1 2 3 TORONTO COMPUTER LEASING INQUIRY 4 5 6 7 ******************** 8 9 10 BEFORE: THE HONOURABLE MADAM JUSTICE DENISE BELLAMY, 11 COMMISSIONER 12 13 14 15 16 Held at: East York Civic Centre 17 850 Coxwell Avenue 18 Toronto, Ontario 19 M4C 5R1 20 21 ******************** 22 23 24 February 12th, 2003 25

2
  1                        APPEARANCES
  2  Ronald Manes            )Commission Counsel 
  3  Patrick Moore  (np)     )
  4  Daina Groskaufmanis     ) 
  5  Linda Rothstein  (np)   )City of Toronto 
  6  Lily Harmer    (np)     )
  7  Robert Centa            )
  8  Gordon Capern  (np)     )
  9  David Moore             )MFP 
 10  Fraser Berrill (np)     ) 
 11  Ken Jones      (np)     ) 
 12  Brian Heller   (np)     )Ball Hsu and Associates Ltd.
 13  Melissa Kronick (np)    )CUPE 
 14  Raj Anand (np)          )Lana Viinamae
 15  Bay Ryley               )
 16  William Anderson        )Wanda Liczyk
 17  Valerie Dyer   (np)     )Dell Computers
 18  Jennifer Lynch (np)     )
 19  Edward Greenspan (np)   )Jeff Lyons
 20  Todd White (np)         )
 21  Hugh MacKenzie          )Jim Andrew
 22  Paul Cavalluzzo         )Dash Domi
 23  Benjamin Barnes (np)    )
 24  
 25  Joyce Ihamaki           )Registrar

1 TABLE OF CONTENTS 2 Page 3 List of Exhibits 4 4 5 DASH DOMI, Resumed 6 Continued Cross-Examination 7 by Mr. William Anderson 5 8 Cross-Examination by Mr. David Moore 25 9 Cross-Examination by Mr. Paul Cavalluzzo 127 10 11 Certificate of Transcript 195 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

1 EXHIBITS 2 No. Description Page 3 14 VOLUME 2 Bound document titled 75 4 "Dash Domi Documents" 5 Additional tabs 89 - 91 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

1 --- Upon commencing at 10:00 a.m. 2 3 THE REGISTRAR: The inquiry is now in 4 session. Please be seated. 5 6 DASHNOR DOMI, Resumed: 7 8 MADAM COMMISSIONER: Good morning. 9 MR. WILLIAM ANDERSON: Good morning. 10 MADAM COMMISSIONER: Yes, Mr. Anderson. 11 12 CONTINUED CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. WILLIAM ANDERSON: 13 Q: Good morning, Mr. Domi. 14 A: Good morning. 15 Q: I'd like to turn now to the issue of the 16 July re-writing of the leasing schedules. 17 A: Okay. 18 Q: Do you recall a meeting in July of the 19 year 2000 where the issue about leasing schedules and re- 20 writing them was discussed? 21 A: Yes. 22 Q: Okay. Who was in attendance at that 23 meeting? 24 A: I think that meeting actually happened 25 between Rob and Wanda.

1 Q: And you were in attendance also? 2 A: I don't believe I was there, no. 3 Q: Okay. So you can't give any further 4 information about what was discussed at that meeting, was it 5 communicated back to you by Rob? 6 A: I think it was to categorize towards cost 7 centers and putting everything in their different logical 8 groups, like desktop, notebooks, servers and -- 9 Q: And Ms. Liczyk wanted to take the new list 10 of assets and divide them into the departments -- 11 A: Yes -- 12 Q: -- so that the costs of the assets could 13 be allocated to the departments using assets? 14 A: Yes, that was the goal and it was there 15 was a lot of effort put into doing that by IT. 16 Q: Right. Who specifically in the IT 17 department or the CMO was coordinating the lease re-writes? 18 A: I'm not exactly sure really, I mean I 19 think there was a lot of discussions regarding cost center 20 and the allocation of all equipment in the logical groups. 21 Q: And who was involved in those discussions? 22 A: I think there was discussions with Lana -- 23 usually the same people. 24 Q: Lana, Katherine, and Paula? 25 A: Yes.

1 Q: Okay. And MFP had done that for other 2 clients? 3 A: I believe so, yes. 4 Q: Now, I understand that in December of 5 2000, there were discussions that occurred with respect to 6 the quantum of assets that were under lease and the 7 allocation of those assets to the various departments not 8 being coordinated properly? 9 A: Yes, there was. 10 Q: And that culminated in a meeting on 11 January the 17th, 2001? 12 A: There as several meetings so -- 13 Q: Several meetings -- 14 A: When I say several, we met often with IT 15 Department, really. 16 Q: Do you recall a meeting with Ms. Liczyk, 17 Mr. Colley -- Ken Colley, Kathy, Lana, Rob and yourself? 18 A: Yes, I went over that, yes. 19 Q: And do you recall at that meeting that Ms. 20 Liczyk was quite upset with the CMO and the IT staff? 21 A: Yes, I do. 22 Q: What was she upset about? 23 A: I'm not certain of what the exact details 24 were of -- there was a lot of discussions that went on to 25 getting organized and costs and stuff like that. I'm not

1 certain of what was -- because there seemed to be, like there 2 were, I think it was between Lana and Wanda, that they 3 weren't really seeing eye to eye. 4 Q: And what weren't they seeing eye to eye 5 on, do you recall? 6 A: I'm not certain of -- I mean there was, I 7 think there was several issues that they had. 8 Q: Right, one (1) of those issues was that 9 the amount of assets under lease had gone beyond $43 million 10 in the year 2000. Do you recall that issue being discussed? 11 A: That may have been discussed, yes. 12 Q: And you recall Ms. Liczyk being upset 13 about that, at that meeting in January? 14 A: I'm not sure if that was the reason, but I 15 remember her being upset about -- I mean I think there was a 16 few -- I mean there was several topics that were discussed 17 that particular day. 18 Q: If you could turn to Tab 79 of your second 19 book of documents, that's document number, I believe, 24174, 20 this is an e-mail dated December the 13th, 2000 from Sharon 21 McKay. Who is Sharon McKay? 22 A: She's one (1) of the managers at MFP of 23 all our PA's, she's a manager. 24 Q: And she's writing to Lee Ann Currie who 25 was still involved with the administration of the leases on

1 behalf of MFP? 2 A: Yes. 3 Q: And she writes: 4 "Lee Ann can we meet at 3:30 today to try 5 to sort this mess out. I know Dash wants 6 an answer ASAP." 7 What is the mess that she's referring to? 8 A: It just seemed that there was invoices 9 coming and going, it just did not seem -- things weren't 10 flowing, I felt, properly. I mean because we're very 11 organized ourselves in everything we do. 12 I mean there was a girl totally alloc -- Lee 13 Ann was almost strictly working on City of Toronto invoices 14 and things coming through. So, it just seemed that there was 15 things coming from all directions and there wasn't any flow 16 really on what was happening. 17 So, I just -- and in particular, from meetings 18 we had I just -- it just didn't seem like things were 19 organized. 20 Q: And when you say things weren't 21 organized, by whom? 22 A: From the City's point of view, really, I 23 thought. 24 Q: And specifically the CMO? 25 A: Yes.

1 Q: Did you ever discuss with Ms. Viinamae 2 the facts that the amount of assets under lease had gone 3 above $43 million in the year 2000? 4 A: I mean, I -- I ma -- I mean, how would 5 they not know, really? I mean, they -- they have got to be 6 organized internally. How would they not know what they're 7 putting on lease, I mean, as far as I'm concerned. 8 Q: And they knew that the amount of assets 9 under lease in 2000 had gone beyond $43 million? 10 A: I mean -- 11 MADAM COMMISSIONER: Mr. -- sorry, go ahead. 12 THE WITNESS: Go -- 13 MADAM COMMISSIONER: I'm going to have 14 entered -- 15 THE WITNESS: I -- I just don't know how 16 anyone wouldn't know. I mean, we had invoices coming in 17 daily from the CMO's office and IT. I mean, how would people 18 not know what they're doing? 19 How we set up our schedules. I mean, they -- 20 everyone sees everything. 21 MADAM COMMISSIONER: I'm just wondering what 22 you had mentioned just a few minutes ago that they seemed 23 totally disorganized and so now you're saying that you're 24 saying that they had to be organized so I'm not sure. Are 25 you talking about the same people then?

1 THE WITNESS: Yes, Commissioner. It's just - 2 - there was a lot of invoices coming through. I mean, 3 obviously it was a massive project of Y2K and it just carried 4 over but it just -- I didn't s -- it didn't seem to me that 5 they were organized really and what was on lease, what 6 wasn't. There was -- there was a ton of time spent on 7 checking invoices that were not supposed to go on lease. I 8 mean -- 9 MADAM COMMISSIONER: Right. 10 THE WITNESS: -- we had the invoices and 11 reconciling -- 12 MADAM COMMISSIONER: I'm just wondering if 13 they weren't organized, then how -- why would you be so sure 14 they knew they had gone over $43 million? 15 THE WITNESS: Well -- well, I wouldn't be 16 sure but they're giving us invoices and -- constantly, so I 17 mean, people wouldn't be keeping track of invoices they're 18 giving out or they're getting from their point of view, 19 really, from their vendors. 20 MADAM COMMISSIONER: Okay. 21 THE WITNESS: So I just -- I don't know. 22 23 CONTINUED BY MR. WILLIAM ANDERSON: 24 Q: The CMO during the year 2000 continued to 25 put assets under MFP leases.

