kangaroojustice.org€¦ · Web view--- Upon commencing at 11:45 a.m. Accused present. RANDALL...

MONDAY, OCTOBER 4th, 1999

--- Upon commencing at 11:45 a.m.--- Accused present

RANDALL WARA, previously sworn

THE REGISTRAR: Are counsel satisfied that all

members of the jury are present? MR. COOPER: Content. MR. McKECHNIE: Content.

MS. MULLIGAN: Thank you. THE COURT: Mr. Cooper?

MR. COOPER: Thank you, Your Honour.

CROSS-EXAMINATION (continued) BY MR. COOPER: Q. Mr. Wara, we'll see if we can get finished

today in any event, I was going to say this morning. We're

going to play some tapes for you as we said just before we

broke, but just before we do that I was reflecting on a couple

of your answers on Friday and I just want to clarify a couple

of things.

With respect, first of all, to the meeting that you had in Montreal where you went to the car dealership --- A. Yeah. Q. --- the first time to meet the Cotroni people, that was the prearranged spot, it was just a specific car dealership and I've got a name here I'm going to bounce off you. A. Yeah.

Q. Okay.MS. MULLIGAN: Your Honour, I have an objection

WARA, cr-ex(Cooper)

17606

to the form of the question.

WARA, cr-ex(Cooper)

17606

MR. COOPER: Your Honour, I'd like to argue this one last time. Perhaps we should argue this one final time.

THE COURT: All right.

--- Whereupon the witness and the jury retired at 11:48 a.m.

WARA, cr-ex(Cooper)

17606

--- In the absence of the jury MR. CRYSTAL: Your Honour, my friend has basi-

cally shown I think absolutely no respect for

your comments of the other day and our argu-

ments that we had with respect to unfounded

suggestions that are not in evidence, that is

the Cotronis. He consistently through his ques-

tions in cross-examination puts facts that are

not in evidence before this jury. Now if he

intends to make his arguments through his ques-

tions in such a way that just shows absolutely

no respect for this Court, then, you know, Your

Honour what can you say. I mean we've argued

this. He knows what he's doing. There's a mens

rea element that has to be imputed to him I

think at this point. And, Your Honour, you

know, it puts us in a situation where the next

time my friend says something like that in

front of the jury I will stand up and say 'that

is not evidence and I object' because two can

play at that game, but, Your Honour, we're far

from that point because at this point, Your

Honour, we're seeking clarification from you,

direction from you to tell my friend that where

something is not in evidence he should not

treat it as if it is but, Your Honour, ---

THE COURT: I guess the key is "not in evidence". That's the key to the argument, right?

(In the absence of the jury)

17616

MR. CRYSTAL: The point is --- MS. MULLIGAN: If I could just have a moment,

please, Your Honour.


17616

MR. CRYSTAL: She clarified what I was assuming from what we talked about the other day. With regards to this witness it is not in evidence. Denis Gaudreault did give evidence that it was the Cotronis, but the point is this witness was asked that question, said he didn't know who was in Montreal, never suggested it was Cotronis, never agreed with my friend when the suggestion was put to him that it was the Cotronis, but my friend consistently assumes and puts to him in the questions that it was the Cotronis and that is not in evidence for him, Your Honour, and the problem that was delineated last ---

THE COURT: Was the witness asked point-blank was it the Cotronis?

MR. CRYSTAL: He was, Your Honour. THE COURT: Was he?MR. CRYSTAL: This was asked and dealt with. But what I was dealing with the other day and the confusion brought about by my friend's questions is he asks a question with the assumption that these people were the Cotronis as part of the question, so when the witness gives the answers it seems as if he's agreeing with my friend on the Cotroni part as well as what the general question is about.

THE COURT: Yes, but I mean you're going to have to deal with my recollection which obviously is not very good. I don't recall the Cotroni part. What I recall was like he didn't know the people who handed over the stuff to him, like


17616

he didn't know the mailmen, the people who went to -- who actually handed it over to him in these meetings they had in Montreal at these out-of-the-way industrial sites and it was bing bang and over in a minute or two. Those are the people that I thought the witness said he didn't know but I don't recall the specific mention of the Cotronis but I could be well wrong, I don't know.

MR. CRYSTAL: No, I think in his evidence he was asked, quite frankly, but he denied it. But the way it came out the last time as you recall was the Outlaws did their meetings differently than this first group that he met in Montreal, and my friend said "So when you were dealing with the Outlaws, Mr. Claude Meunier, it was differ-ent than the Cotronis". So the witness was asked about the different methods and gave an answer but it also seemed to assume that he was also in agreement with Mr. Cooper on the Cotronis being involved and here we are back at that point and I think, Your Honour, this wit-ness has never admitted that, has never accepted that, it's not part of his evidence and I don't think my friend should be allowed to put it to him as a fact when he has dis-agreed with my friend after having been asked that question point-blank. Now if my friend feels he wants to ask that question again about the Cotronis, let him ask it but I think other-wise it's just not fair.

Thank you.


17616

THE COURT: All right. MR. McKECHNIE: If it's of any assistance,

checking my notes with respect to that from last week I just have a notation in my short-hand of just "Cotroni" as being the question and the answer of Mr. Wara being "don't know".

THE COURT: All right. Thank you. MR. COOPER: Your Honour, the man is a liar.

Let me be specific here, Randy Wara is a liar, I don't mean to impugn anyone else here. How-ever, he does say at page 137 and 139 of one of these transcripts, I think it's this morning's, page 137 of the transcript from Friday, Your Honour, I'm asking him about Claude Meunier and contrasting with the Cotroni people, I've got the timing and now I don't have lines on these particular pages so I can't assist the Court with that, but page 137 about two-thirds of the way down:

"Q. Okay. Now this is definitely after Mr. Roy's death, you said it's late in the game?

A. Yeah.

Q. So, if there was a problem with the

Cotroni people it would've been after Mr. Roy's death that you switched to the Out- laws people?

A. Yeah."

It's only one question. "Q. Now did Mr. Stewart ever take you to

Montreal to meet the Cotroni people?


17616

A. No.(In the absence of the jury)

17616

Q. You just met the first guy from the Cotroni people blind, right?

A. That's exactly right."

How can it be any more clear than that? Now that's the only three pages of the transcript from Friday I've had a chance to read this morning but it's there in black and white. This man admitted on Friday that he met the Cotroni people. In the question there isn't a conundrum wrapped and a riddle wrapped in some sort of ennui, it's there in black and white, and I'm not restricted to the evidence of this witness in any event. The man is a liar. I have access to the evidence ---

THE COURT: Well the rules apply whether you're a liar or not, so that doesn't move the thing forward much. The rules apply whether the wit-ness is a liar or not.

MR. COOPER: True enough, Your Honour. Assuming he was even telling the truth I have other evidence at my disposal upon which I can cross-examine this man: the evidence of Denis Gau- dreault, the evidence of Inspector Glenn Miller who had a personal interview with Mr. Stewart pre-arrest and Mr. Stewart told him about the Cotroni people. I mean it can't get much more solid than that. This is a solid foundation upon which to cross-examine this man. Whether he denied it every time, he admitted it on page 137 in black and white without any tricks, quizzes or confusion.


17616

"Q. You just met the first guy from the Cotroni people blind, right?

A. That's exactly right." And then I go on "How was that arranged?" and

we get into the car lot. Now as I said I

haven't had a chance to read the entire tran-

script but I queried the word "car dealership"

that's why I got that middle of the transcript

or near the end I guess for another purpose.

It's there.

MS. BAIR: If I may add a little bit, Your Hon- our. The point I think Mr. Cooper made that he is a liar could be restated in this way and that is that Mr. Wara flip-flops frequently on his answers, it's one way and then it's the other way, it happens all the time, and the point about that is that this question may have been asked before, he may have said no before, he may well say yes this time because that's the pattern of his evidence over the course of several days that he's been up there, and quite frankly this morning what he just did was answered again that it was the Cotronis because Mr. Cooper didn't wrap several questions together, he said "This car dealership to meet the Cotroni people. A. Yes." So he just said it again. The car dealership was where he met the Cotroni people so, you know, it's there.

MS. MULLIGAN: The problem with this consistent-ly is in the way that the Crown chooses to cross-examine these witnesses and I've objected


17616

to it before and that's fine, but what they're(In the absence of the jury)

17616

doing is they're putting evidence of other witnesses and saying 'We have evidence that Mr. Stewart was dealing with the Cotroni people', so they're telling the witness that informa-tion. Did you ever meet the Cotroni people? No. Did you know about them? No. But we have evidence that it was the Cotroni people and then Mr. Cooper says "Now, when you first met with these Cotroni people it was done differ-ently" and he says "Yeah." Mr. Wara doesn't know or doesn't have any reason not to take Mr. Cooper's word for it that the first people were the Cotroni people, that's the problem, and Mr. Cooper does it consistently 'we have evidence from this person', 'we have evidence from that person.' The witness shouldn't be commenting on other people's evidence in any event. Sugges-tions can be made but the witness shouldn't be being told that there's proof positive of anything that he's to agree with. But the problem is Mr. Cooper does that consistently, 'Mr. Gau- dreault says this and Mr. so-and-so says this and we have evidence that the Cotronis were the first people'. "Now, when you first met with these Cotroni people how did that go" or what-ever the question is and he says 'well I didn't do this, I didn't do that' because he's been told by Mr. Cooper that it's the Cotroni people are the first people. That's the problem when you roll the question into two like he's doing now. The witness has denied knowing about the Cotroni people, denied having met them, denied


17616

knowing who they were but Mr. Cooper has told him that we have evidence that it was the Cotroni people, now let me ask you a further question.

THE COURT: I guess he doesn't remember his denials very well, does he?

MS. MULLIGAN: Well Mr. Cooper has told him it was the Cotroni people.

THE COURT: It doesn't matter. He's denied it, "I don't know them", so isn't the most logical witness to think that a witness would do is to say 'I don't know the Cotronis. I know the people at the car dealership, but whether they were the Cotronis or not I don't know'.

MS. MULLIGAN: Well if he's very clever I guess, but if he's not then we end up with a problem, as Ms. Bair says, he flip-flops. Well one of the potential explanations, aside from "The man is a liar", might be that he's not very clever and he's not very sophisticated and he's not an experienced witness and he is getting these things thrown at him. Mr. Cooper, the Crown attorney, is telling him in one question that it is the Cotronis and then using that for his later questions. This witness is supposed to not only assimilate or understand the question, answer the question being asked, but also correct the premise on which the question is being asked. Well some witnesses are able to do that and others are not, and in fairness to the witness, who I think in fairness to him if we have a fair reading of it is that he's not a very


17616

sophisticated man. He's certainly not an experienced witness. So in my submission it has to be put fairly to him, it has to be straightened out 'I put to you a number of times that when you met with these Cotroni people, now what did you know about the Cotronis' or whatever, however Mr. Cooper wants to do, it but I think it has to be put fairly by putting the answer that it's the Cotronis to him, telling him it's the Cotronis and then including it in your question. If he's not sophisticated he doesn't know to deny part of the question and then answer the other part. He's already denied that part. But Mr. Cooper seems to know something so he let's it go. In my submission that's totally unfair, that's exactly the kind of trick ques-tion or trap question that ---

THE COURT: But there's no trick in the ques-tions this morning, though, they're much more direct. Whatever truth there was in the double question of the other day, there's no double question here.

MS. MULLIGAN: Well, there is because the ques-tion is indirect to that.

THE COURT: Because it presumes every time the

answer from last week "that", right? There's

also in that basket is his denial, his denial

at the outset, and your argument essentially is

he's not sophisticated and the Crown's argument

is that he's a liar.

It seems to me we carry on. You have re-examin-


17616

ation and you do it. I don't consider there's(In the absence of the jury)

17616

any unfairness here. I think this is just

cross-examination. I'm sorry.

Bring in the jury, please.


17616

--- Upon resuming in the presence of the jury at 12:03 p.m.

RANDALL WARA, resumes on the stand

THE COURT: Mr. Cooper.

CROSS-EXAMINATION (continued) BY MR. COOPER: Q. Mr. Wara, we were just talking about the

meeting at the car dealership in Montreal and I said I was

going to suggest a name to you and the name that I'm going to

suggest is Canadian Auto Top or just Auto Top is the name of

the car lot.

A. I don't recall what it is. Q. That's not refreshing your memory at all? A. No it's not. Q. A contact there, Rick Goulet? A. No, I never was introduced to anybody. No names. Q. You don't even remember an individual named Rick? A. No I don't. Q. Because you told us on Friday that there was a name involved. I asked you, it's on page 138 for the record: "Q. And you just asked for Bob or somebody?

A. Either that or I'd go and tell him my name and the person would come out."

Et cetera. A. Yeah. Q. So there was a name there but you can't remember it, is that it? A. Yeah.

WARA, cr-ex

(Cooper)

17670

Q. But Rick or Rick Goulet that's not ringing any bells for you? A. No it doesn't. Q. And neither is the Canadian Auto Top? A. No. Q. Or just Auto Top? A. No. Q. Can you give me a direction as to where in Montreal this -- the car dealership you remember going to was, where was it located? A. It was close to the airport. Just off a highway, I don't recall what street or anything like that. Q. And it sold more than just cars, it was a used car lot in part at least? A. I think so, yeah. Q. Yeah. And things like a motorhome, sold those things? A. I don't recall seeing any of that. Q. Did you ever ..... Actually we'll leave that. Now that was early on. A. Yeah. Q. That contact. And Mr. Meunier, that was late in the game you told me on Friday. A. Yeah. Q. You told the jury on Friday.

And I'm going to suggest, sir, that in the middle of the game there was another contact in Montreal and that was sometime after June but before the end of July for a brief period, there you were dealing with an individual named

WARA, cr-ex

(Cooper)

17670

Cybil Berenholc. Do you recall dealing with her organization, sir? A. No. Q. And there would be a fellow named Mike involved in that as well. A. No. Q. You don't recall switching to that organization for, I don't know, about six or seven or eight weeks? A. No I don't. Q. Did you know -- you didn't know who you were meeting necessarily, though. You're going to Montreal and it's quite frequently a different person. A. Yes. Q. So it may be that the organizations have changed, you're still going to the same town that's all you know. A. I don't know. I don't know about that. Q. Now the progression, there is a progression between suppliers, though, all from Montreal, the ones that you described, plus the John Chapman supply from Toronto I guess. A. Yes. Q. So there's at least two different suppliers in the Montreal area plus the Toronto end through your brother- in-law. A. Yes. Q. There may be more suppliers in the Montreal area. A. I don't know. Q. Okay.

Mr. Meunier, we chatted early on your evidence, I think it was the first day that I asked you any questions

WARA, cr-ex

(Cooper)

17670

about the concept of ratting, and we're going to return to that before we're done for the day, but with respect to Mr. Meunier you're not in that position, are you, sir, because of course he's dead, so there's no harm in telling the jury what your contact with Mr. Meunier was. A. Yeah. Q. It's not the same as the situation with the fellow in Scarborough who may still be alive. A. No, not the same. Q. No. In fact in the drug world, in the cri- minal underworld specifically, or more generally I suppose, dead bikers get blamed for lots of stuff, don't they, so it's no problem that you admit your contact with Mr. Meunier. A. That doesn't make any sense to me just because he's dead. Q. Well, you wouldn't rat on him if he was alive, would you, sir? A. No I wouldn't. Q. Right. So the fact that he's dead makes a great deal of difference, doesn't it? A. I'm not saying anything about him really.

