to push that through the CDU, which is the

care delivery unit of each troop had their own CDU

that they were responsible for those troops. If I

had any concerns, I would take it over to their

office. We did write ups. We sent them to the

doctors, and a lot of times, the nurse care

coordinator would be the intervening person in that

and they would get us the permissions or whatever

was required for what we needed.

Q. Let me ask you a slightly

different question. I understand that physically,

you were located with mental health services. Was

that correct?

A. That's correct, yes.

Q. Were you a part of -- we have

heard discussed something called a case conference.

When case conferences were called, would you be a

member of the case conference?

A. Sometimes I would, sometimes


21812345

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

678

I wouldn't.

Q. What would determine whether

you would be invited to a case conference?

A. If I was available at the

time, because we had myself and Mr. Strilchuk I

think were working there at the time, sometimes he

would go, sometimes I would go, sometimes we would

both go. Saying that, it might have been good if

we had both attended all of them, but it just

wasn't in the cards, so to speak.

Q. Let's talk a little bit about

the context that makes you smile about that. Can

you tell us what your case load would have been at

this period of time and what resources you had to

meet the case load? When I say "your", I mean the

base addictions counsellors that were there.

A. To put it bluntly, it sucked.

We had at that time two counsellors. Mr. Hunt had

retired. He had been on sick leave for a year.

And I had been there by myself and then we brought

Mr. Strilchuk in. We were seeing in excess of at

any time during the year we had something like 200

clients on our list of people that we were trying

to see.

Q. What effect if any did that


21912345

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

678

have on your ability to provide ongoing and

intensive services to your clients?

A. It definitely suffered. With

only two of us there, you can't be everything to

everybody, and a lot of times, to be honest with

you, it was almost like a rubber stamp process.

They'd come in and if they did an assessment and we

noticed anything was wrong or we thought there was

an issue, it would be put forward and the treatment

program would be developed for them. We did not

really get too personal with any of them because we

just didn't have time.

Q. With that as a context, I

would like to take you as quickly as we can through

your interactions with Corporal Langridge. If you

look at the bigger book of documents in front of

you, I think you will find at tab 15 --

A. Yes.

Q. -- a referral. To the best

of my knowledge, is this the first meeting you had

with Corporal Langridge? I'm actually not certain

whether it is.

A. I don't believe it is. Wait

a minute. It must have been, because I see my date

-- I am looking just looking at the date up top and


22012345

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

678

it says 25th of March, 2010.

Q. Pay no attention.

A. Yes, this was my first

meeting with him.

Q. We have seen earlier a form

--

THE CHAIRPERSON: Is this one

dated June 13, 2008?

MR. FREIMAN: Yes. It shouldn't

have been -- I think what I'm looking at is the

second page of the document. I'm not sure whether

the first page belongs with it as it.

THE CHAIRPERSON: It's stamped

June 19th, 2007.

MR. FREIMAN: I think it's just

some of us take longer than others to change their

calendars.

THE WITNESS: Actually, I think it

was.

MS McLAINE: If it assists, it

appears from at least the schedule that Dr. Mohr

provided us with that the appointments began in

2007.

MS RICHARDS: May 30th.

THE WITNESS: June 13th.


22112345

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

678

MS RICHARDS: May 30th.

MR. FREIMAN: There is an

additional withdrawal for May 30th.

THE WITNESS: I probably signed

this wrong. That wouldn't be beyond me.

MR. FREIMAN:

Q. There is in our documents,

and I won't take you to it probably because I

wouldn't be able to find it, but there is a letter

secondary to a failed safety screening test that

directs Corporal Langridge to attend at a course

and also to report to you. I just want to

reconstruct history a little bit. When you are

given a referral for a soldier who has failed the

safety screening exam, would you necessarily know

that that was the referring condition, or would you

simply be referred a patient who requires an

assessment for addictions issues?

A. We have -- there are three

different ways that clients got to see us. Some

would come in on their own. Some would be referred

through the medical side of the house, and some

would be referred through the mental health side of

the house.

Q. Yes?


22212345

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

678

A. Those were the three ways.

We have sometimes they are ordered to go to a

doctor and that form is then passed on to us to do

the assessment on the individual.

Q. Right. The reason I'm

asking, sir, is if you look at this particular

assessment, there is discussion of alcohol but no

discussion of drugs.

A. That's right.

Q. Am I to infer from that that

at least at this point for whatever purpose or by

whatever of the three means that Corporal Langridge

was sent to you, it wouldn't have involved your

being away that he had a drug problem?

A. No, it wouldn't.

Q. You get a referral like this.

What do you?

A. First thing we would is we

arrange an appointment for the individual to come

in and see us and then we sit down and we have what

is known as a standardized intake form. It's a

number of questions regarding the person, their

history, any possible drinking or drug history.

It's all self- report. If we see it's needed, we

will, then, do certain assessments instruments to


22312345

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

678

determine level of dependancy, if there is any, and

-- sorry. I just lost my train of thought. Level

of dependancy and what might be needed.

Q. We actually have a garrison

addictions intake form for Corporal Langridge and

as my friend noted, first appointment was May 30th

on the scheduler and lo and behold on the date of

the -- not what you are looking now, but what I'm

going to direct you to -- on the addictions intake

form it's also dated 30 May '07. Tab 14 in your

small book.

A. 30th of May, '07.

Q. That's the date of the first

appointment and the scheduler says the first

appointment with you was May 30th '07?

A. Yes.

Q. So it agrees. Having a look

at this form, can you tell us what you did, what

you learned, and what you concluded?

A. He had been sent over by the

doctor in regards to thinking he was drinking too

much. The doctor thought that maybe he was

drinking excessively and that in itself is enough

to have them refer one of them over to us for an

assessment. In doing the assessment with Stuart,


22412345

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

678

this is pretty standard what we do with this.

We ask him about presenting

concerns, if you look on the second page, and he

acknowledged substance misuse and independence. He

acknowledged he was having anxiety and depression.

And workplace issues. He wanted badly to get out

of the military.

Q. Can you show us where we find

that?

A. On page 2 of 10 in annex 14.

Q. Yes?

A. There is a little note beside

"Occupational Workplace History". He had mentioned

that he wanted to get out.

Q. Sorry, I'm having some

difficulty finding it. Yes, I see it. "Wants to

get out."

A. Excuse my writing.

Q. No, it's late in the day and

I'm having trouble focussing. Do you have any

recollection of the discussions around this issue

that led to writing down this note, "wants to get

out"?

A. I have to say that what I can

recall of it was that he was very angry about


22512345

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

678

wanting -- he seemed that he wanted to get out of

the military but he was being kind of stymied, I

guess would be the word, but I can't really

remember a whole lot of the conversation at the

time. You have to remember, we had a lot of

clients.

Q. One thing we have established

is that from his very first appointment, he

communicated to you direct or indirectly that he

wanted out?

A. Yes. Directly, and very

animate about it.

Q. Can you go through the form

and tell me anything else that attracted your

attention?

A. As far as symptomology goes,

his presenting concern was only his drinking,

that's all he related to me at the time. He said

he was irritable, hopeless, felt hopeless and

anxious, snoring, staying -- as you can read it

just on here. Early morning, distressing dreams.

And I got further and he called him freaky bad

dreams that he was having. As it says here, like a

horror movie. That was his description of the

dreams themselves.


22612345

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

678

We go into whether he has energy,

like where he is at physically, motivationally,

just to get an idea of what we are dealing with at

the time.

Q. Yes.

A. If you look down, he gives

some symptoms that he is experiencing in different

areas. How often do these happen, and in this

case, he was saying every day, mainly in the

morning. Settled down when he leaves work.

So a lot of his -- at that time

what he expressed to me was that a lot of his

anxiety was related to his work situation.

Q. Yes?

A. And that's how I noted it

here. And going to work about that much. He said

he smiled a lot and avoided. That's how he coped

with it. Other symptoms, avoiding activities,

thoughts, feelings. It's all on the form here. I

don't think you need me to read it all out to you.

Q. Look at the next page. What

else? What do you see there?

A. Okay, on the next page he was

asked if he had ever been to mental health before

and yes, he had been for a post -deployment


22712345

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

678

screening. That is a screening that's done after

they come back from either Afghanistan or Bosnia,

or wherever they might have been, to determine

where they are in a whole general area of mental

health.