1 A: Yes. 2 Q: All right and was it your understanding 3 from the CMO that they believed that they were entitled to 4 continue to put assets under lease throughout the year 2000? 5 A: I -- I -- I would say yes. 6 Q: Did you ever have a discussion with Ms. 7 Viinamae or anyone at the CMO about the ability of the City 8 of Toronto to put assets under lease for a three (3) year 9 agreement with MFP? 10 A: Pardon? I don't understand what you 11 mean. 12 Q: Let me rephrase the question. 13 A: Okay. 14 Q: Were they under the impression that they 15 had a three (3) year vendor of record agreement with MFP? 16 A: I'm not sure if that's what they thought 17 really. 18 Q: Could you turn then to Tab 64 of your 19 same book of documents? 20 A: Okay. 21 Q: Begdoc 29326. 22 A: Okay. 23 Q: This is an e-mail from Lana Viinamae to 24 Kathy Bulko, dated May the 9th, '01. 25 A: Okay.

1 Q: She states: 2 "I just spoke with Jeff Griffiths who 3 indicated that as far as he was concerned, 4 there was no audit issue with the above..." 5 And that's the MFP contract. 6 "...and therefore we should proceed with 7 business as usual. At Council, Ossie..." 8 I believe that's Ossie Doyle. 9 "...confirmed that legal's interpretation 10 is that the MFP contract is a three (3) 11 year master lease agreement whereby the 12 City can choose to access leasing services 13 for computer systems and software at any 14 point during the three (3) year contract 15 term." 16 A: Correct. 17 Q: Was that your understanding of the way 18 that the CMO was operating? That they would just continue to 19 put assets under lease for a three (3) year period? 20 A: I -- I'm not sure. I mean, I -- I -- at 21 -- the way it was going it seemed that way, yes. 22 Q: Okay and the term vendor of record isn't 23 a term of art that was used at MFP? 24 A: I'm sorry? 25 Q: The term vendor of record, is that a term

1 that was used at MFP or is that something that you picked up 2 from CMO? 3 A: I mean, you hear the term, I don't 4 necessarily say we use it often, no. I mean I -- it's used, 5 but, it's not something you hear everyone talking about like, 6 vendor of record, well, no. That's just -- 7 Q: Did you hear the term vendor of record, 8 used at the City of Toronto and specifically with the people 9 working at the CMO? 10 A: I may have heard that, yes. 11 Q: Do you recall who may have said that? 12 A: I'm not sure really, who would have said 13 that. Maybe the people I was dealing with really. 14 Q: And again, that would be Lana, Kathy, and 15 Paula? 16 A: Yes. 17 Q: I want to just turn briefly and I'm not 18 going to go through all of your expenses. I want to look at 19 the two (2) year period, very briefly, after MFP was awarded 20 the leasing services contract. 21 I understand from your evidence that there 22 were events that you attended that the City of Toronto 23 hosted? 24 A: Yes. 25 Q: And at those events, City Councillors were

1 there, City staff and other vendors? 2 A: Yes. 3 Q: And there were also events that MFP 4 sponsored and likewise there were City Councillors there, 5 City staff, and other politicians? 6 A: Yes. 7 Q: And you looked at these events as 8 networking opportunities? 9 A: Yes, I did. 10 Q: And did you ever have discussions with 11 members of the City of Toronto, Councillors, or City staff 12 and their view that these were networking opportunities also? 13 A: Yes. I mean I think generally that's what 14 happened, I mean -- people were always -- that's just how 15 things work. 16 MADAM COMMISSIONER: Did these staff and 17 Councillors say to you that they were there to network? Is 18 that what they said? 19 THE WITNESS: Well, when people would see 20 Councillors, Commissioner, or hear someone's title, I mean 21 people introduced themselves or have discussions with 22 Councillors, I'd say. 23 MADAM COMMISSIONER: Did they say, I'm here to 24 network? 25 THE WITNESS: I wouldn't say they'd say I'm

1 here to network, no. 2 MADAM COMMISSIONER: Okay. Thanks. 3 4 CONTINUED BY MR. WILLIAM ANDERSON: 5 Q: But, there was network going on from both 6 sides, from your side and from the City of Toronto and other 7 politicians, provincial politicians? 8 A: Yes, I'd say that, yes. 9 Q: And at that point in time, back in 2000 10 and 1999, it was important for the City of Toronto 11 Councillors and staff to be networking with the Province of 12 Ontario? 13 A: I guess, I mean everyone networks really. 14 Q: You have no specific recollection of the 15 number of times that Wanda Liczyk went to these events? 16 A: No, I do not, really. 17 Q: But she was at a number of events and you 18 talked to her at those events freely and openly? 19 A: Yes, I mean I talk to a lot of people 20 freely and openly, really. 21 Q: You wanted her to come to a number of 22 these events? 23 A: Yes. 24 Q: You wanted to keep up your contact with 25 her?

1 A: Yes, I mean I -- well, I -- my theory was 2 to be in front of your client as much as possible, as other 3 people would be doing it, so that's my approach. 4 Q: Right. Senior people at the City of 5 Toronto and administrative people at the City of Toronto, 6 that you were working with? 7 A: Yes. 8 Q: Why was it important to keep up contact 9 specifically with Ms. Liczyk, after you already had the 10 leasing contract? 11 A: No specific reason really, when I say 12 specific, I was -- they were clients of ours, and I thought 13 we had -- or I had a very good working relationship with 14 everyone I knew, really. 15 Q: Were you looking for new leasing 16 initiatives at the City of Toronto? 17 A: Yes. 18 Q: And you were aware that the City of 19 Toronto was considering leasing with respect to their fleet, 20 automobile fleet? 21 A: Yes. 22 Q: In fact, everyone in the City was aware 23 that the City was looking at that as a possibility? 24 A: Yeah -- I think -- 25 Q: It was widely known?

1 A: -- I think it was an issue, yes that was 2 known. 3 Q: And you and Rob Wilkinson and others at 4 MFP, put your mind to a proposal -- a way of dealing with the 5 City of Toronto's financing of their lease so that you could 6 make a proposal? 7 A: Yes. 8 Q: And so you were actively lobbying the City 9 of Toronto during the year 2000, in order to convince the 10 City that leasing was a viable option with respect to their 11 fleet? 12 A: Yes, I feel strongly about that, yes. 13 Q: And you had a network of people working at 14 the City of Toronto at that point? 15 A: Yes, I'd like to say that I did. 16 Q: And you indicate -- you -- you've 17 indicated that you had communications with Councillor 18 Berardinetti during that time period? 19 A: Yes. 20 Q: And he was seen as being a key contact 21 person now at the City of Toronto with respect to fleet 22 leasing? 23 A: Yeah, I'd consider him a key contact. 24 Yes. 25 Q: And so you were lobbying him also with

1 respect to the concept of leasing for their fleet? 2 A: We were -- yes, we were having -- 3 attempting to get in front of him. Yes. 4 Q: Right. To get in front of him, to 5 acquire information -- 6 A: Yes. 7 Q: -- on behalf of MFP so that you could 8 devise some type of a proposal which would meet the City's 9 requirements and satisfy their limitations? 10 A: Yes. 11 Q: And MFP did, in fact, make a proposal 12 through an RFP to do the City's fleet leasing? 13 A: Yes, we did. 14 Q: And that proposal was rejected by the 15 City of Toronto? 16 A: I remember hearing that we weren't even 17 close. 18 Q: And you also -- you and Rob Wilkinson and 19 MFP made inquiries to try to get information about subway car 20 leasing? 21 A: We did, yes. 22 Q: Did you approach Councillor Moscoe about 23 subway car leasing? 24 A: No. 25 Q: No. Did you approach a number of people

1 to try to get information about what the City was thinking of 2 doing and how they were thinking of doing subway car leasing? 3 A: It was -- it was a huge deal so we were 4 kind of looking at it to just understand. I mean, we always 5 wan -- want to understand the approach. If it was a deal we 6 could have done, we would have entertained it but it was a 7 huge deal that maybe would have been a little to big for us. 8 Q: Right and you didn't get all or even part 9 of the subway car leasing deal? 10 A: No, we didn't even get into it. It was 11 just a massive deal at the -- 12 Q: Right. And the City did undertake 13 further investigations with an American concern with respect 14 to subway car leasing? 15 A: Yes, we had also read that in the papers. 16 It was in the press. It was a big issue. 17 Q: But these were the types of opportunities 18 that you were looking at acquiring information about so that 19 MFP could lobby for the City -- lobby the City to look at new 20 types of leasing arrangements for their assets? 21 A: Yes. 22 Q: And ultimately, you weren't successful in 23 lobbying Ms. Liczyk or Councillor Berardinetti or Councillor 24 Jakobek or anyone else that MFP should actually be fulfilling 25 those leasing requirements with the City?

1 A: That's right. I just remember hearing 2 that -- 3 MADAM COMMISSIONER: I'm sorry. Your 4 question is that he didn't convince the -- the Councillors? 5 I thought they had to respond to an RFP, so it wouldn't be 6 those individual Councillors who would be convinced then, 7 would it? 8 MR. WILLIAM ANDERSON: Well, the City Council 9 rejected the concept of leasing with respects to their fleet 10 -- 11 MADAM COMMISSIONER: Right. 12 MR. WILLIAM ANDERSON: -- on the basis -- 13 MADAM COMMISSIONER: That's all of City 14 Council? 15 MR. WILLIAM ANDERSON: All of City Council. 16 MADAM COMMISSIONER: Right. 17 MR. WILLIAM ANDERSON: Yeah. 18 THE WITNESS: But -- but -- wouldn't -- 19 MADAM COMMISSIONER: I thought your question 20 was posed that it was those individual Councillors, the 21 Berardinetti and Moscoe -- 22 MR. WILLIAM ANDERSON: No, I believe the 23 answers to the questions and the questions that I posed were 24 with respect to acquiring information from specific 25 individuals and they obtained that information, right?