Q. No. A. That's already known.

Q. Just that he was handing you big packages of cocaine directly one on one. A. I'm sure you already knew part of that anyways. Q. The other people from that organization that Mr. Stewart was friends with, we mentioned one of them Bruce Shields? A. Yeah.

WARA, cr-ex

(Cooper)

17670

Q. We've already discussed him. And also Mr. Stewart was friends with Mr. Merilyn McNeil? A. I don't know him. Q. Nicknamed the Wizard? A. No. Q. You don't recall going to any parties at his -- out in Cumberland? A. No. Never. Q. A number of people would go? A. Never. Q. Mr. Stewart never told you about those parties and invited you to go? A. I'd heard about them but no, never invited. Q. Okay. Mr. Stewart told you about them but he didn't take you along? A. Right. Q. Okay. Mr. Mallory likewise told you about them? A. No. Q. No? And Mr. Dunbar is the other motorcycle enthusiast that's friends with Mr. Stewart as well, correct? A. I don't know. I don't know him. Q. You don't know him either? A. No. Q. Those are the things from Friday that I just wanted to cover off I think. Now, as I told you we were going to listen to some tapes and there are headsets available, I don't know if we'll need the headsets in any event but we'll just see this in a minute, and I'd like you, sir, we started to review this on Friday but we didn't get as far as playing the tapes, I'd like

WARA, cr-ex

(Cooper)

17670

you to listen to the tapes. You can assist in determining who the voices are and I'll be asking you questions after you've heard the tapes. The first -- I've just selected five fairly short interceptions and four of them - I'll be corrected if I'm wrong - are on the same date, yes, all in sequence on the 3rd of July, 1989. Would you like to try a headset, sir, and see what happens?

A. I should be able to hear it. Q. The first one, as I said the first four are all in sequence, they start at 1338, which is 1:38 in the afternoon of the 3rd of July, 1989. Would you start that one, please.--- Tape played MR. COOPER: Could you just pause there for a

minute? Q. You recognized the two individuals on the phone, they're people you've known for quite some time. A. No, I don't recognize the two of them.

Q. You don't recognize ---A. I just caught it from some of the things

that were said. Possibly who one person may be. Q. Possibly who one person might be. A. Yeah. Q. The one person is who then? A. I think it was John Chapman. Q. John Chapman, the man you lived with, you certainly recognized his voice. A. After I heard what he was saying ---

Q. Yeah.A. --- then I figured it was him.

WARA, cr-ex

(Cooper)

17670

Q. The context helped you? A. Just the context, yeah. Q. And the voice obviously. A. Well after hearing what he had said. Q. Now if I read out the same thing you wouldn't be confused, you wouldn't think I was John Chapman because of the context of what was said. You knew it from the voice recognition as well, sir, didn't you? A. After I heard ---

Q. Okay.A. --- a certain part in it.

Q. It's a combination of things. But the other speaker is just a mystery to you at the moment. A. I don't know who that is. Q. Okay.

Let's play the next one and see if it can be of any more assistance to you.--- Tape played MR. COOPER: Just a passage here in between the

two calls, sir.--- Tape played MR. COOPER: Just pause it there for a minute,

please. Q. The number that was recited just there was 769-6409, the person leaving the message, does that give you some recollection, sir, about who that might be? A. No it doesn't. Q. You don't recognize that telephone number. A. No I don't. Q. Okay. MR. COOPER: Please continue, Mr. Ralko.

WARA, cr-ex

(Cooper)

17670

--- Tape played MR. COOPER: Just pause there for a moment.

Q. Sir, do you recognize any of the speakers on that? A. It was Rob and John. Q. Okay. And what about the fellow that wouldn't talk very long? A. I just -- from what the person said, he said his name, so I didn't recognize the voice, though. Q. You didn't recognize his voice? A. No. Q. Okay. When you say Rob and John you mean Rob Stewart and Rick Mallory. A. John Chapman. Q. I'm sorry, Rob Stewart and John Chapman. A. Yeah. Q. Okay. You didn't hear Rick Mallory's voice in there even for a minute. A. No. Q. No. Okay.

Now does that assist you with the first call that immediately preceded that, sir? A. Would it assist me. Who it was on the tape? Q. Yes. A. No. No it didn't. Q. You still don't know who the person that John Chapman was talking to is immediately prior to the call that you just listened to. A. No. Q. Okay.

WARA, cr-ex

(Cooper)

17670

We have another one at 1346, just a few minutes later, on the same date.--- Tape played MR. COOPER: Q. The two people in that conversation, sir? A. Rob and John. Q. Rob Stewart and John Chapman. A. Yeah. Q. And the final one from that day is a little less than an hour later, at 1421. MR. COOPER: Apparently there's another tape.--- Tape played MR. COOPER: Q. We'll back it up to the beginning again in a minute, sir, but do you recognize that person "well get over here and talk to them. They're all right", do you recognize that person who just spoke? A. No. Q. Do you know Red Bergeron, sir? A. Yeah. Q. Does it sound like his voice maybe? A. Fuck, no, I wouldn't know.

MR. COOPER: We'll just back that up again. There's more than two speakers here.

--- Tape played MR. COOPER: Q. Do you recognize any of the speakers there, sir? A. John Chapman. Q. I'm sorry, I couldn't hear you. A. John Chapman.

WARA, cr-ex

(Cooper)

17670

Q. John Chapman. You didn't recognize the other person who was speaking most of the time? A. Only when the name was said. Q. And the name? A. Was Rick. Q. Rick. Does that assist you in recognizing the speaker, sir? A. No. Q. It doesn't assist you at all? A. Well, no. Q. Okay.

We'll go over and do the last one. There's only one more. Is that another tape, Officer? The next one, sir, is from the 23rd of July. Those ones were all from the 3rd of July, this is 20 days later and it's in the evening at 8:04 p.m.--- Tape played MR. COOPER: Q. Do you recognize those voices, sir? A. It's John and Rob. Q. John Chapman and Robert Stewart. A. Yeah. Q. You told Mr. Crystal in chief, sir, that your brother-in-law John Chapman changed towards the end and he started -- "he reminded me of Tony Montana" is what you said. Do you remember that? A. Yeah. Q. "He got violent" you said. The bottom of page of 46 of that day in chief, I'll just back up: "A. When I moved in with them there was no

alcohol, nothing like that around, and at

WARA, cr-ex

(Cooper)

17670

one point he started drinking again, I guess he hadn't drank in 10 years or something like this, and he started drinking and it was just -- and then using cocaine, heroin. It was just like night and day. I didn't know the person anymore. I tried talking with him about it but it was just in one ear out the other. He changed dra-matically.

Q. Could you just elaborate on that. How so?

A. Well, violent. If you ever watch a movie, I can't remember what it's called, with Al Pacino, he figured he was Tony Montana, that's my impression, big-time cocaine dealer. It's just the impression I got."

That's what you said Mr. Chapman was acting like. A. Yeah. Q. And you've heard Mr. Chapman's voice here in all of these tapes --- A. Yeah. Q. --- that we saw here on the 3rd of July and the 23rd of July, 1989, and he's not acting like Tony Montana. A. A different situation. Q. A different situation. By that point in time he's no longer a big deal drug dealer I guess. A. I don't know what he was up to at that time. Q. Because you said that he was a big-time cocaine dealer and that's what you couched all this -- the movie is Scarface, isn't it? A. Yeah. Q. Mr. Dandyk told me that. I don't follow the

WARA, cr-ex

(Cooper)

17670

movies as much as Mr. Dandyk. WARA, cr-ex

(Cooper)

17670

But that character I gather is somebody that's -- that movie is filled with gore and stuff, isn't it? A. Yeah, I guess it is. Q. I mean that's what you were talking, to use an analogy here, --- A. It's of the person itself, it's, you know, how a person kind of, you know, they get all this money. Just kind of flew off the handle. Q. But that wasn't Mr. Chapman as he appears in these conversations at all. A. No. Q. Right? I mean he's the opposite, he's the guy that's trying to backpedal and get out of trouble, right? A. Yeah. Q. Clearly in these conversations he's the one that's trying to stave off trouble. A. M'hmm-hmm. Yeah. Q. And my suggestion to you, sir, is that's what he was like the entire time that he was dealing with -- that you were dealing with Mr. Stewart. A. No. I was there. I know what John was like. Q. Okay. You know what John was like but this is July 3rd and July 23rd, so that pretty much covers the month of July 1989. You've just barely started with Mr. Stewart then, right? A. Yeah. Yeah. Q. I mean it's only been a month or so since you've been doing the tile work at Blake, right? A. Right. Q. And you told us that it was Mr. Chapman, sir, that was providing the drugs later on or earlier on?

WARA, cr-ex

(Cooper)

17670

A. I don't know if he was providing it himself. It would've been later on. Q. Later on. It wasn't earlier on. You're sure of that. A. No. Yeah, I'm sure of that. Q. Okay. Because of course as we reviewed he leaves town after this beating, right? A. Yeah. Q. So he wasn't supplying Mr. Stewart after the beating. A. Pardon me? Q. He wasn't supplying Mr. Stewart after the beating. A. I don't know when John was supplying Rob. Q. Okay. So it may well have been earlier in the game, not later in the game. A. No, it wasn't early in the game, you know, I never seen him then for anything. Q. I'm sorry? A. I never seen him for anything early in the game. Q. Right. So you're assuming it was after your departure. A. Yeah, and probably just when I was finish-ing up. Q. Okay. But by then -- well we've heard evidence that the beating took place on the 26th of June, 1990 and it's shortly after that that -- not long after that in any event that he's gone, Mr. Chapman is gone. A. Yeah. Q. Right?

WARA, cr-ex

(Cooper)

17670

A. Yeah. Q. Now these calls are about a year before, right? A. I don't know when all this exactly came down. Q. Well we have evidence of calls that you've just heard, sir, independent, Ms. Mulligan adduced these, these ones are from the month of July of 1989, so I'm just trying to get a chronology going here. So by July of 1989 Mr. Chapman is trying to stay out of trouble, he's not Tony Montana that month obviously, from what you just heard. A. The beginnings of it. Q. But it's not long after that that -- well, it's a year after that that he finally gets a beating but it's not long after that there's attempts made to pay back Mr. Stew- art. A. I have no idea. Q. It's clear from these conversations that have just occurred that must help you, sir, put in your mind the time frame of the ripoff that Mr. Chapman was accused of doing because that's what they're talking about, the whole conversation we just reviewed, right? A. Yeah. Q. Peeping Puppets is the nickname for this guy in Toronto that Mr. Stewart says was in on the ripoff with John Chapman, ---

A. Okay.Q. --- right?

A. I don't know. Q. Well you knew there was a guy in Toronto that's in on the ripoff with John Chapman.

WARA, cr-ex

(Cooper)

17670

A. Well, obviously if they went down ---Q. Yeah.A. --- there must've been somebody there.

Q. I mean these tapes are something you've never heard before, right? A. No, I never heard them. Q. But the context of them doesn't surprise you. In fact it helped you to identify the speakers. A. Yeah. Q. Okay. So the point is, sir, in terms of the sequence, in the summer of '89 in July Mr. Chapman is already in trouble, he owes Mr. Stewart money and he never recovers from that, does he? A. No, he didn't recover from it. Q. Yeah. So obviously it wasn't some time after that that he's a supplier for Mr. Stewart. It just makes sense, right? A. Yeah, but I don't recall him being there in the beginning. Q. It may have been that he actually had preceded your arrival. A. Possibly but no, I don't believe that. Q. But obviously he wasn't there as a supplier any time after July of 1989. A. I don't know. Q. And that would seem logical just based on what you just heard and your knowledge of having lived through that period of time. A. Well I don't know what happened all of that time so maybe things could've went a little differently.

WARA, cr-ex

(Cooper)

17670

Q. Well, your knowledge is, the information you have is that Mr. Chapman never repaid that debt. A. That's to the best of my knowledge, yeah. Q. Okay.

Now the person, sir, on the first conversation you've now determined that it's Mr. Stewart and Mr. Chapman chatting. It's Mr. Stewart that's obviously saying "The farm is mine by another three days", et cetera, it's not Mr. Chapman saying that, it's Mr. Chapman saying "No, the farm is not gonna be yours", right? A. Okay. Q. You understood that to be -- do you want to hear that again? A. Well I didn't really understand the first time, so ..... Q. Would you like to hear it again? We can do that one again. A. I'll take your word for it, if that's what he said. Q. I want the evidence to come from you, sir. He'll be half a minute or so. While that's being rewound I'll move on to one that you might've heard a little bit better. Mr. Stewart in the second one, and you didn't have any problem identifying his voice there, at one point earlier on he says "I'm at the Red Lobster on Montreal Road", that's another place Mr. Stewart used to frequent when you dealt with him? A. No. Q. You don't think so? A. I never went there.

WARA, cr-ex

(Cooper)

17670

Q. You never went there. A. No. Q. So if he was frequenting there it wasn't with you. A. Right. Q. Do you know the place I'm talking about? A. Yeah. Q. It's just kind of a --- A. Yeah, it's across from OC Transpo. Q. I couldn't hear you, sir. Sorry. A. It's across from OC Transpo on St. Laurent. Did you say Montreal Road? Q. Montreal Road, yeah, that's the one I'm talking about. A. Well I'm thinking of another one. No, I don't know where that one is. Q. Yeah, definitely not the one on St. Laurent. The one on Montreal Road, sir, would be just a stone's throw more or less from Hochelaga. A. Area. Okay. Q. Do you know the one now? A. Yeah. Q. Okay. Did Mr. Stewart and you have meetings or lunches, or dinners or breakfast at that restaurant as well? A. No. Q. You weren't invited to those ones, anything there. A. I'm not a fish lover so I wouldn't even go there. Q. No. Okay.

WARA, cr-ex

(Cooper)

17670

Now, during the call here, sir, the second call where you identified Mr. Stewart as being the speaker with your brother-in-law, Mr. Stewart is saying to Mr. Chapman "The most important thing in your life right now", those are his words, is to come down and see Mr. Stewart and "straighten this mess out", right? A. Yeah. Q. Did Stewart ever talk to you like that? A. Never. Q. Never? You never heard him talk to anybody else like that before? A. Never. Q. So that would be out of character for Mr. Stewart as far as you know. A. As far as I'm concerned, yes. Q. Okay.

And then the phone is passed to Mr. -- to a guy named Rick. Now I'm going to suggest it's Mr. Mallory but Mr. Mallory and Mr. Chapman were friends. A. Yeah. Q. So when the person that's identified as Rick says "No I can't talk to this guy because I know him too well" that seems to be consistent with that Rick being Rick Mallory. A. M'hmm-hmm. Yeah. Q. Does that make sense to you? A. Yeah. Q. Now, Mr. Mallory, sir, did you recognize his voice? A. No.

WARA, cr-ex

(Cooper)

17670

Q. Okay. And the other conversation with Red Bergeron, did you recognize Mr. Mallory's voice on that one? A. No. Q. But you knew Mr. Mallory quite well. A. I didn't know him quite well, no.

Q. He wasn't ---A. I think I'd said that before.

Q. --- a friend of yours? A. I think I'd said that before that "friend", you know, we knew each other. That's about as far as that went. Q. Okay. So he was closer friends with your brother-in-law than he was with you. A. Oh yeah. MR. COOPER: Go back to number one then. We're rewound--- Tape played MR. COOPER: Q. We'll just stop sort of midway there, sir. Is that helping you so far? A. Yeah. Q. You hear it a little bit better now that you know who the parties are? A. Yeah. Q. You know what they're talking about, obviously? A. Yeah. Q. Because you've heard the other few conver-sations that follow it, and what they're talking about is quite clearly this ripoff thing has just happened and Mr. Stewart is making efforts to recover it. A. Yeah.