Q. Okay.

A. Not just within the addiction

field. And he had come in because of his drinking.

It was probably picked up in a post-deployment

screening. I can't remember that at this time. He

had never had any other psychiatric treatment.

This was self-reported by him.

Q. Let me just stop you there.

Would this be the point in the interview where if a

member wanted to report to you that he thought he

had been diagnosed or had a problem like PTSD, he

would report that?

A. He probably would, yes.

Q. Let's keep going, then.

A. Okay. His behaviour at the

time, it was kind of interesting because he had

ideations only, but in going through the process of

determining level of risk for suicide --

Q. Yes?

A. -- one of the things is that


22812345

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

678

he did have a plan.

Q. Yes?

A. He was going to, if he was

going to kill himself he was going to do it with

carbon monoxide poisoning, sticking like a tube in

his -- in the car in the garage.

Q. I just want to recall for us

that this is an interview that occurred on the 30th

of May, '07?

A. Yes.

Q. And we know of course that

some weeks subsequent he did exactly what he has

described to you on the 30th of May?

A. Yes.

Q. Okay. Can we go to the next

page? Or is there anything else of note on that

page?

A. One of the other indicators

of potential or high risk of suicide is if somebody

-- if there is a history.

Q. Yes?

A. Like somebody else in the

family might have killed themselves or somebody

they know. If that's here that's another risk

factor which increases the level of concern as to


22912345

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

678

whether this individual might be. As you see on

here, it says younger brother tried to kill

himself, so he had means, previous history in

regards to it, which on an assessment for suicide

right up there amongst that. This is concerning.

Q. We will get back to that in a

minute. Let's look at the next page, though. What

can you tell me there?

A. One thing I added in there

later when we had our first talk was he only talked

about his alcohol, alcohol use. That's all he

would ever admit to. Later on after I got a form,

that -- in regarding to him flunking the pee test.

And that was after this was done. I annotated in

here that he forget to mention his cocaine use.

Q. What impression did that make

on you when you discovered that?

A. It filled in some holes.

Q. Okay.

A. As to somebody who is just

alcohol dependent in my opinion didn't act the way

he did. It had to be something more behind it.

Q. When you say act the way he

did, what do you mean?

A. Well, he was very restless,


23012345

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

678

very non-committal. I can't say he was hiding

anything, but at the same time I was suspect that

there was more going on than just his alcohol use.

It's not based on any clinical procedure or

anything, it's just a feeling that I had.

Q. I just want to locate in time

when you put that second line, "forget to mention

cocaine use" onto this form.

A. That was when I got the other

referral -- or it's a CFAO form, I think. 1931 I

believe.

Q. You are good. We saw it this

morning and -- or this afternoon. What we were

referring to a referral to mandatory SSI course.

A. Yes.

Q. And that includes a mandatory

appointment with you?

A. Yes.

Q. Can we continue, then, with

whatever you may have learned on the intake form?

A. Okay. At the time, he was

using a number of medications that were prescribed

to him, Effexor, Lorazepam...

Q. Zopiclone.

A. Glad you can read that.


23112345

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

678

You're better than I am. And anti --

Q. Amitriptyline.

A. Amitriptyline, yes. And then

one of the things we do is we have a very short

assessment which is called Sacage and it asks four

specific questions. And this is the same one that

most of the doctors now use to get an idea of

whether or not there might be an addiction problem.

"Have you ever felt like

cutting down? Yes. Have

people annoyed you by

criticizing you about your

drinking?"

He put down no. Ever felt bad or

guilty, yes. Have you had a drink first thing in

the morning? Yes. Those are indicators to even

people in the medical profession that more has to

be looked into it.

Q. Do I understand that three of

the four answers would have been cause for concern?

A. Yes, sir. Medications he

acknowledged that they were on. The next page, he

acknowledged to me that he had used occasionally on

tour. He did use alone. He used with his friends.

He used to reduce stress. Power drinking. By


23212345

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

678

power drinking, that means putting a whole lot back

with the boys. Bingeing, I guess.

Q. Binge drinking?

A. Binge drinking would be a

good name for it, yes. Used for sociability, yes.

At this time he mentioned that his chemical choice

was only beer. Amount used, he drinks up to 24 at

a time. Mainly on weekends. Spends 100 bucks a

month on it. And he said that accompanying

psychological concerns, yes, and he himself I think

mentioned PTSD.

Q. Is that in your mind

consistent or inconsistent with this answer on a

previous page?

A. Inconsistent. Then when I

did the assessment, the other part of it is a

couple of questionnaires. I did a thing called the

Substance Abuse Subtle Screening Inventory, first.

And that came out as member having a high

probability of a substance dependancy.

Q. Yes?

A. Basically diagnosed under

303.90 of the DSM-IV. The other... what did we --

WBC?

Q. White blood count, maybe?


23312345

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

678

A. Don't think so. One was the

Beck Depression Inventory. Oh, I think that might

be the one -- oh, the first, the one above that is

a small form that I used and it's a wellness, a

well-being chart. It's just something if I think

there might be depression or something going on

with it, I will give them as a subset. And in this

case, I gave it to him and it showed him as a, I

believe, depressed with associated anxiety

disorder.

Now this is by no means a tell-all

or be-all form, it's just a quick check-off form to

determine whether something more that has to be

investigated. In this case, it came out with

depression with associated anxiety.

Also, did a Beck Depression

Inventory at which he scored 29, which is

relatively high.

Q. I'm not going to ask you

about his family supports. I'm not sure that we

need to get into that for our purposes.

A. There was that I didn't put

down here. I also administered a thing called the

NEEDS.

Q. Yes?


23412345

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

678

A. It's a NEEDS assessment.

Once I get an answer from the SASSI, if I feel that

there has to be more looked into I will give them

what is known as the NEEDS and it goes a little

deeper into the situation to either agree with what

the SASSI tells me or contradicts what it says.

Q. We happen to have both the

NEEDS and the SASSI test that you administered in

our documents. Without going into copious detail,

I'm going to ask you to look at each of these. We

will start with the SASSI and then get to the

NEEDS. I will just give you the tab reference.

It's all within the same note. All you have to do

is push toward the end and find the SASSI.

A. Where?

Q. In that same small book.

A. It is behind the NEEDS. They

are not in order.

Q. They are in the order we got

them in last night.

A. Yes. If you look at this,

the SASSI was done first and it came out that the

individual had a high probability of substance

dependancy based on --

Q. Hold on. Let's allow the


23512345

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

678

chair to find the document. Mr. Chairman, it looks

like this. You have it. So you applied the SASSI

and it came up with?

A. A high probability of

substance dependancy.

Q. Yes?

A. In looking at this form, I

mean, there is a book out that explains all these

scale scores that are on here. The form itself was

divided into 3 parts, FBA and FBO being one

separate part. Those stand for face valid alcohol,

face valid other drugs. Then the next 5, same OAT,

SAF, DEF, and SAM are the second part of the form

itself. And those are also clinically significant

as it relates to high or low probability. The last

two which are family and corrections are just

supplemental scores that are in there to give the

clinician areas to investigate with the client.

So in saying that, anybody who

does these, the norm is between the 85th and the

15th percentile on the right-hand side.

Q. Yes?

A. Those are what is constituted

as norms, so areas that are not of great concern.

You discount it if it's below that. If it's


23612345

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

678

something higher then I would question the patient

on that.

The main ones in this case are

because of the way you look at this, the main 1 of

interest that would jar me right away is the death

score, which stands for defensiveness. It is a

one. As soon as I see a one, I will ask somebody

about suicidal ideations. It doesn't mean that

they will have them, but as soon as I see a DEF

score like that, it scares me.

Q. When you see a DEF score,

which stands for defensiveness, and it's at one,

does that mean that the subject is not defensive at

all or that he is defensive to the max?

A. Not defensive at all. He is

at a point in his life where he really doesn't care

about anything. When I see, as I said, somebody

this low, it is a definite indication of emotional

pain. Whether it's suicide or not. I have had

people with low DEF scores before where, no, they

are not indeed suicidal. But there are other

issues.

Q. We have established that your

conclusion looking at this, the most startling for

you was the DEF one, that convinced you that there


23712345

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

678

was at least a risk of self-harm?