1 CONTINUED BY MR. WILLIAM ANDERSON: 2 Q: You obtained information about the 3 requirements of the City? What they were looking for? 4 A: Very little, really. I felt that -- like 5 I said, we weren't even close. I remember hearing to being 6 in the ballpark to -- well, I mean, I don't think s -- well, 7 firstly, let me clarify that. 8 Staff ultimately rejected this -- leasing, 9 period. 10 Q: Staff ultimately rejected the fleet 11 leasing? 12 A: Yeah. I don't think it was even an 13 option for staff to do that. I mean, it was -- no one was 14 even close from what I -- I mean, I think they ultimately 15 tried to do that a few times but it never actually worked so 16 -- and again, I remember hearing that we weren't even close. 17 Not we, nobody who responded. 18 Q: Right. The City staff rejected the 19 concept of leasing with respect to their fleet? 20 A: Yes. 21 Q: Okay and are you aware of whether or not 22 that issue ever went to City Council? 23 A: I'm not aware. I don't think it did. 24 Q: Ms. Liczyk left the City of Toronto in 25 June of 2001.

1 A: Yes. 2 Q: Have you seen her since June of 2001? 3 A: I think I did, yes. 4 Q: And where would you have seen her? 5 A: I'm not sure. I've seen her at events, I 6 think, I'm not exactly sure where. 7 Q: And have you been out socially with her or 8 for business purposes since June of 2001? 9 A: I don't think I have been, I'm not sure 10 really, I don't know that. 11 Q: Nothing comes to mind? 12 A: I'm just trying to think actually, nothing 13 really specific comes to mind. I mean I communicated with 14 her, but nothing -- seeing her at different events, I 15 believe. 16 I invited her many places, that's for sure. 17 Q: Since June 2001? 18 A: Yes. 19 Q: And did she accept any of those 20 invitations? 21 A: I don't think so. I can't recall clearly, 22 but I'm not sure. 23 Q: In your expense binders, there are three 24 (3) expenses for Toronto Hydro? 25 A: Yes.

1 Q: You never entertained Wanda Liczyk with 2 respect to Toronto Hydro? 3 A: No, it was actually a prospect of mine 4 that was always there. But, I don't -- no. 5 Q: In fact, you didn't entertain any employee 6 from Toronto Hydro in relation to those receipts? 7 A: No, not directly, no. 8 Q: You were thinking about Toronto Hydro as a 9 potential customer and you were talking about it, and that's 10 why their -- Toronto Hydro's name is on the receipts? 11 A: Yes. Well, Vince and I kind of tried to 12 discuss or work out Toronto Hydro because we thought there 13 was something we could do there at some point. 14 Q: Right and MFP doesn't have any business 15 with Toronto Hydro? 16 A: No. 17 MR. WILLIAM ANDERSON: Those are all of my 18 questions. Thank you. 19 MADAM COMMISSIONER: Mr. Moore? 20 MR. DAVID MOORE: Thank you. 21 MADAM COMMISSIONER: You know who Mr. Moore 22 represents, so -- 23 THE WITNESS: Yes, I do. We know each other 24 well. 25

1 (BRIEF PAUSE) 2 3 MR. DAVID MOORE: Just try and organize these 4 books so I'm not -- 5 Thank you, Madam Commissioner. 6 7 CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. DAVID MOORE: 8 Q: Mr. Domi, I want to take you through some 9 of the aspects of the chronology that you've been asked about 10 over the past several days of your evidence. 11 But first, there's just some general questions 12 I want to ask you about. 13 You've been asked questions by the lawyers 14 here about your current role and duties at MFP? 15 A: Yes. 16 Q: And as I recall the gist of your evidence 17 is that since early summer, perhaps June or July of last 18 year, your function has been pretty much restricted to 19 helping prepare for the Inquiry and related tasks? 20 A: Yes. 21 Q: And in the course of that process, what 22 direction did you receive from MFP, in terms of the extent to 23 which you should or should not cooperate with the Inquiry? 24 A: I was -- what -- I'm sorry? 25 Q: What did MFP tell you to do in terms of

1 cooperating with the Inquiry? 2 A: Total cooperation. 3 Q: And there are a lot of documents that had 4 to be pulled together and reviewed? 5 A: Thousands. 6 Q: And one of the things that MFP did for you 7 and other employees, was to ask you to look for all of the 8 documents you might have and make them all available? 9 A: Yes. 10 Q: And was there any suggestion on MFP's 11 part in doing that you should hold anything back in any way? 12 A: No, never. 13 Q: And did you receive any direction about - 14 - from MFP about what you should do in terms of trying to 15 reconstruct the events, try to recall the events? Did you 16 get any direction in that regard? 17 A: Yes, I was -- 18 Q: What was that? 19 A: -- getting help, really. We're trying to 20 reconstruct -- working together with Rob -- 21 Q: Yes. 22 A: -- and myself. 23 Q: And -- and others? 24 A: Yes and others. 25 Q: And -- and -- and was there ever any

1 suggestion made by anybody that you should change your 2 evidence or vary your evidence in any way? 3 A: No, never. 4 Q: And would it be fair to say that -- that 5 the direction you received from MFP was to try to remember 6 all the relevant facts as best you could? 7 A: Yes. 8 Q: And -- and fair to say that repeated 9 efforts were made or -- or -- or requests were made of you to 10 go back and look at your records and -- and to try and 11 reconstruct what happened? 12 A: Yes, that's correct. 13 Q: And direction th -- that you should be 14 forthright and -- and truthful in -- in your cooperation with 15 the Inquiry? 16 A: Yes. 17 Q: And -- and I -- I take it that direction 18 extended to all of the questions and all of the issues that 19 might arise, whether it be entertainment or dealing with 20 clients or otherwise? Is that fair? 21 A: Yes, yes. 22 Q: And fair to say that you found that a 23 difficult process? 24 A: Very difficult, yes. 25 Q: And you were asked various questions over

1 the course of your seven (7) or eight (8) days about your 2 being a people person, a relationship person and the like? 3 A: Yes, I was. 4 Q: Let me ask you another general question. 5 Do you consider yourself a detail person? 6 A: No, I don't. 7 Q: And in terms of this being a difficult 8 process, fair to say that it was hard for you to go back and 9 reconstruct all the events? 10 A: Very hard. 11 Q: And -- and you've been asked many 12 questions over many days about many things and I'm not going 13 to go through them all, but for example, the expense chits 14 and -- and try to sort out who was entertained and -- and 15 when. You found that to be a particularly difficult 16 exercise, is that fair? 17 A: Yes, I found it very difficult. 18 Q: And -- and is it fair to say that within 19 the course of -- of -- of your efforts, MFP asked you 20 numerous times in numerous ways to try reconstruct the 21 entertainment issue as best you could? 22 A: Yes. Yes. 23 Q: And when I say MFP, that would include 24 Mr. Wolfraim? 25 A: That's correct.

1 Q: And other executives at -- at the 2 company? 3 A: Yes. 4 Q: And legal counsel as well? 5 A: That's right. 6 Q: I -- I don't want to get into the details 7 of that. 8 A: No, that -- that -- that's right. That's 9 correct. 10 Q: And -- and it would be fair to say that 11 -- that MFP was indicating to you that it -- it wanted to try 12 and reconstruct as accurately as possible what had happened 13 in terms of who was entertained and how much was spent? 14 A: Yes. 15 Q: And -- and trying to do that was -- was 16 not something that you were able to do in -- in any great 17 detail? Is that fair? 18 A: I found it very, very difficult. 19 Q: And -- and would it be fair to say that 20 -- that you found that to be a frustrating process at times? 21 A: I can't even tell you how frustrating, 22 actually. 23 Q: All right and -- and I know you can't put 24 your mind -- put y -- your mind in the mind of other people 25 particularly, but -- but did you get the impression from time

1 to time that it was frustrating and difficult for MFP as well 2 in its efforts to reconstruct what happened? 3 A: Absolutely, yes. 4 Q: All right. Now, in terms of your -- your 5 overall nature and -- and -- and background, apart from being 6 a po -- a people person, are y -- are you -- would you 7 consider yourself to be naturally an outgoing person? 8 A: Yes. 9 Q: And would you say -- would you consider 10 yourself to be a confident person or a pessimistic person? 11 A: Very confident. I -- 12 Q: And would you say that -- 13 MADAM COMMISSIONER: Pardon? 14 THE WITNESS: I like to think I'm fairly 15 confident. 16 MADAM COMMISSIONER: Was it confident or 17 competent? 18 MR. DAVID MOORE: Confident was the -- 19 confident -- 20 MADAM COMMISSIONER: Confident. 21 THE WITNESS: I'd like to think that I'm 22 confident, yes. 23 MADAM COMMISSIONER: Okay. 24 25 CONTINUED BY MR. DAVID MOORE:

1 Q: And are you one that's easily discouraged? 2 A: No. 3 Q: And in dealing with people or trying to 4 get to know people, are you the kind of person who would, if 5 at first you don't succeed, you forget about it and give up 6 trying, or do you approach things differently than that? 7 A: I never give up trying. 8 9 (BRIEF PAUSE) 10 11 Q: Now, when you were hired in or about 12 November 1998, as I understand the evidence, you didn't 13 really read the contract that had been provided to you? 14 A: Not particularly, no I did not. 15 Q: And as I understood your evidence, you 16 were happy and pleased to be given the opportunity and that 17 was your reaction? 18 A: Yes, very happy. 19 Q: And would it be fair to say, in that 20 context, you were not overly concerned about the exact 21 details of the contract, you were just gratified by the 22 opportunity? 23 A: Yes, I just had a very good feeling about 24 it, and yes, I was. 25 Q: All right. And when I say contract, I

1 include in that the standard commission formula. I take it 2 that's not something you paid any particular attention to at 3 the time? 4 A: No, I did not. 5 Q: All right. And you've been asked a lot of 6 questions about your contacts and dealings with the City of 7 Toronto. And I just -- I'm not going to go through all that 8 again. 9 I just want to -- I just want to make sure, we 10 understand the key parts of the chronology. Would it be fair 11 to say that your role or involvement was one (1) that changed 12 over time? 13 A: Yes. 14 Q: In other words, am I correct in 15 understanding your evidence to be that when you were 16 initially hired, the City of Toronto was not, insofar as you 17 were aware, one (1) of your accounts? 18 A: No, it was not. 19 Q: And I take it at that time, you had some 20 other clients or potential clients that you may have 21 inherited from others? 22 A: Yes, I did. 23 Q: And I'm not going to go back through all 24 of the detail of that, and I appreciate it's a little bit 25 difficult to pin down the exact dates, but as I understand