WARA, cr-ex

(Cooper)

17670

Q. Okay. And the context is important, sir, because you're aware of this farm debt, this loan for the farm is $ 6500., precedes this incident. A. No, I'm not aware of that. Q. Now reflect back, you can't recall which happened first, the drug rip or the farm loan? A. I don't know how far this was into him having the farm. I don't know if then he started owing him money. I don't know. Q. Okay. Well, let's try and put it in a time line here. July 3rd, 1989 they're at the farm by then? A. I don't know. Q. You can't recall? A. No I can't. Q. You didn't move with them to the farm. A. No I didn't. Q. Okay. Because of course by then you'd be making piles of money working for Mr. Stewart. A. I wasn't making piles of money.

Q. Three to $ 4,000. take-home a week?A. I said that didn't happen all the time,

though. Q. Okay. It was a good week when that hap-pened. A. It would be a good week, yes. Q. You told us before that was your average, sir. A. Yeah, an average can go up and down. Q. Sure. So sometimes it was $ 6,000. take-home a week. A. No.

WARA, cr-ex

(Cooper)

17670

Q. No? A. No. Q. In any event, it might help to put it in perspective here where Mr. Stewart is saying "that farm is mine by another three days". A. Yeah. Q. So it seems that the farm business has already gone through. A. That's right. Q. And, of course, just logically if Mr. Stew- art had've been ripped off by Mr. Chapman he's unlikely to loan him money after that, right? A. Right. Q. So put all that together is it fair, sir, that you're assessing the farm thing precedes the drug thing? A. Yes. Q. Okay.

Had you ever seen or heard Mr. Stewart threaten to repossess a piece of real estate before? A. No. Q. So you've never heard him talk like that before about taking over a house or a farm ---

A. No.Q. --- or a cottage, or anything like that?

A. No. Q. Okay.

Do you know how he got the cottage that you did work on? A. I have no idea. Q. You didn't see whose name that was in or anything like that?

WARA, cr-ex

(Cooper)

17670

A. I presume it was under his. Q. He didn't tell you that. A. No. MR. COOPER: Please continue with the rest of it.--- Tape played MR. COOPER: Q. You recognize Mr. Stewart there now quite clearly, eh? A. Yeah. Q. Did he ever call you names like that, sir, like a hunk of shit? A. No. Q. No? You never owed him any money, though. A. No. Q. Like nowhere on here, well let's go back a little bit here, Mr. Stewart said "Okay well listen okay we're gonna send some boys" or "toys down to Toronto or some goddamn thing, it's fuckin' ridiculous." Have you ever heard of Mr. Stewart talking about sending boys or toys to any location, sir? A. No. Q. So you've never heard of anything like that come out of Mr. Stewart's mouth in the whole year or two that you worked for him. A. No, I never did. Q. Okay. Not just down to Toronto, you never heard about him sending anybody anywhere. A. That's right. Q. But you knew Mr. Mallory's role there because, of course, you told us about that before in chief. A. M'hmm-hmm. Yes.

WARA, cr-ex

(Cooper)

17670

Q. So he was occasionally sent places. A. I don't know that. Q. You don't know that. Mr. Stewart never told you that? A. No. Q. Okay. He just told you that Mr. Mallory's role was that he was muscle, et cetera. A. No, he never told me that. Q. Mr. Mallory told you that. A. Nobody told me that. Q. Nobody told me that. A. No. Q. But that was your evidence in chief.

A. Yeah, I know.Q. "Protection, muscle, if somebody was

coming after Rob or something, you know, Rick would be there to intercept if somebody wasn't paying off or something or taking too long to pay Rick would be there." A. Yeah. Q. Nobody told you that. You just knew that. A. Yeah. Q. Just from being involved in the organiza-tion yourself. A. Yes. Q. And that's -- during one of these other calls, the phone is actually passed to an individual named Rick, right? A. Yeah. Q. And you heard Mr. Stewart say on this conversation "I gave him $ 20,000. yesterday", that accords with your information as to the debt involved.

WARA, cr-ex

(Cooper)

17670

A. Yeah. Q. Right? A. Yeah. Q. The drug end of the debt, not the farm end of the debt. And you recall, sir, Exhibit 121 I showed you before, it's the one with the map but also underneath it is this document that you said you'd never seen before, also dated in July of 1989 but the 28th, and the figure mentioned there is $ 26,000. A. Yeah. Q. And that accords roughly with the $ 20,000. that you understood was involved in the drug rip plus the six thousand or 6500, whatever it was, for the farmhouse, doesn't it? A. Yeah. I thought it was different numbers but yeah. Q. So you have, in all of your exposure to Mr. Stewart, never heard him in that tone of voice that he does in that first phone call we're talking about so far. A. No, I never heard him ---

Q. And ---A. --- in that tone of voice.

Q. Sorry, I just didn't hear you. A. I never heard him in that tone of voice. Q. And that's why it was difficult for you to even recognize his voice the first time it was played for you. A. Yeah. Q. Is that fair? A. Yeah.

WARA, cr-ex

(Cooper)

17670

Q. But you never saw him trying to collect money. A. No. Q. Now nowhere in here is -- Mr. Stewart, obviously you're very familiar with the man, and what you hear is an out of character tone of voice? A. Yeah. Q. And nowhere in here have you ever heard Mr. Chapman threatened to go to the police or anything like that, right? A. No I didn't. Q. Okay.

Now the second conversation, sir, we started to review just before we rewound the tape and I don't think we need to play it again unless you want to, but that's another conversation where Mr. Stewart is uncharacteristic, I suppose, as compared to how you knew him. A. Yes. Q. Did you ever receive orders from Mr. Stew- art such as "'cause you're coming down here to see me right now and we're going to straighten out this mess right now, that's the most important thing in your life right now", did he ever say anything remotely like that to you? A. Never. Q. And in any of your conversations with Mr. Stewart did he ever pass the phone to Mr. Mallory to let Mr. Mallory take over the conversation? A. No. Q. And did Mr. Stewart ever tell you "I'm telling you you don't fuck with me", did he ever say that to you, that sort of thing?

WARA, cr-ex

(Cooper)

17670

A. No. Q. Not that tone of voice. Not that kind of language? A. No. Q. You never heard him cross like that at all. A. No, I never did. Q. Did he ever hang up the phone on you? A. I don't think so, no. Q. Do you remember that call, now we didn't play it but it's the one I read out loud to you where there's a suggestion that you've disappeared with the tile money? A. Yeah. Q. And it's Mr. Stewart and Mr. Chapman that are the identified speakers, not identified by you but previ-ously identified. Does Mr. Stewart ever -- this $ 500. worth of tile money even then Mr. Stewart doesn't come on to you in any kind of unusual tone of voice? A. No. Q. Did he ever mention the $ 500. worth of tile money? A. No. Q. Mr. Chapman, sir, did he know initially the extent of your involvement with Mr. Stewart's organization, ---

A. I don't think --- Q. --- like right at the beginning, from Day

1? A. Yeah. Q. Yeah? Just a second here. Now in the third conversation, sir, you might recall at the end of the second one Mr. Chapman says at the very end "Listen you're not telling me at all because I'm a

WARA, cr-ex

(Cooper)

17670

grown man I do what I want. You want his number on the cellu-lar. You want his number on the cellular to call" and then Mr. Stewart hangs up. The next call, sir, the third one, starts off with Mr. Stewart saying "You're a grown man, eh? Wanna grow any more? Wanna grow any more?", was that the kind of tone that you ever heard Mr. Stewart using to you or to anyone in your presence? A. No. Q. Or to anyone on the phone in your presence? A. No. Q. You never heard him talk like that at all. A. No. Q. And on the 3rd of July, the last call on the 3rd of July, sir, an individual named Rick is speaking to John Chapman on the phone? A. Yes. Q. You still can't identify that as Richard Mallory. A. I never talked to Rick on the phone ---

Q. Okay.A. --- so I wouldn't recognize his voice.

Q. You did recognize Mr. Bergeron's voice, though. A. No. Q. No, you didn't ---

A. No.Q. --- recognize it?Mr. Bergeron was an associate of your brother-

in-law John Chapman's? A. I know who Red was. I know who Red was.

WARA, cr-ex

(Cooper)

17670

Q. Okay. I was just asking you, actually. A. M'hmm-hmm. Q. And I'm correcting that ---

A. Yes. Q. --- question. And he did some work at your brother-in-law's garage or something like that. A. I think Red had his own garage. Q. Okay. He was a mechanic of some sort. A. Yeah. Q. Okay. And he was friends with Mr. Mallory as well. A. I don't know that. Q. You don't? Okay. The person, sir, that you can't identify says "Do you think we're down here with guns and baseball bats and being stupid, don't be silly. Get over here you", you've never heard Mr. Mallory say anything like that. A. Never. Q. Or Mr. Stewart for that matter. A. No. Q. Nobody ever even mentioned guns. A. That's right. Q. Not even in a joking fashion and no way at all. A. No. Q. No mention of guns. A. No mention. Q. The phrase "ranting and raving" is used throughout this conversation, sir. Does that ever describe the way that Mr. Stewart spoke when you were around him? A. No.

WARA, cr-ex

(Cooper)

17670

Q. Or Mr. Mallory? A. No. Q. Now, finally, I'll wrap this up before the break, the one that's 20 days later, the 23rd of July, 1989 in the evening, that conversation you identified the speakers as John Chapman and Rob Stewart again? A. Yes. Q. And the individual identified -- that you've identified as Mr. Stewart says in response to Mr. Chap- man saying something about he's working on a garage sale "... why don't you go work in Toronto, you got a big pile of money down there", do you know what they're talking about at all, sir? A. I presume it's a debt ---

Q. Okay.A. --- from the ripoff.

Q. From the ripoff. Mr. Chapman says "By me", Mr. Stewart says "Yeah", and that sort of firms up what you understand them to be talking about? A. Yes. Q. Because this is something you had knowledge about, that's why I'm asking these questions. A. Later on I had the knowledge of it, yes. Q. Now Mr. Stewart says -- Mr. Chapman says something about he's got a fellow down there looking for him, Mr. Stewart says "He's not doin' too good ... I ... I ... I'd spend my weekends down there if I were you" and when Mr. Chapman says he can't afford to go Mr. Stewart says "I'd give you a good alternative to not stay in town". Have you ever heard Mr. Stewart talk like that before to anybody in your presence?

WARA, cr-ex

(Cooper)

17670

A. No. Q. And just near the end of that call, sir, or not quite near the end, middle of the call, the individual identified as Mr. Stewart says "You're not out of the fuckin' woods yet ... nor am I ... I'm bein' pressed". Did Mr. Stewart ever tell you that he was being pressed, sir? A. No. Q. Did he ever tell you that he wasn't out of the fucking woods yet himself? A. Never. Q. Did he ever reflect, sir, on his cash flow situation with you? A. No. Never. Q. Never told you one way or the other things are going well, things are going badly? A. I always presumed everything was going fine. Q. But that was a presumption. A. Well, the amount of coke that was still going basically --- Q. Yet there's a huge - I'm sorry, I didn't mean to interrupt you. A. --- basically told me, you know, that there wasn't any problems. Q. I'm sorry, I couldn't hear you. A. It told me there wasn't any problems. Q. He told you there wasn't any problems. A. No. I said all the coke being there it told me there wasn't any problems. Q. I think the air conditioning is just got bumped up there.

WARA, cr-ex

(Cooper)

17670

So you were assuming on the volume of cocaine going into the organization and out of the organization that there wasn't any problems. A. Yeah. Q. There was a flow of cocaine. A. Yeah. Q. And hashish for that matter as well. A. Yeah. Q. But it's the -- you don't know anything about the cash flow, the drug flow is your business, right? A. Yes. Q. That's your area of specialty, the cash flow is something that, aside from one or two instances, you don't have anything to do with. A. Right. Q. Either incoming or outgoing. A. Right. Q. As we reviewed before if there are hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of cocaine going out the door but you don't know if any of it is being paid for. A. That wasn't my part, so I don't know. Q. Yeah. Okay.

Now, the person identified as Mr. Stewart, and I'm just about done, right near the end says "Johnny ... we're not friends anymore are we?" Mr. Chapman says "... Well it appears not but ... but I don't like to see us like that", Mr. Stewart "Well you see you haven't seen my bad side have ya?" First of all, has Mr. Stewart ever talked to you like that or anyone like that in your presence? A. No.

WARA, cr-ex

(Cooper)

17670

Q. Mr. Stewart and Mr. Chapman were in fact friends before this incident arose, correct? A. I believe so. Q. They'd had a longtime association which involved, among other things, legitimate business interests. A. Yes. Q. Some steam cleaning stuff and stuff like that, right? A. Yes. Q. But some illegitimate business as well, but it went so far as to include legitimate interests. A. Yeah. Q. And had you ever seen Mr. Stewart's bad side, sir? A. No. MR. COOPER: I think, Your Honour, I'm a couple

of minutes early, but since I'm done this chunk perhaps this would be a convenient time to have the lunch break.

THE COURT: All right, members of the jury. Back

at the usual time.

--- Whereupon court recessed at 1:00 p.m.

* * * * * * * *

--- Upon resuming at 2:30 p.m.--- Accused present


THE COURT: Mr. Cooper?


CROSS-EXAMINATION (continued) BY MR. COOPER:

WARA, cr-ex

(Cooper)

17670

Q. Sir, as we reviewed, we're not going to

play wires again, ---A. Thank you.Q. --- at least I'm not, as we reviewed you

have never heard Mr. Stewart as upset as he was on those interceptions. A. I never heard him upset at all. Q. At all? So it's way out of character for what you heard today. A. Yes. Q. And obviously, according to the content of the tapes, it's only about -- the total of about $ 26,000. worth of debts, cash. A. Yeah. Q. Twenty of it went missing on this rip and the other six is the loan on the farm thing. You knew this previously. A. Yes. Q. There's no suggestion in any of that elements of the first two, but there's no suggestion in any of those excerpts, those five interceptions, of John Chapman calling the police or putting Mr. Stewart's organization in jeopardy. A. No. Q. There's not even any mention of any drugs except it's all cash that's being discussed. A. Yeah. Q. And the total of $ 26,000., that's barely enough to buy one key of coke. Sometimes it's not enough, right? A. Depending on the time.

WARA, cr-ex

(Cooper)

17670

Q. Yeah. But I mean it can be up to $ 60,000. I think you said before, depending on the fluctuation. A. Yeah, but that's rare. Q. Yeah. But this $ 26,000. isn't going to buy two keys for sure. A. No. Q. It's barely enough to buy one if it is enough to buy one, right? A. Yeah. Q. So it's not a huge amount of money in the grand scheme of -- if you convert it to cocaine, it's not a huge amount of the --- A. The product. Q. --- the product, it's not a huge amount of the flow, the product flow as opposed to cash flow. A. No. Q. And that's -- as I said that's your area of specialty in this. And with respect to the volume that it equates to in monies worth of cocaine, it's a lot less than what happened with the yellow coke, there were four keys involved in that. A. I don't know about that, how many were involved. Q. More than four? A. I believe there was. Q. More than four? A. Yes. Q. Can you give an estimate? A. I think it was 10. Q. Ten keys?

WARA, cr-ex

(Cooper)

17670

A. Ten or 12. Q. Ten to 12 keys. So it's considerable more of the yellow coke that was damaged than there was of this discussion with Mr. Stewart and Mr. Chapman. A. Yes. Q. Maybe a total of 12 times as much in terms of monies worth ---

A. Yeah. Q. --- of cocaine.

And with respect to that you never heard Mr. Stewart how he reacted to the yellow cocaine issue. A. No. Q. You never were present for his reaction to that. A. No. Q. And likewise, sir, you've never been present to see Mr. Stewart's reaction if he ever was told by somebody that they were going to the police, you've never heard anybody say that to him. A. No. Q. So you don't know what his reaction would be about that. A. No. Q. Okay.