A. Yes, high risk.

Q. High risk of self-harm. What

else could you have concluded as an indication of

other areas to worry about or to explore?

A. The best way to do that is to

go through the form itself. As you can see, he

mini -- well, I can't say he minimized, but at the

same time, his scores were -- he did not prove to

be dependent based on the first two scale scores,

which are his use of alcohol or his use of drugs.

But the form has different areas on one side of it.

It's too bad we didn't have one here. And it shows

you, you go down the list for determining yes or no

as to whether there is a problem.

Where his problem was, and it came

out, was under the symptoms.

THE CHAIRPERSON: Yes?

THE WITNESS: And basically

symptoms are somebody who is admitting that in this

case, with it being that high, this person,

everybody they know, everybody they hang around

with, everybody they deal with, is part of a

subculture of abuse. That is one indicator.

It's, again, it's an area to look


23812345

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

678

at and investigate, but from the form itself, that

is enough to determine that there is a high

probability of dependancy. If you look at the next

four, the next is OAT, which is obvious attributes,

which means that this is what he will show you or

tell you about himself.

Q. And there fact that that's

high, what does that mean?

A. That's a positive sign,

because the next one is SIM. That is what he is

internally, and any time you see an OAT higher than

SAT, basically what -- for me it was telling me

whether this person was workable.

Q. Now, I just want to be sure

we got it right. I think you said that the next

one was SIM, but you may have been saying the next

one was SAT?

A. SAT, yes. Sorry.

Q. So far we have seen that you

thought it was important to explore the potential

for suicide?

A. Very much so.

Q. That you were concerned

because of the environment of drinking or of use in

which he found himself, but that the relative size


23912345

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

678

of the OAT and the SAT scales told you that he was

treatable?

A. Yes.

Q. And could be reached; okay.

I want to ask you just one more question which is

the final column, the COR common, which appears to

be the highest of them all. What is that and what

does it tell you?

A. COR relates to corrections.

Basically it's not per se a clinical area that

relates to the SASSI outcomes. It is there to

determine whether the person was or could be

getting in trouble with the law or authority

figures. In this case, if you look on the

right-hand side, 98th percentile. Only two per

cent of people who have had any experience or use

or have been tested with this have ever scored that

high. Two per cent of the whole population would

score that high. So that is very much a concern.

One of the things, if I see a high COR like that,

and a low DEF, experience with using it kind of

indicates to me that maybe they won't hurt

themselves but they will hurt somebody else.

Q. Would it be useful for us to

think of the COR as being risk analysis?


24012345

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

678

A. Yes.

Q. Does this mean that he was

high-risk or low-risk?

A. High-risk.

Q. Again, I don't think we need

to go in any great detail, but you told me that

having looked at his SASSI exam, you thought it

would be useful to follow it up with the NEEDS

assessment?

A. Yes.

Q. We also have the NEEDS

assessment. Tell me what that is and what you

learned from the NEEDS assessment.

A. That's the document in front.

Looking at the NEEDS assessment, it collaborated

what it says in the SASSI, that there was indeed an

alcohol problem and maybe some drug problems. You

go to emotional stability on the second page,

again, this is another cause for concern when I see

reports like this where persistent thoughts, being

depressed and life not worth living, stuff like

that, are just indicators for me in how I will work

a treatment plan for this person.

Q. Let me just stop you there

and ask you the obvious question. Is there a risk


24112345

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

678

that because this is all self-reporting the person

will either magnify or minimize the actual

situation?

A. Very much so in the case of

the NEEDS because it is self-reporting. The SASSI

has proven to be 96 per cent accurate with

individuals because while the one side is

self-reporting as regards to alcohol and drug use,

the second side is more generalized questions with

a yes or no answer. It can be fudged, but very

seldom does that happen. There are indicators in

it to tell you whether a person is just trying to

fudge the test or in cases of some individual they

can read through the answers and answer them as

they think somebody would like to hear them. There

is no such thing as 100 per cent successful

assessment instrument.

Q. Just in general based on the

NEEDS assessment, you said it corroborated what you

saw on the SASSI. Were there any other conclusions

that you drew from it?

A. Only that it put down that he

had an alcohol dependancy, which was what was

written on the SASSI also. It mentioned drugs, but

not in any over depth, not enough to even give him


24212345

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

678

a diagnosis of chemical misuse.

Q. As a result of all of this,

what did you do? As of the 30th of May, what plan

did you have?

A. My plan was get him into a

treatment program. By that I mean a residential

treatment program because the SASSI in this also

told me that probably just trying to do one-on-one

counselling with him or an out-patient type of

education program would not be successful. He

needed in-depth treatment.

Q. What success, if any, were

you the person trying to arrange it or was it for

Corporal Langridge to try to arrange?

A. No. We arranged it.

Q. What success did you have?

A. He reluctantly agreed, I

guess would be the best way to put that.

Q. Yes?

A. It wasn't high on the list

and it was rather hard to get him to commit to it,

I guess would be.

Q. We know that eventually he

was booked for residential stay at the Edgewood

facility --


24312345

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

678

A. Yes.

Q. -- in January of '08, but

here we are talking about May of '07. What's

happening between May of '07 and January of '08?

A. I don't know. What does the

note say? I think if anything, he would be in the

interim going to probably over the phase 3 which is

like an after-care program, but in the interim, if

somebody needs some, we try to introduce him to

group and the idea of group therapy which is pure

support more than anything. And he would have

probably been going to that.

Q. We know that very shortly

after -- you did the note that you were looking at

before at tab 15 of the big book on the 13th of

'07, and you note that the member is slated to

attend SSI25 on the 25th or 29th of June, '07. Is

that an example of a treatment program?

A. Yes, it is. I just noticed

this here now. One of the things for individuals

-- we are very much, I guess you would have to call

it, in this new age we are very much

client-centred. We try not to impose anything on

anybody and it's kind of let's start them off with

the littlest. Like, at the time we might recommend


24412345

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

678

that they go to residential treatment program, but

in saying that, it's their choice.

I think, now that I look at this,

I think Corporal Landridge had said he was not

prepared to do that. So, my way of looking at this

is it's kind of like individuals at this point

don't really acknowledge how bad their addiction is

and they feel that something lesser would work with

them, so in this case we had him go on this SSI

which is a second substance intervention program

which educates people on their alcohol and drug

use, and where it might lead down the read.

Q. Yes?

A. Now for somebody who has, I

guess to put it in the proper perspective, it's an

in-between to help the person try to get some

realization as to how much their drinking or

drugging is doing to them. And a lot of times the

people that we sent on the SSI eventually do end up

in treatment because their eyes open and say, maybe

it's worse than I thought.

Q. We know, sir, that on the

first day of the SSI treatment, Corporal Langridge

drove himself off road to a secluded location,

consumed a bottle of alcohol and was found by his


24512345

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

678

colleagues with tubing fitted to the car in an

apparent attempt of carbon-monoxide poisoning. Did

those events come back to you? Was there anything

that you were asked to do or that was part of the

therapy that you were supposed to be helping with,

as a result of that particular incident? Do you

have any recollection at all?

A. I have to be honest with you,

no, I don't. I know that after the first day of

the SSI, he didn't want to come back. I don't

think he showed up the second day.

Q. He was in the hospital for a

suicide attempt?

A. Yes, but I don't think I was

aware of that at the time. As a matter of fact I

know I wasn't.

Q. Just give me a second because

my mastery of the documents, as you may have

noticed, is non-existent. Can I ask you to look at

tab 13 of the bigger book? This appears to be the

first referral or reference -- this is the first

meeting with you following the suicide attempt.

A. And that was in July.

Q. First meeting was in July.

The suicide attempt was the end of June?


24612345

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

678

A. Yes.

Q. Looking at this report now,

can you reconstruct what this meeting would have

been about?

A. I believe this came about --

he had bombed out of the SSI, or he had walked out

of it, and then what happened was I'm not sure if

it was when this happened or just before, I had

gotten another referral from his unit.

Q. Yes?

A. Mentioning that he had failed

a pee test and they wanted to do another.

Q. If you look at tab 14, can

you tell me if that's what you are referring to?

A. Yes, it is.

Q. So in between your first

appointment and this next appointment, you got the

referral?