1 it, approximately January, February of '99 would be the time 2 when you recall being asked to work on the City of Toronto 3 account? 4 A: Yeah, I'd say perhaps around February-ish. 5 Q: And like many of the other dates you've 6 been asked about, it's difficult for you to reconstruct the 7 exact date, is that fair? 8 A: Yes. 9 Q: And -- and so we have an initial period of 10 time, certainly late 1998, perhaps into early 1999, when you 11 don't have any dealings with the City of Toronto to speak of? 12 A: Yes, no, I did not. 13 Q: And then in early 1999, you begin to have 14 some dealings. At that time, as I understand it, Mr. 15 Ashbourne, was still on the account? 16 A: Yes. 17 Q: And so from early '99 until perhaps late 18 March, April, or thereabouts, you and he were kind of jointly 19 assigned? 20 A: Yes. 21 Q: And you still had some other clients that 22 you were attempting to follow up? 23 A: Oh, yes, I always did. 24 Q: And then as I understand the chronology, 25 by approximately April, and I appreciate it's difficult to

1 pin down precisely, but by approximately April of 1999, you 2 became the sole salesperson assigned to the City of Toronto 3 account? 4 A: Yes. 5 Q: And you were reporting to Irene Payne, in 6 that regard? 7 A: That's correct, yes. 8 Q: And you then became involved in the 9 process of responding to the City of Toronto RFQ? 10 A: Yes. 11 Q: And at that point, as I understand the 12 evidence, Mr. Pessione and Mr. Wilkinson had some involvement 13 as well? 14 A: Yes. 15 Q: Now, I anticipate the evidence of Mr. 16 Wilkinson will be to the effect that up until that point in 17 time, he had very little and perhaps no involvement in 18 relation to meetings or dealings with City of Toronto? 19 A: That may be -- that probably is correct, 20 yes. 21 Q: All right and -- and so the -- the RFQ 22 gets submitted. By that time, I think we -- we understand 23 you're the sole salesman and kind of the front line position 24 with the City? 25 A: I'd have -- yes, I -- I'd -- I worked

1 very closely with Irene in that period. 2 Q: All right. 3 A: Closer than I ever did with Rob, 4 actually, Ashbourne. 5 Q: And then after the contract was awarded, 6 I appreciate that it's a bit difficult because there's a 7 number of -- of transactions and a number of leases, but I'm 8 referring now to the -- the contract arising directly out of 9 the RFQ that went to Council -- City Council in late July. 10 A: Yes. 11 Q: As I understand your evidence, after that 12 period you spent a great deal of time attempting to implement 13 the arrangements and finalize the arrangements? 14 A: Yes, we did. 15 Q: And -- and that involved a lot of contact 16 with various personnel at the City of Toronto? 17 A: Yes. 18 Q: And included the individuals in the 19 Contract Management Office that spoke of? 20 A: That's right. Yes. 21 Q: And -- so in the post-July '99 period. 22 MS. BAY RYLEY: Sorry, Madam Commissioner? 23 MADAM COMMISSIONER: Yes? 24 MS. BAY RYLEY: I just wanted to -- to 25 clarify the date in terms of the -- the Contract Management

1 Office. It's my understanding it didn't come into existence 2 until January or February of 2000. 3 MADAM COMMISSIONER: Okay. Well, I guess 4 we'll have to hear some evidence about that. Do you know 5 when it came into effect? 6 THE WITNESS: I -- I think that's -- that 7 could correct, Commissioner -- 8 MADAM COMMISSIONER: Okay. 9 THE WITNESS: -- was it's later on that the 10 CMO office was created. 11 MADAM COMMISSIONER: Okay, thanks. 12 THE WITNESS: Probably the IT -- 13 MADAM COMMISSIONER: Until January? Is that 14 what you were saying, Ms. Ryley? 15 MS. BAY RYLEY: January or February. 16 MADAM COMMISSIONER: Okay. 17 18 CONTINUED BY MR. DAVID MOORE: 19 Q: Well, I'm -- I'm not going to go to all - 20 - all the documents, but -- but independent of when the 21 formal establishment of the Contract Management Office took 22 place, in the period after August, September of '99, were you 23 spending a lot of time meeting with City personnel? 24 A: Yes. 25 Q: And -- and -- and so as -- as I -- as I

1 understood from -- from your comments before, your role and 2 involvement would have changed as these events progressed? 3 Is that fair? 4 A: Yes, that's fair. 5 Q: And -- and I -- I take it's -- it -- is 6 it difficult or is it possible to pin down precisely the 7 percentage of your time at any -- at any given instant in -- 8 in the evolution? 9 A: I don't know how much -- I don't know if 10 I could pin down the time but qu -- a lot of time was spent 11 on it, yes. 12 Q: All right. Would it make sense that -- 13 that -- that starting with the period in -- in early '99 when 14 you were first assigned jointly with Mr. Ashbourne to the 15 period after City Council dealt with the matter that your 16 involvement and time spent would have -- would have increased 17 as time went by? 18 A: Give or take, yes. It would definitely 19 increase. 20 Q: Yes and -- and -- and would it also make 21 sense that the frequency of your contacts with City of 22 Toronto personnel would also increase as time went by? 23 A: Yes. 24 Q: And similarly, would it -- and again I 25 appreciate it's difficult to be specific each step of the way

1 but -- but would it be fair to say that -- that as the extent 2 of your contacts increased over time, so too the nature and 3 strength of any given relationship w -- would change over 4 time as well? 5 A: Yes, that's right. 6 Q: And would it logically make sense the 7 more contact you have, the stronger that relationship is 8 going to become as time goes by? 9 A: I -- yes. I -- I -- yes. I have to say 10 I agree with that. 11 Q: So an -- and -- and would you agree, 12 then, that in terms of assessing any given relationship and I 13 -- I -- I -- th -- that word means different things to 14 different people, but it'd be important to look at what 15 particular point in time we were -- we were asking about? 16 A: Yes. 17 Q: All right. Now, dealing with the period 18 in -- I'll say -- I'll say February to -- to March of 1999, 19 when you were first assigned, I understand your evidence to 20 be that you were trying to gather information and then make 21 contacts with the -- the appropriate City of Toronto 22 personnel? 23 A: Yes, make contacts, for sure. 24 Q: And -- and you wanted to -- you wanted to 25 find out as much as you could about who the City were -- how

1 the City worked? 2 A: Yes, I -- I didn't have a clue on how 3 things operated. 4 Q: And who the -- the contact people might 5 be? 6 A: Yes. 7 Q: And -- and you've given evidence about 8 numerous conversations and contacts with Vince Nigro about 9 that topic? 10 A: Yes. 11 Q: And as I understand, it's in that time 12 frame, March, that -- that in your evidence, your first made 13 contact with Wanda Liczyk? 14 A: Yes. 15 Q: And -- and I'm not going to go through 16 all that evidence, Mr. Anderson took you through that 17 yesterday, in terms of the progression of events there? 18 A: Yes. 19 Q: And you also made contact with Mr. 20 Andrew? 21 A: Yes. 22 Q: I'm talking now in the period 23 February/March onwards? 24 A: I -- yeah, that's -- that's the time that 25 I essentially met everybody really. Well, not everybody, but

1 the key contacts that I -- 2 Q: All right. 3 A: -- targeted. 4 Q: And -- and -- and you knew, in the case 5 of Mr. Andrew, that there was an existing history between him 6 and MFP? 7 A: Yes, I did. 8 Q: In fact, was it your understanding that 9 MFP had had some dealings with Mr. Andrew before he went to 10 the -- to the City? 11 A: Yes, there was many people I think who 12 may have known him or worked with him at some point. 13 Q: And -- and we've heard evidence I think, 14 that Irene Payne had some pre-existing history with him? 15 A: Yeah, I think they -- yeah, they had a 16 very good relationship. 17 Q: Was that your understanding at the time? 18 A: Yes. 19 Q: All right. And -- and so in the case of 20 Mr. Anderson (sic), it wasn't someone that -- that -- that 21 you were coming to cold, in terms of him not knowing who MFP 22 was or knowing anything about MFP? 23 A: That's right, that's right. 24 Q: All right. And -- and I believe there's 25 been some evidence to the effect that -- that Mr. Anderson

1 (sic) may have -- may well have been a proponent or a person 2 in favour, in principle -- 3 MR. WILLIAM ANDERSON: Mr. Andrew for the 4 record. 5 MR. DAVID MOORE: Mr. Andrew. 6 THE WITNESS: Right. 7 8 CONTINUED BY MR. DAVID MOORE: 9 Q: In favour of lease -- 10 MADAM COMMISSIONER: I wondered, Mr. 11 Anderson, why you were so quick at the microphone. Yes...? 12 13 CONTINUED BY MR. DAVID MOORE: 14 Q: Would -- did you have any understanding 15 in that regard? 16 A: Yes, I had. 17 Q: And what was your understanding? 18 A: I -- I had -- well, I thought he was 19 coming from the Province, I think he was pro-leasing. 20 Q: Yes, and -- and -- 21 MADAM COMMISSIONER: You've mentioned that a 22 few times, why did you feel that because he came from the 23 Province that he would be pro-leasing, what -- 24 THE WITNESS: When I say pro-leasing, 25 Commissioner, because -- because several people I worked with

1 that had worked with him or had a history with Mr. Andrew. 2 MADAM COMMISSIONER: Why -- why would you 3 think that someone coming from the Government, the Provincial 4 Government, would be automatically pro-leasing? 5 THE WITNESS: I -- I just -- we had did a lot 6 of business with the Government, so -- 7 MADAM COMMISSIONER: Hmm hmm. 8 THE WITNESS: -- our company. So, like 9 that's just what I was exposed to when I was there, so that's 10 what I thought, really. 11 MADAM COMMISSIONER: Okay. 12 13 CONTINUED BY MR. DAVID MOORE: 14 Q: And -- and I take it that it's not that 15 -- that Mr. Andrew ever said, hey, look, I'm pro-leasing -- 16 A: No -- 17 Q: -- that was -- that was your state of 18 mind at the time? 19 A: Yes, it was. 20 Q: Whether that was well founded or not well 21 founded, that was the state of mind; correct? 22 A: No, I mean, yeah, I mean he never said 23 I'm pro-leasing, but I just thought it was -- yes, I mean, he 24 -- he -- 25 Q: All right.