We'll go into the next spot. This is something we started to review several days ago and a lot of it will be a review, so it should go a little bit quickly.

I just have about a dozen questions but as I said, sir, most of them are a review. One of which we just reviewed, the total owed by Mr. Chapman being 6500 or $ 6,000. and this 20 to $ 25,000. that we just reviewed on the tapes,

WARA, cr-ex

(Cooper)

17670

right? A. Yes. Q. So the total there is around the 26 mark, maybe as high as 30. A. Yes. Q. Right?

And we've already reviewed this map that you say is similar at least to your handwriting. It probably is your handwriting, Exhibit 121, correct? A. Yeah. Q. The map to Hope Chapman's house where Mr. Chapman, John Chapman, spent a lot of time. A. Yeah. Q. He visited his mother quite a bit. A. He visited his mother, yes. Q. So if you couldn't find him at home or at the office, that place he ran the garage/convenience store thing, this would be as good a shot as any to try and find him at his mom's. A. It might be. Q. Okay. That's all I need to ask abou that. And as we already reviewed you were aware of the fact that Mr. Chapman had received a beating on the 26th of June, 1990 which caused he and his family to flee Ottawa. A. Yeah. Q. And this is very cursory here, but Mr. Stewart's business, as we have reviewed several times, was not a C.O.D. system, when you delivered a product you didn't get cash on delivery? A. No I didn't.

WARA, cr-ex

(Cooper)

17670

Q. It was run the same as virtually every other drug organization on fronts and payments that came in after the product had arrived. A. I don't know. He took care of that part, so ..... Q. You're certain that you weren't paid on delivery, though. It wasn't C.O.D. A. No, it wasn't. Q. And you said at any given time during part of your involvement the cupboard was bare, so to speak, so there were at least eight keys of processed cocaine out on the street at any given week if the cupboard was bare. A. I don't know exactly how many but there would be quite a bit of it. Q. That's probably in the range of average, would it be? A. One to two on the street a week. One to two probably. Q. One to two but processed --- A. Processed, yes. Q. --- afterwards. Okay.

So there's a lot of -- if it's C.O.D. there's lot of receivables out there. Do you know what that term means? A. Yeah. Q. You have to come in. And Mr. Stewart was arrested on the 19th of December, 1990 and you didn't go about collecting these receivables that would've been out on the street on that date, like you're not involved on the 20th going out and trying to collect all the receivables that are outstanding at the time. A. No I wasn't.

WARA, cr-ex

(Cooper)

17670

Q. Okay. And you don't know that anyone was. A. No. Q. Now, the next point that we've already reviewed in part is that sometime after the arrest in December 19th in Mr. Stewart's case, in December of 1990 you see Douglas Stewart and he shows you some statements from the disclosure which he reviews with you a little bit, he talks about the inconsistencies in Gaudreault's evidence for example? A. Something like that, yeah. Q. Okay. And you don't know anything about the murder beef, you know about the drug stuff. A. Yeah. Q. So he's kind of getting you on side about Mr. Gaudreault. Mr. Gaudreault has made all these mistakes in the view of Doug Stewart. A. Well, there was stuff in there where I per- sonally even believe that it was total lies. Q. Okay. You believed it was total lies not-withstanding you didn't know anything about the murder. A. Right. Q. Right. But based on the person you knew to be Rob Stewart at the time. A. Yeah. Q. But you'd never seen him upset. A. That's right. Q. Okay.

So Mr. Douglas Stewart is reviewing that with you and we've already gone over that. Now the next thing we've also gone over - I'm just trying to get a chronology here all in one spot - is on that on the 1st of May '91 you see Officer Riddell and Officer Lamarche, in the back corner, at your home?

WARA, cr-ex

(Cooper)

17670

A. M'hmm-hmm. Yeah. Q. And they have a normal, polite interview with you, and you tell them during the course of that interview that Douglas Stewart has already -- you've already seen Douglas Stewart with his well, the disclosure package he has in his possession. A. I don't recall saying that but ..... Q. You don't recall telling the police that you'd already seen Douglas Stewart? A. No, I don't recall that. I don't recall that, no. Q. Okay. But if that was the case and obvious-ly you had seen Douglas Stewart sometime between the arrest date in December of '90 and this 1st of May, 1991 --- A. Yeah, it could've been. Q. --- does that time line fall within your recollection of when you saw Mr. Stewart? A. No. I don't even remember seeing him at all, so ..... Q. Within the first few months of his arrest? A. Yeah. Q. Not of his arrest, ---

A. Yeah, I know what you mean.Q. --- of this Mr. Stewart's arrest?

A. Yeah, probably within the first few months. Q. Okay.

Now, you don't see Mr. Douglas Stewart again for years. A. I talked with him on the phone. Q. You talked with him on the phone? A. Yeah.

WARA, cr-ex

(Cooper)

17670

Q. On a fairly frequent basis? A. No. No. Q. How -- once a month or? A. No, I think it was just a one time thing. Q. One time thing. Well that wouldn't be a frequent basis at all. The conversation that you have with him is just before you facilitate this contact that we've chatted about before on the evening of the 2nd of June '95, contact with your brother-in-law John Chapman. A. Yeah. Q. We've already reviewed this but you call Mr. Chapman at the request of Douglas Stewart. A. Yes. Q. And it's about this loan that's outstand-ing. A. Yeah. Q. And the cocaine money that's outstanding as well, the $ 26,000. in total. A. Well, I just thought it was one lump sum. Q. Of $ 26,000. A. Yeah. Q. Okay.

We don't have to be too particular about that, but Mr. Stewart you say it's the only call you've ever had from Mr. Stewart is on that incident. A. On that incident, yes. Q. Okay. Maybe I didn't say that quite right. That's the only call you had from Douglas Stewart? A. No. One other call. Q. Okay.

WARA, cr-ex

(Cooper)

17670

A. I would've made the call. Q. Because you called Doug Stewart. A. Yeah. Q. Okay. Let's -- perhaps you can tell me about this one, I'm not sure what it's about. A. All it was I was in jail in Toronto --- Q. Oh, I see. A. --- and I just called him up. Q. Okay. That was during the half key cocaine bust. A. That's right. Q. Which would've been -- you did 11 months of dead time during that portion, so it was between the 4th of December '91 and the 30th of July '92? A. Yeah. Q. Okay. So during some time in that 11 months you called Douglas Stewart. A. Yes. Q. Okay. Just a moment, please, Your Honour. Okay. And you were looking for assistance with respect to bail money. A. Yeah. Q. And he offered some assistance again with respect to bail money? A. No he didn't. I basically wanted to find out exactly what happened. Q. You wanted to? A. On my part, what happened with myself and Danny because I had no -- Danny Vanderyt. Q. Okay. Yes, sorry.

WARA, cr-ex

(Cooper)

17670

A. I just wanted to know where he was or where he was or --- Q. Okay. Could you just speak up a little bit again ---

A. Sorry. Q. --- I've got this thing behind me some-

where. I didn't understand. You called Mr. Douglas

Stewart looking for assistance with bail. A. Not really, no, no. It was just to find out about what happened to Danny Vanderyt. Q. Oh, you were concerned about Danny Vanderyt being the rat, is that it? A. No, not really. Not at the time, no. Q. No? A. No. Q. Not at the time. That's a concern you later had? A. It did give me some concern, yeah. Q. Okay. Well, did you receive information that Danny Vanderyt was a rat? A. Yeah I did. Q. Oh. Okay. But not before you pled guilty, is that it? A. Right. Q. Okay. So was it after you were out of custody that you received this information? A. No. Q. While you were in custody but in the sentencing part, the three years that was really six months. A. No, I found out well ahead of time.

WARA, cr-ex

(Cooper)

17670

Q. Okay. So again I'm confused here or prob-ably I'm being confusing. It was during the 11 months dead time that you find this information out. A. No. Q. Okay. When do you find the information out? A. About three months prior to my arrest --- Q. Okay.

A. --- I believe it was.Q. So it's before you're even arrested that

you receive information about Vanderyt being a rat. A. Yeah. Q. Now Vanderyt is a close associate of Mr. Stewart. A. Yes. Q. In fact Mr. Stewart resided with Mr. Vanderyt for several months at one point in time, several weeks anyway, right? A. You've told me that before. Q. Pardon me? A. You told me that before, so yes. Q. Did Mr. Stewart or Mr. Vanderyt -- did Mr. Stewart ever mention that to you before? A. No. Q. No, he's never? Okay.

And this information about Vanderyt being a rat, that has nothing to do with the call from Mr. Stewart then, does it, Doug Stewart? A. It has nothing to do with the call to Mr. Stewart? Q. Right.

WARA, cr-ex

(Cooper)

17670

A. I -- as I said earlier I just wanted to find out what happened to Danny, --

Q. Right, but you said ---A. --- where he was.

Q. --- you got this information about Mr. Vanderyt being a rat three months before you even went to jail. A. Yeah, so that doesn't mean it was true or not. I didn't know.

Q. So you held ---A. I was just told about it.

Q. Okay. So you didn't call Mr. Stewart until you were actually arrested. A. I had heard through my wife that he was concerned of what had happened. He wanted me --- Q. Douglas Stewart was. A. Yes he was, and I believe it was my wife he had talked to and wanted me to call him, so I did. Q. Okay. So Douglas Stewart calls your wife with information about Vanderyt being a rat. A. No. No, no, no, no. You're jumping ahead of it here. Q. Okay. A. I didn't -- how would he know that? THE COURT: Q. He was concerned when you were arrested, Mr. Douglas Stewart, that's the point that you were trying to make, wasn't it? A. Yeah, that's the whole thing, it has nothing to do with anybody being a rat. It was just the whole point of being concerned. MR. COOPER:

WARA, cr-ex

(Cooper)

17670

Q. Okay. Who told you Vanderyt was a rat? A. I don't recall who told me. Q. And it was three months before the 4th of December '91. A. Yeah. Q. Okay. So you know Danny Vanderyt is a rat, well at least that's the information you have.

MR. COOPER: It's not for the truth for its con- tents, of course, Your Honour.

THE COURT: M'hmm-hmm. MR. COOPER: Q. But nothing happens. You don't do anything about it. A. No. Q. Okay. And then you're arrested --- A. Yes. Q. --- on the 4th of December '91. A. Yes. Q. Okay. And you get a message through your wife from Douglas Stewart. A. Yeah. Q. Okay. Your arrest wasn't big time news even in Toronto, was it, sir? A. No. Q. It wasn't. You weren't splashed -- it wasn't on the front page of Allo Police or anything like that? A. No, that wasn't. Q. It wasn't news anywhere. A. No. Q. I don't mean to understate it or anything but you just didn't make any news there.

WARA, cr-ex

(Cooper)

17670

A. No. Q. And you watched for news too, it would be a little embarrassing to --- A. No. Q. You didn't watch for news about your own arrest? A. No. Q. No family members phoned you up and said 'Geez, you were on CTV tonight' ---

A. No.Q. --- because it didn't happen, right? There

was no news about your arrest. A. That's right. Q. Okay. So you don't know how Mr. Douglas Stewart even knew about your arrest then. A. I imagine he had -- as I said, he probably talked to my wife about it and that's how he found out. Q. Does he phone your wife often, sir? A. No. Q. You've never had any other reports of phone calls between Mr. Douglas Stewart and your wife? A. No. Q. Ever since? A. No. Q. Okay.

In any event, you're in jail in Toronto and you're chatting with your wife and she tells you that Douglas Stewart called, so you call -- and he left a number obviously with your wife. A. Yes. Q. And so you called him back.

WARA, cr-ex

(Cooper)

17670

A. That's right. Q. And how long had you been in jail; how far after the 4th of December '91 is this? A. Oh, probably within a week or two. I don't recall. Q. Okay. Pretty soon after your arrest. A. Yeah. Q. Okay. And while you're on the phone to Mr. Douglas Stewart there's some chat about bail for you? A. I don't know if we got to that or not. Q. That was something you were interested in. A. Well, I was already denied bail so I don't think I even asked him about it. Q. You didn't shoot for a bail review? A. Six months down the road I got it. Q. Okay.

Oh, so you weren't in custody for 11 months pretrial? A. Yes I was. Q. What do mean six months down the road? A. Six months I got a bail review. Q. Oh, I see. The automatic one. A. Yeah. Q. Okay. And in that bail review nobody put forth a promise to pay money or anything like that. A. Oh, I got bail but I couldn't raise $ 25,000. Q. Okay. Did you call Mr. Stewart about that? A. No. Q. Douglas Stewart I mean. A. No.

WARA, cr-ex

(Cooper)

17670

Q. So a few minutes ago when we started this conversation about bail that really wasn't an issue at all, it was never discussed. A. No. Q. When I first mentioned it a few minutes ago didn't you agree with me, sir? A. Yeah. I made a mistake. Q. Okay. What kind of mistake did you make, sir? A. That we didn't talk about bail. Q. The mistake wasn't just mentioning the bail part.

A. No.Q. Obviously that would put you indebted to

Douglas Stewart if he had promised you some bail or promised you assistance in some way.

A. It would've indebted me to him. Q. Well yes. Obviously. A. Yeah, sure it would've. Q. And it wasn't a matter of you not wanting to be indebted to Mr. Stewart, you were certainly willing to do that, it just didn't come up. A. Yeah. Q. You had already been denied bail without any discussion of cash. A. That's right. Q. Okay. So Mr. Douglas Stewart didn't offer and you didn't ask for bail. A. That's right. Q. Okay. So, that leaves us with the substance of the conversation, because this is important because of how

WARA, cr-ex

(Cooper)

17670

everything else unfolds afterwards, when you return Mr. Stew- art's call I assume you say 'why are you calling my wife when I'm in jail in Toronto, what's this about?'. A. No. Q. You didn't say anything like that. A. No. Q. You didn't say anything about 'well, you've never called my wife ever, why have you started now?'. A. No. Q. Nothing like that?

How did the conversation start then, sir? A. "Hello. How are you?" Q. And lead us through it, please. A. I don't remember what that conversation was about. You're talking a long time ago here. Q. You're just certain it wasn't about bail. A. I know that. Q. Okay. And it was kind of about you fielded some questions 'what's going on with Vanderyt?'. A. Yeah. Q. Okay. Because you wanted to know if the rumour you'd heard three or four months before was true. A. Yeah. Q. That Vanderyt had skated on this thing. A. Exactly. Q. That's what you wanted to know more than anything. A. Yes. Q. And you knew Douglas Stewart was able to assist you with that information because he has his --- A. Yeah, I'd hoped he could, yes.

WARA, cr-ex

(Cooper)

17670

Q. Yeah. And he did. A. No. Q. He didn't tell you anything about Vanderyt. A. No. I found out through other sources. Q. You're certain Douglas Stewart never told you anything about Danny Vanderyt. A. Yes I'm certain. Q. So it must've been a short conversation, sir.

A. It wasn't a very long one. Q. Because you don't have anything left to

talk about, do you? A. We talked about other things. Q. Okay. You didn't talk about bail, you didn't know anything about Vanderyt so that was short. What did you talk about? A. I don't know. We could've talked about Rob. I have no idea what we really talked about. Q. Mr. Douglas Stewart offered to put some money over towards your wife, sir?