A. Yes.

Q. So it shows up. What

happens?

A. What happens, when anybody as

soon as they have a drug-related referral, we send

them on the SSI. Now, he had already been there

and that obviously hadn't worked, so in trying to


24712345

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

678

help him any way we could, I next recommended that

maybe he wants to try what is known as a Drink

Wise, let's say. It is a work book that we do it

with some people to, again, take a look at them

working on their own issue, their own problem.

Q. I want to direct your

attention to the line marked "risk assessment", and

you put in medium. What does that mean to you?

A. Basically it means to me that

he wasn't as bad as when I first saw him. He

played it down, I guess would be the best way to

say it.

Q. In looking at the case notes,

I note a line:

"He acknowledges that he has

problems but again does not

see his alcohol or drugs as

being the issue."

What does that mean to you, from

your clinical experience?

A. Number 1, he was minimizing

his alcohol and drug use. Number 2 is he saw that

more, to put it in jargon, I think he saw it more

as a symptom than his actual problem.

Q. Yes?


24812345

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

678

A. And he was using these to

cope.

Q. Yes?

A. And whether that was true or

not at the time, I couldn't tell you.

But the way I wrote it was that

tells me right there that I'm going to have

difficulty getting through to him how severe his

alcohol or drug use would be.

Q. We have seen mention in some

of the documents the phrase contemplative and

precontemplative stage. Would this be an example

of the precontemplative stage or is that not a term

that you are aware of?

A. It's precontemplation.

Q. Yes?

A. In his case, that's a tough

one to call because he was very aware, but he had

also, he was past precontemplation, but I think he

was confused into going to the next step which was

contemplation. I don't know if that makes any

sense.

Q. Let's just make sure that we

are on the same page. I understand

precontemplation meaning a state of mind where the


24912345

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

678

patient does not acknowledge that drugs or alcohol

are a problem?

A. That's right. He hasn't

realized the consequences of his action. Basically

he is not even thinking about it.

Q. And the contemplative phase

is where the patient is willing to admit the

possibility that the alcohol and the drugs are

having an effective on his life?

A. Yes.

Q. And the next stage would

become commitment to doing something about it?

A. Yes.

Q. I guess all I'm getting at is

it seems to me from what you are saying here is

that he is still at a very early stage of any

recovery?

A. Yes. I don't even believe --

well, he wasn't in recovery. He was aware that

things were wrong, but he would not acknowledge

that they were necessarily, regardless of the

assessment or anything else, that it was a drug or

alcohol issue.

Q. The next document, and I'm

going to ask my colleague to correct me if I'm


25012345

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

678

wrong, that I see which you are involved is at tab

12, the August 27th appointment date. That's the

next one.

First let me just ask you about

the timing of these things. Given what was

happening in Corporal Langridge's life, would it be

usual to go from the 11th of one month to the 27th

of the following month?

A. No it wouldn't, but, again,

we cannot dictate individuals coming to

appointments, and so it's kind of in his hands as

to setting them up. Like we will make an

appointment for him. Now, I don't know if he

missed any appointments in between these times or

not, but if we even got him into the office at any

time we considered it a bonus.

Q. We do know that Corporal

Langridge was on sick leave for part of this time

and on annual leave for part of the time in

between.

A. Okay. That could probably

explain a lot of it.

Q. Tell us what you see on the

basis of your August 27th note.

A. Again, not much. Not a whole


25112345

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

678

lot of content to it. He said all the right

things. I think he must have read the Drink Wise

book and realized that alternating drinks and

things like that were the proper things to tell me.

Q. Yes?

A. And but the thing that did

hurt, or got to me, was the fact that his response

to suicidal ideations, seeing it as a way to end

the pain, again.

Q. Talk to me about that

concept.

A. Because his brother had

attempted before and I think -- I'm not sure if he

succeeded. I think he did -- no? Okay. But to

him, that was a viable -- to him, and seriously,

for Corporal Langridge, this was a very viable

option for him. And I don't know if I can explain

it right, but in the way he looked at it, it was,

well, I can do this or that. And it was kind of

ho-hum, regardless of which way he went. And I

don't -- like it kind of shocked me that he looked

at it that casually, because it was just, it will

end my pain.

Q. At this point, you have

already assessed him as being a high risk of


25212345

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

678

suicide. At this point you are calling him a

medium risk assessment. Is there a reason for

that?

A. Because he was minimizing a

lot of the stuff he told me, I guess. I can only

assume that that was what he was doing because

everything was better in his life and so while he

still saw it this way, in my mind, it wasn't as

severe as when I first saw him.

Q. Is there anything that we

need to understand in terms of the treatment plan

that you now have for him?

A. Because he had cut down on

his drinking, because he was noncompliant to doing

any of the other suggestions, we went over to a

different book which is Relapse Prevention book and

it is basically a bunch of chores and things within

it that an individual can do to be very aware of

the possibility of relapse. Because there's -- I

can't even remember, 29 steps to relapse that are

well-documented as to people who can follow these

things.

This whole thing was to, I think

part of it was, if I can remember, a journal so he

could look at high risk times in his life so that


25312345

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

678

he could prepare for possible relapse things. It

was the next best thing because we had already gone

through different things that didn't work for him.

So this was the next step, because he still was not

too crazy about going to treatment.

Q. At about the same time, we

know that there were plans to conduct a

psychological assessment of Corporal Langridge that

was to be done by the mental health clinic, the

psychologists there. Were you aware of that? Were

you a part of the psychological assessment project?

A. That I can't remember. But I

think because of the reporting that I would have

given over with these over to the doctor, I don't

know whether the doctor referred him over or if I

might have talked to one of them in regards to it.

I don't think I talked to anybody about it.

Q. We saw this morning that Dr.

Rajoo also requested a psychological assessment of

Corporal Langridge --

A. And that would be --

Q. Around about the same time as

he was referred to you initially for the alcohol,

potential alcohol problem.

A. Right.


25412345

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

678

Q. The next note that we have is

dated November 21st, 2007. It's at tab 35 of the

big book of documents. Before we spend a lot of

time on this one, I just wanted to ask you a

question about charting. If we don't have a note

in our documentary file, is that an indication that

there wasn't any contact between --

A. Yes.

Q. It would appear that between

the end of August I think August was the last one,

the end of August and the end of November, a period

of three months, there was no contact at all. Is

that usual for someone in a position such as

Corporal Langridge?

A. It's usual in the sense that

they can pretty well make appointments and do

whatever they want. If they don't want to come in

and see us, they don't, and my own recourse is to

maybe put in a file that he was a no-show. And I

don't even know if I had any appointments in

between the two times with him, but that was the

next time I did see him.

Q. So have a look at the note

and tell me what you discovered, what you

concluded, and what you planned.


25512345

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

678

A. At this time, finally, okay,

he came in. And he realized that the other --

this, now, he is in contemplation stage.

Q. Yes.

A. That's Prochaska and

DiClemente, in case you are interested. That's

their... Anyhow, he had finally started to think

maybe his drinking and his drugging was a little

bit out of control and he came in for further

assessment stating that he wanted help. So at this

time, again, Edgewood was offered to him.

Q. Yes?

A. And he said he was willing to

try it.

Q. Was that in your mind an

important or an unimportant development?

A. To me that was an important

development because he had said that he would go to

a treatment program which in my mind was probably

-- would have been the best thing he could have

done when he first came into my office.

Q. From your point of view, do I

understand correctly that you would have urged him

to go on a residential treatment course immediately

after you saw him?


25612345

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

678

A. Yes. And I do I believe I

presented that as an option after I had done his

first assessment, and he would have nothing to do

with it.

Q. All right. We saw a

reference in one of your notes to not liking the

huggy-feely aspects. Is that something that he

expressed to you periodically?

A. Oh yes.

Q. Tell me about that.

A. I think that probably had to

do with his first experience with that was probably

on the SSI. I think the boys there, it wasn't

quite what he had expected and probably freaked him

out a little bit because people wanted to do things

like hug, and he had heard stories about Edgewood,

too, I would imagine, because it's -- within the

military community it's quite a known place, and he

probably had heard stories about people going

around hugging each other and everything was

touchy-feely. And I don't care what you think,

it's how do you feel? Thinking; anybody can think.

