Volume 13 (October 31, 2022)

David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)

Good morning, Commissioner. Good morning, Mr. Sloly. As you know, my name is David Migicovsky, and I appear for the Ottawa Police Service. How are you?

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 7 13-007-13

David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)

I wonder, Mr. Clerk, if we could call up OPS14454, page 176. I want to start by asking you some questions about the Hendon reports. So I'll just wait for the... And it's page 176. Thank you. Just to situate you for where we are in time, it's February 12th. And then if we could just turn to the next page. Thank you. And so you'll see, Mr. Sloly, that on February 12th, you've just gotten off of a call of the Big 12 Services. Do you recall that?

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 7 13-007-19

David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)

And on page 177, you'll see... If you'll just stay at the top, please. ...you raised a concern with the OPP that OPS was being compared to Toronto, and the suggestion that OPS wasn't prepared, and you wanted to address that situation. And Commissioner Carrique asked that you go offline to have that discussion in a professional manner. Do you recall that?

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 8 13-008-03

David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)

And so you raised concerns about the Toronto situation, and you also want to discuss the assertion that OPS was not prepared. And I want to read a passage just below, Mr. Sloly, and ask you to confirm whether that's accurate. And so if you can just scroll up a bit, please. Thank you. "Chief - can't continue to compare Ottawa to Toronto. Also, we had a blind spot. Ottawa was not soft [or something] sold on civil disobedience." I'm not sure what that word is. Commissioner Carrique says: "Don't disagree with you." And then says: "Never any suggestion that the Toronto situation is like Ottawa, this situation was not caused by OPP." If we could keep scrolling, please? The second bullet, you indicate to Commissioner Carrique, "It sounds like Ottawa got caught off guard. We need a collective understanding of what we did good and bad. Want the message to be we didn't have the intel and couldn't prepare and have a message going forward." And then underneath that, Superintendent Morris says, "Hendon report not perfect. This type of activity is novel. April 2020 - saw messaging re vaccination talk against..." We could continue, please, to the next page. Again, "Jan[uary] 20/22 - first heard on the specific event..." So this is Superintendent Morris speaking, "Discussed it on Jan[uary] 21/22 and sent out via Hendon. - worked closely with OPS. We underestimated and as we learned more we tried to collect the info[rmation] and work closely with OPS. - Don't know how Ottawa could have been prevented. Toronto was completely different and we learned from Ottawa. - The strategic intelligence would not have provided a key to prevention. Chief..." And this is you, "...[asks] Pat, Tom, Chuck that's what needs to be told more broadly and to the politicians - that intelligence update needs to be..."

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 8 13-008-12

David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)

..."done - judging the various police services against each other - people are second guessing me - I can't point fingers [a]t RCMP [and] OPP. I need someone that is credible/objective to speak out not someone fighting for their job" And you'll see Commissioner Carrique says, "- fair comment[...] - we do provide Hendon to [government]. Can ask Pat..." Which I assume is Pat Morris. "...to include a summary to include in the next Hendon. We can make sure it's clearly articulated in the Hendon Report[s]." And does that, in fact, reflect the conversation that you had with Superintendent Morris and Commissioner Carrique?

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 10 13-010-13

David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)

Thank you. And although your witness statement did not say so, I understand that, in fact, you only reviewed the Hendon reports some time after February 10th, 2022; is that correct?

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 11 13-011-07

David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)

Okay. And I am going to suggest to you that it was only after you reviewed the Hendon reports sometime after February 10th that you formed the conclusion that you just reached?

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 11 13-011-12

David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)

Okay. And I'm also going to suggest to you that none of the Hendon reports were ever forwarded by you to either Deputy Chief Bell or Deputy Chief Ferguson.

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 11 13-011-17

David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)

Right. I understand you couldn't find any record of that. And you read over the witness statement of Deputy Chief Bell?

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 11 13-011-25

David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)

Or Acting Chief Bell. And you're aware from his testimony and his witness statement that he learned of the Hendon report sometime in the week of January 24th through discussion with Superintendent Patterson, who was the Superintendent in Intelligence, and then began to receive the reports on January 27th. You understand that; correct?

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 12 13-012-01

David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)

And you understand from Deputy Chief Ferguson that she only started to get those reports in the week of February 4th?

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 12 13-012-09

David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)

And you have no evidence to the contrary; correct?

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 12 13-012-14

David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)

And Deputy Chief Bell noted in his witness statement and in his testimony that you began to receive the Hendon reports on January 13 and that you personally received ---

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 12 13-012-19

David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)

Yes, do you recall that?

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 12 13-012-25

David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)

Right. And I -- Kevin Maloney is your executive officer, or was your executive officer; is that right?

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 13 13-013-01

David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)

And you worked very closely with him?

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 13 13-013-05

David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)

Mr. Clerk, if we could please turn up OPS00009554? And if we could just scroll down to the bottom of the page? You'll see -- is it Inspector or Superintendent Maloney?

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 13 13-013-08

David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)

Inspector. Inspector Maloney sends an email to Jamie Dunlop, to Superintendent Dunlop, and he says, "Hi Jamie, There is apparently an Operation HENDON being run by OPP or RCMP. This is an intelligence-based operation that has apparently been producing daily briefings since the end of January. A couple of questions from the Chief: Are you aware of this operation? Do we have an OPS representative? Is it integrated into our ICS model? Do we have copies of all briefing notes, especially from 5 and 9 Feb[ruary]? The Chief would like a copy of all briefing notes {past and going forward} sent to him and Christiane Huneault." And so he made inquiries on your behalf about what the Hendon reports were?

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 13 13-013-13

David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)

Okay. So he sent this on his own?

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 14 13-014-12

David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)

So he says a couple of questions from the Chief. You were the Chief at the time, so I assumed he was talking on your behalf.

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 14 13-014-17

David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)

Okay.

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 14 13-014-22

David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)

Okay. Can we scroll up to the top, please? Thank you. And so Superintendent Dunlop replies, "Hi Kevin: Hope you are getting some rest. I am aware of project Hendon. It[']s a Provincial project of summary of intelligence across the province and national partners in regard[...] to the Convoy. I have not received any updates in the few days I've been assigned Intelligence as it related to this occupation but will make sure to forward every one to the Chief and through this email will ensure Insp[ector] Bryden sends directly from source and not through the [chain of command] that may delay sharing. I personally have not received most of them. I started to receive them in November from Robert Drummond and I note the Chief is on the mailing list. I have a gap through the month of December and January as I[']m not directly in intel but started to receive a few from Mark in Feb[ruary]. I[']ll forward those now. I asked Ken Bryden to have all reports forwarded to you dating from the first on." And you are, in fact, copied on that email; correct?

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 14 13-014-27

David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)

And so we heard from the OPP witnesses and specifically Superintendent Morris that he found it very odd that they were getting requests from your office for copies of the Hendon report when they had gone directly to you from January 13th onward. You heard that testimony?

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 16 13-016-02

David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)

But you had them. They all went -- were sent to you. They were addressed to Sloly.

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 16 13-016-18

David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)

I'm not understanding how you needed an archive when every single one was addressed to you and in your inbox.

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 17 13-017-02

David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)

So your evidence is that you did receive them, and you did read them at the time?

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 17 13-017-10

David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)

And if I suggested to you that, not only did you have them, they were unopened in your inbox, what would your response be to that?

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 17 13-017-16

David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)

And so when your Executive Officer, Inspector Maloney, sent that request to the OPP, he did so without your authority?

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 17 13-017-23

David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)

I’m going to suggest to you, Mr. Sloly, that once you received that email, this one here, you at some point decided that you could blame Deputy Chief Bell at the time for not planning for this event.

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 18 13-018-03

David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)

Okay. If we could please turn up OPS00009565? If we could scroll to the bottom, you’ll see then there’s an at -- if you could scroll all the way to the bottom, please? Just go up; I’m sorry. Okay. So you’ll see above that email, the next email in the chain, which we just saw, and then if we can go above that, you’ll then see Supt. Patterson, and you’re copied on that, says: “Thanks Jamie. Further to that. All of the Hendon reports were submitted to DC Bell for the Intelligence Briefings that were provided on a daily basis. OPS Members in attendance have been myself, (prior to the MIC role), Inspector Bryden and SIC [sic] Members Yes, it is integrated into our model The briefing notes from [February 5] to [9] were supplied by DC Bell” And then we see above that, so now you believe that Deputy Chief Bell, at the time, had received the Hendon reports, and then you indicate on February 10th to your general counsel: “Fyi and for your records - this could become very important in [any -- I assume that’s a typo] post event inquiries/inquests [Peter Sloly]” Right?

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 18 13-018-09

David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)

And so even though the OPP found it odd that you -- your office was specifically making inquiries about what these Hendon reports were, and even though Deputy Chief Bell’s evidence, which was not contradicted, was that he only began to receive them at the end of January, you’re now saying this could become important. And could it become important, Mr. Sloly, because it will indicate that you received the Hendon reports, or that Deputy Chief Bell received the Hendon reports?

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 19 13-019-13

David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)

Okay. And so you don’t have any response, I take it, to Supt. Morris, who was really quite puzzled by why you were asking for Hendon reports?

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 19 13-019-25

David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)

I want to talk about Deputy Chief Ferguson and Deputy Chief Bell at the time. And you’ve testified on Friday that there was a period of time when you lost confidence in your two Deputies.

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 20 13-020-02

David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)

Okay. And so, you lost trust, and that must have been very ---

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 20 13-020-10

David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)

And that must have been very hard for you?

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 20 13-020-14

David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)

And you decided that because you couldn’t trust them, you needed to do certain things yourself?

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 20 13-020-18

David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)

And you also didn’t trust Supt. Dunlop as the Event Commander that they had chosen?

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 20 13-020-26

David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)

And so, several of your most senior officers you had trust issues with?

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 21 13-021-04

David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)

And Supt. Rheaume, you told us, had been replaced as Event Commander by Supt. Dunlop. And you indicated you were very angry about that, and you spoke to Deputy Chief Bell ---

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 21 13-021-10

David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)

Okay. You were not pleased with that decision?

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 21 13-021-16

David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)

And you spoke to Deputy Chiefs Bell and Ferguson about it?

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 21 13-021-20

David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)

And then you consulted with them about who should replace Supt. Dunlop because you said you didn’t want him in the position?

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 21 13-021-23

David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)

But you did not suggest putting Supt. Rheaume back in as the Event Commander?

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 22 13-022-01

David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)

So, there’s another one of your Superintendents that you may have had some trust issues with as well?

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 22 13-022-05

Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)

Commissioner? Commissioner? Thank you. My friend Mr. Migicovsky has more than one occasion this morning, not stated the witness’s evidence correctly, and I would be grateful if my friend could listen more closely and not suggest that the evidence is something other than it is.

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 22 13-022-10

David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)

I’m doing the best I can. If I have misstated a word, please correct me, it was not intentional.

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 22 13-022-17

David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)

I will, and I’m not doing it intentionally but there’s a lot of information and if I’ve gotten something wrong, and I haven’t picked up on it, please do correct me.

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 22 13-022-27

David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)

You’ve also, I believe, told us about not wanting to give too much information to the Board because you didn’t entirely trust them to keep things confidential?

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 23 13-023-05

David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)

That’s not what you said?

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 23 13-023-10

David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)

Okay. You had concerns about sharing certain information because of confidentiality?

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 23 13-023-12

David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)

And we’ve also heard evidence about your perception that there wasn’t political support to get the resources to you, and that they wanted to see you fail.

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 23 13-023-18

David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)

And Supt. Pardy, you’ll recall from the OPP testified that you told him there were people in the Ministry who wanted you to fail and that you had sources telling you that?

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 23 13-023-25

David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)

Supt. Pardy from the OPP testified that there were people -- that you said at a meeting he was at, that there were people in the Ministry who wanted you to fail and that you had sources telling you that?

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 24 13-024-03

David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)

And you expressed that to Supt. Pardy; correct?

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 24 13-024-10

David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)

And so I take it from that that there were also people you could not trust in the Ministry?