A. No.Q. He never did that?A. No.

Q. You'd been a loyal employee of his son's for a year or two? A. Yeah. Q. There wasn't going to be any money come over to assist your wife while you were in custody? A. No. Q. Of course this particular thing you're in custody for isn't -- that was a freelance effort on your part.

WARA, cr-ex

(Cooper)

17670

A. Yes it was. Q. You would've expected that kind of assis-tance if you had been arrested for efforts on behalf of Mr. Stewart in terms of the cocaine trade. A. Yeah. Q. That's one of the advantages of being involved in organizations, that with these hundreds of thou-sands of dollars worth of cocaine going through it, if somebody gets in a pickle you expect to be assisted financially in some respect or another. A. Yes. Q. You expect your spouse and in this case your child to have some sort of income while you're in jail. A. Not necessarily, no. Q. That would certainly be something you wouldn't turn down. A. No, I probably wouldn't. Q. Other than that you can't help us too much about what that particular conversation in late '91 or early '92 was about. A. No. Q. You called collect to Mr. Stewart? A. Yeah, I believe so. Yeah. Q. And he accepted the charges for your call at least. A. Yeah. Q. When you see Riddell and Lamarche on the 1st of May, 1991 you don't tell them that 'Oh and Doug Stewart was here showing me the brief, I saw a whole bunch of stuff that was lies', you don't say anything like that to the police. A. I don't remember.

WARA, cr-ex

(Cooper)

17670

Q. No. But if you did see stuff in there in the police disclosure that was lies you certainly would've told the police, wouldn't you, sir? A. I don't know. Q. Wouldn't you have said something about Mr. Stewart, you know, 'I found a lie here on page 34' or some-thing, you know, 'when Smith says that or Jones says that it's not right', you didn't -- you don't recall telling the police anything like that, though. A. No I don't. Q. I'm going to suggest to you, sir, that the call from Douglas Stewart was to warn you not to roll on Rob Stewart in order to make a deal with the Toronto police. That's what the call was about. A. No. You're way off. Q. I'm way off? A. Yeah. Q. Mr. Stewart knew that you'd never roll on Rob Stewart even to save your own hide in Toronto. Douglas Stewart knew that? A. I would think so. Q. He'd know that you'd rather go to jail for three years than cough up even a little bit of drug information on Robert Stewart, or Rick Mallory for that matter. A. He knew that? Q. Yes. A. No, he didn't know that. Q. He didn't know that? That could just be expected of you, is that it, sir? A. Yeah.

WARA, cr-ex

(Cooper)

17670

Q. Now you were quite concerned about Vanderyt because you thought he might skate. You later learned, I take it, that he went to jail like everybody else. A. For what? One month? Q. I don't know. How much do you think he went to jail for? A. I don't know. Q. The only thing that you and Douglas Stewart would have in common of course is Robert Stewart. Right? A. Yeah. Q. And obviously your concerns about Vanderyt rolling on you to keep his own self out of prison, -- right? -- you had those concerns? A. Sure I did. Q. You still do apparently. A. No.

Q. Not today? A. No. Q. Your concerns would be also Mr. Robert Stewart's concerns about you because that prospect presents itself to you, doesn't it?

MS. MULLIGAN: Your Honour, I don't think he can say what Mr. Robert Stewart's concerns are. MR. COOPER: Okay, let's take it from a differ-ent point of view.

Q. You could expect Mr. Stewart would expect that you could roll on him to the Toronto OPP --- MS. MULLIGAN: The same objection. MR. COOPER: Well, it's a different objection.

Can we argue this one, please, Your Honour?


WARA, cr-ex

(Cooper)

17670

--- Whereupon the jury and witness retired at 2:50 p.m.

WARA, cr-ex

(Cooper)

17670

--- In the absence of the jury MS. MULLIGAN: I haven't wanted to interrupt the

flow but we're quite a long ways afield here.

We're now talking about a hypothetical situa-

tion and this hypothetical situation "What

would you expect that Mr. Stewart would expect

that you would do" is what Mr. Cooper just

essentially put to the witness about ratting,

what would you expect that Mr. Stewart would

expect that you would do about ratting on him

in Toronto. Well, who cares first of all what

he would expect Mr. Stewart would expect about

him? How is it at all even remotely relevant to

the issues at hand? He didn't apparently rat on

anyone, no matter what anyone's expectations

were. He's given his evidence about what the

conversation was about, it wasn't about Mr.

Stewart's concerns that he was a rat, it was

about Mr. Wara's concerns that Mr. Vanderyt was

a rat. Again I'm not sure what relevance that

has but I haven't wanted to interrupt.

MR. COOPER: Could you just repeat that? MS. MULLIGAN: He's given his evidence that the

phone call was about his own concerns that Mr. Vanderyt was a rat, not that Mr. Stewart was concerned that Mr. Wara was a rat.

In any event, we do know that Mr. Wara did cough up a little drug information about Mr.


17677

Stewart, Mr. Mallory and Mr. Trudel when he spoke to the police in May '91 so I don't know where all this all goes in any event. But it


17677

certainly, in my respectful submission, can't go to what this witness would expect Mr. Stew- art to expect if something were to happen that never did. There's got to be a limit on how far we're going to allow the Crown to encourage this witness to speculate, in my submission. We've gone quite a ways - what do you think would happen? How is it in the drug business? - he's given almost expert evidence of a runner in the drug business. The Crown has run quite some distance in getting his speculations about how things might happen or would happen if a certain situation did occur, but now we're getting into Mr. Stewart's state of mind, as to whether Mr. Stewart would be worried that Mr. Wara would rat is not something that Mr. Wara could know. Mr. Wara didn't speak to Mr. Stew- art. I'm talking about Mr. Stewart Junior now, the one on trial. And Mr. Wara has already told us all about -- he's been asked all the ques-tions and answered all the questions about his conversations with Mr. Stewart Senior. It had nothing to do with Rob Stewart being concerned that Mr. Wara was a rat; that was put to him and he answered it. Now we're going to get into the speculation of what he would expect Mr. Stewart might be expecting, Mr. Stewart Junior that is? In my submission it's abso-lutely inappropriate, it's going way way too far. It's not evidence this witness can give. He's given what occurred, what he said, what he can remember and what his concerns were. He


17677

can't give his speculations about Mr. Stewart's expectations of him. Who knows what Mr. Stewart expected him to do or not to do or thought he might do, there's no evidence that he had any concerns one way or the other, and there's no way that this witness can be in a position in 1991, '92 to figure out what's on Mr. Stewart's mind while he's in custody in another city and he hasn't spoken to him, so in my submission it goes nowhere and it ought not to go anywhere.

MR. McKECHNIE: I agree and I have nothing to add.

MR. COOPER: I disagree and have a little bit to

add. Your Honour, it's the state of mind of this

witness that is in issue and of course I am

entitled, I suggest, to submit, to explore with

this witness what his state of mind is when he

gets a call from Douglas Stewart. This is an

incredibly relevant thing. Douglas Stewart is,

on the Crown's theory, involved in Mr. Robert

Stewart's organization while Robert Stewart is

in jail and it's actually even on the defence

witness' own theory Mr. Douglas Stewart is

later attempting to collect the $ 26,000.

that's owed to Robert Stewart. Now, there's

nothing hypothetical about the situation. I

withdrew the hypothetical question upon Ms.

Mulligan's objection and rephrased it so it


17677

wasn't a hypothetical, it was more direct. I

was in error with the first question which was

not carefully crafted. But the second question

is not objectionable in that I'm probing this witness' state of mind with respect to what is he thinking when his wife gets a phone call way out of the blue from Douglas Stewart right after this man has been arrested. Frankly it can only, well I don't know if it can only mean one thing, but there's a strong suggestion out there that it's, at least in his mind, a rea-sonable inference to interpret this call to be 'don't think about going to the OPP' who are the same arresting agency 'about Rob Stewart to skate on the half kilo deal you made with Vanderyt and the undercover officer, don't even let that enter your mind' because particularly after the witness has just testified about his thoughts on his co-accused Danny Vanderyt having gone to the police and Ms. Mulligan is right actually now that she mentioned it, I'd forgotten about it entirely, that Vanderyt did have a conversation with Riddell and Lamarche, I don't know that he ever skated because of it but I'll know more by the time I resume cross- examination on this point, but this witness' state of mind is entirely relevant, the whole rat concept, the interrelation of him with Mr. Douglas Stewart and Robert Stewart is absolute-ly essential to probe several issues. We're building up to, of course, the calls in 1995


17677

and later on the behaviour in 1999, and this is part of the narrative in that respect, obvious-ly, but in addition of course it reflects the bias of this witness. This witness wouldn't


17677

think about saving his own skin by ratting on Mr. Stewart even though it's the same investi-gative agency and that may -- that is his position but he's got to think when Doug Stewart calls out of the blue that Douglas Stewart wants that position of the witness repeated at least, he wants to be assured that Wara isn't going to try and rat on Rob Stewart in order to skate on the Toronto charges laid by the OPP.

MS. MULLIGAN: The difficulty is I wasn't speak-ing about Mr. Vanderyt's conversation with the OPP for which this witness wasn't present and wouldn't know anything about. What I was speak-ing about was Mr. Wara's conversation with Riddell and Lamarche May '91. Mr. Cooper's trying to build up that he's being warned not to rat against Mr. Stewart and all of that. Well, back in May '91, and that he would never rat against Mr. Stewart, he would never say anything negative about him here, in May '91 what he says, and this has already been put to him, he readily admitted he was "Rob Stewart's runner for approximately a year, quit summer last year, doesn't know the victims, never delivered to them, estimated Stewart putting out a key of coke almost daily, much much more hash, couldn't estimate money, never picked up money much, he did that, knew Vanasse, Trudel, Mallory, did not know Sauvé." He identifies the Cadillac and puts Rick Trudel in it. So way back in May '91, whatever the theory is, on the evidence he told the police all this informa-


17677

tion in May '91. THE COURT: Obviously it doesn't make much of an

impression on Mr. Cooper because he doesn't think there's much information in relation to what the witness knows. I don't know.

MS. MULLIGAN: I don't know but, regardless, to go through -- to say that he's asking -- Mr. Cooper says he's asking this a different way to go to the state of mind of this witness, it's just an indirect way of getting to the state of mind of Mr. Stewart - what would you expect he would expect - so we're hearing about what Mr. Wara thinks Mr. Stewart's state of mind would be. That's all we're doing by rephrasing the question. In my submission, it's not admissi-ble, it's not a cross-examination.

THE COURT: All right. You don't have to argue any further.

He's answered one question, the call was not to tell him -- well, put positively, the call, according to the Crown, was to tell him not to roll on Rob to save himself from the Toronto police. That's what ---

MR. COOPER: I'm sorry, Your Honour, I can't hear you.

THE COURT: You put the question that the call was to tell him not to roll on Rob to save himself from the Toronto police and the witness said no to that. Now you want to find out maybe even what he volunteered, maybe he volunteered that because he knew why the call was made himself, so that's why it's relevant. We have to


17677

find out if he had an idea of what Mr. Stewart was calling about and in answering that idea he may well have volunteered 'I will never roll upon Mr. Stewart.'

Bring the jury back. MS. MULLIGAN: Mr. Stewart has to go to the

washroom.

THE COURT: Okay. Fine.

--- Whereupon court recessed at 3:00 p.m.


17677

--- Upon resuming in the presence of the jury at 3:25 p.m.--- Accused present


THE COURT: Yes.


CROSS-EXAMINATION (continued) BY MR. COOPER: Q. Mr. Wara, I was just asking you questions

about your telephone call with Douglas Stewart while you were

in jail and I was a little bit clumsy here. I just want to

review the chronology of a couple of things here to put things

in perspective.

This Toronto sale to the undercover officer, that was you and Vanderyt. A. Yeah. Q. Okay. And that was on the 26th of June '91 but you weren't arrested until the 4th of December '91. A. That's right. Q. Okay. And Vanderyt, however, you're aware was arrested on the 10th of September '91. A. I don't know exactly what day he was arrested. Q. He was arrested before you were. A. Yeah. Q. And he was arrested not only on the same charges as you and he were involved in but on another sale that he made without your assistance. A. Yeah. Q. Okay. And you were aware of all that. I mean you were aware of what we've just discussed.

WARA, cr-ex

(Cooper)

17724

A. Yes.WARA, cr-ex

(Cooper)

17724

Q. Maybe not every detail of what happened but .....

And you were made aware, sir, that when Vanderyt was arrested on the 10th of September '91 that he had a conversation on that date and the next date with Officers -- well Lamarche both dates, and Riddell the first date with Lamarche. A. No, I don't know that. Q. You don't know who the conversation he had was with. A. I didn't even know he had a conversation. Q. Well you heard about this time, you said about three months or so before you were arrested, you had heard that Vanderyt was a rat. A. It's not what I heard. I heard that he was in jail in PC. Q. In PC. Well, just before the break you told me that about three months before your arrest, which would be about the same time frame, right? A. Yeah. Q. You had heard that Vanderyt was a rat. Now you're ---

A. Well being in PC ---Q. --- qualifying that.A. --- that obviously qualifies him to be

that. Q. I'm sorry? A. Being in protective custody qualifies that part of it. Q. But you had more information than that. A. That's the only information I got. Q. That's all you knew?

WARA, cr-ex

(Cooper)

17724

A. That he was in jail, yeah. Q. That he was in jail, in PC is protective custody. A. That's right. Q. But it's not exclusive for rats protective custody, like he might've been in there for another reason. A. He could've been. Q. You assumed that the reason he was in there is because he was a rat. A. Yes. Q. And you assume that because you heard that he'd had chats with these officers on his arrest. A. No, I didn't know that. Q. You never knew that. A. No. Q. You never ever knew that. A. No. Q. Douglas Stewart's never told you that. A. No. Q. So your only basis for Mr. Vanderyt being a rat, something which disturbed you, ---

A. At the time.Q. --- at the time. Well even while you were

talking about this earlier today you were upset about it a little bit. No? A. It doesn't bother me. Q. It doesn't bother you now?

A. No.Q. You're cool with the rat thing now, that's

okay? A. That part of my life is over and done with.

WARA, cr-ex

(Cooper)

17724

Q. Okay. However, you were concerned back then. A. Yes I was. Q. Before you were even arrested. Then, to keep the chronology going to get back to where we were at the break, you were in Toronto jail and you get the call indirectly from Doug Stewart and you waste no time returning the call to Douglas Stewart. A. I called him, I don't know when it was, that day or the next day, I don't know. Q. Yeah. And I suggested to you, sir, that Mr. Stewart was warning you not to roll on Rob Stewart the way that you figured that Danny Vanderyt had rolled on, well, anybody. A. No. Q. That's what I suggested to you before the break. A. Yeah. Q. And you disagree with that. A. I disagree, yeah. Q. Okay. So that's another point, you just heard he was in PC now and you don't know that he was a rat but being in PC means he could've been ratting about anybody -- right? -- not just you? A. I don't know that. Q. Well you know Mr. Vanderyt had connections with Mr. Stewart. A. Yeah I know. Q. So he was in a position, now I'm dealing with your perspective here, --- A. Yeah.

WARA, cr-ex

(Cooper)

17724

Q. --- you knew Mr. Vanderyt was in a position to have ratted on Mr. Stewart about the drug organization. A. I never gave that a thought, though. Q. You just thought it was you he was ratting on. A. That's all I was concerned with. Q. You weren't concerned about Mr. Stewart, I mean Robert Stewart. A. No I wasn't. Q. Okay.