1 A: -- had dealt in leasing. 2 Q: Yeah. And -- and I take it you would 3 have known that -- that Mr. Andrew had already been involved 4 when MFP was selected to provide leasing services in 5 connection with the Councillor leases? 6 A: Yes. 7 Q: Or the Councillor computers, I should 8 say? 9 A: Yes. 10 Q: And -- and in terms of trying to assess 11 the situation, the belief was, should I take it, that the 12 City was about to consider how to finance it -- its Y2K 13 rollout of computers and associated equipment? 14 A: Yes. 15 Q: And that was -- that was a -- a 16 significant opportunity that was fairly common knowledge; is 17 that fair? 18 A: Well, I think it was like a monumental 19 opportunity, really, in the industry or -- per se. I mean 20 Y2K, Toronto being the biggest City. 21 Q: All right, and so in terms of -- of -- of 22 MFP's or your state of mind at the time, I take it that the 23 fact that -- that Mr. Andrew, you believed to be favourably 24 disposed to leasing, that would be a positive thing? 25 A: Yes.

1 Q: And I take it that the fact that -- that 2 MFP already had an existing master lease for the -- the 3 Councillor computers, that would be a positive thing as well? 4 A: That's correct, yes. 5 Q: And as I understand it, you -- you also 6 wanted to try to make contact and -- and you used the term, 7 get in front of Mr. Jakobek? 8 A: Yes. 9 Q: And I'll -- I'll return to -- to Mr. 10 Jakobek a bit later, but there's been some evidence about a 11 breakfast meeting? 12 A: Yes. 13 Q: And you -- that -- that's one (1) meeting 14 that you have a recollection of? 15 A: With...? 16 Q: With Mr. Jakobek? 17 A: Yes. 18 Q: All right. And -- and -- 19 A: Probably the first meeting. 20 Q: All right, and -- and do you have any 21 recollection of whether the -- the topic of -- of hockey came 22 up at that breakfast meeting with Mr. Jakobek? 23 A: Yes. 24 Q: And tell us about that? 25 A: He -- he just kind of told me right off

1 the get go that he didn't like hockey or something like that, 2 regarding my brother or something. 3 Q: Yes, did he -- did he -- I don't want to 4 get into every last detail, but to the extent you can give us 5 the gist of it, did -- did he -- did he mention something 6 about your brother that -- that stands out in your mind at 7 all? 8 A: I -- I'm not really sure, really, 9 something about not -- I don't know, I mean -- actually I'm 10 not sure, but he did mention something about my brother, but 11 I'm not clear at the moment what exact wording he said. 12 Q: All right, well, apart from the exact 13 wording, now, what was your reaction to whatever he had to 14 say about hockey in general, or your brother in particular at 15 -- at that -- at your first exposure to Mr. Jakobek? 16 A: He had no interest or didn't care really, 17 about hockey or my brother, I think he made it very clear. 18 Q: And -- and did -- I'm interested in your 19 reaction to his -- his -- his comments in that regard, did -- 20 did you feel that you hit it off at that first meeting? 21 A: Not really, no. 22 Q: And -- and -- and did -- in terms of your 23 state of mind, arising from that breakfast meeting, did you 24 feel that it was a friendly receptive meeting, or -- or what 25 was your state of mind in terms of Mr. Jakobek?

1 A: I'm not sure, I mean maybe perhaps -- I 2 wasn't intimidated by him, that's for sure. 3 MADAM COMMISSIONER: You were or were not? 4 THE WITNESS: No, I was not. 5 MADAM COMMISSIONER: Was not. 6 THE WITNESS: I don't get intimidated, 7 Commissioner. But I just -- probably, I'd say, he wanted to 8 show that he was the boss or -- at the time. 9 10 CONTINUED BY MR. DAVID MOORE: 11 Q: Yes. 12 A: Set the tone like that, for some reason. 13 Q: Did -- did you leave that meeting 14 thinking that, oh here's someone I really made a good start 15 with, and got a lot in common. Again, these are my words, 16 but -- but did you have any kind of impression like that when 17 you left that meeting? 18 A: I -- I thought this was going to be a 19 challenge for sure. 20 Q: All right. And over time you continued 21 to try to develop your contacts with the City of Toronto? 22 A: Yes. 23 Q: And one (1) way that you tried to do that 24 was through the use of entertainment? 25 A: Yes.

1 Q: And we've heard evidence about hockey 2 games, that was one (1) approach you took? 3 A: Yes. 4 Q: And you went out to meals from time to 5 time? 6 A: Yes, I did. 7 Q: And I think it's quite clear, you have 8 great difficulty in reconstructing the details of who went 9 where or when; is that -- is that fair? 10 A: Yeah, that's fair. 11 Q: And in terms of your state of mind at the 12 time, did you think that you were doing anything particularly 13 different than -- than other people who you believed were 14 competing for City of Toronto business? 15 A: No, I did not. 16 Q: And from your perspective, was there 17 anything secret or hidden about what you were doing? 18 A: No. 19 Q: Did -- did anyone at the City -- I'm 20 talking about 1999, year 2000, now this is a general 21 question, ever say anything to you that -- that you should -- 22 you should not be engaging in this entertainment? 23 A: No, no one ever said that to me, no -- 24 ever. 25 Q: And did you regard the entertainment you

1 were engaged in, did you think of that as a gift of some 2 kind? 3 A: No, I did not. 4 Q: Were you expecting any kind of quid pro 5 quo or return or anything special from people? 6 A: No, I never expected anyone to compromise 7 anything. 8 Q: And you've been asked questions about 9 various people who -- who came or participated in 10 entertainment events and I'm not going to go through all of 11 that in detail again. 12 There is in evidence indication that a Joan 13 Anderton came to an event, I think if memory serves me, in 14 about March of 2000? 15 A: Yes. 16 Q: And there's a memorandum that is in the 17 Mayor's book, I won't ask you to turn it up, but do you 18 remember Ms. Anderton coming to an event? 19 A: Yes, I do. 20 Q: And that was a game at the box? 21 A: Yes. 22 Q: And without turning it up, I believe, the 23 memorandum suggests that Ms. Liczyk and Commissioner Halstead 24 would have been among the people who attended that night? 25 A: Yes.

1 Q: Now, is that something that you have a 2 specific recollection of? 3 A: I just -- I recall that because that 4 particular -- it was the first time I met Commissioner 5 Anderton. 6 Q: Yes. I've asked you a general question as 7 to whether in 1999 or 2000, you ever got any feedback that 8 you shouldn't be engaging in entertainment. 9 Following the event at the box that Ms. 10 Anderton attended, did anyone from the City ever contact you 11 to raise any issue about the way in which MFP was 12 entertaining City personnel at the box? 13 A: No. 14 Q: Specifically Ms. Anderton, never contacted 15 you to raise any issue? 16 A: No, she did not. I mean she didn't -- she 17 looked like she enjoyed herself that evening. 18 Q: All right. And Mr. Garrett -- 19 A: No -- 20 Q: -- never contacted you? 21 A: Never, no one -- I've never heard it. 22 Q: Okay. I won't go through all the 23 potential names, but and to the best of your knowledge, did 24 anyone -- did you ever get any feedback from anyone at MFP, 25 for example, Mr. Wolfraim, or anyone like that --

1 A: No -- 2 Q: -- to the effect that we've been contacted 3 by the City and there's concerns about the way in which the 4 box is being used for entertainment purposes and we should 5 cease and desist. 6 Did you ever receive any indication along 7 those lines from anyone at MFP? 8 A: No, I did not. 9 Q: Now, the word relationships has been used 10 frequently in the questions you've been asked to answer. And 11 as I understand it, one (1) of the things you were trying to 12 do was to build relationships or contacts, with people at the 13 City? 14 A: Yes. 15 Q: And MFP, I think you've indicated, you 16 understood was known to Mr. Andrew, correct? 17 A: Correct. 18 Q: But in your mind, did MFP -- was it the 19 same kind of household name, as perhaps an IBM or a Compaq, 20 or a Dell, whether it be Dell Finance or Dell Computer? Was 21 it as well known, from your perspective? 22 A: No, I mean, no, no where near. 23 Q: And do I understand your evidence to be 24 that you thought it was important to try to make MFP known as 25 a viable company?

1 A: Yes. 2 Q: And you tried to communicate that, is that 3 fair? 4 A: Yes, I worked very hard at that. 5 Q: And I take it, you wanted to make sure 6 that when MFP submitted a bid -- if an RFQ came out, that it 7 would be -- it would be a recognized entity? 8 A: Yes. 9 Q: And that it would be viewed as a -- as a 10 serious credible bidder? 11 A: That's correct. 12 Q: All right and -- and I take it then that 13 was one purpose of -- of the contacts you were making or 14 trying to make? 15 A: Yes. 16 Q: All right. Now, we're -- returning to 17 the -- this concept of -- of relationships. The nature and 18 extent of any relationship is -- is a pretty subjective 19 thing? Do you agree? 20 A: Yes. 21 Q: And I appreciate you -- you had no formal 22 training, perhaps, in -- in sales -- 23 A: No. 24 Q: -- but in your dealing with -- with 25 people how m -- how important is the ability, this may seem

1 like a silly question but how important from your perspective 2 is the ability to -- to communicate with people? 3 A: It's probably the most important thing as 4 far as I'm concerned. 5 Q: And -- and in terms of -- of being able 6 to communicate, that would be assisted if one has a bit of a 7 rapport with the person you're trying to deal with? 8 A: Yes. 9 Q: And so l -- let's take the example of a 10 golf game. I know that's not something that -- that you were 11 particularly involved in all that frequently. A lot -- I 12 understand you had -- you -- you did some -- you participated 13 in some golfing events? 14 A: Yes. 15 Q: Is that fair? 16 A: Yes. 17 Q: All right but -- but taking the example 18 of a golf game. A customer and a salesperson might get 19 together, have -- play a round of golf and never talk about 20 business at all. That could happen? 21 A: That could happen, yes. 22 Q: But that still might be valuable in that 23 they develop a better personal rapport and a better ability 24 to communicate? 25 A: That's right.