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 24 13-024-13

David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)

Let’s talk about the change in Incident Commander from Supt. Rheaume to Supt. Dunlop. And I want to begin by talking about your comments about Supt. Dunlop. What I understood you to say on Friday, and perhaps I’ve written it down incorrectly, was you did not want him in the position because he had been the Incident Commander in the Panda Game?

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 24 13-024-16

David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)

My understanding was that you referred to him as the Incident Commander or the Event Commander and so I’ve got that wrong. That wasn’t ---

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 25 13-025-02

David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)

My understanding was that the Incident commander of that was Insp. Michel Marin and there was no Event Commander for that.

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 25 13-025-13

David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)

And in terms of Supt. Dunlop’s experience, I understand that he had been the logistics and staffing lead in 2016 for the North American Leaders Summit and he was part of a joint planning and communications group with the RCMP. He was also the lead planner in the past for the presidential visit, and was extremely well qualified for the position, but that you had some personal issues with him?

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 25 13-025-18

David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)

And so you’re not just ---

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 26 13-026-09

David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)

--- disputing that he may have been ---

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 26 13-026-12

David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)

Sorry.

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 26 13-026-16

David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)

You’re not disputing that he was extremely well qualified for that position of event coordinator?

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 26 13-026-24

David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)

I’m talking about for the -- sorry if my question wasn’t clear. Event Commander for the protest.

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 27 13-027-01

David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)

Okay. And you indicated that the Event Commander was changed, you said, on February 1st, 2022. That was your evidence on Friday?

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 27 13-027-06

David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)

Okay. On Friday, you said it was the 1st.

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 27 13-027-11

David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)

And you understand that Deputy Chief Ferguson testified that Supt. Rheaume was the Event Commander until February 4th in the evening? And that was her evidence in her witness statement and it was also her evidence in the transcript.

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 27 13-027-15

David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)

Until February 4th in the evening. That was her evidence.

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 27 13-027-22

David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)

And no one challenged that evidence when she gave it. you heard that; correct?

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 27 13-027-26

David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)

And on the Institutional Report that Ottawa Police filed and that came in through her evidence, that Institutional Report had a chronology of dates and said that Supt. Rheaume was the Event Commander up until February 4th, and nobody challenged that either; correct?

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 28 13-028-01

David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)

And you’re aware that Deputy Chief Ferguson testified that Supt. Rheaume had asked for some time off on the weekend, which was the weekend of February 5th, and that’s why she said he had been replaced by Supt. Dunlop?

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 28 13-028-08

David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)

Okay. So you indicated on Friday that you did not believe that statement when she said that he had asked for time off that weekend and that’s why he had been replaced?

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 28 13-028-21

David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)

Can I ask, please, Mr. Clerk, to turn up OPS00014454, page 142? At the top of the page, you’ll see: “Chris Rheaume was the Commander. Chris Rheaume…”

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 29 13-029-09

David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)

These are the same notes that we looked at before, Ms. Huneault’s notes.

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 29 13-029-16

David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)

February 10th. “Chris Rheaume was the Commander. Chris Rheaume - he need time off Decision to ask Jamie be there on Frid[ay]” Friday would be February 4th. “On Sat[urday] [Supt.] Rheaume asked if Jamie [that would be Jamie Dunlop] should just stay in there Decision to just keep” Thank you.

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 29 13-029-20

David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)

And if that is correct, then what that would mean ---

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 30 13-030-09

David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)

If that was correct, ---

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 30 13-030-13

David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)

If I could ask my question, please? If it was correct, that would mean that on February 4th in the evening, Supt. Rheaume was asked for time off and was given it, and Supt. Dunlop became the Event Commander on the 5th.

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 30 13-030-16

David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)

Okay. And what also doesn’t make sense, if we could please turn up OPS00014484, page 10? So this is your typed notes. I don’t know when you typed those notes. But you’ll see “I advised…” this is on the February 5th in the morning. It’s 9:00 o’clock. It says: “I advised that I had only just official[ly] heard that Supt Dunlop had replaced Insp Lucas as the Incident Commander at the previous briefing. DC Bell advised […] he was the new Incident Commander installed this week…” That can’t be accurate, Mr. Sloly, I suggest, because the Incident Commander from the beginning of this event to the end was Insp. Lucas throughout; correct?

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 31 13-031-01

David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)

But ---

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 31 13-031-21

David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)

And ---

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 32 13-032-18

David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)

These are not notes that you prepared at the time of the ---

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 32 13-032-22

David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)

And I suggest to you that you’ve got it wrong there, because what you were told on February 5th in the morning was that Superintendent Rheaume had asked for some time off ---

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 32 13-032-26

David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)

Just -- you have to let me finish, Mr. Sloly. And had been replaced by Superintendent Dunlop. And in your notes you've written that's it's Inspector Lucas who was replaced by Superintendent Dunlop as the Incident Commander.

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 33 13-033-03

David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)

Thank you for your statement. You're inaccurate. That's not true.

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 33 13-033-08

David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)

Okay. And -- so we are in agreement, however, that Inspector Lucas was never replaced.

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 33 13-033-10

David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)

And ---

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 33 13-033-17

David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)

And you're asking us to accept that for the period of February 1st to February 5th you were under a misapprehension of who the Event Commander was?

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 33 13-033-20

David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)

If in fact the change was made on February 4th in the evening, as we've heard from the evidence, that would mean you were uninformed from the evening of the 4th until the morning of the 5th; correct?

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 33 13-033-24

Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)

Commissioner, Commissioner, may I interject again? Forgive me please. My -- I'm not -- I'm trying to follow my friend's questions. If the suggestion that my friend is making to the witness is that the evidence before you is that Inspector Rheaume left on the 4th, then my friend should recall that Commission Counsel led the evidence on Friday of Inspector Rheaume's note that showed that he was replaced as the, I think, Event Commander on the evening of February 1st, 1930 hours. Commission Counsel led that note from Inspector Rheaume.

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 34 13-034-02

David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)

This is quite proper cross-examination. If my friend wants to raise that in re-examination, he can. Superintendent Rheaume was not called as a witness. Two different notebooks from him were put in. We knew nothing about that. So my friend can certainly pursue that in re-examination, but I submit this is proper cross- examination.

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 34 13-034-13

Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)

Commissioner, if I may just -- may I just add one comment?

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 34 13-034-20

David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)

I'm concerned about my time.

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 34 13-034-22

Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)

I'm -- well, I'm -- I'll be very brief. It's a matter of some significance. My friend cannot say on behalf of the entity, the OPS, that he can pick and choose through which notebook he likes. Commission Counsel led that notebook, my friend just take account of it. That's all my point. He's not being fair to the witness. Thank you.

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 34 13-034-24

David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)

Sure. I understand that, you know, that's the narrative. I'm challenging that narrative, and my friend is certainly open to explore it. But I'm going to move on from that point. You would agree with me that as the Major Incident Commander, Deputy Chief Ferguson operates at a strategic level?

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 35 13-035-08

David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)

And below her would be Inspector Lucas at the Operational level?

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 35 13-035-16

David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)

I'm sorry, the Event Commander, and below the Event Commander would be Inspector Lucas as the Operational -- at the Operational level?

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 35 13-035-20

David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)

Okay. And strategy at the Major Incident Commander would be at a very high-level; correct?

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 35 13-035-25

David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)

Okay. And I don't see anywhere in the record any instructions that prohibited the Major Incident Commander from choosing who should be the Event Commander who reports to her.

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 35 13-035-28

David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)

And it's her decision, is it not?

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 36 13-036-07

David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)

And when you raised it with her on the 5th, you in fact told her that it was her decision to either keep Superintendent Dunlop in that role if she wanted to?

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 36 13-036-13

David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)

So obviously she had that right to make a decision as to who she wanted as the Event Commander?

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 36 13-036-19

David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)

But you also warned her that she'd be accountable for the decision to put Superintendent Dunlop into that position.

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 36 13-036-25

David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)

And you would agree with me that's somewhat of a threat that if things go wrong you'll be blamed.

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 37 13-037-03

David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)

And that was on February 5th. And at February 5th, just in terms of what was going on on the ground, things were not going well in the City of Ottawa. Fair?

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 37 13-037-12

David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)

Right. And you were facing, really, unrelenting criticism in the media and on social media because people didn't understand what the Ottawa Police were doing.

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 37 13-037-18

David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)

And that was very intense pressure on you, was it not?

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 37 13-037-25

David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)

And what Deputy Chief Ferguson confirmed with you was that in deciding who to replace Superintendent Rheaume with she had consulted with her colleague, who was Deputy Chief, and was experienced in the Deputy Chief role, and you were suspicious of Deputy Chief Bell for having had a conversation with Deputy Chief Ferguson about his thoughts on the skillset required to be the Event Command.

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 38 13-038-01

David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)

Sorry. Sorry if my question had multiple parts, I'll try to break it up. Deputy Chief -- you indicated that you were -- you did not support the decision she had made to choose Superintendent Dunlop; correct?

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 38 13-038-10

David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)

And you also -- she told you, as did Deputy Chief Bell, that he had consulted with her and suggested Superintendent Dunlop, and you weren't happy about Deputy Chief Bell giving his opinion to Deputy Chief Ferguson.

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 38 13-038-18

David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)

And she doesn't have the ability to consult with her colleague, who's been in the Deputy Chief role, to say, "Hey, what do you know about ---

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 39 13-039-01

David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)

--- Superintendent Dunlop's skillset?"

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 39 13-039-06

David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)

And I suggest that on February 9th, so a couple of days later now, you were pretty concerned that you would lose your job and be blamed for what had happened.

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 39 13-039-14

David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)

Okay. And what you were looking for was to blame somebody else.

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 39 13-039-19

David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)

Okay. If we could please turn up OPS14454, page 131. And if we could scroll down, please. There's a meeting at 9:30 to 9:50, meeting with Chief, Christiane Huneault and Inspector Maloney, your Executive Officer. Do you see that?

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 39 13-039-22

David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)

Okay. And if we could scroll down. And so you'll see at the bottom of the page... Or, sorry, just go up -- yeah. If we could just go up to the top, please. "Chief"... Thank you. "Double sided Incident Command? Still don't have it. Chief outlines concerns over last week in the event he is shipped out."

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 40 13-040-01

David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)

"Double sided Incident Command? Still don't have it. Chief outlines concerns over last week in the event he is shipped out." That indicates a concern you expressed again about this incident of Superintendent Dunlop.

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 40 13-040-13

David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)

In the event ---

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 41 13-041-01

David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)

And by February 14th, I would suggest things were looking very bad for you in terms of media coverage and what was happening with the OPP and the RCMP.

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 41 13-041-05

David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)

We have.

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 41 13-041-10

David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)

By February 14th now, less than a week later, things were looking even worse for you in terms of what the media was reporting and what was happening with OPP and the RCMP. You were under immense pressure.

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 41 13-041-13

David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)

If we could please call up OPS00014479, page 97. And if we could just go to the bottom of that page, please. So these are Deputy Chief Ferguson’s notes: “Advised Chief is looking for emails to support I/we purposely left him out of the information loop on the demo coming.” We go up to the next page, and then it ends.

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 41 13-041-19

David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)

I apologize. “Advised Chief is looking for emails to support I/we purposely left him out of the information loop on the demo coming.”

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 42 13-042-03

David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)

Well, she said you were looking for emails to say that people intentionally left you out.

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 42 13-042-13

David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)

And -- thank you. You can take that down for the -- or you can keep it for a moment. I may go back to it. Thank you. You indicated that one of the concerns you had about Superintendent Dunlop taking over as Event Commander, on Friday you said was he wasn’t at the February 1st meeting you had with the POU, so perhaps he wasn’t even up to date on it.

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 42 13-042-20

David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)

And Superintendent Rheaume wasn’t at that February 1st meeting either, was he?

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 43 13-043-02

David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)

And neither was Inspector Lucas at the February 1st meeting.

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 43 13-043-05

David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)

And I understand from Superintendent Dunlop’s note that, in fact, he met with the POU group on the following day, on February 2nd. You have no reason to disagree with that.