My suggestion also, sir, is that even if Douglas Stewart didn't warn you specifically not to roll on Rob Stewart, that you volunteered that right away, you consoled him right away that there's no way you're rolling on anybody. A. No. Q. No? That didn't come up in the conversa-tion? A. No. Q. Douglas Stewart is having this conversation with you knowing that you've been arrested by the same organization that arrested his son. Those Scarborough charges were OPP charges, right? A. That's what they are. Q. It's the Ontario Provincial Police who charged you, and the Ontario Provincial Police that charged Vanderyt, and the Ontario Provincial Police who charged Mr. Stewart, right? A. Yeah. I didn't know that. Q. It's all one organization. Well, what part of that did you not know? A. That he was arrested by OPP.

WARA, cr-ex

(Cooper)

17724

Q. Okay. Two OPP officers showed up at your house before that point, sir, didn't they? A. Before which point? Q. Before the point when you're in jail doing your 11 months dead time. A. Two OPP officers showed up at a funeral for Mrs. Chapman. Q. Well that's a whole other issue. I'm talking about --- A. Nobody showed up at my place. Q. The 1st of May interview 1991. A. Well that we've already talked about. Q. Okay. The 1st of May '91 precedes all of what we've been talking about this afternoon, right? A. Yeah. Q. So you do know that the same organization that arrested you and Mr. Vanderyt and Mr. Stewart and Mr. Mallory it's all one organization, it's the Ontario Provincial Police. A. No. As I said before I didn't know who arrested these people. Q. But you knew it was -- when Officers Lamarche and Riddell came to your home on the 1st of May, 1991 they told you who they were. A. Yeah. Q. Well, you knew they were OPP. A. Yeah. So what does that have to do with me knowing who arrested him? Q. You knew who had charged him, to use the precise ---

A. No, ---

WARA, cr-ex

(Cooper)

17724

Q. --- term. A. --- I didn't know who charged him either. Q. You knew the OPP were investigating this murder in Cumberland. A. Yeah. Q. Okay. Because they're the only ones that are out there in Cumberland at the time. A. Yeah. Q. Now we got that Regional Police everywhere but .....

Okay. And you were shown an OPP brief by Douglas Stewart. A. Whatever I was shown it was the transcript from part of the hearings. Q. Yeah. Well it had that OPP crest on the front of it, sir. A. I don't know if it did or not. Q. It wasn't a transcript of anything, it was a police brief. A. I don't know. Q. Right? A. I don't know if it was or not. Q. When you see Douglas Stewart before the police, the OPP interview you on the 1st of May '91, there have been no hearings of any kind, the preliminary hearing isn't on yet, and you knew that, right? A. Yeah. Q. Okay. So there aren't any transcripts. What you were shown had to be disclosure. A. Yeah.

WARA, cr-ex

(Cooper)

17724

Q. I mean it's typed, but it's -- some of it is, some of it isn't. A. Yeah but I didn't look at the front page to see what it was, so ..... Q. Now, you're saying that you didn't -- all those facts that we've now extracted from you, it's the OPP that do all three cases, you're saying that -- and you knew that before this conversation with Doug Stewart when you're in Toronto in December '91, right? A. I knew what? Q. You knew that you'd been arrested by the OPP. A. Yeah. Q. That Mr. Stewart had been arrested by the OPP and that Mr. Vanderyt --- A. You're going on about Mr. Stewart being arrested by the OPP. I don't know who he was arrested by, nor at that time did I care who he was arrested by. Q. Investigated by the OPP, sir. A. I was just concerned with myself. Q. Knowing all of this, sir, did you not volunteer to Doug Stewart right away 'don't worry, Mr. Stewart, I'm not going to roll on Rob Stewart, ---

A. No.Q. --- it's not going to happen'?

A. No. Q. You didn't volunteer that right away?

A. No, I did not.Q. You never told him that.

A. That's right.

WARA, cr-ex

(Cooper)

17724

Q. He just would know that because he knows you. A. He doesn't know me very well. Q. He doesn't know you very well. So you might be the kind of guy that would roll on Mr. Stewart and the drug organization we're talking about here in order to skate on your own charges. A. No. Q. It's not something you offered to the OPP officers that arrested you. A. No. Q. You didn't offer to give information about Mr. Stewart. A. No I didn't. Q. Or Mr. Mallory. A. No I didn't. Q. And when you did talk to the OPP Officers, Lamarche and Riddell, on the 1st of May, 1991 you didn't tell them anything they didn't already know, right? A. I guess, yeah. Q. I mean it's the same thing that you said to me earlier today in fact when I was asking you questions about Claude Meunier "I'm not saying anything about him really." "That's already known."

"Q. Just that he was handing you big packages of cocaine directly one on one?

A. I'm sure you already knew part of that anyways."

So that was your policy in May of 1991 to Lamarche and Riddell, you didn't tell them anything that you weren't sure they already knew, right? A. I had no idea of knowing that at the time.

WARA, cr-ex

(Cooper)

17724

Q. You didn't tell us -- you haven't told us anything here that you are pretty sure we didn't already know, at least part of anyway, right? A. I'm sure you have a lot more information than I do. Q. After the police, that is Officer Riddell and Lamarche, spoke to you on the 1st of May, 1991 you did contact Douglas Stewart and keep him up to date on that. A. I don't recall if I did or not. Q. Or he contacted you and you kept him up to date on that. A. I don't know. Q. At some point in time he's been brought up to date on that. A. He could've been, I don't know. I don't know if we talked about it or not. Q. Obviously he has some sort of access to police disclosure so you know he's going to find out eventually anyway. A. Yeah. Q. Right? A. Sure. Q. So you would no doubt want him to know from you rather than read it after it happens in police officers' notes that filter down to him, right? A. I don't even know if that happened, no. Q. You don't even know if what happened, sir? A. If any of this he even read, I have no idea. I don't recall even telling him about it, so I have no idea.

WARA, cr-ex

(Cooper)

17724

Q. But that would be kind of a preemptive piece of information you'd want to get -- you'd want Mr. Stewart to be brought up to date on. A. No, not necessarily. Q. No? You're content that he phones you later and says, you know, 'what are you doing talking to the police on the 1st of May?' A. Well this again is another hypothetical question you're throwing at me. This could've happened and it may not have happened, but I didn't need to elaborate to him about any of it. Q. You didn't need to.

Now you've told us that throughout the years you've been kept up to date, at least on certain points, about what's going in this trial. You told us that in one of the ear-lier transcripts here. A. What I've read and, you know, bits and pieces hearing from people. Q. Yeah. For example about your brother-in- law, we've reviewed that earlier in a transcript, and you knew that he was here and approximately what time this year in May. You and Kevin Smith --- A. I didn't know --- Q. --- were updating each other. A. I didn't know when he was here but I knew he was going to be here. Q. Okay. You knew he was going to be here.

Now, I was going through a list of questions there when we got sidetracked a little bit and I got up to number seven, it's because we got sidetracked on that Toronto phone call with Mr. Doug Stewart.

WARA, cr-ex

(Cooper)

17724

A. Yeah. Q. Backing up the clock just a little bit, you'd been to Doug Stewart's house at 1040 Laporte Street to meet Mr. Robert Stewart. A. Yes. Q. Okay. And you'd been there on many occa-sions. A. I've been there to do the interlock laneway. Not on many occasions. Not on many occasions. Q. Okay. You did an interlock laneway? You installed it yourself? A. I think there was two other people helping. Q. Okay. At 1040 Laporte. A. Yes. Q. Okay. And you've also been there to meet Mr. Stewart when there was nothing to do with the laneway, I'm sorry Robert Stewart. A. I may have once or twice. Q. Okay. When did you do the laneway? A. God, I think that was the following summer when I started, so it'd be '90, the summer of '90. Q. About '90. So by then you're doing the drug running, you've been doing it for about a year. A. Yeah. Q. Close to a year in any event, and you take a few days off and you sort of supervise the interlock? A. I did the interlock myself. Q. You did it yourself? A. Yeah. Q. Okay. Now let's move ahead in time to the call that you assisted, you facilitated to your brother-in-law

WARA, cr-ex

(Cooper)

17724

on the 2nd of June '95 on behalf of Douglas Stewart, okay? You just kind of facilitated the way that these two gentlemen could get in touch. You just nodded your head. A. Yes. Q. Okay. And that was, as you've told us, that was so that Mr. Stewart could collect this $ 26,000., or I don't know exactly what the figure is, but something in that neighbourhood. A. Yeah, he just wanted to talk to John about it. Q. Okay. And you hadn't talked to him since what was it, December of '91. A. Hadn't talked to who? Q. Douglas Stewart. A. That's right. Q. So from December '91 when you're in jail in Toronto until around the 2nd of June, it might've been the 1st or the end of May, or whatever, but around the beginning of June '95 you don't have any conversation with Douglas Stewart. A. Not that I recall, no. Q. Okay. And there's Mr. Stewart, I guess he's waited about four years or so to assist -- have you assist him in locating your brother-in-law. A. Yeah. Q. Okay. Because of his outstanding debt, right? A. Yeah. Q. And did Mr. Stewart seek your assistance, sir, in collecting any other debts that might've been outstand-ing for Mr. Stewart, Robert Stewart? A. No.

WARA, cr-ex

(Cooper)

17724

Q. He never asked you about any other debts? A. No. Q. Did Mr. Douglas Stewart ever tell you there were any other debts? A. No. Q. Okay. But given what you know about the nature of the operation on any given day there would be money outstanding, that's the nature of the operation, the front thing. A. Yeah. Q. Okay. So Mr. Stewart never asked you about or told you about any other -- Mr. Stewart Senior, Douglas Stewart, about any other outstanding debts, he was only interested in this one. A. As far as I can recall, yeah. Q. Okay. So he wasn't acting as a collector of Mr. Stewart's general receivables after Mr. Stewart -- after Robert Stewart went to jail. A. He wasn't acting as a? Say this again, please? Q. Okay. Because there's two Mr. Stewarts. Douglas Stewart was not acting as a receiver for Mr. Stewart's outstanding receivables while Mr. Stewart, that is Robert Stew- art, was in jail. A. No he wasn't. Q. He wasn't out collecting all ---

A. No.Q. --- Mr. Robert Stewart's outstanding drug

debts. A. No. Q. That's what I'm asking you.

WARA, cr-ex

(Cooper)

17724

As far as you know he was only focusing on John Chapman. A. Yeah. Q. Now, curiously Douglas Stewart waited until Mr. Chapman's name was mentioned in court in May of '95 as one of the next few witnesses on another hearing and Mr. Stewart told you about that, Douglas Stewart told you about that. A. He may have. Q. Yeah. That Mr. Chapman was about to testify in May of '95, that his name had been mentioned. A. Yeah, he may have told me that. Q. And that's when you were asked to -- that same conversation is the conversation when you're asked to intervene and facilitate contact between the two men. A. Yeah, I think that was it, yeah. Q. Okay. And during that night of the 2nd of June '95 you make the efforts that we've chatted about, you make the call to John Chapman and said "Call me back, it's urgent." A. Yeah, I could've. I don't know the exact dates. Q. Never mind whether it's one particular date or the next, but in and around that time period you make the phone call to John Chapman and leave a message "Call me back, it's urgent, it's Schmingy". Believe or not I've been practis-ing that without success apparently. And then we went over that call that you made with the police officer listening in on Mr. Chapman's end on the 7th of June, 1995 with the reference to Schmingy where Mr. Stewart asked you, I'm sorry, where Mr. Chapman asked you why you were trying to get in touch and your reply was that "Old man Stewart" wanted to talk to John Chapman

WARA, cr-ex

(Cooper)

17724

about testifying. Chapman says to you "Well I got no fucking choice I got a subpoena what can I do" and Mr. Chapman asks you if there's a problem with Stewart and you say there wasn't any problem with Stewart, that it's Mr. Stewart Senior, Douglas Stewart who wants to get in touch about testifying. A. Yeah. Q. Okay. Now, that's not what Mr. Stewart wanted to get in touch about, Mr. Stewart Senior, Doug Stewart, didn't want to get in touch with Mr. Chapman about testifying, he wanted to get in touch with him about collecting this five- year-old debt, right? A. It could've been, yeah. Q. Well which is it or is it both? A. I don't remember. Q. Okay. A. I have no idea. Q. It would be quite a coincidence if it was a debt collection, wouldn't it, sir, given that it's right as Mr. Chapman is scheduled to testify? A. It could've been a coincidence. I don't know about that. Q. I'm just trying to refresh your memory, sir. I mean Mr. Stewart hasn't enlisted your help for four years since he last spoke to you about this five-year-old drug debt, and it's on the eve of Mr. Chapman coming to testify in another proceeding that all of a sudden the phone rings, it's for you and it's Doug Stewart, right? A. Yeah. Q. That's how it went, and when you call John Chapman you say "Old man Stewart" that means Doug Stewart, right?

WARA, cr-ex

(Cooper)

17724

A. Yeah. Q. Wants to talk to Chapman about Chapman testifying and that's the whole discussion that takes place, right? A. I don't know. Q. Pardon me? A. I don't know. Q. Any discussion about debt is incidental. A. I don't know. I don't recall the conversa-tion so ..... Q. The debt discussion, sir, I'm suggesting to you, is the foot in the door sort of thing, that's what the call is pretended to be about is the debt, right? A. I don't know. Q. You don't remember talking about a debt at all with Mr. Chapman. A. I don't remember the conversation at all. Q. And you don't -- you do remember that you did make a call on behalf of Mr. Stewart. A. Well you've refreshed my memory, yeah, I remember a phone call. Q. Okay. And it was on this eve, so to speak, of John Chapman coming to testify. A. I don't know. Q. You don't know that. But it's possible, that's what you said a few minutes ago, that Mr. Stewart told you that. A. Could've been. Q. Okay.

Now, as it happens of course you're aware that Mr. Chapman isn't needed in '95 after all, right?

WARA, cr-ex

(Cooper)

17724

A. Yeah. Q. And then you are visited by two detectives on the 2nd of July '95, a couple of guys named Dougherty and Snider, remember their names? A. No. Q. They're polite and courteous to you, were they? A. I don't really recall too much of that. Q. Okay. But they were there to tell you that the threats to John Chapman were to stop and they told you that in no uncertain terms, right? A. No, that's not the way it went. Q. That's not the way it went. A. No. Q. You got -- you didn't expect this visit from these two officers, did you, sir? A. No, not at a funeral. Q. In fact they were there for the entire funeral. A. I don't know. Q. Right? A. I don't know. I was there one day. Q. Okay. The meeting they had with you wasn't at the actual funeral. A. No. At the wake. Q. At the wake, yes. And they went up to you specifically to talk to you about this call to Chapman. A. I don't know what -- I don't recall what the conversation was about really, so ..... Q. You don't make any more calls to Chapman that year.

WARA, cr-ex

(Cooper)

17724

A. I don't know. Q. You certainly don't threaten him.

A. No. Q. So you don't recall what the conversation was with Dougherty and Snider, but as a result of it you didn't make or you don't recall making any further calls on behalf of Mr. Doug Stewart that year. A. It wouldn't've been on behalf of Doug Stew- art, no. Q. Okay. Now, that brings us to this year, sir. You've told us already that you were getting some sort of updates from Kevin Smith and other sources about Mr. Chapman's coming forward here in 1999 to testify before this jury, the same sort of thing you're doing. Now Mr. Chapman, and this is part of the record, was here on the 3rd -- testifying on the 3rd and 4th of May and then he came back on the 25th, 26th and 27th of May, 1999 and that accords, sir, I'm sure, with your recollection of what you heard that he was down here testifying in and around May of 1999. A. Yeah. Q. But while he's in the middle of his testimony, on about the latter half of his testimony, sir, you've received updates from Kevin Smith and this other source or other sources? A. I only heard about him testifying one time. Q. Okay. You only heard about one day of his testimony, is that what you're saying? A. No, I just heard that he was testifying. Q. Okay. That he was here in Ottawa testify-ing.