1 Q: And simply put, people through that kind 2 of event, whether business is talked about or not, may feel 3 more comfortable in dealing with each other? 4 A: That's correct. 5 Q: And I take it the same would be true in 6 relation to such things as those hockey games or events at 7 the box? 8 A: Yes. It's not as a long a period but 9 yes. 10 Q: Whether -- whether or not anyone talks 11 about business, it's an occasion to meet and develop somewhat 12 of a rapport and be more comfortable? 13 A: Yes, definitely. 14 Q: Same thing in respect of a dinner -- 15 A: Yes. 16 Q: -- potentially? 17 A: That's correct. 18 Q: Or a charity ev -- charity event? 19 A: That's right. 20 Q: And was that one of the purposes of the 21 inten -- entertainment that you engaged in? To try to become 22 more comfortable, to try to be able to communicate better? 23 A: Yes. 24 Q: All right. And -- and in so far as the 25 question of entertainment and entertainment expenses that MFP

1 was concerned, as I understand it, you have no recollection 2 of reading the MFP policies that you've been asked about? 3 A: No, I -- I do not. 4 Q: All right and -- and independent of those 5 policies, y -- you'd agree that -- that some of this is 6 really just a matter of basic common sense. Is that fair? 7 A: That's fair. 8 Q: All right and I think the evidence 9 indicates that there -- there's no formal limit in terms of a 10 defined amount that -- that you couldn't exceed in a given 11 month in terms of your expenses? 12 A: That's correct, yes. 13 Q: But applying some common sense, if you 14 were going to incur a large expense you would consider 15 seeking approval for that? 16 A: Yes. 17 Q: And that's the context of -- that's why 18 you sought approval from Irene Payne about the Montreal 19 flight and the Philadelphia flight. 20 A: Yes. 21 Q: You were relatively new to the company 22 and that was a significant expense beyond what you'd been 23 incurring and you felt it appropriate to seek approval? 24 A: I mean, after being there for four (4) 25 and a half months, for sure.

1 Q: All right. 2 A: To have an approval. 3 Q: All right. So I take it then that-- that 4 while there was no formal limit or number that was written 5 down anywhere that you couldn't go over, applying your common 6 sense, you would know you couldn't just spend whatever you 7 wanted and -- and -- without -- without -- without any kind 8 of limit whatsoever? 9 A: That's right. 10 Q: And again, aside from -- from reading any 11 specific policy, you understood that -- that there was a 12 report that was supposed to be filled out to record the 13 expenses and be identified for those expenses? 14 A: Yes. 15 Q: And I take it you knew that that was 16 something that was supposed to be done on a regular basis? 17 A: That's right. 18 Q: All right, did you -- did you understand 19 that that was to be a monthly basis, or did you have a 20 specific understanding about how often? 21 A: I didn't really have a specific 22 understanding of how often. I think -- 23 Q: All right. That said, I think in -- 24 you'd -- you'd agree that -- that submitting expenses on a 25 regular, fairly frequent basis, would help one be accurate in

1 determining what the expense is for? 2 A: Yes, that's correct. 3 Q: And the longer the gap between the event 4 and the expense report, the more difficulties might -- might 5 occur in terms of pinning down what it was for? 6 A: That's right. 7 Q: All right. And in terms of your own 8 practises, I think the -- the -- the actual -- well I know, 9 the actual MFP policy indicates that these expense reports 10 are supposed to be submitted on a monthly basis? 11 A: That's right. 12 Q: And as I understand the evidence in your 13 case, that just didn't happen? 14 A: Yes. 15 Q: And did you have a -- any kind of system 16 as -- as -- as you incurred an expense, did you -- did you 17 record them as you went along, or just -- did you keep them 18 in your wallet, or what -- what did you do with -- with 19 expense chits as they built up? 20 A: I didn't really have a system, no. 21 Q: All right. And I -- I take it then from 22 time to time you would just -- and correct me if I'm wrong, I 23 want to understand the process to the extent it -- it hasn't 24 already been -- been explained. You would have an 25 accumulation of chits --

1 A: Yes. 2 Q: -- and they would be submitted? 3 A: Yes, I would do that. 4 Q: And sometimes several months would go by 5 before you got around to pulling those together? 6 A: That's right. 7 Q: And in terms of the -- the notations on 8 the expenses, on the chits, would there be times when you'd 9 put a name on after the fact, that is when you're trying to 10 pull them all together after some time has gone by? 11 A: Yes. 12 Q: And again, I'm not going to take the time 13 to go through specifics, but -- but we've -- we've seen the 14 number of questions about a particular expense chit in July 15 1999, on which Ms. Liczyk's name appears? 16 A: Yes. 17 Q: And again, without turning up the 18 document, I believe I'm correct in saying that -- that that 19 one (1) found its way onto your November expense report? 20 MADAM COMMISSIONER: I'm sorry, which one 21 (1)? 22 MR. DAVID MOORE: November. This is -- this 23 is the July -- 24 MADAM COMMISSIONER: Okay. 25 MR. DAVID MOORE: -- restaurant --

1 MADAM COMMISSIONER: Right. 2 MR. DAVID MOORE: -- I think it's July 7th -- 3 MADAM COMMISSIONER: Prego's? 4 MR. DAVID MOORE: Yes, that's right. 5 6 CONTINUED BY MR. DAVID MOORE: 7 Q: And I -- I -- in the interest of 8 expedition, I won't ask you to turn up the document, but I 9 believe I'm right in saying that that one (1) turned up on 10 your November expense account? 11 A: Okay. 12 Q: And is it -- is it possible that that's 13 one (1) that you might have put a name on after the fact, 14 when you're pulling all the expenses together, or do you have 15 any recollection? 16 A: I'm not really sure, I said I was pretty 17 focussed at the time on certain areas, so -- 18 Q: All right. Now, in terms of this expense 19 process, would it be fair to say that -- that from your 20 perspective, the process followed -- it wasn't like a fine 21 tooth comb kind of process applied, or there wasn't an audit 22 of every expense that you put in, in that sense, at least 23 from your perspective? 24 A: Yes, that's correct. 25 Q: All right.

1 (BRIEF PAUSE) 2 3 Q: And another specific example and there's 4 only a few that I'm going to ask you about, there were 5 questions about an expense chit involving Molson Arena in 6 Montreal and I believe, that was in April 1999, that was one 7 (1) where Mr. Jakobek's name, I believe, was on the expense 8 chit? 9 A: Yes, that's right. 10 Q: And you've given -- you've responded in 11 quite some length to Counsel about what your thought process 12 was and how you viewed putting names on chits and what not, 13 one (1) of the problems with the way of doing that, is it 14 could give the impression, sticking with that example, that 15 Mr. Jakobek was, in fact, in attendance at that hockey game, 16 in Montreal? 17 A: Yes, that's right. 18 Q: And that's one (1) of the difficulties 19 created by the way in which you approached the -- 20 A: Yes -- 21 Q: -- task of submitting your expenses? 22 A: That's correct, yes. 23 Q: And that's one of the difficulties that 24 makes it very hard to go back and reconstruct who was at what 25 particular event?

1 A: That's correct, yes. 2 Q: And you've indicated, as well, that there 3 would be occasions when personal expenses would creep in or 4 slip in to the expenses you submitted? 5 A: Yes. 6 Q: And one (1) example of that was the 7 birthday party that you were asked about -- 8 A: Yes -- 9 Q: -- and you acknowledged it was a personal 10 expense? 11 A: Right. 12 Q: And again, it's -- it's difficult to go 13 back and be sure whether there may be other examples of that, 14 but that's one (1) in particular that was identified in the 15 process you went through, is that fair? 16 A: Yes. 17 Q: All right. And so, all of that and you 18 know the process that you've attempted to go through and that 19 MFP has asked you to go through, that's made it very 20 difficult for you and MFP, to actually go back and determine 21 exactly how much money was spent in terms of entertaining 22 people from the City of Toronto? 23 A: Very difficult, yes. 24 Q: All right. Now, you were asked -- you 25 were asked a lot of questions about the City of Toronto RFQ

1 and the process of responding to the RFQ? 2 A: Yes. 3 Q: And you were, for example, asked a number 4 of questions about the yellow sheet contemporaneous with the 5 June 11th response? 6 A: Yes. 7 Q: And if I understand it correctly, you 8 didn't participate in the Investment Committee meetings or 9 discussions that may have taken place surrounding that yellow 10 sheet? 11 A: I did not, no. 12 Q: And is it fair to say, that your strong 13 point would not be analyzing the financial details or 14 ramifications of a bid like that? 15 A: That's correct, yes. 16 Q: And you were also asked a number of 17 questions about one (1) of the memoranda that was prepared in 18 that time frame. 19 And this is at Tab 14 of your document book 20 Volume 1. 21 22 (BRIEF PAUSE) 23 24 Q: Begdoc 23260. 25 A: Yes.