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 43 13-043-10

David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)

And I understand on February 3rd, the following day, there was a POU update that Superintendent Dunlop attended with you and the two Deputies at 10:15 that morning at which the three options were presented.

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 43 13-043-18

David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)

Okay. My ---

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 44 13-044-11

David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)

And you recognize the importance of communicating and messaging; correct? That’s an important obligation that you have as a Chief, and it’s important that you communicate appropriately both in the service and externally to the service; correct?

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 44 13-044-20

David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)

And in that regard, you retained a company called Navigator to provide strategic communications and issues management advice related to the Freedom Convoy from January 30th.

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 44 13-044-26

David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)

And so we know they provided services to you, a little bit to Chair Deans as well during that period, from January 30th to February 15th.

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 45 13-045-05

David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)

In fact, they even prepared a report for you on what your reputation was during this.

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 45 13-045-11

David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)

And there was a specific report, actually, about your reputation.

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 45 13-045-18

David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)

If we could please have OPS00008402. You’ll see that is a reputation audit performed of relevant media, social media and political commentary relating to Chief Sloly’s reputation across local media, national media and social media. You reviewed that report, I assume?

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 45 13-045-22

David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)

What you say and how you say things can be very important; correct?

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 46 13-046-03

David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)

And my understanding is OPS spent $185,000 on Navigator providing communication advice for the period of January 30th to February 15th, most of it related to meetings and -- with you; correct?

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 46 13-046-06

David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)

If we could please turn up OPS00014934.

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 46 13-046-11

Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)

Commissioner, excuse me again. I understand that this document was loaded into the party database only last evening. I may be wrong. My friend will know. But it’s a document, obviously, that we have first learned about minutes ago when our friends emailed to say they were going to put this document. It’s, in my respectful submission, not appropriate to put to the witness in the first time in cross-examination. I haven’t even myself had a chance to look at it.

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 46 13-046-13

David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)

In fairness, the question of Navigator was certainly something that was raised throughout. The Commission asked us for the invoice. We actually provided the invoice to the Commission. Yesterday when I was preparing, I discovered that for some reason, it was not on the database, although certainly the Commission had it. And there were many questions asked about Navigator of many of the witnesses, so I don’t see any unfairness in it.

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 46 13-046-22

David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)

Thanks. And so if you’ll just see on the first page, please, if you could scroll down, you’ll see the total bill -- keep scrolling -- was 185, and you’ll see from the invoice that it covers January 30th to February 15th. You heard Deputy Chief Bell say that he stopped using them when he became Acting -- Interim Chief; correct?

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 47 13-047-10

David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)

I want to talk -- so Navigation -- Navigator provides communication advice. Deputy Chief Ferguson has in her notes on page 67. And I can turn it up if you want, but I suspect you may remember this, that during the meeting on February 9th, you said twice that you will crush anyone who undermines the Operation, and she said your chin was twitching when you said it.

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 47 13-047-18

David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)

And Ms. Huneault recorded that in her notes as well. And you would agree with me that when you say "no changes can be made" and you will crush anyone, what your Command Team would understand from that is "you better not disagree with me"?

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 48 13-048-01

David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)

In fact, what the notes say is no changes can be made to the Command Team unless you approve it.

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 48 13-048-18

David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)

Deputy Chief Ferguson's.

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 48 13-048-23

David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)

Well, I ---

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 48 13-048-28

David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)

And Superintendent Abrams testified from the OPP, and you recall that the OPP had an Inspector Dawn Ferguson, who was working with the Ottawa Police?

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 49 13-049-05

David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)

Sure. I'm moving on. I'm asking you something else. We're talking about communication. You recall Superintendent Abrams testified?

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 49 13-049-10

David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)

And you recall that there was reference to an Inspector Dawn Ferguson, who was an OPP officer, who was working with the OPS?

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 49 13-049-14

David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)

Okay. And Superintendent Abrams records that at 10 o'clock you went on a rampage, was reported to him by Inspector Ferguson, and were making unrealistic demands of some staff ---

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 49 13-049-18

David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)

And it says that you went on a rampage and were making unrealistic demands of your Command staff and their partner agencies. You don't agree with that?

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 49 13-049-26

David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)

And Deputy Chief Ferguson also records a meeting on February 9th where you got angry and spoke of the conspiracy and told her it was all political. Do you remember that?

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 50 13-050-08

David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)

She -- do you remember that?

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 50 13-050-14

David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)

I said February 9th.

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 50 13-050-18

David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)

That you spoke of a conspiracy and told her it was all political.

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 50 13-050-20

David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)

If we could please turn up OPS00014479. Oh, I'm sorry, I didn't give you the page. Page 67. The last bullet. Or you can actually go above: "Talked about the plan for briefing the embedded cell of planners and commanders..." And keep scrolling down, please: "...and he spoke of a type of conspiracy that is happening at provincial and federal levels and that this team is being handled by their political masters and promoted the idea that they're not really there to help. I advised that they were asking us not to bring the politics into our operations. He got angry and told me this was all political."

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 50 13-050-23

David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)

Well, she's saying that that's what you said, and you were angry.

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 51 13-051-17

David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)

And on the same page... If we go to the top of the page, please. ...it said that morning you called them all into the: "...office after the morning briefing. Present were the Chief, Deputy Chief Bell, CAO [Dunker is it?]; Kevin Maloney, and Christiane Huneault and myself. [And] the Chief began by saying he floundered last week and because we..."

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 51 13-051-22

David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)

"...we floundered last week..." I read that as an "H", but ---

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 52 13-052-07

David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)

--- because there's a "W" underneath it, but perhaps I've misread it: "...and because we switched riders partway through - indicating the switch between Rheaume and Dunlop to Patterson. The Chief and the team will not change any of the players until the operation is over." And so again you raise this issue about the switch in Event Commanders. You now are not referring to Inspector Lucas anymore, you've sorted that out.

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 52 13-052-10

David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)

And the people that you accused were Deputy Chief Ferguson ---

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 52 13-052-23

David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)

Okay. You spoke about what had happened the previous week in which Deputy Chief Ferguson, in consultation with Deputy Chief Bell, had replaced the Event Commander, and you had that discussion in front of their colleagues.

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 52 13-052-26

David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)

And on the same day, you have a presentation to the OPP, and Deputy Chief Ferguson said that you were hostile when they asked questions.

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 53 13-053-07

David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)

The notes are in the record. That's fine. Superintendent Abrams was also at that meeting, and his notes say, and I'm happy to turn them up if you want, that you became very stern with him ---

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 53 13-053-13

David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)

--- and he says that you became ---

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 53 13-053-19

David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)

Well, I'm trying to save time, but I will turn ---

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 53 13-053-28

David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)

I appreciate it. Given the time constraints I'm trying to do it. But I will call it up. It is OPP00000774. And unfortunately, or fortunately for everyone, I have not noted the -- I've noted what line it is, but I haven't noted the page in my notes. So I won't take you to that, I apologise. What he indicates, and you can tell me if you agree or disagree or you don't remember, is that you became stern with him during that meeting and you became heated again.

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 54 13-054-14

David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)

And ---

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 54 13-054-27

David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)

And Superintendent Pardy records the meeting in his Will Say Statement as "the overall tone of the meeting was somewhat unprofessional and disrespectful." You've heard that evidence.

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 55 13-055-05

David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)

And you obviously don’t agree with that either?

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 55 13-055-11

David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)

And the following day, February 10th, there was an issue that arose about the Rideau/Sussex operation that was supposed to have been the subject of a POU operation the previous night? Do you recall that?

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 55 13-055-20

David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)

And that had ultimately been called off because Supt. Burnett was of the view that it was too dangerous?

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 55 13-055-26

David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)

And if we could please turn up OPS00014479, page 74? And if we could go down to the bottom of the page, last paragraph? There’s a -- let me read to you -- if we could go up a little bit? Okay. “I advised…” this is Deputy Chief Ferguson: “…I fundamentally did not agree with the approach.” The concern was about the use of PLTs; correct?

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 56 13-056-05

David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)

I’ll continue reading. “That they were not allowed negotiations to take place. They did[n’t] give them the opportunity to negotiate fairly. I told them that our policing partners have huge concerns with the way things are running [and] I don’t believe we are listening to them.” If we can scroll down, please? “I advised the OPP are horrified with the Rideau/Sussex plan and that both Dave Springer’s information was incorporated into Paul [Paul being Paul Burnett’s] decision. Chief asked who we should have in to be POU incident commander and I asked for Dave Springer. at that [point] Matt Patterson said ‘Dave Spring - an inspector’ came in to my office this morning and told me what I should be doing - that he wasn’t actually there. The Chief responded by saying if he did that, he would cut off Dave Springer’s nuts and call his boss…” And it goes on. and I don’t recall if you remember the rest of the statement you made?

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 56 13-056-16

David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)

Okay. So you don’t recall it or it didn’t happen?

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 57 13-057-16

David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)

And you don’t recall saying that you’ll cut off Dave Springer’s nuts and use them as bookends?

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 57 13-057-20

David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)

I want to move on. And you would agree with me though, I think you said communication is very important?

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 57 13-057-26

David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)

I want to talk about the PLTs. Insp. Lucas was the Incident Commander and expressed the view that PLTs should be a negotiating team and de-escalating as many issues as possible and that POU as a tactical resolution should be the last step?

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 58 13-058-02

David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)

Yes.

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 58 13-058-08

David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)

Yes.

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 58 13-058-10

David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)

That is your memory of his position?

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 58 13-058-13

David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)

And he explained in his witness statement that it was made clear to him after the first weekend that you interfered with his efforts to use the PLT to shrink the footprint of the protestors and that both he and Supt. Rheaume, the Event Commander at the time, supported efforts to remove the protestors from the Rideau/Sussex intersection and that it was made clear to him that Supt. Rheaume lacked the authority to do this and the Chief’s approval was needed? Do you remember that evidence?

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 58 13-058-17

David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)

And Supt. -- so you disagree with Supt. Lucas?

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 59 13-059-12

David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)

And you disagreed -- because Supt. Abrams was also very clear in his evidence on that point, so you disagree with that?

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 59 13-059-18

David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)

And Deputy Chief Ferguson also noted fundamental disagreements with you on the role of PLTs?

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 59 13-059-24

David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)

If we could turn to OPS00005631, please? That’s the February 1st POU meeting that you attended. If you could just scroll down a bit, please? You’ll see the discussion point is: “PLT would like one more attempt to speak with every convoy to get them on the same page. Truckers need to clear all the roads and stop honking in exchange for fuel and a place to park. Have zero room to negotiate. If they don’t deal with it […] this way, they will be removed.” That was the position you were espousing?

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 60 13-060-01

David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)

Okay. The opportunity to shrink the footprint by not getting the group at Rideau/Sussex to move came up yet again on February 9th. And if we could please go to OPS00009573 at page 2? At the bottom, you will see that there is -- the bottom of the email chain, Supt. Burnett is emailing Supt. Patterson and he says at the end, he’s talking about a possible move of the Rideau/Sussex and he says, “Look, although it may not be the desired outcome, it can assist in bringing an overall resolution to the incident.”

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 60 13-060-21

David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)

Well so you’ll see the bottom he said, you know, the various options.

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 61 13-061-06

David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)

At the bottom. I’m not -- -

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 61 13-061-10

David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)

--- going to do that because I’m running out of time. So I’ll -- that’s fine. You don’t recall this discussion; correct?

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 61 13-061-13

David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)

Okay. And I’m going to suggest to you that that information was forwarded to you as Chief and you said, “We’ll discuss it in the morning.”

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 61 13-061-18

David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)

Okay. I’m going to move on and come back to the subject of Navigator, who was hired to provide you some advice?

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 61 13-061-26

David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)

And if we ---

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 62 13-062-06

David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)

If we could please turn up OPS14454, page 24? That’s a meeting on February 2nd called “Next Steps Meeting OPS and Navigator”. Present were Christiane Huneault, the Chief, John Steinbach, who is a communications person in OPS?