I want to know how you feel. And that's really a

point that's taken across most treatment programs:

What you are thinking and what you are feeling are


25712345

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

678

two different things. And he probably got wind of

that.

And as soon as with anybody who I

think, majority of people who have a dependancy

issue wouldn't understand a feeling if it jumped up

and stomped on them. All they do was think.

Feelings are not in their vocabulary. And so as

soon as you mention particularly to a soldier, I

think, feelings, his claws are going to come right

in. We are taught not to feel.

Q. Okay. At this point, you are

still assessing him as medium even though he

reports to you that there was another suicide

attempt with pills?

A. Yes.

Q. Can you share with us your

thought process in assessing him only as medium

despite the suicide attempt?

A. I guess the best way to put

it, and it may be an error on my part, but it was

beginning to start to look like a repetition of

partial attempts and that may sound a little bit

callous, but at some point, if you are going to do

it, do it. And there have been a number of times

within this that he had made attempts and so this


25812345

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

678

was just another time he came in and mentioned this

again, so he was handling it as if it was nothing.

And it was at that point that I

think I was beginning to think, well, maybe these

are just cries for help than anything else.

Q. Okay, so I'd like to turn you

to tab 34, which is the next record of your

sessions and I note that by this time your

assessment has gone from medium to high. I would

like you to focus on the narrative in your notes

and tell us what happened and what led you to

conclude that there was a high risk.

A. His wife had called me, or

his common-law spouse had called me on the weekend

stating that he had gone out on a binge and she was

really worried about him. He came in that morning

with -- he was in a form of withdrawal which

appeared to be some type of cocaine withdrawal. He

was sweating, very tired. And he was really at

that point, I got to get into a treatment centre.

And with him saying that -- I'm

not sure if this was the time; yes, it was -- I

tried to see if I could get him right away, because

one of the things in dealing with addictive people,

particularly alcohol or drugs, is that the quicker


25912345

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

678

you can get them into treatment while they are

still hurting is usually the best teachable time

because they are still suffering and they are more

open. Whereas after a few days where they are

allowed to sober up or get a little bit

clear-headed their brain kicks in again and they

start thinking about excuses why they don't have to

be there.

Q. I see.

A. I thought it was a good idea

at the time. And again, as I said in here, the

binge that he was on, I believe, really motivated

-- I think it scared him that he had decided that

everything was out of control and he really had to

do something. That was how he presented it to me.

Q. At this point in time, was

your impression that Corporal Langridge's main

problem was alcohol or that his main problem was

cocaine or both?

A. Again, from my discussions

with him, it was still mainly the alcohol. I was

starting to realize that maybe his recreational

cocaine use was a little bit more than that.

Q. You have told us that there

was a report from his spouse that he had been on a


26012345

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

678

binge and he came in exhibiting behaviour that you

associated with...

A. Withdrawal.

Q. With withdrawal. Were there

other reasons why you thought that maybe this

wasn't just a recreational?

A. The way he presented himself

in my office.

Q. Yes?

A. He was very agitated. It was

like he was still coming down off of something and

he wouldn't had that from alcohol use. Part of it

could have been alcohol use but it was too

pronounced. Like the restlessness, the

irritability, and just the way he was presenting

himself. Those were things you don't see when

somebody is just on alcohol.

Q. I have to ask you. We have a

form here where you are stating that Corporal

Langridge is at a high risk and I take it that's a

high risk of suicide?

A. Yes.

Q. Yet simultaneously under

"Recommended Employment Restrictions," you have

ticked off the box saying none.


26112345

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

678

A. Yes.

Q. How is it possible to square

the concept of a soldier at high risk of killing

himself with no limitations, including being fit

for unrestricted hours and high-stress

environments?

A. It sounds like a

contradiction, doesn't it?

Q. It does.

A. Yes. And I think -- I don't

know if this is going to make sense, but if I had

put restrictions on him, I would have never have

saw him again. I don't know if that makes sense.

Q. Explain it to us.

A. It's very important for

soldiers, my perception, that with their units,

they have to look at their best light, and if any

restrictions were to be placed on him, because this

went to a doctor. If anybody wanted to place

restrictions on him, it would be the doctor. I

still had to work on getting him to trust me and to

understand that what I was trying to do was in his

best interest, so I don't know. Maybe once in my

career did I ever put restrictions on a client

because I felt that doing that would betray their


26212345

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

678

trust in some way.

Q. Let me ask you another

question I forgot to ask you. In your dealings

with Corporal Langridge did you adopt a huggy-feely

approach?

A. No.

Q. What approach did you adopt?

A. I'd sort of say I'm an

in-your-face person. If I think you're going to

die, I'll tell you.

Q. Did you tell him you thought

he was going to die?

A. Yes, I did.

Q. When did you tell him that?

A. At this time. If he doesn't

do something, he will die. I'm sorry I don't find

huggy-feely to me in my dealings in the field helps

an individual kill himself. One way or the other

whether it's booze or the drugs. Most people

including a lot of people within the medical

profession still see addiction as a poor cousin and

a lot of them don't really understand the severity

that addiction is with the person and how bad it

can be and so they second-place it.

Q. Yes?


26312345

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

678

A. Example would be if a person

like this goes to a social worker nine times out of

10, they wouldn't even make it to the addictions

counsellor because the social worker would feel

that if I can get their family back together, then

the addiction will go away.

And it could be the same for other

health professionals. Whereas the addiction is

there. My opinion is that the addiction should be

addressed at first if not concurrently with other

things, but, I mean, when you have somebody who

comes in to you that has been working with a social

worker for a couple of years and says, the social

worker says I can't understand why I can't get

anywhere with this person. And I say, they keep

talking about their drinking. I say, did you ever

bother getting them assessed? Never thought of

that. So we are like the poor cousin. And I don't

know if in this case whether that pertained.

Q. We know that you were unable

to arrange for Corporal Langridge to get an earlier

admission to the facility and he had to wait 5 days

from the date of this note. We have heard some

evidence in these hearings about an attempt to

mount what was called suicide watch sometime around


26412345

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

678

December of 2007, not the later one, but at this

point, and that at the last minute that was

cancelled because a friend of his was willing to

take him into his house.

Does that ring a bell? Was that

something that you were aware of or had any part

of? Does it mean anything to you?

A. The only thing I remember

about that was something about a friend. Other

than that, not a whole lot. I don't know if he was

placed on it or not. He wasn't allowed, I think,

if I can remember, he wasn't allowed -- his common

law wife didn't want him to go back home.

Q. Yes?

A. And so his friend had

volunteered him going to his place and really

that's about all I can remember about that.

Q. Not unrelated to that

question, we have seen you have assessed this man

as being a high risk of suicide; you have attempted

to get him into a facility where you think his --

at least the addiction problem can be dealt with.

That's not possible for four or five days. What

other tools are available to you in light of your

assessment of high risk?


26512345

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

678

A. Really very little. It's up

to, could have approached or the doctor could have

committed him somewhere. But from our point of

view, we tried to do the best and send it over to

the doctor for what do they think is the best

possible solution. We don't have any control over

directing a person to do anything.

Q. Just before we get to the

next appointment, I wanted to ask you, when you

were talking about the importance of controlling

the addictions part of a person's problems, does

that view change at all whether the addictions are

the primary problem causing mental health issues or

whether the addictions are somehow secondary to

other mental health problems? Does it make a

difference?

A. Depends what discipline you

are in. You talk to a psychologist, well, we've

got to deal with that issue first; you talked to an

psychiatrist, we've got to deal with that issue

first. We talk to an addictions person, I have to

be honest with you, I win. I can't see counselling

somebody and working side by side when the person

is under the influence of alcohol or drugs. If you

don't arrest that, how cognizant are they going to


26612345

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

678

be to take any other type of treatment? One of the

nice things about Edgewood is that when we send

people to them, not only do they have a very good

addiction program, they also have psychologists and

psychiatrists on staff who see the individuals and

if there is medications needed they can do it right

there. They have a very multi-approach to their

treatment, whereas with us, we are all kind of

compartmentalized but since I have been in the

field my attitude is that if not arrested first and

then deal with the other issues, at least try and

get them to be working concurrently.