1 Q: And as I understand it, this is not a 2 document that you saw at the time? 3 A: No, I did not. 4 Q: And when you did see it, as I understand 5 your evidence, you thought that the reference to very strong 6 relations in the first paragraph was somewhat of an 7 overstatement? 8 A: Yes. 9 Q: All right and -- and in terms of the 10 specific person who drafted this, in the breakdown as to 11 whether it was Mr. Wilkinson or Ms. Payne, do you have any 12 direct knowledge of which -- 13 MADAM COMMISSIONER: I don't think -- 14 MR. DAVID MOORE: -- of those individuals? 15 MADAM COMMISSIONER: -- it was ever Ms. 16 Payne. I don't think there was any suggestion that Ms. Payne 17 ever drafted. 18 MR. DAVID MOORE: Yes, I know. That's why 19 I'm asking but -- 20 MADAM COMMISSIONER: Oh. 21 MR. DAVID MOORE: I -- I have some 22 anticipation of what Mr. Wilkinson's evidence may be on this 23 point -- 24 MADAM COMMISSIONER: Okay. 25 MR. DAVID MOORE: -- and -- and --

1 MADAM COMMISSIONER: I'm sorry. I thought 2 you said Ms. -- that Ms. Payne might have drafted it in your 3 question. I -- th -- if I got that wrong, I apologize. 4 MR. DAVID MOORE: Well, no. I -- I did 5 because I -- I anticipate -- 6 MADAM COMMISSIONER: All right. 7 MR. DAVID MOORE: -- there may be some 8 evidence coming on that as to -- 9 MADAM COMMISSIONER: All right. 10 MR. DAVID MOORE: -- who was involved. 11 MADAM COMMISSIONER: Got it. 12 MR. DAVID MOORE: And I'm just -- 13 MADAM COMMISSIONER: Right. 14 MR. DAVID MOORE: -- trying to -- it's quite 15 all right. 16 MADAM COMMISSIONER: Okay. 17 18 CONTINUED BY MR. DAVID MOORE: 19 Q: Do you any direct knowledge as to the -- 20 as to whether Mr. Wilkinson or Ms. Payne drafted this -- 21 A: Well, I -- 22 Q: -- particular document? 23 A: Well, like I said, the first time I saw 24 it was probably about, I don't know, ten (10) months ago. So 25 I do not have -- I -- I'm not sure if -- who had input or put

1 this together, really. 2 Q: All right. 3 A: I'm not positive of that. 4 Q: All right. And it -- it refers to the 5 issuance -- in the first line, to the issuance of an RFP for 6 leasing of nine thousand (9,000) D -- Dell desktops. 7 A: Yes. 8 Q: It may be a small point but in fact, I 9 believe it was an RFQ, request for quotations, that the City 10 issued. 11 A: That's right. 12 Q: And in terms of the number of desktops 13 referred to in the -- in that RFQ, your recollection is that 14 the RFQ actually says thirteen (13) to thou -- thirteen (13) 15 to fourteen thousand (14,000) desktops? 16 A: That's right. 17 18 (BRIEF PAUSE) 19 20 Q: And this -- under the approach to this 21 deal, it refers to one of the known opportunities being the 22 sale leaseback of four thousand (4,000) desktops? 23 A: Yes. 24 Q: I expect we'll hear more evidence about 25 this but -- but do you know the actual number of desktops

1 that was the subject of the sale leaseback? 2 A: I -- I am -- I don't know the exact 3 number, no. 4 Q: If I were to say it was -- it was not 5 four thousand (4,000) but -- but some other number that 6 someone else would be better able to provide that evidence 7 than you -- 8 A: Yes. 9 Q: All right. 10 A: That's correct. 11 Q: An -- and -- and ... 12 13 (BRIEF PAUSE) 14 15 Q: Was it -- there -- there's documents in 16 the record that some of them have been put to you in your 17 evidence that -- that appear to indicate that the City 18 personnel, immediately upon the -- the Council decision, 19 proceeded on the basis that -- that there was, almost 20 automatically, going to be a sale leaseback in respect of 21 assets that had been acquired already in 1999? 22 A: Yeah, I think they were all very clearly 23 aware of that. 24 Q: All right, was that any surprise to you? 25 A: No.

1 Q: And -- and -- and if someone had asked 2 you, is there going to be a sale leaseback or not, what would 3 your answer have been? What was your understanding? 4 A: I believed there was in regards to -- 5 going to be a sale leaseback. 6 Q: All right, and again, I appreciate you're 7 not the -- the -- the technical expert or the -- the legal 8 expert in these matters, but in terms of -- of the situation 9 where the City had already acquired a large number of 10 desktops by the time City Council dealt with the matter, 11 other than having a sale leaseback, were you aware of any 12 other way that those assets could be put on lease? 13 A: No, I was not aware of any other way. 14 Q: So, if you -- if you'd read this memo at 15 the time, and -- and someone had asked you, well, is this a 16 case where there's an opportunity that there might be a sale 17 leaseback, or is this a case where there's going to be one 18 (1), what would you have said? 19 A: I believe there's -- there's definitely 20 an opportunity to be -- for a sale leaseback. 21 Q: Were you surprised when there was a sale 22 leaseback? 23 A: No. 24 Q: All right. Now, there's other drafts or 25 at least one (1) other draft of this document, in -- in some

1 of the other exhibits, not your book, so I'm not going to 2 take you to that, but -- but the reference -- there's -- 3 sticking with -- with your book of documents, in the 4 interests of -- of expediting this, under Tab 16, we have 5 Begdoc 27616. 6 7 (BRIEF PAUSE) 8 9 Q: And that's the Q3/Q4 forecast, I believe 10 we've fixed the date as -- for that, as being October 15th, 11 1999? 12 A: Okay. 13 Q: And -- see that one (1) refers to a 14 strong relationship? 15 A: Yes. 16 Q: As of October 1999? 17 A: Yes. 18 Q: And just to follow up on something I 19 asked you about earlier, this whole question of 20 relationships, whether it's strong, very strong, it's a 21 subjective assessment, to find out who you're talking about 22 and what the context is? 23 A: Yes, it's subjective, yes. 24 Q: All right. And -- and -- and going back 25 to the response and the preparation of MFP's response to the

1 RFQ, we know that that was response was due on June 11th? 2 A: Yes. 3 Q: Did you ever get any confidential 4 documents or information pertaining to that process? 5 A: No. 6 Q: And I want to take you back to -- to your 7 -- your state of mind when you're involved in -- in -- in 8 delivering the MFP response. 9 I think you've indicated that the company's 10 past history with Mr. Andrew and the existence of a master 11 lease already would be a cause for some optimism? 12 A: Yes. 13 Q: And -- and the -- the belief that Mr. 14 Andrew -- Mr. Andrew was well disposed to leasing, that would 15 be a cause for optimism? 16 A: Yes, that's correct. 17 Q: And you indicated you weren't involved in 18 the pricing discussions or determining what the pricing would 19 be in the response? 20 A: I was not, no. 21 Q: All right. And but I -- I take it, would 22 it be fair to say you would have known that the Company had 23 decided to be aggressive in its pricing approach? 24 A: Yes, that was Irene's approach really. 25 Q: All right. And so without being involved

1 in the specifics, or necessarily knowing all the details of 2 that, you were aware that the Company was trying to make a 3 very competitive bid? 4 A: Yes. 5 Q: And I take it, would it be fair that that 6 too, would be a reason to be optimistic in conjunction with 7 the other reasons I mentioned? 8 A: Yes, that's correct. 9 Q: And by June 11th, you had tried to develop 10 and had developed some contacts with some of the other people 11 at the City of Toronto beyond Mr. Andrew? 12 A: Yes. 13 Q: And we've heard the evidence about Ms. 14 Liczyk? 15 A: Yes. 16 Q: And you'd had a number of contacts with 17 Mr. Jakobek? 18 A: Yes. 19 Q: And you were optimistic about the 20 situation based upon those contacts, is that fair? 21 A: Yes. 22 Q: And you described the process on the day 23 that the bid was actually delivered when you and Mr. Pessione 24 attended at the City of Toronto? 25 A: Yes.

1 Q: And again without covering all that ground 2 again, that place you went was where -- it seemed to be a 3 central repository for various bids that were being submitted 4 that day? 5 A: Yes. I think there was another -- other 6 bids for other -- it wasn't just that. 7 Q: And -- and you went and got it in under 8 the wire and had to check in and what not, that was -- that 9 was the scene at the time? 10 A: Yeah, it was very exciting for us. 11 Q: All right. Exciting and maybe a little 12 nerve wracking to be so close to the deadline? 13 A: I think we always do that, just in pulling 14 things together. 15 Q: All right. And in terms of your state of 16 mind when you -- when you stayed around with Mr. Pessione and 17 realized that there was going to be a public reading of the 18 bids -- 19 A: Yes -- 20 Q: -- as I understood it, you listened to 21 that, and it was your belief that MFP had put in the lowest 22 bid? 23 A: Yes, that was very clear. 24 Q: All right. So that apart from the pre- 25 existing master least, apart from the history with Mr.

1 Andrew, apart from Mr. Andrew's apparent favorable 2 inclination towards leasing, and apart from your efforts to 3 develop contacts and relations with the other individuals, in 4 addition to all that, you knew that the aggressive pricing 5 approach that MFP had followed, looked like you had the 6 lowest? 7 A: Yes. 8 Q: That would be another reason, perhaps the 9 most important reason to be very optimistic about what the 10 outcome might be? 11 A: Well, I thought it was the most important 12 reason. 13 Q: All right. But that was another cause for 14 optimism? 15 A: Yes. 16 Q: And all of those things would point in 17 favour of -- of the conclusion that MFP stood a very good 18 chance of being successful, at least for some, if not all of 19 the business covered by the RFQ? 20 A: That's correct, yes. 21 Q: All right. And it was pointed out 22 yesterday from the phone records to the general 392 City of 23 Toronto number, or set of numbers -- 24 A: Yes -- 25 Q: -- that you had placed a few calls to one

1 (1) of the numbers identified, or the number identified in 2 the RFQ as the contact number? 3 A: Yes. 4 Q: So, I appreciate you don't have any 5 specific recollection of doing that, is that fair? 6 A: Yeah, I do not have a clear recollection 7 of that. 8 Q: All right and -- and -- and but you -- I 9 think you agreed with the suggestion that given the fact that 10 number appears in your cell phone records, you must have 11 placed that call and you were trying to follow closely what 12 was going on? 13 A: Sure. I was anxious and excited and -- 14 Q: All right. 15 A: Anxious, really, more than anything. 16 Q: All right and -- and -- and so it would 17 seem logical that you would have got that contact number from 18 the City RFQ? 19 A: Yes. 20 Q: All right. And -- and just before I 21 leave that, Tab 6 in your book. That is Volume 1 of the Domi 22 Document books, Exhibit 14. Begdoc 6104 is the City of 23 Toronto RFQ and if I could just ask you to turn to Article 24 2.9. The Begdoc reference is 6114 and this is dealing with 25 communication.