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 62 13-062-09

David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)

Erin Kelly, Matthew Barrier, Jamie Watt, Amanda Galbraith; the last four names are from Navigator; correct?

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 62 13-062-17

David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)

One of them is from ASI?

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 62 13-062-21

David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)

That’s the other company that was doing social media scrolling for you?

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 62 13-062-23

David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)

And none of your command team are present at that meeting; correct?

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 62 13-062-28

David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)

Okay. He wasn’t involved in the actual operations, though, was he?

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 63 13-063-03

David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)

Okay. And so this is February 2nd. You’ve had -- just to situate you in time, you’ve had a meeting with the PLU the previous day.

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 63 13-063-08

David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)

And you’ll see on page 25, the following page -- keep scrolling, please -- “PS”; that’s Peter Sloly. You ask them the question -- so you’ve just had the POU meeting the previous day: “What do we need to do more? More arrests? Tickets? Use of force? Then what? Go to the politicians? Go into big lockdown mode? Massive show of police presence and then hold hands and come together, or two bigger lockdown of city for weekend?” (As read) And then you’ll see Erin at the bottom. Erin is from Navigator or ASI?

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 63 13-063-12

David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)

“Job is to keep the peace and keep people protected. When you take a hard line, citizens of Ottawa will want this, but not everyone. Need to acknowledge not everyone represents or resonates as fringe group. This is a national problem and Prime Minister needs to get us out of it.” (As read) Jamie; Jamie is also from Navigator?

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 63 13-063-26

David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)

“People want to do our job. When does that begin and end? When is the Chief’s responsibility starts and end?” (As read) And it then goes on and then you’ll see at the bottom, Erin. Erin is also from Navigator?

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 64 13-064-08

David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)

Or ASI?

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 64 13-064-15

David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)

“We need to be honest, but the Chief will lose the trust of people if the messaging exaggerated.” (As read) And she then says: “They need to go out and lay charges but that may not be enough. Two- pronged approach: We’ll lay charges and we’ll do what we can, and secondly, but also recognizes it may not be enough.” (As read) And I believe that it then goes on, Erin says that you needed a communication strategy to show that this is beyond Ottawa. Do you remember that?

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 64 13-064-17

David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)

Page 27. You’ll see just at the top, “We need a communication” if you scroll up, you’ll see she says: “We need a communication strategy to show this is beyond Ottawa.” (As read) Does that refresh your memory?

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 65 13-065-05

David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)

Does that refresh your memory of that meeting?

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 65 13-065-13

David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)

Page 29 is February 3rd. So that’s the next day. And on page 30, again it’s another meeting with ASI and Navigator.

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 65 13-065-18

David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)

Follow-up again, Erin, Jamie, Matthew, Chief, John, Amanda, and Christiane Huneault; correct?

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 65 13-065-23

David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)

Page 30. Are we at the top of the page, please? (SHORT PAUSE)

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 65 13-065-27

David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)

Erin says at that meeting that -- your line there, “May not be a police solution,” which is what you delivered at the press conference the previous day after a Navigator meeting might have come too soon. And then you’ll see -- I wonder if you could shrink it a bit, just so I can find the reference to Matthew on that page? If you could shrink it a bit, please, so I could see more the page, please? You’ll see Erin: “This might not be a policing solution. Anger against OPS has come down.” (As read) They’re the ones who came up with, “This might not be a policing solution”; correct?

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 66 13-066-02

David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)

Okay. And if we could just -- Matthew, “Plan for today.” Matthew’s from Navigator or ASI?

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 66 13-066-17

David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)

“Plan for today: Show you are doing everything in your power. Need creative solutions. Cut off [something] riot gear police [I can’t read that word] floodlights all night, tickets, stickers for residents, tactics we are trying to do is that it look like we are doing everything possible to resolve this.” (As read) Do you recall that meeting, then?

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 66 13-066-21

David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)

And do you recall -- I’ll just -- there had been a discussion on February 3rd with you about the POU options of hard, medium, and soft tactics; correct?

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 67 13-067-04

David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)

And “Hard” means “Tactical”; “Soft” is “Negotiation,” and “Medium” is somewhere in between; correct?

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 67 13-067-13

David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)

OPS -- if we could please turn up OPS14479, page 32? And just to situate you, this is February 3rd, and you’ll see a discussion: “Chief. Hard medium soft options for each approach.” And then if you go to page 36, scroll down, please. So there was this discussion about Navigator.

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 67 13-067-19

David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)

This is with respect to Navigator.

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 68 13-068-02

David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)

It’s February 3rd.

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 68 13-068-06

David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)

February 3rd. You’ve just had a meeting with Navigator, and you’ve also had a meeting with Deputy Chief Ferguson and others; in fact, you told us you had two.

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 68 13-068-09

David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)

Well, I haven’t asked you the question yet.

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 68 13-068-16

David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)

That’s why I gave you the previous page, was February 3rd meeting. If you just want to go back up to the previous page.

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 68 13-068-20

David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)

Okay. And then on page -- the following page, and we saw -- just keep it there. We saw elsewhere the notes of the meeting of February 3rd with Navigator.

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 68 13-068-25

David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)

I haven’t asked you the question yet.

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 69 13-069-03

David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)

We saw that you went to a meeting with Navigator on February 2nd and February 3rd, and you talked about options. Remember that?

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 69 13-069-06

David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)

Talked about options, ---

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 69 13-069-11

David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)

--- and you talked about, “Hard medium soft.”

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 69 13-069-13

David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)

Okay. And they talked about enforcement tactics and the consequences.

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 69 13-069-16

David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)

Okay. You don’t agree.

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 69 13-069-19

David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)

And if we could please go to OPS144 -- 00014479?

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 69 13-069-21

David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)

Yes, I’m sorry; page 97 now. The seventh line, the first -- that bullet, “In the last” -- this is Deputy Chief Ferguson: “In the last several weeks, there have been daily Navigator prep meetings for command. I have begun to decline them because I believe it has begun to drive our operations and influence the Chief’s decision around things like enforcement...”

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 69 13-069-24

David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)

“... -- which, we know has been putting our officers @ risk for safety reasons.”

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 70 13-070-08

David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)

If you can just go backwards, you’ll see the date. February 14th. So she’s talking about the last several weeks what’s been happening. And you don’t agree with that either.

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 70 13-070-12

David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)

And one of the messages we saw that you were getting from Navigator was the need to emphasize enforcement efforts of the police, to let them know that the police were not letting people break and the law and get away with it.

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 70 13-070-23

David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)

On Friday -- I want to move on to talk about some evidence you gave on Friday. You said that the two Deputy Chiefs were responsible for lost time as a result of the decision to replace Superintendent Rheaume with Superintendent Dunlop.

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 71 13-071-02

David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)

And if there was a problem with how the pre-arrival intelligence was analyzed, you’re suggesting it was the fault of Deputy Chief Bell.

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 71 13-071-11

David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)

Okay. And even if he didn’t get the Hendon Reports and you did.

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 71 13-071-16

David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)

And you told us ---

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 71 13-071-20

David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)

I’ll move on.

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 71 13-071-23

David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)

And the Project Hydra plan was something, actually, that was -- Navigator and ASI came up with; correct?

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 72 13-072-10

David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)

So I should disregard that if that’s what the notes say?

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 72 13-072-14

David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)

And you said that if people on your command team had concerns about your Project Hydra plan, you would have expected them to raise it; correct? Do you recall saying that?

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 72 13-072-20

David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)

That’s what you said on Friday. If anybody on your command team had concerns about your Project Hydra plan, you said you would have expected them to raise it. That was your evidence on Friday.

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 72 13-072-25

David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)

Okay. And even though you had just said you would crush anyone who did not agree.

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 73 13-073-05

David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)

And if you didn’t succeed in resolving the demonstration, it was because the Ministry wanted you to fail and delayed in sending you resources.

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 73 13-073-20

David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)

I’m asking you if you agree with that.

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 73 13-073-25

David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)

Do you agree with that?

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 74 13-074-01

David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)

Okay. And if the OPP Superintendent reported that he heard you tell your Commanders to say they want to double the actual number of resources they needed, he misunderstood that.

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 74 13-074-03

David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)

And if David White, the City solicitor, said that the police told him that there wasn’t a public safety concern on January 3rd (sic) after his phone call with you, he’s got that wrong, too.

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 74 13-074-09

David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)

Well, you testified as -- on that on Friday.

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 74 13-074-15

David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)

You said that did not reflect your view and he’s got it wrong.

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 74 13-074-18

David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)

And so if we go to ---

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 74 13-074-24

David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)

If we go to OTT00029695. It’s a meeting (sic) from David White about his call with you. He says, “I just got off a call with Chief Sloly”. This is January 30th. And if you go to page 2, he talks about -- you were taken to this document, I believe, on Friday. And then he concludes by saying: “Frankly, I was left with the impression that the Chief is looking for an opportunity to say that the City denied OPS a tool and they cannot be blamed for any public criticism of the police handling of the protest.”

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 74 13-074-27

David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)

Okay. So you wouldn’t agree with that, either.

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 75 13-075-14

David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)

And many of the OPS officers who testified here said you didn’t properly follow the Incident Command System and insisted on approving every operational or tactical decision. And that’s wrong as well; correct?

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 75 13-075-17

David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)

Okay. Commissioner, if I might have just have a couple of extra minutes, I’m just finishing up.

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 76 13-076-03

David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)

Thank you very much. February 14th was your last full day as the Chief; correct? The next day, you concluded an agreement with Chair Deans to ---

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 76 13-076-07

David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)

February 15th you concluded an agreement with Chief -- with Chair Deans; correct?

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 76 13-076-13

David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)

And I’m not asking you the amounts of the payment, but you concluded an agreement in which you negotiated a payment from the Board and then resigned; correct?

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 76 13-076-16

David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)

Okay. And in fact, you’d been thinking about resigning for a while.

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 76 13-076-22

David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)

Okay. So if that appears in writing somewhere attributed to you, that’s incorrect.

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 76 13-076-25

David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)

If we could please turn to ---

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 77 13-077-01

David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)

If we could please turn to OPS00014479, page 93. This, you’ll see, is on February 14th, so the day before. And you’ll see that one of the things, if you scroll down, please. Yeah. At 9 o’clock: “Command call - Chief finished with ‘we succeed as a team or [we] go down as one’.” Did you say that?

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 77 13-077-05

David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)

And ---

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 77 13-077-19

David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)

And if we could please, then, go to OPS14566, page 6, these are the scribe notes of Vicky Nelson, who was your scribe. And if we could please go to page 6? This is February 14th. If you could keep going down, please? The last three bullets? Thank you. This is you: “OPS has long standing incident command systems, we can do Canada day very, but when there’s something that’s longer, the incident commanders do[n’t] have the base of level of expertise to draw on; When we get something we don’t expect - we do[n’t] act well. At the onset, we did[n’t] have core group of senior commanders who have the skill sets we needed -- which caused me to go through the different levels of management.” And if you could please go up to the next page? “[The] 3rd area to discuss…” This is your discussion with Chair Deans. “…some persons took the opportunity to use this for their personal agendas which were not aligned to the mission and objectives. I can absolutely prove that significant changes were made to the command team, which was withheld from my knowledge for days, which caused us to miss opportunities - this includes acts by both DC Bell and A/DC Ferguson Do I have […] evidence to provide it was deliberate misconduct? No, I do[n’t] have that evidence at this time but it[‘s] all formally documented if needed. Cannot and will not […] blame on this entirely on these members but it has affected the outcome” And so although you said you succeed as a team, it’s as a team effort, and if you fail, it’s as a team member. And I guess Deputy -- Chief -- Mr. Sloly, I apologize, you would say that I guess you failed as a leader then?

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 77 13-077-22

David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)

No, please go ahead.

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 79 13-079-11

David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)

And finally, we saw a number of text messages between the police and city officials, between the police and other police services, we’ve seen text messages from the OPP Commissioner Carrique with you. Those were provided by the OPP. You did not provide any text messages; correct?

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 79 13-079-21

David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)

On May 26th, 2022, a representative of OPS provided you with a USB stick of record -- of your records from your emails, and at that meeting, you returned your phone to her? Do you remember that?