WARA, cr-ex

(Cooper)

17724

A. That's it. Q. Or that he was about to come and testify. A. Yeah. Q. Okay. And the suggestion I'm making, sir, is that this is another opportunity or an occasion, rather, where you have contact with Douglas Stewart. A. No. Q. You're certain of that. A. Absolutely. Q. But you take it upon yourself then, sir, to feed some information to Kevin Smith, don't you? You have a conversation with Kevin Smith? A. I don't know. Q. This is only May of this year I'm talking about. A. M'hmm-hmm. Yeah. Q. Do you have lots of conversations with Mr. Smith? A. I worked with him. Q. You work still right now? A. No. Q. You worked with him up until? A. At that time I worked with him. Q. In May. A. Yeah. Q. Okay. And just before that as well. A. He worked for me. Q. Okay. In April he worked for you? A. He may have. I don't recall when it was finished.

WARA, cr-ex

(Cooper)

17724

Q. Okay. Maybe you can just give me a little bit of detail there if you can. A. Detail of work? Q. Yeah. A. Oh, I hired him to dig foundations for me. Q. Dig foundations for you this spring? A. It could've been this spring or it was last fall. Q. Okay. A. I don't recall but this spring we worked together building pallets. Q. Building pallets. A. Yeah. Q. And who was the employer and who's the employee, or were you partners? A. BDP Pallet and Crate. Q. Oh, so it was a company ---

A. It's a company.Q. --- that was employing the pair of you.

A. Yeah. Q. Well, and other people I'm sure too, right? Other people there as well? A. Other people too, yeah. Q. So when were you doing that? A. Just in the springtime. Q. When did at the end? A. June. Q. So you're in daily contact with Mr. Smith during that period of time. A. Yeah.

WARA, cr-ex

(Cooper)

17724

Q. Are you actually working side by side most days? A. Some days. Q. Okay. But you have the opportunity to have daily contact with him, you're working for the same employer? A. Yeah. Q. And you're working at one site? A. We were at two sites. Q. Okay. So during this period of time, sir, I'm suggesting to you that you'd given information to Mr. Smith for him to give to Mr. Chapman. A. I don't know. Q. You're not too happy that your brother-in- law -- well, let's face it, he's a rat. A. Okay. Q. Right? A. Sure. Q. Well he is a rat, isn't he? I mean he's given information about Mr. Stewart to the police and then in May he's here testifying about it. A. Yeah. Q. So he's not just a confidential informant rat, he's a witness rat, right? A. Yeah. Q. Which is even worst I'm sure, isn't it? A. I don't know. If that's the way you want to put it. Q. Well, it's your perspective here, sir. The first day I asked you questions about rats you were literally vibrating in that same chair you were so upset by it. A. No, I don't think so.

WARA, cr-ex

(Cooper)

17724

Q. You weren't vibrating. A. No. Q. You weren't agitated. A. I told you I was a little agitated, sure I was. Q. But the fact that your brother-in-law is here actually testifying has got to be worse than just giving information to the police. A. No. You're making it sound like I'm, you know, ready to jump on him for it and no, that's not the way I feel about it. Q. That's not the way you feel about it. A. No. Q. Ottawa is full of rats, that's what you told us the first day of the cross-examination, and yet you're not upset about your brother-in-law coming here to testify against your former employer. A. That's his trip, not mine. Q. Okay. As long as he's not testifying against you you don't have a problem with it, is that it? A. Whatever it is. Whatever the case may be. Q. Now by that point in time, as you've told us fairly early in the cross-examination, the first day, you already know -- by the time Mr. Chapman gets here you know that you're going to be testifying as well. A. I wasn't absolutely sure I was going to be testifying. Q. You told us in chief, sir, that you'd known for a number of years it was likely and it was about four months ago at least when we began this, we've been at it for a little while now, but it was about four months previous to when

WARA, cr-ex

(Cooper)

17724

you started here that you knew that you were going to be testifying. A. I still didn't know a hundred percent sure that I was going to be testifying. Q. You were fairly certain, right? A. I was just waiting. Q. And you didn't want to facilitate any more phone calls to John Chapman because you knew you were going to be sitting in this witness box yourself. A. No. Q. That's not why? A. There's no reason for me to call John. Q. You would've facilitated Mr. Douglas Stew- art again if he had've asked you? A. No. Q. You wouldn't have. A. I don't even know how to get a hold of John. Q. Yeah, but Smith knew how to get a hold of John. A. Yeah. Q. In fact Kevin Smith has visited John this summer. A. I don't know. Q. But you know that Kevin Smith knows how to get a hold of John. A. Yeah. Q. Because they remain maybe not close but they remain in contact. A. Yes they do. Q. And you don't ---

WARA, cr-ex

(Cooper)

17724

A. That's right. Q. --- any longer. So you don't attempt to call Mr. Chapman yourself in 1999. What you do is you give some information to Kevin Smith in 1999. A. No. Q. You don't recall doing that at all. A. No I don't. Q. You don't recall having any conversation with Mr. Smith at all about John Chapman. A. I probably had conversations about him but I can't elaborate on it because I don't know what they were. Q. As you're working with Mr. Smith and being apprised of the fact that Mr. Chapman is here testifying, obviously it evokes a response from you. A. "Big deal". Q. That's the response? A. Yes. Q. "Big deal"? You don't say anything more about it. A. No. Q. That's all you say to Kevin Smith is two words ---

A. Oh, well. Q. --- when you're given this information.

A. I know I did say that and then I probably did say something else. Q. Okay. And you knew that whatever else you did say could or maybe even would get back to John Chapman through Kevin Smith. A. No.

WARA, cr-ex

(Cooper)

17724

Q. No, you didn't know that it would or you didn't know that he could? A. He could've done it, I don't know. Q. But you knew that was a possibility, that was another avenue available to you to communicate with John Chapman. A. No. Q. No. And you knew the two men were still associating. If you wanted to get a message to John Chapman all you have to do is tell Kevin Smith, right? A. No. Q. You didn't know that. It's just occurring to you now? A. Half the time I don't know how those two are reacting, so ..... Q. Well, maybe you didn't know if it was guaranteed communication, like you knew it was a possible or a probable one, right? A. No.

Q. No.A. No, I had no reason to contact him or get

a message through someone else to him. Q. You're jumping ahead of me, sir. The issue is what conversations did you have with Kevin Smith knowing that they could get back to John Chapman? A. None. Q. None. You didn't say anything to Kevin Smith in an effort to intimidate John Chapman during the course of his testimony before this jury. A. No. Q. Nothing.

WARA, cr-ex

(Cooper)

17724

A. No. Q. Nothing you said could be misinterpreted by Kevin Smith and repeated to John Chapman. A. No. Q. You didn't say anything to Kevin Smith that was capable of being misinterpreted as another intimidation of John Chapman. A. No. Q. Since 1995 you say you haven't had any calls from Douglas Stewart? A. That's right. Q. You haven't met him at his house at 1040 Laporte Street? A. No I haven't. Q. Have you met him anywhere else? A. No. Q. Have you chatted with anybody that's been chatting with him? A. No. Q. No direct or indirect contact. A. No. Q. You're still reachable obviously? A. Oh yeah. Q. You can be found. You're here testifying. A. Certainly. Q. You've kept in touch with somebody for the past four years? A. Nobody. Q. Nobody. A. Nobody.

WARA, cr-ex

(Cooper)

17724

Q. You've known for about four years you were going to testify, you've known for sure almost a hundred percent for four months yet nobody was able to reach you, sir? A. Who's going to reach me? Who are you talking about? Q. Obviously defence counsel made contact with you somehow. A. Yeah they did. A private detective looked for me. Q. Okay. And the private detective found you? A. Yes. Didn't find me directly but found me. Q. And what was his name? A. No idea. Q. You don't remember? Did you have a chat with him too? A. No. Q. No? Okay. And was that four years ago or four months ago, or both? A. I don't recall when this happened. No, it wasn't both, it was one time. Q. Pardon me? A. It was one time. Q. One time? A. Yeah. Q. And was it either --- A. Recently. Q. Recently. Okay.

Then no calls from Doug Stewart trying to collect this outstanding 26-thousand-dollar debt. A. That's right.

WARA, cr-ex

(Cooper)

17724

Q. So after -- between your call with him in December of 1991 in Toronto and today there's only been one time in all those years when he's asked you to get in touch with John Chapman for him. A. I believe so. Q. And that was when Mr. Chapman was expected to testify here in 1995. A. I guess so, yeah. Q. You didn't have, sir, in mind any type of goal to keep Mr. Chapman reined in in any way. A. No. Q. You don't have any interest in keeping Mr. Chapman reined in in his testimony here. A. No. Q. And you don't know anyone that does. A. No. Q. Nobody suggested to you 'geez, I wish he'd keep his mouth shut even a little bit'. A. No. Q. In your discussions with Mr. Smith that never came up at all? A. No. Q. Who's the other source of your update, sir? A. Other source of my update. Q. Yeah. A. I guess if it would be anybody it would probably be my sister who would've told me. Q. Your sister was keeping updated on Mr. Chapman? A. No, she wasn't keeping me updated on Mr. Chapman. She may have told me that he was coming to court.

WARA, cr-ex

(Cooper)

17724

Q. Okay. You say between the two of you, I'm sorry, this is on page 128 of what I thought was the 27th of September but one of your transcripts, we're talking, sir, you and I, about Kevin Smith and I suggested:

"Q. Now between the two of you you've been kept up to date on how this trial is progressing."

You said: "A. More him than me."

So Mr. Smith has been kept up to date more than you have, is that it? A. I don't know if he has or not. Could be. The only thing we'd read the paper, it's the only information we'd get. Q. Except for the information that comes through your sister, right? A. No, no, no, I got no information through her. Q. Well it's not going to be in the newspaper that Mr. Chapman is expected to testify. A. That is the only thing that I may have learned from her. Q. Did you follow the newspapers while Mr. Chapman was here testifying, sir, those dates I told you? A. I don't recall. Q. You don't recall ever seeing a newspaper article about Mr. Chapman? A. No. Q. Back to that other point, sir, about you being told around four months ago, that was when you first started testifying, that you were going to in all likelihood be testifying here?

WARA, cr-ex

(Cooper)

17724

A. Yes. Q. Okay. You confirmed that and you also said that that's about -- you also said that around the same time you were able to turn your problem with booze around. A. Yeah, it was about --- Q. It was about four months ago. A. It was in June when I stopped drinking. Q. And you get back together with your wife and whatnot --- A. Yeah. Q. --- sort of thing? And you said that up to that point that you were -- "I didn't care much about anything, I wasn't getting anywhere between my wife and myself, I was in a dead end job, just life in general, I just really didn't care what I did." Do you recall that description to Mr. Crystal about your life around that time? A. Yes I do. Q. The dead end job was that the pallets thing? A. Yeah. Q. Now the thing is that, I suggest, sir, that you know that it was on the 7th of April, 1999 in this court that once again Mr. Chapman was announced as being an upcoming witness. Did you receive that information from your sister or from anybody? A. No. Q. You didn't. A. No. Q. Because it's only a couple of days later, on the 10th of April, 1999 when you go on this, we're not going

WARA, cr-ex

(Cooper)

17724

over the facts again, but you go on this binge drinking episode that leads you in an encounter with the Ontario Provincial Police. A. Yeah. Q. The current impaired charges. A. That's right. Q. And I'm suggesting to you, sir, that was in part because you had just learned that you were going to have to come here and testify. A. No. Q. When you were told you were going to come and testify that didn't affect you at all. A. It had no bearing on this at all. Q. You weren't the least bit apprehensive about that. A. Probably a bit but I mean for the most part no. Q. The 10th of April, 1999 the bottom that you hit that was just coincidence it was around the same time period. A. Oh yeah. Q. Now with respect to newspapers, yeah, news-papers, when Mr. Stewart and Mr. Mallory -- well, Mr. Mallory was a day behind or so, but when Mr. Stewart and Mr. Mallory and the other two gentlemen, Mr. Trudel and Mr. Sauvé, were arrested it was big news and you read about it in the newspa-pers. A. Yes. Q. And do you remember I asked you questions about over a million dollars in drugs, et cetera, several days

WARA, cr-ex

(Cooper)

17724

ago when we were chatting? You don't remember that? I'm going to show you a newspaper article, sir, --- MS. MULLIGAN: Mr. Cooper, do you mind if I see

that, please? MR. COOPER: I didn't count these, Your Honour,

but ..... Q. This is something that -- obviously something that you followed up on. A. Yeah. Q. It's got to be of interest to you. A. Oh yeah. Q. Your long-term, well maybe not long-term, but your employer that was very generous to you that you worked with for a year to two years obviously had some misfortune here and it made front page press, this isn't the front page but it was also on the front page that particular day, right? A. Yeah. Q. Now, we're not going to go through every word of this by any stretch, sir, but I'm particularly inter-ested in the column on the right "Police seize $ 1.3M in drugs" and it says by Bruce MacDonald? A. Yeah. Q. Ottawa Sun:

Police said yesterday's bust has broken an alleged highly organized Ottawa Valley drug ring that had direct links with South America.

Twelve people were charged with 46 drug- related offences after $ 1.3 million in cocaine, hashish and marijuana were seized in raids on nine homes.

Continuing on down: Police from Montreal, Gloucester, Nepean

and Ottawa assisted the OPP in the six-month

WARA, cr-ex

(Cooper)

17724

long investigation, code named Project Elimina- tor.

Det. Sgt. Jim Miller chief of the Ottawa-Carleton Regional Drug Unit, said the ring which operated in eastern Ontario and western Quebec, netted millions of dollars from drug sales.

OPP Drug Unit Supt. Don Wilson said the ring was capable of multi-kilo drug deals and sent people to South America to make large drug purchases.

"I think that anybody who has the capabil-ity to finance and dispose of money in order to go to another country to get cocaine, that's organized" Wilson said.

And all of that is something you were familiar with, sir? A. Yeah. Q. Okay. And then this may assist you with all these names that you couldn't remember about people you dropped off to, I'm hoping here, because some people have the same first names, okay?

Charged yesterday Peter Henderson 21.

Now you mentioned one or two Peters. A. No. Q. You're certain it's not Peter Henderson. A. He wasn't a kid. Q. And a kid would be 21. A. Well, pretty young. Q. How old were you in 1991? About the same age, weren't you? A. I was in my 30s. Q. Were you? How old are you now?

WARA, cr-ex

(Cooper)

17724

A. I'll be 38 in another month.WARA, cr-ex

(Cooper)

17724

Q. He was younger than you. "Keith Garrison, 23". A. No. Q. "Richard Levesque, 25". A. No. Q. "Trevor Belgrave, 27"? A. No. Q. You're certain about that? A. Yeah. Q. Okay. "Robert Stewart, 38". A. Yeah. Q. "Kenneth Mousseau, 44". What about Ken Mousseau? A. The name rings a bell. Q. Okay. "Michel Vanasse, 34, also of Ottawa"? A. Yes. Q. "Christopher Proulx, 33". You knew Mr. Proulx? A. No. Q. "Evelyn McCoy, 40"? A. No. Q. "Sharon McCoy, 18"? A. No. Q. "Mike McCoy, 40, all of Gloucester." They might the people with the basement and the coffee grinder. A. Yeah. Yeah. Q. Okay. Do you think that might be them? You weren't ringing a bell until the whole family got mentioned there, that wasn't ringing a bell.