Q. All right. So let's see how

this plays out. Corporal Langridge goes to

Edgewood somewhere around the 4th of January?

A. Yes.

Q. And within 4 days, he is --

A. Gone.

Q. -- back home, or he is gone

from the facility. What was the first -- if you

want to see that, tab 17 is the Edgewood discharge

summary. I'm not sure that it's going to tell you

anything that you hadn't seen before.

A. Okay.

Q. There is a companion letter


26712345

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

678

at tab 16 that's a letter to you and that simply

informs you that here is the discharge summary and

that Corporal Langridge did not get psychiatric

consultation.

A. Right.

Q. Okay. Tell me what you

remember about this circumstance and any role that

you played as Corporal Langridge was leaving

Edgewood.

A. I was probably somewhat

upset.

Q. Yes; I assume that you are

being understated for effect?

A. No. Not really, because

things -- different people do things differently

and you have to accept their decisions in these

matters and I think because of the amount of time

that had worked up to this point, I think if

anything I was saddened, more than anything, that

he had walked out of treatment. So where do we go

next?

Q. I'm going to ask you to look

at tab 19. It's a note by Nurse Ferdinand that

recounts conversations that she had with you.

A. Okay. I had been called --


26812345

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

678

I'm trying to get this in the right context.

Edgewood. I'm wondering if they are talking about

two different cases. He left treatment. I was

informed he had left treatment but he didn't show

up back to work, I think.

Q. Yes.

A. And so I think I informed the

nurse care coordinator at the CDU that this was the

case. And that the unit had to be told, the unit

had to be informed that Corporal Landridge was not

under medical care at the time, nor was he at his

place of work.

Q. Yes.

A. And I think I conveyed that

to the nurse care coordinator. And according to

this, the adjutant tried to contact him, was unable

to, and this is written by Charlene Ferdinand. And

she disagreed, apparently, with the adjutant.

Q. We don't need to know what

she said to him.

A. Okay, yes.

Q. I would like to focus more on

your involvement, and it may be of assistance to

you to look at tab 33 which is your own note dated

the same day, the 11th of January.


26912345

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

678

A. Okay.

Q. What I would like to ask you

-- and the narrative speaks for itself that you

were informed by Mr. Strilchuk of what happened at

Edgewood and that subsequent to that, Corporal

Langridge called the base addictions --

A. Mr. Strilchuk.

Q. -- Mr. Strilchuk and said he

was too tired to come in and would see you later in

the week. Based on all of that, you have a risk

assessment of high?

A. Yes.

Q. And your plan is:

"Member has attempted suicide

before, I believe he is at


time."

So first, let's just deal with

that. What was the basis for this conclusion?

A. Because he was -- I guess it

was because he had gotten intoxicated while there

and it was --there was chaos with his family, in

particular his common law spouse, and it was just

seemed like to me his whole world was crashing in

on him and I was legitimately worried as to how he


27012345

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

678

might act out with this.

Q. You add in your note

"Possible military intervention required." What

does that mean?

A. By that, it meant that the

doctors had to do something.

Q. Like what?

A. That's a good question.

Probably form him. I think it's called a Form 1.

Q. Yes.

A. Put him into a facility.

Q. Why did you think that was

the next indicated step?

A. Because in my mind up to that

point, nothing else had worked. The guy was off on

his own and I had no idea what was going to happen

next. I know that I was concerned, very much so,

for his personal safety, but at the same time, my

hands were tied with what I can do. I can only

report to one area and that's the CDU. And then

it's up to them where they want to go with it.

Q. We saw in nurse Ferdinand's

note a suggestion that Captain Lubiniecki thought

that the situation could be handle by means of a

contract between himself and Corporal Langridge.


27112345

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

678

What was your view of that?

A. At this point in the game

looking at the notes now, I think anybody doing a

contract like this would be just talk. Somebody

who is at high risk will agree with anything you

have to say just to get you out of their hair.

What we are talking about here is a verbal contract

where they agreed not to harm himself for a

specific period of time.

Q. Yes.

A. That is standard suicide

intervention procedure. At that point, in this

case, I believe that Corporal Langridge was well

beyond that. Safe place for him would have been in

a hospital.

Q. On the 18th of January, you

wrote another note and that's at tab 32. Can you

tell me what happened between the 11th and the

18th?

A. I didn't see Corporal

Langridge at all. He never came in to see me. As

I said, I got a call from his mother concerned

about his safety. And she was very, very worried

about his drinking and cocaine use. I think this

is self-explanatory. I'm not quite sure.


27212345

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

678

Q. So you still have his risk

assessment as high?

A. High. Yes.

Q. In fact you say he is at

extremely high risk at this time.

A. Yes.

Q. Your plan is to recommend

alternative medical intervention for this member.

A. Yes.

Q. Do I understand that you are

still advocating for a possible Form 1 or even a

30-day form?

A. Anything to get him in a safe

environment.

Q. Do you remember whether you

had any discussions with any medical staff about

this?

A. That I'm not sure. If I did,

it would probably be with the nurse care

coordinator, if I hadn't spoken directly to one of

the doctors.

Q. What would your expectation

be in circumstances where you formed an assessment

that a member is at high risk of suicide, you

formed an assessment that the standard methods of


27312345

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

678

treating the risk have not been successful? What

do you do? What's open to you in terms of pushing

the recommendation that you think is the one that

holds any hope of success?

A. We usually in the case of the

doctors and some of the psychiatrists, they are

very receptive to our recommendations.

Q. Yes?

A. In regards to they will

relook seriously at doing it. But, again, some of

them are Form 1 people.

Q. Yes.

A. For whatever reason that is

beyond my knowledge. But they are very it's not

something they do haphazardly and they want to

speak with the individuals themselves to do their

own assessment. So all I can do is recommend and

then it's up to them as to how they deal with it.

Q. The final note that you wrote

is at tab 20.

A. Tab 20.

Q. Sorry, before we get to that,

my colleague points out that there is something

that we need to discuss back at tab 32.

This was just a not that we were


27412345

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

678

talking about. In past notes you talked about

possible medical intervention required. In this

case, the Plan No. 1 in:

"Concern about member's

personal safety. Possible

military intervention

required."

What's the different and what does

this mean?

A. I'm not sure. In the context

it's written see up above, I have medical. And

then military intervention. It had to go beyond

what I was capable of doing within my area, whether

it be the medical community up higher in the food

chain.

Q. Yes?

A. Or if somehow the military

can intervene in any way with it. I didn't know if

that was even possible.

Q. I was going to ask you

whether you had anything in mind for military

intervention where the medical system wasn't

available.

A. I don't believe I did.

Q. So let's look at tab 20.


27512345

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

678

Let's see if I can find it.

THE CHAIRPERSON: Mr. Freiman, I'm

just looking at the time. We have the reporter and

that in terms of the end.

MR. FREIMAN: We are very close to

the end. Very close the end.

Q. If you look at the near the

bottom of the first page?

A. Yes.

Q. You will see I think it's DW.

Maybe it's conversation with. Don Perkins?

A. Discussion with.

Q. Discussion with Don Perkins.

He will not see again, and something --

A. Arrange for another back to

see him. I got fired.

Q. You got fired? Why did you

get fired?

A. Client's choice. Patient's

choice.

Q. Did Corporal Langridge tell

you why he was firing you?

A. No.

Q. Did you have any suspicions?

A. Yes.


27612345

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

678

Q. What were they?

A. I'm an in-your-face type of

person and I probably told him what I thought.

Q. What involvement if any did

you have with Corporal Langridge or his case

following your being fired from the file?

A. Very little. I think if

anything I was present at a case conference.

Q. Yes?

A. Where he was discussed, but

that was about it.

Q. Do you remember what the

discussion was about?

A. Just I think it had to do

with Corporal Langridge's non-compliance to any

type of treatment option that was given to him

because I think it was sent back to case conference

because everybody was at their wits' end as to what

we could do for the young man.

Q. I think I've got more than

five minutes. I don't want to lie. If we want to

take a quick break?

THE CHAIRPERSON: We will finish

this off and then we will take a few minutes.

MR. FREIMAN:


27712345

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

678

Q. You say that you were at a

case conference where people were at their wits'

end trying to figure out what to do. Do you

remember any of the treatment options that were

discussed?