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 80 13-080-01

David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)

Giving her back your OPS phone?

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 80 13-080-06

David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)

Do you remember somebody bringing you a USB key and you -- with all of your emails, ---

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 80 13-080-10

David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)

At the time, you then returned your cell phone?

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 80 13-080-15

David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)

Correct. And all of your texts had been wiped off?

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 80 13-080-18

David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)

And so we don’t have any of the texts that you exchanged, except to the extent they’ve been produced by other parties?

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 80 13-080-22

David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)

And there are no text messages that we had provided?

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 81 13-081-01

David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)

My understanding is they were wiped.

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 81 13-081-05

David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)

Thank you very much, Mr. Sloly. I appreciate your answers. Thank you.

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 81 13-081-14

Brendan Miller, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)

Good morning, sir. For the record my name’s Brendan Miller. I’m counsel to Freedom Corp., which is an entity that represents the protesters that were in your city in January and February of 2022.

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 82 13-082-08

Brendan Miller, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)

Yes. And, first, thank you for your service, and I’m sorry for all the things you’ve had to go through since everything that’s happened to you; it doesn’t seem fair to me. But I just want to get in to asking you some questions about some of the things you gave evidence about. I read the transcript, though I wasn’t here on Friday. But you described the issue with respect to the protesters as, “Assaultive behaviour,” and I just want to clarify; by that I take it you don’t mean actual physical assaults under the Criminal Code; do you?

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 82 13-082-14

Brendan Miller, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)

Okay. And it’s fair to say, though, that though the OPS wasn’t enforcing things for broken windows or anything like that? That of course if there was a physical assault in downtown Ottawa, no matter that the protesters were there, that incident would be investigated and charges would be laid, where appropriate, right?

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 83 13-083-16

Brendan Miller, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)

Nobody from the OPS held off and wasn’t enforcing the Criminal Code; they still were doing it in full force and effect; is that fair?

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 83 13-083-24

Brendan Miller, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)

Right. And would it surprise you to know -- it’s already in evidence -- that in the time period between the start of the protest and when the invocation of the Emergencies Act came about, there was a total of five charges for assault in total?

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 84 13-084-09

Brendan Miller, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)

Thank you. So the second thing I want to talk to you about is the barricades that went up when the protest arrived, and I just want to get some clarification on that from you. I understand that the City put up the cement barricades, or whatever; they have a term for the type of barricade. But they put up cement barricades where the vehicles were parked, basically in the first few days, and that those barricades essentially would prevent any other vehicles from getting in to where they were parked on the roadways, or from leaving; is that fair?

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 84 13-084-16

Brendan Miller, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)

Right, Because this Commission has already heard some evidence, and even from the Instant Response Group reports, that individual protesters with vehicles were wanting to leave but couldn’t because they were barricaded in. Did you hear about that?

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 85 13-085-10

Brendan Miller, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)

As I understand it, they weren’t. And there is going to be evidence from our clients that that was a problem; they would ask to leave and they wouldn’t remove the barricades. Did you hear anything about that?

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 85 13-085-23

Brendan Miller, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)

Okay. Thank you very much for that. And already in evidence is that on January 30th, 2022 you requested of Steven K. at the City of Ottawa to obtain an injunction. You recall asking for that; is that right?

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 86 13-086-07

Brendan Miller, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)

January 30th, 2022. It was a phone call and then a follow-up email.

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 86 13-086-14

Brendan Miller, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)

Yes.

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 86 13-086-20

Brendan Miller, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)

Right. And do you remember -- I can put it up in front of you if you like, it’s just a bit bothersome; I’m hoping not to do it. Do you remember following up with him with an email just reciting your call and what you asked him, and he was then going to get back to you?

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 86 13-086-27

Brendan Miller, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)

Okay. I don’t need to put it up. But after you had that call, I take it that you had some ideas for the terms of what the injunction would look like if it was obtained; and you told him those things, I take it?

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 87 13-087-06

Brendan Miller, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)

Okay. And you then also provided Mr. K. that legal counsel -- the internal legal counsel for OPS would assist with whatever evidence and whatever support they needed to obtain the injunction; correct?

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 87 13-087-13

Brendan Miller, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)

Right. And as a very senior police officer, you’re aware that once you obtain an injunction its terms can be enforced via the Criminal Code, under section 127, if people don’t follow its terms, right?

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 87 13-087-20

Brendan Miller, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)

Right. But it’s fair to say that if an injunction was obtained, it would add another tool to the toolbox for enforcement purposes; fair?

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 87 13-087-27

Brendan Miller, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)

Yeah.

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 88 13-088-04

Brendan Miller, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)

Right. And in your testimony last week, I take it that you agreed that the evidence of Insp. Beaudin with respect to crowd dynamics; do you remember saying that?

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 88 13-088-08

Brendan Miller, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)

M’hm.

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 88 13-088-21

Brendan Miller, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)

Right. But in his evidence, and I think you were in agreement with this. Inspector Beaudin talked about what has been referred to as the 80/20 rule. Do you remember hearing that?

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 89 13-089-05

Brendan Miller, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)

Yeah.

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 89 13-089-11

Brendan Miller, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)

Right. And just to reiterate that, it's presumed that 80 percent of a crowd in a protest are law abiding; is that right?

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 89 13-089-14

Brendan Miller, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)

And then the other 15 percent are what I would call on the fence. They could go either way. Maybe they're influenced, but there's that 15 percent factor?

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 89 13-089-19

Brendan Miller, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)

Yeah. And then five percent are the troublemakers. That's how he summarized it. So would you agree that that's sort of the general rule with crowd dynamics?

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 89 13-089-25

Brendan Miller, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)

So if an injunction was obtained, I take it, I know you were just spit-balling ideas at the time, but I take it that two of the terms for that, the major terms would have, of course, been that the trucks that were blocking roadways due to where they were parked would be removed; would that be fair?

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 90 13-090-03

Brendan Miller, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)

If an injunction was to be obtained, I take it that you would have been looking for two important points, and the first I'd put to you is that the trucks that were blocking roadways due to where they were parked would be removed; is that fair?

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 90 13-090-11

Brendan Miller, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)

Right. And of course, the OPS simply cannot go out and get an injunction themselves either; can they? They City does -- police officers -- Police Services don't apply for injunctions. That's not happened.

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 90 13-090-22

Brendan Miller, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)

Right. And so it's fair to say that you were relying upon the City of Ottawa to obtain an injunction if one was going to be obtained?

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 90 13-090-27

Brendan Miller, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)

Right. Now I take it though, if the City did go out and obtain an injunction, if the 80 percent rule was applied and that injunction was served on protesters, it's fair to say that some of them would have left after being served the injunction; right?

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 91 13-091-03

Brendan Miller, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)

Yeah.

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 91 13-091-10

Brendan Miller, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)

Absolutely. And so what I'd like to bring up now is OPS document OPS00004927, please? So these are the typed notes, and we went through some of the handwritten ones of somebody called CH previously, but these are the typed notes of your meeting with Brenda Lucki as well as Commissioner Carrique from the OPP. So if you could just take a minute, I'm sure you've seen these, PS is you; is that fair?

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 91 13-091-12

Brendan Miller, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)

Do you want to just review that for a minute?

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 91 13-091-21

Brendan Miller, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)

You can scroll -- yes.

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 91 13-091-27

Brendan Miller, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)

Thank you. So and what I want to chat with you about is the points that say four ops. And there's five points there, but one's just commentary on the other four. And so the four ops, which I will call the four- pronged approach that you had pitched was, "Ongoing public order management Planning for long[...]-term occupation Police-led intervention to arrest to bring to an end [and] Seek an injunction at all levels because of all 3 levels of land involved" So that's a multi-pronged, multi-tactic approach that would be very common in policing; is that fair?

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 92 13-092-02

Brendan Miller, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)

Right.

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 92 13-092-19

Brendan Miller, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)

Correct, yeah. So it's a multi-facet approach because you, you know, don't use a sledgehammer to squash a mosquito, but you want to have all your tools that you can in place to use them as appropriate.

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 92 13-092-21

Brendan Miller, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)

So an injunction on -- when you had this conversation on January 31st was something that was part of those four ops?

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 92 13-092-26

Brendan Miller, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)

Right. Okay. Now if we could scroll down, please? And I take it BL here, that's Commissioner Brenda Lucki; is that right?

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 93 13-093-02

Brendan Miller, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)

Right. So I give you a second to review those points.

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 93 13-093-06

Brendan Miller, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)

Thank you. And so is that - - those points, first, are those accurate from what you recall from that conversation and what she said?

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 93 13-093-09

Brendan Miller, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)

Right. And so here, she had told you, and then I believe Commissioner Carrique somewhat backed her up, but he was more on the fence, that she didn't think an injunction was a good idea?

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 93 13-093-18

Brendan Miller, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)

Okay.

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 93 13-093-23

Brendan Miller, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)

Right. And so it's fair to say that, at this point, this is the first time someone has told you not to go the injunction route; is that right?

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 93 13-093-26

Brendan Miller, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)

Right.

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 94 13-094-03

Brendan Miller, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)

Okay. But even after this meeting, I haven't seen anything in the records that you ever changed your advice or anything to the City. You still were in support of them getting an injunction if they wanted to do so but it was up to them.

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 94 13-094-06

Brendan Miller, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)

Right. And so I then want to take you to another document, if I can. It's the one that my friends have been referring to. If I may, just a second. And that would be OPS00014454. It's the long set of notes, and I'd like to go to page 24 of those notes. So just for my understanding too, sir, these notes in the disclosure package, they say that they're from somebody called CH. Do you know who that is?

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 94 13-094-16

Brendan Miller, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)

Okay. Thank you. And so she is the general counsel to the OPS?

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 94 13-094-26

Brendan Miller, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)

All right. So if we can scroll down? So these are from February 2nd and it's a meeting that all of you had. And there it says, "Steve K had a meeting with the federal government today." And at the bottom it says, "Not likely an injunction." So from your recollection of that meeting, did Steve K. tell you that the Feds told him not to get an injunction, or whoever was representing Steve K. at this meeting?

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 95 13-095-01

Brendan Miller, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)

Yes.

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 95 13-095-14

Brendan Miller, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)

Right.

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 95 13-095-18

Brendan Miller, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)

Yeah.

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 95 13-095-21

Brendan Miller, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)

So do you remember -- can we scroll up too, just so you can see the date and who was there? So it doesn't look like Steve Bell was present.

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 95 13-095-28

Brendan Miller, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)

Right. And do you know who was making the statements with respect to Steve Bell's meetings with the Feds that are points one, two, three and four; do you recall?

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 96 13-096-07

Brendan Miller, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)

Okay.

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 96 13-096-13

Brendan Miller, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)

Or Steve -- my apologies, so many names. So Steve K. had told you at another point in time before this meeting that he was not likely going to go the injunction route?

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 96 13-096-16

Brendan Miller, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)

Okay. All right. So outside of injunction I just want to talk to you about sort of protests generally and how they work, and I'm not going to be asking you questions a lot, this isn't an exam, but I just went through this with Commissioner Carrique and I think it's important to go through you as well. Can you agree that in sort of general protest law and enforcement and criminal offences regarding the same, you basically have three types: You have lawful protests, which is protected under the Charter; then you have unlawful assembly, and then you have a riot. Do you agree with that?

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 96 13-096-24

Brendan Miller, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)

Yeah.

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 97 13-097-11

Brendan Miller, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)

Right. And you're aware, of course, with protests that when they cross the Rubicon between lawful protests and unlawful protests it becomes a criminal matter under section 63 of the Criminal Code.

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 97 13-097-15

Brendan Miller, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)

Okay.

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 97 13-097-21

Brendan Miller, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)

Right. And -- so with that, is it fair to say that the OPS and your office at no time prior to the declaration issued any form of formal notice to the protesters that they had been deemed to be an unlawful assembly and they must disperse?

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 97 13-097-23

Brendan Miller, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)

So at no time that didn't happen?