A. That's right.

WARA, cr-ex

(Cooper)

17724

Q. So the teenaged daughter, these are from the people with the press, cocaine press and the coffee grinder in their basement. A. Yes. Q. Okay. "And Gail Lefebvre, of Bourget".

A. No.Q. What about Gail?

A. No. Q. So the only people you recognize there are these three McCoys? A. Yeah. Q. And Mr. Stewart and Mr. Vanasse obviously. Anybody else at all? A. No. I've heard the name Kenny Mousseau I don't know where but ..... Q. Okay. There's seven people at least there, sir, that you don't know. A. That's right. Q. So there's a fair bit about the drug organization that you weren't knowledgeable about? A. Again, you know, this is a long time ago and remembering names, you know. Q. Sure. It's difficult. A. It sure is. Q. But of all these names you can only pick out the two principal parties mentioned, Stewart and Vanasse. A. Yeah. Q. And if not for the fact that these three McCoy people all have the same surname you wouldn't have picked them out either, right? A. Yeah.

WARA, cr-ex

(Cooper)

17724

Q. There's a lot about Mr. Stewart's organiza-tion that you just don't know about. A. Well I know what I -- I know what I did. Q. Right. A. And that's a fact I can't deny, so ..... Q. And then on the left side of the page, sir, is all the information about the murder investigation, right? A. Yeah. Q. And this is something that obviously you pored over, you didn't have your wife read this out to you in the Mac's Milk.

A. No.Q. You bought this paper, right?

A. Yeah. Q. And you took it home and I imagine you might've bought the other one too, right? A. I don't know. Q. You would've followed this little story fairly closely. A. I may have. I don't recall. Q. And everything in here is of concern to you, particularly about the column on the right dealing with the drugs because obviously you are the supplier, not the supplier, but you do the supply and demand end of things, you do all the intake and all the delivery for the drugs. A. Yeah. Q. You're solely responsible for well over a year's worth of inventory. A. Yeah. Q. And your name isn't on here --- A. That's right.

WARA, cr-ex

(Cooper)

17724

Q. --- as somebody that was arrested or even suspected here or anything like that, eh? There's no mention of you anywhere on this page. A. No there isn't. Q. And did not that cause you some sort of concern, sir? A. In which way? Q. Well, you tell me. Which way did it cause you concern? A. I didn't have any concern. Q. You didn't have any concern. You weren't concerned either that (a) somebody might think that you skated on this, ---

A. No.Q. --- that you were the rat on the drugs.

No? That didn't cause you any concern. A. No. Q. Not at all. A. No. Q. You didn't call up anybody like Doug Stew- art or anybody and say 'Look, I didn't have anything to do with this". A. No. Q. Nobody called you and said 'Well why aren't you arrested on Eliminator'. A. No. Q. But you're a key figure there, right? A. I had nothing to do with this, so ..... Q. The column on the right, sir. A. I know what you're talking about.

WARA, cr-ex

(Cooper)

17724

Q. Well you did have something to do with it. You're in the basement of these three McCoy people ---

A. Okay. Now this ---Q. --- virtually every day.

A. Now this here was probably taken or done when I was not even in the business anymore. Q. Well you were in the business right up until Mr. Stewart went out of business you've told us. A. Yeah, we've talked about this before, about time line here. Q. Right. A. Yeah. Now, when he got busted with this I was not working for him. Q. You had just left prior to that. A. Prior to his arrest. Q. Right. Wouldn't that heighten your concern, sir, that somebody might suspect you were a rat? A. No. Q. It didn't cross your mind at all that your reputation and maybe your safety was in danger because of that. A. Why would it have been? Q. I'm not saying that you were a rat, sir. A. No, but you --- Q. I'm saying you might think that other people would suspect you. A. Elaborating, why would I think that? Why wouldn't it have been and why would I think that? Q. The guy who just ducked out of the organi-zation before the bust and is not arrested and who has every-thing to do with every ounce of drugs --- A. Yeah.

WARA, cr-ex

(Cooper)

17724

Q. --- isn't on the list. A. That's right. Q. And that didn't cause you any discomfort. A. No it didn't. Q. You didn't phone Rob Stewart up and talk to him about it. A. No. Q. And nobody phoned you, Mr. Stewart, Senior or Junior, nobody phoned you. A. Nobody called me. Q. Nobody at all. A. Nobody. Q. Until you're arrested in Toronto. A. Yeah. Q. So that's a year later pretty much. It's exactly a year, right? A. Well, what --- THE COURT: Almost to the day. MR. COOPER: May I just have a moment, please,

Your Honour? Q. But it's just a few months later that Doug- las Stewart has come to see you, well it might've been a few weeks later. Right after this Douglas Stewart is at your house with the brief, right? It had to be before the 1st of May when the police see you? A. Yeah. I don't recall when this happened, when he came to see me. Q. Okay. Well, we know when this happened. A. Yeah. Q. This is Friday the 21st of December, 1990. The police visit you on the 1st of May 1991, so we've got a

WARA, cr-ex

(Cooper)

17724

week in December, and then January, February, March, April, four months and one week in between this newspaper clipping and when the police see you, and some time in that four months and one week Doug Stewart has come to pay you a visit with the police brief in his hand. A. Yeah. Q. Did he say anything to you like 'I can't find your name in here and it's a damn good thing'? A. No. Q. He never said anything like that to you. A. No. Q. Notwithstanding you're the guy that skated out of the organization and wasn't arrested, nobody ever chatted with you about that. A. I didn't skate out of the organization, I was told to leave, "get out". Q. You were told to leave. A. Yeah. Q. Because you'd had a baby either one or two years earlier. A. I think there's a little more to it than that. Possibly I didn't elaborate a little more than what I had said. Q. Would you like to elaborate now, sir, as to why you left the organization? A. Yeah. Rob Stewart. Q. Why? A. He's the one who specifically told me "Get out. I don't want to see you in this anymore." Q. And that's because of what, sir?

WARA, cr-ex

(Cooper)

17724

A. I guess he must've known something was hap- pening. Q. You're speculating on that. You don't know --- A. Well it's a good speculation.

Q. --- why Mr. Stewart ---A. He did end up getting busted.

Q. It wouldn't be that he didn't trust you anymore. A. No. Q. That wasn't it. No. You were stealing cocaine from him. A. Ah. Q. But you don't think he knew. A. He knew. I'm sure he knew. Q. And what if he didn't, it's only a little bit here and there, a couple of grams. A. It didn't make up anything. Q. Pardon me? A. It didn't make up anything. Q. Well it's expensive stuff, in dollars worth it must've been a few bucks, maybe not compared to what you were being paid but it was still a few dollars, right? A. Probably $ 40. Q. Jean Beauchamp, is that another individual you dealt with, sir? A. Jean Beauchamp. No. Q. No? MR. COOPER: I'm just seeing if I can find some-

thing that'll fit in in five minutes, Your Hon- our.

WARA, cr-ex

(Cooper)

17724

Q. Mr. Stewart, sir, did Mr. Stewart tell you you weren't needed any longer because he had somebody else to make the deliveries? A. No. Q. So clearly somebody had to fill your shoes. A. Business was over. Q. Business was over? It was winding down. A. As far as I knew business was over. Q. So you're let go, you're laid off. That's what it amounts to. A. Yeah. Q. Mr. Stewart is just about to wind down his multi-million dollar drug organization and so he gives you notice. A. I don't think that's the way it happened. I think he obviously knew something. Q. He was so far in debt it was not sustain- able anymore. Could that have been it, sir? Is that what he told you? A. No. Q. Mr. Vanasse, you said, sir, was pumping money into this organization, right? You've already told me that. A. I said he may have been. I don't know that for sure. Q. Well I'll clarify with you tomorrow morning exactly what you said, sir, but Mr. Vanasse, your information was his role in this, other than he got one ounce of cocaine one time, his role is that he was pumping money in or financing it. A. Yeah.

WARA, cr-ex

(Cooper)

17724

Q. It was financial, his role. A. Yeah. Q. Even though there's hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of cocaine going out the door, somebody has to pump money into this organization? Explain that, sir. A. I think you explained it earlier. Fronts, some people don't pay all the time. Q. Debts that weren't coming -- weren't being paid. A. Could've been. I don't know. As I said before I wasn't in that aspect of this. Q. That's a complaint Mr. Stewart made to you, though. A. A complaint that he made to me that there was no money coming out? Q. Yes. A. No. Q. He just told you 'Well, Randy, I'm going to wrap this thing up'. A. No, no, no, no, that's not the way it went. Q. No, I'm sure it wasn't the way it went.

A. No. Exactly. Q. Did the Outlaws take over the deliveries,

sir? Is that what happened? A. I don't know who did. Q. But somebody took over. A. I have no idea. Q. Well you just told me a minute ago it was shutting down. A. All's I know is that he told me "I don't want you in this no more, you're out of it."

WARA, cr-ex

(Cooper)

17724

Q. So it wasn't a case where it was shutting down. A. It could've been. I don't know. As far as I was concerned, to me it was. Q. To you it was what? A. Shutting down. Q. Based on nothing. A. Based on from what --- Q. Your opinion's based on nothing. A. No, no, no. Based on from what Rob was telling me. Q. And what was Rob telling you? He wasn't telling you that 'in another month or so I'm going to be arrested and charged with murder to boot'. He didn't say anything like that. A. No. No. Q. He did tell you there was a planeload with half a billion dollars worth of cocaine heading up to Canada. A. No. Q. He told you about the planeload for sure. A. No. Q. He's never talked to you about a planeload with about 1500 kilos of cocaine coming up from Colombia? A. Well I think I'd remember that. Q. You'd remember that if he told it to you. You're the guy that's in charge of pick-ups and deliveries. You would have to know about that. A. Why would I have to know about that? Q. Well, because it was something that would be pretty integral to your job.

WARA, cr-ex

(Cooper)

17724

A. I'm going to go pick up a planeload of cocaine? Q. Well, you're going to have to go and pick it up somehow, it's not going to fly into that safe all by itself, is it, sir? A. No, it won't, but still no, I had no knowl-edge Q. Nobody in Mr. Stewart's organization, Mr. Stewart or Mr. Mallory specifically, mentioned to you they were expecting a portion of this cocaine coming up from Colombia. A. No. Q. The plane crashes in Allentown, Pennsyl- vania and nobody ever updates you about that? A. No. Q. Mr. Vanasse goes to a U.S. jail for a real long time? A. I read about it. Q. You read about that. A. Yeah. Q. Okay. And Mr. Stewart didn't tell you about it. A. No he didn't. Q. Because you haven't talked to Mr. Stewart since 1990. A. That's right. Q. The man who paid you generously for your work. You weren't making $ 10. an hour, right? A. No. Q. It wasn't a dead end job financially? A. No.

WARA, cr-ex

(Cooper)

17724

Q. And you got a bonus on at least one Christ- mas? A. Yeah. Q. Mr. Stewart gets busted and you never call, you never write, nothing? A. No. Q. You just let him sit there in jail and you never pick up the phone or anything. A. Well you explain to me what I'm supposed to do. Q. You don't go and console the man. You don't go and visit him. A. No. Q. There's nothing preventing you from going to the detention centre and signing in? A. No. Q. You'd done that before for other people? A. Never. Q. Never? People do it for you when you were in Metro East or West, whatever it was? A. East. No. Q. East? Never? Nobody visited you for 11 months? A. Yeah. Mrs. Chapman. Q. Okay. MR. COOPER: I wonder if I might have 10 seconds

leeway, Your Honour?

THE COURT: Yes. All right. Members of the jury,

see everybody tomorrow.

--- Whereupon the jury retired at 4:30 p.m.

* * * * * * * *

WARA, cr-ex

(Cooper)

17724

--- In the absence of the jury MS. MULLIGAN: Your Honour, if I could just

address something quickly before we break. THE COURT: Certainly. MS. MULLIGAN: The issue of Mr. Winn. Mr. Winn

was contacted, I'll just get the notes, was contacted or left a message -- Detective Ralko left a message for Mr. Winn on September 28th to contact him. He does speak with him that day at about 5:00 o'clock, roughly. Detective Ralko advises Mr. Winn that he has a subpoena from the defence. Mr. Winn advised he had a new job and would check with his boss about getting time off. Later that day Mr. Winn pages Detec-tive Ralko again and they speak and he advises he'll be able to come on Monday, meaning today, and he will make his own arrangements to get here, he will require security when he comes to court, and Detective Ralko advises he'll con-firm Monday with him.

On October 1st '99 Detective Ralko attempts to contact Mr. Winn, leaves a message with his girlfriend to have Mr. Winn contact him and leaves a message in the morning with his work I guess in the morning as well, but he had not returned his call that day. He tries October 3rd, Sunday. At 2:22 Detective Ralko tried to contact Mr. Winn again, I guess he tried Satur-day, I'm sorry, he advised him he had not heard from Winn. He called the number on Saturday during the day and evening and there was no


17727

answer. He had tried earlier on Sunday, October 3rd and got some kind of numeric message. At 2:22 on Sunday, October 3rd he tried to contact Winn again, I can't tell if it was the same number where he received a numeric message. Detective Ralko is confirming that, and when he tried at 2:22 the message came in stating that the phone was out of service.

Detective Ralko called me last night and left a

message on my phone at 9:30 roughly in the

evening stating that Winn had not been spoken

to since he agreed to come on the Monday and

since he was advised there was a subpoena, and

Detective Ralko tried to reach him this morning

and learned that he was not at work today and

left a message and as I understand it he's

heard nothing back from Mr. Winn.

So I'd be seeking, Your Honour it appears that

Mr. Winn was well aware of the subpoena, I can

hardly serve it on him obviously, but he agreed

to come pursuant to the subpoena, he was

advised of the subpoena, he was advised of when

he needed to be here, his phone is now out of

service and he can't be located at work. It

seems to me that he is evading and I would ask

for a warrant so that he can be brought in

pursuant to s. 698 (2):

Warrant in Form 17

(2) Where it is made to appear that a


17727

person who is likely to give material evidence


17727

(a) will not attend in response to a subpoena if a subpoena is issued, or

(b) is evading service of a subpoena,

a court, justice or provincial court judge having power to issue a subpoena to require the attendance of that person to give evidence may issue a warrant in Form 17 to cause that person to be arrested and to be brought to give evidence.

I would be prepared to call Detective Ralko but I think he's agreed with what I've told Your Honour as to the factual background. It would appear that Mr. Winn does not want to answer to the subpoena that he knows has been issued for him, in my submission, so I would ask that a warrant be issued so that he can be brought here to testify.

MR. McKECHNIE: I would agree also in the inter-est of expediency in order to get on with it, to get him here, rather than to wait for other efforts to locate him, you know if Your Honour were to order further efforts to locate him they wouldn't be as fast and efficient as a warrant.


The Crown? MS. BAIR: We have nothing to add. THE COURT: You have nothing to add? The warrant

will issue then pursuant to Form 17, is it? MS. MULLIGAN: Yes, it says "Warrant in Form 17." THE COURT: All right. Warrant to issue.


17727

--- Whereupon, at 4:35 o'clock p.m. court was adjourned to reconvene at 10:00 o'clock a.m,, Tuesday, October 5th, 1999

* * * * * * * *

Certified correct to thebest of my skill and ability

________________________________Gloria D. Neville, C.S.R.Chartered Shorthand ReporterSuperior Court of Justice

17728

kangaroojustice.org€¦ · Web view--- Upon commencing at 11:45 a.m. Accused present. RANDALL...

Documents

Transcript of kangaroojustice.org€¦ · Web view--- Upon commencing at 11:45 a.m. Accused present. RANDALL...