A. To be honest with you, no.

Q. To your knowledge and

understanding, would there be a record kept of that

case conference?

A. Yes, there would.

Q. Where would we expect to find

it?

A. There should have been

minutes done of every case conference. There was

somebody, usually a recorder who did minutes. When

we come up with any type of suggestion as possible

treatment plan, it is written up, everybody in the

group signs it as being part of it, and then a

piece of paper is given to the primary person who

is going to start implementing any type of

treatment plan.

Q. I know you didn't have much

to do with Corporal Langridge after his -- after he

no long wanted to see you, but I have a couple of

questions about which I would like you to apply


27812345

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

678

your knowledge and experience and especially your

understanding of Corporal Langridge or what you not

was going on in Corporal Langridge's life and get

your views. First of all, is the fact of having a

drug dependency the source of any -- what does that

do for a soldier's reputation, or what would it

have done for a soldier's reputation among his

peers in 2008?

A. You mean if he gets caught?

Q. Okay, if he gets caught.

A. Because I mean a number of

people in the military have been known to dabble in

drugs other than alcohol, and first of all, within

the military community, that is looking at

operational requirements. You do not want to flunk

a drug test because you will be taken off tour and

to be taken off tour your other mates will look

very dimly at you. I mean, they will ostracize

you. You will be the black sheep of the family

because you are not holding up your end.

By you not going, and this is

really within the unit lines. If you get dropped

out, other people are going to have to take up your

slack.

Q. Yes?


27912345

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

678

A. So basically at the unit

level, you will be shunned.

Just my opinion.

Q. What about if you are

suffering from a mental condition that makes you

suicidal? What does that do for a soldier's

reputation?

A. Suck it up, butter cup.

Q. Explain what that means.

A. It's not the manly thing to

do. I imagine just my way of looking at that, if

somebody says I want to commit suicide, they will

probably give you ideas how to do it best. I'm not

kidding. Guys are known -- women like using pills

and things like that, but guys like to do it right

the first time. They will usually blow their

brains out with a gun.

And so when you look at within the

context, if people say, if this doesn't work out,

I'm going to kill myself. People sometimes get so

fed up of hearing that, say here, I will give you

the gun. Put yourself out of your misery. I don't

know if that answers your question, but that's my

perception of how it would be viewed on the front

lines.


28012345

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

678

Q. What I would like to do,

then, is look with you -- and I'm going to need a

second to find the document -- at a series of

conditions that were imposed on Corporal Langridge

when he was subsequently discharged from the

Alberta hospital at Edmonton.

I'm not sure how much you known

about all of this, but just to fill you in,

evidence we have heard is that Corporal Langridge

was at the Alberta hospital for a 30-day

involuntary stay and there was some discussion of

him going to a further treatment program. He

requested the ability to go visit his mother and

then go to the treatment plan. That was brought to

a case conference.

There was a subsequent note on the

file that Corporal Langridge wanted to go to a

treatment program and that the Alberta hospital was

willing to keep him as a voluntary patient till he

was ready to go.

And we know from Mr. Etienne that

that was taken to a case conference, and a decision

was taken, depending on which note you read, to

have him back at the base for a quote, trial of

good behaviour to see if he was capable of going to


28112345

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

678

a treatment facility, or he was brought back to the

base until such time as he could go to the further

treatment facility. And we have seen different

notes expressing different views.

Within a couple of days of

returning to the base, we have a note from Mr.

Strilchuk basically saying that Corporal Langridge

was not abiding by conditions that Mr. Strilchuk

had imposed on him, and that Mr. Strilchuk had been

fired by -- or maybe Mr. Strilchuk fired the

client. He was no longer going to be seeing

Corporal Langridge at that point.

THE CHAIRPERSON: I think the note

said that he no longer would see him. I think that

it was Corporal Langridge that fired him.

MR. FREIMAN: In my view that's

quite ambiguous especially given medical or quasi

medical environment. For whatever reason, he was

no longer to be seeing Mr. Strilchuk and at that

point there were numerous -- or some consultations

and a number of conditions were imposed by --

MS McLAINE: I hate to interject

there, but I have to cut you off. Just on the

record you are misrepresenting the facts. You are

not stating the drug use while he was in the


28212345

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

678

hospital. You are leaving things out. If you want

to go there, I would refer him to a document. I

can't accept that that's an accurate statement of

the facts.

MR. FREIMAN: Mr. Chairman, my

understanding is that the way these things are

ordered in hearings is if there is belief that

there are additional facts that have been to be

brought to the attention of a witness, that's what

God created cross-examination for, and if I

mentioned facts that are important to me, if I am

misstating facts, then I imagine my friend is quite

justified in interrupting me and saying that is a

false fact or you are misrepresenting.

If her concern is that the facts I

am selecting are different from the facts that she

would have selected, my submission is that's what's

cross-examination is for.

MS McLAINE: With respect, it's

not for your spin on the facts. They have to be

clearly stated.

THE CHAIRPERSON: Noted. Please

continue.

MR. FREIMAN: Thank you.

Q. In any event, conditions were


28312345

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

678

imposed and I would like to have you look at tab 3.

Let's look at tab 4. It's clearer in tab 4. My

long preface was simply to put this into context.

This is an e-mail chain, so as with all e-mail

chains we end up having to go from the front to the

back.

A. From the front to the back?

Q. From the back to the front,

rather. We go from the bottom to the top. So the

first e-mail consists of a set of what are called

medical occupational employment limitations.

A. Right.

Q. That are recommended, sorry

that are imposed by the base surgeon and they are:

"Member is to abstain

absolutely from alcohol and

drugs unless prescribed by a

physician. The member is to

comply with the treatment

plan which includes him

remaining the supervision of

LdSH RC; and 3, member is to

attend all scheduled

appointments as directed by

medical services."


28412345

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

678

The e-mail that follows, that is

that goes on top of those, is an e-mail from the

RSM Chief Warrant Officer Ross, addressed to Major

Jared and to others that states that the RSM has

imposed a number of additional directions and

restrictions.

A. Right.

Q. And you can read them if you

like. I can read them in, but you can read them as

well.

A. Just did.

Q. Okay. My entire long preface

was just designed to ask you what you from your

understanding of Corporal Langridge's history,

condition, outlook, what you make first of all, of

Captain Hannah's conditions which he calls medical

occupational employment limitations. What do they

suggest to you and what do they suggest they are

intended to do?

A. If I look at Captain Hannah's

information, I think that it was a reasonable -- he

had just come out of the Alberta hospital.

Q. Yes.

A. So the option of sending him

back there I don't think was really an option, so


28512345

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

678

maybe Captain Hannah looked at this as an

alternative, get him to the front lines back to his

unit and have them keep watch over him until he can

get to treatment again.

Q. So are we talking about the

RSM's conditions or are we talking about Captain

Hannah's conditions or both? Captain Hannah's at

the bottom. The RSM is on the top.

A. Yes, there are some expounds

on what he has to do.

Q. Yes.

A. And I guess that would be how

the unit would react to this request from Captain

Hannah.

Q. Yes?

A. And they would impose sort of

their own requirements doing that which are

reasonable, wearing a uniform during normal working

hours. I mean that's regular duties.

Q. Yes.

A. His normal work days, freedom

of restriction or freedom of movement, with

restrictions.

Q. Yes.

A. So he had to live, this is


28612345

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

678

saying he had to live right in regimental duty

centre. Would have bedded in the defaulter's room.

Can't close his door. He will have a curfew.

Report to duty officer. To me that's looking like

they are trying to make sure he doesn't do

anything.

Q. Okay.

A. That's their concern at, how

they are perceiving what the word from Dr Hannah

was. This is how they want to put it in place.

Q. Looking at it from the

outside, from the perspective of Corporal

Langridge's colleagues, do you have any view as to

how they would perceive --

A. Punishment.

Q. Thank you. Thank you those

are my questions.

THE CHAIRPERSON: Do you need a

couple of minutes or are you okay? Health break?

You are important. We will take five minutes.




COL (RET'D) DRAPEAU: Mr. Chair,

thank you.


28712345

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

678

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY COLONEL DRAPEAU:

Q. Mr. Perkins, good evening.

How much time did you spend? What's the length of

time these interviews that you had with Stewart?

Start with the first, approximately.