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 98 13-098-01

Brendan Miller, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)

Right. So you're aware also of the riot provisions in the Criminal Code for the Riot Act ---

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 98 13-098-04

Brendan Miller, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)

--- because that was discussed? Right. And so that requires that even if a general riot isn't happening, as recognised in law without the declaration, and if a sheriff, a mayor or a justice of the peace or judge of the Ontario Court of Justice, goes out, says this set of words that end in "God save the Queen", or now "God save the King", and it's then deemed an illegal gathering and people ordered to disperse. You agree that's what that does?

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 98 13-098-07

Brendan Miller, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)

Exactly.

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 98 13-098-18

Brendan Miller, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)

Right. And so there was never a declaration, of course, this is a riot, and there was no formal declaration that there was an unlawful assembly; and therefore, the protesters who were there, who were sitting there, no on in authority, it's fair to say, told them that they were doing any illegal. Is that fair?

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 98 13-098-21

Brendan Miller, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)

Right. And so that brings me interestingly enough to my next area. And I heard your evidence or read your evidence about misinformation, and it's fair to say that on social media, and particularly, and even in the news, there was a whole bunch of misinformation about the protesters. Is that fair?

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 99 13-099-07

Brendan Miller, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)

Right. So for example, there was reports in the news that there was an arson committed by the protesters, and I understand that was investigated and it turned out that wasn't true.

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 99 13-099-15

Brendan Miller, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)

And there ---

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 99 13-099-20

Brendan Miller, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)

Yeah.

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 99 13-099-22

Brendan Miller, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)

Yes.

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 99 13-099-25

Brendan Miller, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)

Okay. And with the misinformation, did you have any idea about how the misinformation about the protests started? Did you do any analysis with your Intelligence Bureau on that?

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 100 13-100-01

Brendan Miller, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)

Okay. Well, I want to ---

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 100 13-100-06

Brendan Miller, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)

All right. So I want to bring up a document. I gave notice of this earlier today, and I don't know if the feds are going to object, but I wouldn't be surprised. If I could bring up document SSM.CAN.00007722_REL.0001. All right, so what this is sir, this is a text message from a fellow by the name of Alexander Cohen. Are you familiar with him?

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 100 13-100-09

Brendan Miller, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)

Okay. He's with the -- he's with Minister Marciano's [sic] office, the Minister of Public Safety, and it's between him and Mary-Liz Power. Are you familiar with Mary-Liz Power?

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 100 13-100-19

Brendan Miller, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)

Okay. She's with the Prime Minister's Office. So I'm just going to read that to you for you so you have an understanding. And this is from about the 24th, on or before the 24th of January, and it says: "[I] [g]ot a quick response, people are into it. [Let me know] if your boss is too. Happy to help however I can! This is what I sent through, [though, by the way]: 'Hi, I just had a chat with Alex at PS...'" Meaning Public Safety: "'...who had a bit of an interesting idea. As you saw in the pod goals chat, the truckers convoy and some of their more extreme comments (IE calling for a Jan 6 style insurrection) are getting more coverage in [the] media. Alex was surveying whether there'd be interest in his boss doing some media on this eventually. He was chatting with Mendicino about it right before he went into the cabinet retreat.'" Now, I can tell you the cabinet retreat was on the 24th, that's how I know it was before the 24th: "'I think there could be an opportunity to get in on this growing narrative of the truckers, particularly with the research that LRB is doing into their backers. My thoughts of the framing here would be similar to what PM/Blair...'" Meaning the Prime Minister and Minister Blair: "'...said last year when Jan 6th occurred:...'" And the first thing is" "'Our democracy is something we need to nurture and protect every day.'" Now, that text message then continues. And I'd ask Mr. Clerk if you could bring up SSM.CAN.00007722_REL.0001.

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 100 13-100-25

Brendan Miller, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)

Sorry, 2716. No, I apologise. Hold on. Well, I've got the name of it wrong. I think I got the wrong number. I emailed it to you earlier if you could open it up. It's Text Message To. It just says Text To.

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 102 13-102-13

Brendan Miller, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)

We can see if that works. I'll let you know if it's the right one.

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 102 13-102-19

Brendan Miller, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)

No. It's not. I can forward it to you again here. I just sent it.

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 102 13-102-23

Brendan Miller, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)

True.

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 102 13-102-27

Eric Brousseau, Counsel (POEC)

Mr. Clerk, it's Eric Brousseau. I think -- I've opened the document that my friend I think sent you, and I think it's 7724 would be the second text message that he's trying to refer to.

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 102 13-102-28

Brendan Miller, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)

All right, so this is the continuation, and it's what's sort of the lines are going to be in: "We will always support the right of peaceful protest. Some of the calls that organizers of these events are making are concerning and we're taking them seriously (would need something to back this up). Will continue to monitor the situation closely. The fine line to walk would be to ensure we are not looking like we're directing the police, which obviously is not the goal here. Hoping to canvass your thoughts - Alex said he’d come back to me with a proposal this afternoon when he gets to chat with Mendicino again and obviously pending his boss’s and our interest in looking into this further." And if you could scroll down. And Alex responds: “Thanks. I had an initial chat with my boss and he’s supportive, but wants to wait a day or two. There’s a danger that if we come down too hard they might push out the crazies.” And the response: “I think that’s fair. Apparently Global and others are working on stories. Maybe see how those land.” So when I show you this, and I -- after this, the exact same sort of narrative came out from the federal government following these suggestions from their staff. Is that misinformation?

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 103 13-103-04

Brendan Miller, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)

Right. Okay. Well, then, just moving on to a last area I’d like to question you about, and this is sort of on the fly. I sat here and listened to the evidence with respect to the notes that Deputy Chief Ferguson took, and all of those notes were about you. Now, I’ve only been doing this for 12 years, but I’ve never seen anything like that with officers keeping notes on one another. Can you explain to me how odd that is or can you -- would you like to elaborate on that? Because to me, officers keep notes on an investigation. They don’t keep notes on their Chief and they don’t keep notes on their colleagues. It’s for investigative purposes. Do you -- do you have any concern with what happened there?

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 104 13-104-15

Brendan Miller, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)

Anything else?

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 105 13-105-04

Brendan Miller, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)

And would you agree that it’s in policing training that officers are taught to make notes and whatever they write is, you know, for court or for proceedings, typically, and it goes and it’s used. If you don’t have something in your notes, it goes against your credibility and if you do, it supports your credibility. You’re probably familiar with that.

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 105 13-105-09

Brendan Miller, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)

Yes.

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 105 13-105-17

Brendan Miller, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)

And you’d agree just because someone writes something in their notes doesn’t mean it’s true, does it?

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 105 13-105-22

Brendan Miller, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)

Sometimes they’re not.

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 105 13-105-27

Brendan Miller, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)

Thank you.

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 106 13-106-01

Donnaree Nygard, Counsel (GC)

Good morning. My name is Donnaree Nygard, and I’m counsel for Canada.

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 106 13-106-06

Donnaree Nygard, Counsel (GC)

I just want to start by going back to something my friend just asked you about, and that was in regards to your use of the word “assaultive” and what was occurring during the protest. And he put to you that there were a very limited number of charges for assaults following the protest. Would you agree with me that a lack of charges doesn’t necessarily mean that these activities weren’t occurring?

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 106 13-106-09

Donnaree Nygard, Counsel (GC)

And there’s a variety of reasons why charges may not have been laid, for example, the perpetrator couldn’t be identified?

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 106 13-106-19

Donnaree Nygard, Counsel (GC)

There’s been earlier, in the hearing -- and I’m not sure if you watched all of this evidence -- a lot of discussion about the resources that were provided to OPS from the RCMP and when they were provided. And I just want to go over some of that with you to try and provide a little bit more clarity around that question. So starting at the beginning, on the first weekend of the protest there were -- and you were aware that there were two Public Order Units of the RCMP stationed in two different locations in Ottawa, one at Parliament Hill and one at Rideau Cottage. They were not under OPS control, but you were aware that they were there; correct?

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 106 13-106-23

Donnaree Nygard, Counsel (GC)

But you were also aware that if something were to arise, those units were there and would come to the assistance of the OPS; correct?

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 107 13-107-11

Donnaree Nygard, Counsel (GC)

And in fact, after that weekend, you sent a note to Commissioner -- to Commissioner Lucki and also to Commissioner Carrique, and perhaps we can pull that up. It’s PB.NSC.CAN.00001396, with the underscore relativity, et cetera. And if we can just scroll down a little bit. That’s good. So this is an email that, as I said, you sent to Commissioner Lucki and to Commissioner Carrique, amongst others, after that first weekend. It was dated -- I don’t know if you got a chance to see it. It was dated January 30th. And in there, you’re expressing your appreciation for the Public Order Units that were on the ground during that weekend.

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 107 13-107-15

Donnaree Nygard, Counsel (GC)

And you didn’t make the first formal request for officers to assist the OPS under the OPS’ direction until February 2nd; correct?

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 108 13-108-03

Donnaree Nygard, Counsel (GC)

Yes, sorry, in regards to the RCMP. And I can pull up the email, if you like, if it would be helpful.

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 108 13-108-08

Donnaree Nygard, Counsel (GC)

So let’s help refresh your memory. It’s PB.NSC.CAN.00001743. And if we can scroll down to the first email in the chain, please. And just maybe up a little bit so we can see the date on it. So there. So this is on February 2nd. It’s an email from you to the Commissioner of the RCMP, and you’re requesting 50 uniformed members to be able to frontline traffic requirements and leadership to go along with those teams and three Public Order Units. That was your request at that time; correct?

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 108 13-108-16

Donnaree Nygard, Counsel (GC)

Right. And Ottawa’s a little bit unusual, isn’t it, in that in Ontario, normally, if a police service is in need of extra resources, it’s the OPP they would go to first, but in Ottawa you sometimes go directly to the RCMP?

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 109 13-109-05

Donnaree Nygard, Counsel (GC)

But -- yes. And I should have been clearer. I apologize. In respect of going to the RCMP, the normal chain would be to go through the OPP to go to the RCMP.

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 109 13-109-24

Donnaree Nygard, Counsel (GC)

Yes. But in Ottawa, just because of your previous -- or the OPS’ previous relationship working with the RCMP on large events, you sometimes, as in this situation, went straight to the RCMP; correct? At the same time as going to the OPP.

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 110 13-110-02

Donnaree Nygard, Counsel (GC)

Yes. …

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 110 13-110-10

Donnaree Nygard, Counsel (GC)

Yes. And you'd agree with me that this email, if you're going to go directly to the RCMP, that an email from you to the Commissioner is the appropriate route to be making such requests; correct?

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 110 13-110-12

Donnaree Nygard, Counsel (GC)

Yeah. And when you make such a request as you did in this email, you set out exactly what it is that you're requesting. That you need frontline traffic requirements, that you need leadership for those people, and that you need Public Order Units. That's important information to include in the request?

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 110 13-110-20

Donnaree Nygard, Counsel (GC)

And after this request was made, the RCMP did, in fact, provide you with not -- in fact, perhaps I'll back up and scroll up a little bit to Commissioner Lucki's response. So, yeah, we could stop there. So in her response, Commissioner Lucki sets out in the second paragraph that all of her Public Order Units were actively deployed and she wasn't in a position to be able to redirect any to Ottawa at that time, and that in the next paragraph, she indicates that the RCMP's experiencing significant resource challenges, but she's asking her management team to explore the possibility of providing you with some or all of the other 50 resources you requested. And the RCMP did, in fact, over the following days, provide you with resources in that range; correct?

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 110 13-110-28

Donnaree Nygard, Counsel (GC)

Perhaps we can turn to another document that might assist you. It's OPB00001014. And maybe I'll start by asking, have you seen this chart before?

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 111 13-111-16

Donnaree Nygard, Counsel (GC)

So this is an OPS produced document?

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 111 13-111-25

Donnaree Nygard, Counsel (GC)

Right. And this document came to us through the OPB, so I assume at some point you provided it to them?

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 112 13-112-03

Donnaree Nygard, Counsel (GC)

Yeah.

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 112 13-112-08

Donnaree Nygard, Counsel (GC)

Yes.

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 112 13-112-10

Donnaree Nygard, Counsel (GC)

Okay. So if we can just have a look at this document, it's broken into two parts. And the top part of the chart is, as I understand it, the Public Order Units or Public Order members that are provided and the bottom part of the chart is regular members. Am I interpreting that correctly?

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 112 13-112-14

Donnaree Nygard, Counsel (GC)

And there's a note down at the bottom that external Public Order deployments are incomplete between January 30th and February 9th. But if we just focus for a moment on the regular members that are provided, and the RCMP are listed at the top of that bottom part of the chart?

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 112 13-112-21

Donnaree Nygard, Counsel (GC)

And we can see that on February 4th, which is 2 days after you made that request, there are 20 and then it increases up to 45 the following day and 52 and 49?

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 112 13-112-27

Donnaree Nygard, Counsel (GC)

So you'd agree with me that the request for 50 members was, in fact, actioned within a couple of days by the RCMP?

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 113 13-113-04

Donnaree Nygard, Counsel (GC)

And as was set out in Commissioner Lucki's response to you, you weren't provided with any Public Order Units directly under your control at that time?

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 113 13-113-08

Donnaree Nygard, Counsel (GC)

And that was because she said that they were deployed on other duties at that period of time?

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 113 13-113-12

Donnaree Nygard, Counsel (GC)

And you would agree with me that when a request is made to a partner policing agency, they have to make sure that they can fulfil their own mandate before they can give you additional people; correct?

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 113 13-113-17

Donnaree Nygard, Counsel (GC)

Yes.

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 113 13-113-28

Donnaree Nygard, Counsel (GC)

Yes, but if those assets are actively operating somewhere else, then that has to be obviously taken into consideration?

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 114 13-114-04

Donnaree Nygard, Counsel (GC)

And shortly after this on February 7th, I won't pull it up, but I assume you are familiar with the letter that was sent by the mayor both to the Prime Minister and an identical letter to the province as well requesting 1800 resources; correct?

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 114 13-114-10

Donnaree Nygard, Counsel (GC)

And that's not the normal way for requesting resources from another policing agency; is it?

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 114 13-114-17

Donnaree Nygard, Counsel (GC)

No. And that was an attempt by everyone involved just to do whatever they could to get the resources that you felt you required at the time?

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 114 13-114-22

Donnaree Nygard, Counsel (GC)

And I assume it was hoped that by having a piece of correspondence go from the mayor to the political level, that that would apply some political pressure to encourage movement on that front?

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 114 13-114-26

Donnaree Nygard, Counsel (GC)

But at the end of the day, you also knew that you had to have that discussion directly with the RCMP? That letter in and of itself wasn't going to result in anything by itself?

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 115 13-115-05

Donnaree Nygard, Counsel (GC)

And as I understand it, there was additional resources provided by the RCMP on February 8th to stand up the Integrated Planning Cell; correct?

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 115 13-115-10

Donnaree Nygard, Counsel (GC)

Yes.

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 115 13-115-15

Donnaree Nygard, Counsel (GC)

Yes.

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 115 13-115-17

Donnaree Nygard, Counsel (GC)

So senior members of the RCMP to assist with the planning. And I think you said, and I can turn you to it if you like, in your witness statement that they were provided, at least in part, to assist the Ottawa Police Service in securing the requested 1800 police resources; is that accurate?

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 115 13-115-20

Donnaree Nygard, Counsel (GC)

And then the following day on February 9th, there was a meeting with the RCMP and others in which the February 9th plan was explained, and you provided some more information about the nature of those resources; correct?

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 115 13-115-27

Donnaree Nygard, Counsel (GC)

Because the letter that went from the mayor to the Prime Minister didn't include any details about what those 1800 people were to be made up of; correct?

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 116 13-116-04

Donnaree Nygard, Counsel (GC)

But you had prepared internally that chart that we've seen but that wasn't part of the letter that went ---

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 116 13-116-09

Donnaree Nygard, Counsel (GC)

--- to the Prime Minister?

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 116 13-116-13

Donnaree Nygard, Counsel (GC)

So that information was provided to the RCMP through this February 9th briefing; correct?

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 116 13-116-16

Donnaree Nygard, Counsel (GC)

And I don't think I have the document number here, but I have seen the email you're referring to. I believe it occurred on the 10th. Would that fit with what ---

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 116 13-116-25

Donnaree Nygard, Counsel (GC)

--- with your recollection?

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 117 13-117-02

Donnaree Nygard, Counsel (GC)

And so on February 9th, the resource ask was explained in a little bit more detail, because you would agree, just a number of 1800 isn't something that people could actually act on because they don't know what that is comprised of.

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 117 13-117-04

Donnaree Nygard, Counsel (GC)

Yes.

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 117 13-117-13

Donnaree Nygard, Counsel (GC)

Right. And if we can go back to that chart that was OPB1014 -- 00001014? So if we look at this, very shortly after that meeting on the 9th, by the 11th the numbers of RCMP officers start to rise quite significantly on the 11th and the 12th; correct?

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 117 13-117-20

Donnaree Nygard, Counsel (GC)

And there is some delay in getting RCMP officers into a position where they can actually assist the Ottawa Police Services; correct? They have to be sworn in?

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 117 13-117-26

Donnaree Nygard, Counsel (GC)

But you’ll agree with me that if the RCMP provide a certain number of officers, they cannot all work every day, so you need a pool, for example, larger than 50 in order to have 50 people working every day.

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 118 13-118-17

Donnaree Nygard, Counsel (GC)

So if the RCMP are going to have -- supply to the OPS 50 boots on the ground on a given day every day, that’s not 50 individual officers; it has to be more than that in order to cover off 50 boots on the ground every day.

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 118 13-118-23

Donnaree Nygard, Counsel (GC)

I’m not entirely sure we’re saying the same thing either. I guess my point is because RCMP officers have to come and be sworn in, and obviously have to have some time off; they can’t work 24 hours a day, that you would need a pool larger than the number of boots you want on the ground in order to have that many boots on the ground.

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 119 13-119-10

Donnaree Nygard, Counsel (GC)

So you wanted to ensure you had 50 people on the ground every day, and that might require more than 50 people being here in order to accomplish it.

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 120 13-120-06

Donnaree Nygard, Counsel (GC)

No?

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 120 13-120-10

Donnaree Nygard, Counsel (GC)

Yes.

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 120 13-120-17

Donnaree Nygard, Counsel (GC)

Yeah. And I want to take you to one more document on this, which is PBS.NSC.CAN.00003118; this might help somewhat with this confusion. If we just scroll down to the bottom a little bit. A little further. So this -- oh, no, too far. This is an email on -- I believe it’s February 12, and it’s from Mike O’Beirne from the RCMP to a variety of people, including C/Supt. Pardy, about RCMP resources as of that day. So if we can just look -- scroll down to the numbers. So this is the resourcing that the RCMP are reporting as of February 12th, and they indicate there are, “Detachment to support the OPS Assist Operations/Deployments: 320”; “Deployed [as of] this date (24 hours): 225”; and “Operational Readiness: 159.” Can you help me and explain, if you know, what the difference between those three numbers is?

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 120 13-120-22

Donnaree Nygard, Counsel (GC)

No, they don’t, I agree.

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 121 13-121-13

Donnaree Nygard, Counsel (GC)

So you can’t help us with the difference between “Deployed” and “Operational Readiness”? No?

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 122 13-122-06

Donnaree Nygard, Counsel (GC)

Okay.

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 122 13-122-10

Donnaree Nygard, Counsel (GC)

Well, they don’t match up with the numbers in the chart, but you just said yourself even your own numbers couldn’t be guaranteed to be accurate.

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 122 13-122-15

Donnaree Nygard, Counsel (GC)

Okay. So I want to move on to another issue, and that’s the tow trucks. You would agree with me that obtaining heavy tow trucks in particular was a significant issue throughout these events; correct?

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 122 13-122-22

Donnaree Nygard, Counsel (GC)

And on Friday in your testimony you commented at one point that towing was happening throughout. I take it that you were referring to towing regular vehicles with regular tow trucks, not heavy tows; correct?

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 123 13-123-01

Donnaree Nygard, Counsel (GC)

And do you know where those tow trucks were obtained from?

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 123 13-123-10

Donnaree Nygard, Counsel (GC)

But in any event, it very quickly became, particularly with the heavy tow trucks, a problem to get them to cooperate; correct?

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 123 13-123-19

Donnaree Nygard, Counsel (GC)

And I think the first reference that I have seen in relation to this is on February 4th. And if we can pull up OPS00006270. And so this is the notes from a Command briefing that you appear to be -- have been at. Do you recognise the notes of this nature?

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 123 13-123-23

Donnaree Nygard, Counsel (GC)

So -- and this -- the date on this is February 4th, and this is one of those ones where we have to subtract five from the time to get an accurate reading. So it would have been around four o'clock in the afternoon. Would that make sense for a Command briefing?

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 124 13-124-05

Donnaree Nygard, Counsel (GC)

Okay. So if we can just scroll down to the bottom of the document. So -- oh, not quite that far. Yeah. You'll see there is an attribution to you in the last comment, and if we look at the very last couple of lines of that it says: "Chief concerned about lack of heavy tow truck availability - need to manage public expectations if this is the case, add to Operational Plan as a logistics need not being met; if tow truck drivers are being threatened or extorted, this needs to be investigated." So as early as February 4th, you were hearing about tow truck drivers being threatened I assume from this comment?

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 124 13-124-12

Donnaree Nygard, Counsel (GC)

And you were already having trouble getting tow trucks at that point?

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 125 13-125-02

Donnaree Nygard, Counsel (GC)

And then, if we can go to OPP00001521. So this is a couple of days later, on February 6th. And if we can go to the fifth... Oh, well, first, I'll situate you. This is a call, it appears to between various federal officials and provincial and City officials and yourself. Do you recall?

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 125 13-125-05

Donnaree Nygard, Counsel (GC)

Yes. And if we can go to page 4 to start at the bottom -- towards the bottom of the page. And you can see there's these comments that are attributed to you. You're talking about the RCMP officers being sworn in. And then if we can scroll down a little bit, about three bullets down on the next page. You say: "Ottawa Police Service has two city tow trucks supporting and they are looking for other heavy tows." So at that point, it appears you had two tow trucks. Now, we've heard that OCC Transpo had two heavy tow trucks. Are those the tow trucks you're talking about?

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 125 13-125-15

Donnaree Nygard, Counsel (GC)

But in any event, you were still looking for other heavy tows at that point, and I assume you were still having difficulty getting them to cooperate at that point.

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 126 13-126-04

Donnaree Nygard, Counsel (GC)

And in fact, I won't -- well, I can take you there if you like, but in the February 9th Plan, there is specific reference to the fact that tow truck operators were receiving hundreds of threats are some of them were death threats. Is that your recollection?

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 126 13-126-09

Donnaree Nygard, Counsel (GC)

And at one point there was an attempt to get the Ministry of Transport to assist with the tow truck issue. Do you recall that?

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 126 13-126-17

Donnaree Nygard, Counsel (GC)

No, provincial.

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 126 13-126-21

Donnaree Nygard, Counsel (GC)

And even on -- as late as February 14th, you were still making comments that you needed heavy tow trucks; correct?

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 126 13-126-27

Donnaree Nygard, Counsel (GC)

And this document that we just looked at is one example, and you've referred to it as well. This was a consistent conversation you were having with both federal ministers and federal officials that there was no heavy tow trucks to be had, certainly not sufficient heavy tow trucks to be had to carry out the work that you needed to do to deal with this situation.

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 127 13-127-03

Donnaree Nygard, Counsel (GC)

Yes.

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 127 13-127-15

Donnaree Nygard, Counsel (GC)

Because they were not cooperating they did not want to participate.

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 127 13-127-18

Donnaree Nygard, Counsel (GC)

And that was a consistent message you were giving to your federal partners?

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 127 13-127-23

Donnaree Nygard, Counsel (GC)

And at no time did you tell them "Problem solved, we've got tow trucks"?