A. The first one probably,

because it was an assessment, was probably about

two hours long. And then the rest were probably

maximum an hour. Sometimes they were not even that

long, depending.

Q. So did you have a sense you

really got to know him as an individual?

A. Not as much as I would like

to, no.

Q. But you spent totally about

six, seven, eight, nine hours?

A. Maybe six hours.

Q. Six hours overall. Did you

speak of him as an individual, not at all as a

patient? How did he come across to you?

A. Somebody who was very hurt.

Not as a patient. I mean, in my own opinion, it

was obvious that this was a hurting unit. For

whatever reason I, as a person, I wouldn't know,

but he had severe problems and was just a feeling I


28812345

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

678

had -- sorry. He was in distress, I guess would be

the best way to put it, just in the times I had

been with him.

Q. Did you have a sense that his

distress was a recent creation or a recent

gestation or was that as a result of a decade long

or?

A. That for the amount of time I

spent with him, it would be very hard to determine.

From my perspective what I was dealing with was

somebody in the here and now. As to what they were

feeling right then, I didn't spend a lot of time

going back over his life time but what I was

looking at is where he was at that moment and it

changed each time it went -- -

Q. You weren't looking back two

years, three years?

A. Not even that.

Q. Not even that?

A. No. Mostly just primary

since his military time, if any.

Q. How important to you is it to

get to understand the travel or the life

experiences at how somebody came about when they

end up in your office?


28912345

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

678

A. Very important. Again,

though, when we are doing an interview with a

client we will ask about family and things like

that. We followed the client's lead as to where

they want to go with it. Or I follow the client's

lead as to where they want to go with it. Some

families that or some people will not talk about

their family at all, and if I try to press that I

will alienate them. So mine is very much

client-centred. I go where the clients want to go.

Q. Did you speak about the

family with him?

A. Not very much other than a

bit about his brother trying to kill himself.

Q. Could you go to this booklet

here on tab 14, please. I want to take you to the

NEEDS survey?

A. The NEEDS?

Q. Page 4. I'm looking at the

very last question.

A. "Pick the number that best

represents your childhood and

family life. Very best."

Q. Can we get any better than

that?


29012345

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

678

A. No.

Q. So that was his description

at the time which you first interviewed?

A. Yes, it was.

Q. NEEDS?

A. That was -- I don't think it

the first. It might have been the second interview

with him because the NEEDS I do after I have scored

the SASSI so it would probably have been the second

interview.

Q. When I look to you, have I

have to tell you, I'm impressed by your

qualifications and the time and the variety of

appointments you put in, somebody says that, what's

the likelihood of being totally exaggerated, or

partly exaggerated, someone talking about his

childhood?

A. I'm not sure. Again, when I

see very best, automatically to me that represents

that that's not a problem that I'm going to be

looking at a whole lot. Unless they bring if

somebody an okay. If someone says childhood the

very best, okay.

Q. Turn the page. Move on?

A. Turn the page, yes.


29112345

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

678

Q. You said you had two patients

on the base?

A. Yes.

Q. What's the population of the

base in your estimation?

A. 5,000.

Q. So about 5 per cent?

A. 10 per cent.

Q. 10 per cent would be patients

of yours and some of them would be remain patients

of your for what?

A. Mostly what we did, we

usually kept them for a year after they came out of

treatment. We would do an assessment, determine

level of severity with the individual, try to

determine a proper treatment course. And then if

it was like a residential treatment program, we

tried to get a commitment of them to come to what

it was known as after care or phase 3 with us for

one year.

Q. Would you agree when people

come to you they have reached a crisis level of

some sort?

A. Yes.

Q. And that's when they come to


29212345

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

678

you. Would you also agree, then, there is a whole

lot of other people on the base -- don't know what

percentage that would be, that they are about to

reach a level or are in the middle of it, and

eventually they are going to be coming knocking at

your door?

A. Yes.

Q. Any estimate on that?

A. I say we probably if you look

at the total of 5,000 people, I think maybe I

answered your other question wrong. If you look at

that total but we may be see 2 per cent.

Q. Of what potentially could be

--

A. Could be. The possibility.

Now, in normal population, they say 10 per cent of

the population probably has some presenting drug or

alcohol problem. That is just a stat that I can't

even remember where I got it from.

Q. And already you are the head

of the addiction?

A. Yes.

Q. How many people did you have

working with you?

A. At the first was just Dennis


29312345

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

678

Strilchuk. Just one.

Q. Just the two of you?

A. Yes. Prior to that, it has

been Mr. Hunt and myself.

Q. Did you qualify this as the

best care to be provided to soldiers in need?

A. Not one second.

Q. Did you call this cutting

edge service to the troops?

A. No.

Q. What do you call it?

A. I call it a band aid

solution. Too few people to deal with too many

problems.

Q. I'm going to be asking your

opinion. Looking back power of hindsight and

taking into account you met Stuart -- I never did

-- and that your work with health care

professionals on a wide and with the aim of

assisting this young man with their drug addiction

but also where is a suicidal policy, do you think,

retrospect, that his suicide was preventable?

A. No.

Q. You think ultimately he would

have committed?


29412345

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

678

A. Yes.

Q. Could we have done more for

him?

A. I really, I don't think we

could have. I think that and looking at it now, I

think he was afforded a level of care that most

people in the military never would have gotten.

They would have been thrown out long before that.

And I think when somebody -- I'm not necessarily

talking about Corporal Langridge, but somebody who

is pardon my language, hell-bent on killing

themselves or suiciding, they are going to do it.

Q. My last question. If you had

an occasion today to speak to the chief of defense

staff and you had occasion to tell him your

recommendation, what lessons would have been

learned from Stewart Langridge's suicide and what

could be done to prevent another one? What would

it be?

A. That's a little loaded.

Q. Yes.

A. You want my --

Q. Please.

A. I would say we have -- I have

got to watch my language here. The best way to put


29512345

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

678

that is, working in the mental health field is not

about stats. It's not about worrying about who is

making the most money. I'll get upset here.

I was brought up that the most

important thing in my job is client care. The

client is number one. Everything else was

secondary to that. If I have an option of going to

case conference or being with a client, I will be

with the client. So, hence, I tended to miss a lot

of case conferences.

I am not I guess what you would

call a bureaucrat. I'm a front line worker. I

love working with clients. I always have, and

every time you put a meeting in my way or tasked me

to do this or some other BS that has nothing to do

with what I'm supposed to be doing, it bothers me.

If I was to say that to the chief

of defence staff, I would say, look, you want to

have an effective organization, let me do my job.

Don't micromanage the hell out of me. I know what

I'm doing. That's what you pay me for. I'm

qualified to do this job. Let me do it and not

have to worry about how I'm interpreted by

psychiatrists, psychologists or social workers. I

am the expert in the addiction field. None of them


29612345

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

678

are. The doctors on the base were the few ones who

acknowledged that we were the experts, and if we

said somebody had dependancy, the doctor just

rubber-stamped it because he knew we were good.

But the bottom line is, lose the bureaucracy and

let's do our job.


MS McLAINE: I have no questions.

Thank you.


MR. FREIMAN: Nothing.

THE CHAIRPERSON: Mr. Perkins, I

believe -- not believe, that does end your

testimony. And it's now 5 after 7. You have been

here for many hours, not enough to qualify as an

employee, but you have been here a long time. Want

to thank you for your testimony, for being here,

and your expertise in your field is appreciated, as

your testimony, so thank you for your efforts.

I want to say thanks for the

people that have been -- it has been a long day,

both for counsel and everybody that's here. It's

one heck of a day, hours to put in on Mr. Freiman's

birthday. Happy birthday to you.

That concludes for today and we


29712345

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

678

will adjourn till tomorrow at 9:30 to do whatever

we need to do. Thank you.

--- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 7:08 p.m.


29812345

1

2

3

678

I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT I have, to the best

of my skill and ability, accurately recorded

by Stenomask and transcribed therefrom,

the foregoing proceeding.

_______________________________

Suzanne Hubbard, Stenomask Reporter

and

I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT I have, to the best

of my skill and ability, accurately recorded

by shorthand and transcribed therefrom, the

foregoing proceeding using real time computer

aided transcription.

____________________________________

Marion Liang, Court Reporter


123456

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

789