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 127 13-127-26

Donnaree Nygard, Counsel (GC)

So I'll switch off of tow trucks now. We seem to spend an awful lot of time talking about them. Although, actually just before I do, I just wanted to confirm: In your witness statement, and I think you just said this now, you indicated that that was the second most pressing problem you had in order to be able to address this issue was the lack of heavy tow trucks; correct?

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 128 13-128-01

Donnaree Nygard, Counsel (GC)

So I want to turn to the issue of negotiations, sort of broadly-speaking, in dealing with the situation in Ottawa. And there's been quite a bit of discussion about the work of the PLTs, and they were involved in various negotiations throughout this piece. But these weren't negotiations to resolve the entire thing. They were -- I'm correct about that; right? They were negotiations to deal with particular issues within the protest.

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 128 13-128-13

Donnaree Nygard, Counsel (GC)

Yes, exactly.

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 128 13-128-28

Donnaree Nygard, Counsel (GC)

Yes. So they were working at smaller goals working towards the larger goal; correct?

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 129 13-129-02

Donnaree Nygard, Counsel (GC)

Yes. For example, one of the things we've heard about is the Confederation Park negotiations, which resulted in Confederation Park being cleared.

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 129 13-129-06

Donnaree Nygard, Counsel (GC)

So that's an example of one of the smaller goals towards the larger objective. However, all of those smaller goals that they were working toward during this time, even the Confederation Park success, didn't result in a significant shrinking of the footprint or a reduction in the number of protesters. It dealt with some important issues, like getting people out of Confederation Park, but those people didn't leave; correct?

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 129 13-129-11

Donnaree Nygard, Counsel (GC)

And even in negotiations that the Mayor brokered was along that same line. It wasn't going to resolve the entire situation, it was an attempt to solve a particular problem, the awful circumstances that the residents in the downtown core were facing with the trucks in their neighbourhood; correct?

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 129 13-129-23

Donnaree Nygard, Counsel (GC)

And to your knowledge, there were no trucks that left as a result of that negotiation, although they were moved around?

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 130 13-130-02

Donnaree Nygard, Counsel (GC)

And some of them refused to move at all during that attempt; correct?

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 130 13-130-11

Donnaree Nygard, Counsel (GC)

And you were asking for these large numbers of resources, the 1,800 that you had requested, because although you thought and hoped that you would be able to shrink the footprint of this protest through some of these tools. There were significant elements within the protest that you knew weren’t going to voluntarily leave; correct?

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 130 13-130-14

Donnaree Nygard, Counsel (GC)

Absolutely. But my point was, at some point even using a measured approach and using the PLTs to their utmost ability at some point given the nature of this event, there was going to have to be some enforcement action; correct?

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 131 13-131-15

Donnaree Nygard, Counsel (GC)

Fair enough.

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 131 13-131-27

Donnaree Nygard, Counsel (GC)

Right. And that’s why you needed the resources.

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 132 13-132-07

Donnaree Nygard, Counsel (GC)

And you were of the view that the situation in Ottawa, particularly taken in the context of everything that was going on around the country, created a threat to national security; correct?

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 132 13-132-11

Donnaree Nygard, Counsel (GC)

And why were you of that view?

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 132 13-132-16

Donnaree Nygard, Counsel (GC)

And when you say the totality of events, what are you taking into consideration there?

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 132 13-132-24

Donnaree Nygard, Counsel (GC)

And your view that this situation was of that nature, that it created a national security risk or threat, that was a view that you expressed quite consistently throughout these events; correct? And quite publicly.

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 133 13-133-18

Donnaree Nygard, Counsel (GC)

And your view of -- even if you didn’t use those words, of the nature of the event at the time it was going on was something that you would have communicated to the various federal officials and federal ministers that you were dealing with.

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 133 13-133-28

Donnaree Nygard, Counsel (GC)

And not only was it not just a local event, but that it was a very serious event.

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 134 13-134-10

Donnaree Nygard, Counsel (GC)

And that it was causing -- created significant risks.

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 134 13-134-13

Donnaree Nygard, Counsel (GC)

Those are my questions.

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 134 13-134-16

Anne Tardif, Counsel (Ott)

Good afternoon, Chief Sloly.

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 134 13-134-21

Anne Tardif, Counsel (Ott)

Or Mr. Sloly. My apologies. My name’s Anne Tardif. I represent the City of Ottawa.

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 134 13-134-23

Anne Tardif, Counsel (Ott)

So I want to start by confirming what I think -- what I hope is an obvious point, and that is that the Ottawa Police Service was the lead agency with respect to the events that bring us here today.

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 134 13-134-27

Anne Tardif, Counsel (Ott)

Okay. Thank you. And the only reason I raise that is in your witness summary you indicated that the City saw OPS as the lead agency, and that’s, of course, because it was the lead agency.

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 135 13-135-06

Anne Tardif, Counsel (Ott)

Great. Thank you for that. Okay. Now, we’ve heard evidence already that, obviously, OPS would provide some briefings and messagings to the City in advance and during the demonstrations; correct?

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 135 13-135-11

Anne Tardif, Counsel (Ott)

And my understanding, for reasons you’ve already gone into, is that in general, those briefings were at a fairly high level. Is that fair?

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 135 13-135-16

Anne Tardif, Counsel (Ott)

Okay. Thank you. And I realize I was unclear, Mr. Sloly. I meant that the information provided would be a fairly high level.

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 135 13-135-23

Anne Tardif, Counsel (Ott)

Yeah. Okay, great. Thank you. Now, we’ve talked a bit about how, by January 31st, which is the Monday, in your view this had turned into not only in your view, but since I’m the one questioning you, into an occupation; right? There was a pivot required, to use the language employed by some witnesses. Is that fair?

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 135 13-135-27

Anne Tardif, Counsel (Ott)

And from that point forward until your last day in office, my understanding is that the number one thing you needed was resources. Is that fair?

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 136 13-136-07

Anne Tardif, Counsel (Ott)

Okay. And we talked a bit about how, from January 30th, forward, because this is now an occupation, the OPS is working on -- perhaps on a new plan, but on evolving the plan to meet the changed circumstances; fair?

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 136 13-136-11

Anne Tardif, Counsel (Ott)

Okay. I want to talk a little bit about the injunction. I appreciate we spent some time on it already. I can take up documents and I will if we need to, Mr. Sloly, but I think we might be able to get by without it. My understanding is that as early as January 31st, both Commissioner Lucki of the RCMP and Commissioner Carrique of the OPP expressed some concerns around an objection -- an injunction, pardon me, being obtained at least at that time. Is that accurate?

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 136 13-136-16

Anne Tardif, Counsel (Ott)

And at least part of that concern had to do with an issue you’ve already raised, which is if you get an injunction, you have to be able to implement or enforce it. Is that fair?

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 136 13-136-27

Anne Tardif, Counsel (Ott)

And you did not, I take it, until the day you left office, have the resources to do that.

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 137 13-137-04

Anne Tardif, Counsel (Ott)

Thank you. All right. So if we could then bring up OPS00014454. And these are Ms. Huneault’s notes, the notes of your general counsel, just while they’re loading. And if we could start at page 6, please, Mr. Clerk. And I'll take this opportunity, Mr. Commissioner, I did not bring up my watch. I don't expect to go over time, but please don't hesitate to let me know if you want me to stop my questioning for the lunch break because I did come up at quarter to one o'clock, Mr. Commissioner. So I'll accept the -- briefly the interruption.

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 137 13-137-07

Anne Tardif, Counsel (Ott)

Yeah.

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 137 13-137-22

Anne Tardif, Counsel (Ott)

I did. I wasn't expecting one after my previous refusal so. Okay. So this is the Chief's meetings with City Councillors; you see that there on January 31st?

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 137 13-137-24

Anne Tardif, Counsel (Ott)

Okay. And if we could just scroll down. My understanding, Mr. Sloly, and you'll have to correct me if I'm wrong, is that this is you briefing these bullets. And perhaps we can go back up to the top, Mr. Clerk, just to give Mr. Sloly a moment. My understanding is this is you providing information to the Councillors. Does that accord with your understanding?

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 138 13-138-01

Anne Tardif, Counsel (Ott)

Yeah, okay. That's my understanding as well. That's helpful. Thank you. And you'll see there so we're January 31st. The fourth bullet down, "increasingly volatile and aggressive." Do you wee that?

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 138 13-138-11

Anne Tardif, Counsel (Ott)

And I should have started a point above. We've already talked about this, turning from demonstration to occupation; correct?

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 138 13-138-17

Anne Tardif, Counsel (Ott)

And if we scroll down then to page 7, right here, a little bit -- well, before we -- just stop there. And you'll see there it says, "The crowd is turning and officers getting swarmed." Do you see that?

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 138 13-138-21

Anne Tardif, Counsel (Ott)

Now I couldn't tell, to be fair to you, Mr. Sloly, who made that comment, but does that accord with your recollection of events? Is that some of the volatility you were speaking to?

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 138 13-138-26

Anne Tardif, Counsel (Ott)

Okay. Perfect. And so let's scroll down a little bit, please. A little bit further, Mr. Clerk, sorry. Perfect right there. Now do you see where it says "Matthieu" at the top?

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 139 13-139-03

Anne Tardif, Counsel (Ott)

And so my understanding is that's a reference to Mathieu Fleury, who was at the time a City Counsellor; right?

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 139 13-139-09

Anne Tardif, Counsel (Ott)

Okay. And he has some questions. He's very shaken. He has some questions about OPS focusing on the Hill but need to look at other communities and some of the concerns that he in fact raised is in this proceeding; do you see that?

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 139 13-139-13

Anne Tardif, Counsel (Ott)

And if we scroll down a little bit, there's a response attributed to you, and it says, "Chief Agree many minor incidents that would usually get a police response but this is not normal times. - we'll look [at] new areas but call[...] for more resources [and] complexity" So does that sort of accord with what Service was able to do? You know, there were some minor issues, minor incidents that would usually get a response, but you simply couldn't up until that point because, again, you lacked resources.

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 139 13-139-19

Anne Tardif, Counsel (Ott)

Oh, that's fine.

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 140 13-140-08

Anne Tardif, Counsel (Ott)

So I understood it in the way you've just explained it, but I appreciate that, Mr. Sloly. So with that explanation, those, you call them here minor, you've elaborated now on what you meant, but those are the kind of incidents that you say would normally get a police response but didn't over the weekend into that first Monday because the service simply lacked the resources; fair? And if we keep scrolling down to page 9, yeah, a little further down. And stop there. And scroll up a little bit. Sorry, Mr. Clerk. Just up to where we see Minard. Okay. S. Minard is Councillor Minard; do you see that, Mr. Sloly?

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 140 13-140-24

Anne Tardif, Counsel (Ott)

And I'll let you just read what he says. The point I'm going to draw your attention to is at the bottom. He says, "2 messages: it's peaceful but violence if we proceed". Do you see that?

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 141 13-141-09

Anne Tardif, Counsel (Ott)

Well, then we'll scroll down to your response, or the response attributed to you in the notes. You say, "- better language re "peaceful" [because] Chief feels this..." This is what's attributed to you. "...this is peaceful [pardon me] - can't build a mott [sic] [I think that word is mote] around the city re people/cars - Charter violation." Do you see that, Chief?

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 141 13-141-15

Anne Tardif, Counsel (Ott)

Okay. Thank you for that.

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 142 13-142-07

Anne Tardif, Counsel (Ott)

And I wonder, Mr. Sloly, if I could put this to you. We can bring it back up if we need to, but you've been taken twice now to David White, the City solicitor, Mr. White's email, his summary or his notes of the call he had with you. And is it possible that this focus on, you know, public safety, maybe he's reflecting a change in your language over time, that perhaps you use words like minor and this is peaceful with him, intending what you've explained here today, so possibly his notes of that call reflect wordings or language that you were using at the time but now you've since explained, well, I wouldn't use that wording, and as it went on, I don't use that wording.

Volume 13 (October 31, 2022), page 142 13-142-12