1 Do you see that -- 2 A: Yes. 3 Q: -- paragraph? I going to suggest you -- 4 ask you to hold that spot and go to the next Tab 7, this is 5 Begdoc 23413. It's the MFP response and if you go to, within 6 that second document, Page 23430 and it's evident from that 7 that you were the person identified as the primary 8 liaison/contact with the City's representative for both pre 9 and post-submission communication and ongoing consideration 10 with regard to the contract. 11 A: Yes. 12 Q: You see that? 13 A: Yes. 14 Q: Now, would I -- would it be fair th -- to 15 say that you don't have a specific recollection of reading 16 these particular paragraphs in the way that I'm asking you to 17 read them now? 18 A: That'd be fair, yes. 19 Q: All right. Would it also be fair to say 20 that -- that you had some idea that you were the person 21 identified if there was going to be contact coming back from 22 the City? Did you know that? 23 A: Yes. 24 Q: All right and -- and with that in mind 25 and I'm going to your state of mind at the time, did you, in

1 that context, consider there was anything wrong or prohibited 2 in terms of post-bid contacts in connection with this -- this 3 proposal? 4 A: No, I did not. 5 Q: All right. 6 MR. DAVID MOORE: Commissioner, that would be 7 a convenient point to break for the morning recess. 8 9 (BRIEF PAUSE) 10 11 MADAM COMMISSIONER: We'll break until ten 12 (10) to. 13 REGISTRAR: The Inquiry will recess until ten 14 (10) to 12:00. 15 16 --- Upon recessing at 11:31 a.m. 17 18 --- Upon resuming at 11:50 a.m. 19 20 THE REGISTRAR: The Inquiry will resume, 21 please be seated. 22 MS. DAINA GROSKAUFMANIS: Madam Commissioner, 23 just before -- I'm sorry. 24 MADAM COMMISSIONER: You don't look at all 25 like Mr. Moore.

1 MS. DAINA GROSKAUFMANIS: I'll take that as a 2 compliment. Just before we begin, the court reporter has 3 alerted me that there are a couple of other tabs that we've 4 added to Dash Domi Volume 2 over the course of the break, and 5 yesterday. And I thought that should just be cleared up on 6 the record. 7 MADAM COMMISSIONER: Okay. 8 MS. DAINA GROSKAUFMANIS: Tab 89, which 9 everyone should have, is the e-mail from Kim Harle dated July 10 the 14th, '99, that Mr. Moore referred to yesterday. This is 11 the document that was previously removed from our database -- 12 MADAM COMMISSIONER: Oh, yes, okay. 13 MS. DAINA GROSKAUFMANIS: -- and which has 14 now been included. 15 Tab 90 and 91, are documents that Mr. Moore 16 provided this morning, that he may require in his cross- 17 examination of Mr. Domi. They're already in our data base, 18 and they have -- it's Begdoc number COT0-012267, and Tab 91 19 is COT0-012290. So those are Tabs 90 and 91, they've been 20 distributed to all the parties as well. 21 MADAM COMMISSIONER: Okay. Thank you. Mr. 22 Moore...? 23 24 (BRIEF PAUSE) 25

1 CONTINUED BY MR. DAVID MOORE: 2 Q: Mr. Domi, I was at the point in the 3 chronology dealing with the -- the June 11th response and -- 4 and the aftermath of -- of that. 5 A: Okay. 6 Q: Before I -- I leave that -- that part of 7 the chronology, you've been asked a lot of questions about a 8 letter that was sent with the RFQ addressed Dear Wanda? 9 A: Yes. 10 Q: You recall that? 11 A: Yes, I do. 12 Q: And in terms of -- of when that letter 13 would have been prepared, you've given your evidence about 14 how the -- the process unfolded on the morning of June 11th, 15 was that letter something that was prepared long in advance, 16 or was it prepared as one (1) of the last things that was 17 done, or do you -- or do you recall? 18 A: I'm sure it was probably one (1) of the 19 last things that was done, yes. 20 Q: And -- and in regard to your evidence 21 that -- that you raced down to the QEW (phonetic) and -- got 22 to the point of deposit, I think four (4) minutes before the 23 deadline. I take it that would have been a very hectic and 24 rushed morning? 25 A: Yes.

1 Q: And -- and in terms of that particular 2 letter, I'm not going to go through all the questions you've 3 been asked about who it's addressed to and a description of 4 your -- of your position. 5 Going back to your state of mind at the time, 6 was there any intention on your part in delivering that 7 letter to try to deceive anybody or fool anybody at the City 8 of Toronto? 9 A: No, not at all. 10 Q: No. And -- and in your document book, 11 could I ask you to -- to turn up Tab 4 for me, which is 12 Begdoc 39008, sorry, this is in the Domi Document Book, 13 Volume 1. 14 15 (BRIEF PAUSE) 16 17 Q: Do you have that -- 18 A: Yes. 19 Q: -- document? And -- and the coding of 20 this document or the inputting of this document indicates 21 that it's a document that came from the City of Toronto 22 files? 23 A: Yes. 24 Q: And do you see your card there? 25 A: Yes, I do.

1 Q: Do you know how your card got in the City 2 of Toronto files? 3 A: I do not. 4 Q: Did you carry a card around with you? 5 A: Yes. 6 Q: Well, did you from time to time give out 7 your card? 8 A: Often I did. 9 Q: All right. Would it be reasonable to 10 assume that you would have given out your card to the City of 11 Toronto in the course of your dealings with them? 12 A: Yes. 13 Q: And what does that -- that card describe 14 you as being? 15 A: Account Executive. 16 Q: Yes. Now, dealing with the -- the period 17 after June 11th, there's been some evidence about a -- a 18 blackout or a -- a convention of -- of some kind of blackout. 19 And you gave evidence, you were asked yesterday whether 20 anyone at MFP had mentioned anything to you in terms of any 21 sensitivity about contacts with Mr. Andrew after June 11th? 22 A: Yes. 23 Q: And I understood the -- the gist of your 24 evidence, when asked that question, to be that you may have 25 been told something about that, but when asked further, you

1 couldn't recall any specifics or any -- any particular 2 conversation; is that fair? 3 A: That's fair, yes. 4 Q: All right. So I take it there was 5 something said, but you can't be -- you can't help us about 6 what was said? 7 A: No, I'm not -- 8 Q: All right. 9 A: -- certain, no. 10 Q: And this -- this question about this -- 11 this apparent convention of sorts, about a blackout period or 12 -- or something of that nature, was that something that was 13 clear to you at the time what that meant? 14 A: Not really, it didn't really ever make 15 sense to me. 16 Q: All right, did -- was it ever -- did you 17 ever see that written down anywhere? 18 A: No, never, no. 19 Q: And -- 20 MADAM COMMISSIONER: Can I just ask on that, 21 when you say it didn't make any sense to you, I'm not sure if 22 you're saying that you were told about it, but it didn't make 23 sense to you, or that it wasn't really clear to you or -- 24 THE WITNESS: Commissioner, just -- it's in 25 my view, I just didn't really -- didn't really make much --

1 the blackout period, it's -- it's kind of one (1) of those 2 underlying rules like maybe, I don't know, but I just don't 3 know what no communication -- zero (0) communication, phone 4 calls, I mean can't -- like I -- I never really could 5 understand what a blackout period would mean. That's my 6 personal view really. 7 MADAM COMMISSIONER: So did you ask anybody 8 what it meant, someone who was -- had more experience with 9 these bids. Do you recall asking anyone? 10 THE WITNESS: I'm sure I -- I may have asked 11 somebody about it or had some little -- well, I'm sure, I -- 12 I must have asked somebody, more importantly, I may have 13 discussed it with John Rollock, who we worked together with 14 these. And he probably made it very clear to me -- 15 MADAM COMMISSIONER: Do you remember him 16 making it very clear to you, are you -- 17 THE WITNESS: No. 18 MADAM COMMISSIONER: -- I just can't tell, 19 from the tone of your voice -- 20 THE WITNESS: No, not really -- 21 MADAM COMMISSIONER: -- it sounds like you're 22 guessing? 23 THE WITNESS: -- I -- yeah, I'm -- I 24 shouldn't say that, I'm -- I'm sure someone told me or 25 discussed it with me, Commissioner.

1 MADAM COMMISSIONER: Okay. 2 THE WITNESS: But my personal view, I just -- 3 I never could understand what a blackout period -- and my -- 4 that's my personal view, would mean. 5 MADAM COMMISSIONER: Okay, thanks. 6 7 CONTINUED BY MR. DAVID MOORE: 8 Q: Just -- just on that -- that point, I was 9 asking you questions before the break in terms of specific 10 clauses in the RFQ about communications, and a -- and a 11 reference in the response, both of which appeared to 12 contemplate there could be, and there might well be 13 communications and you'd be the designated person? 14 A: Yes. 15 Q: Now, I'm trying to take your mind back to 16 see if it sheds any light on the Commissioner's questions. 17 Was that -- one (1) might say that you have 18 something about a blackout and yet you have written materials 19 that refer to ongoing communications of some kind. 20 Do you recall, and if you don't, so be it, but 21 I just -- to follow up on the Commissioner's questions, was 22 that a source of any confusion in particular, in your mind, 23 that on one (1) hand, it looks like there can be 24 communications, but on the other hand, there's some kind of 25 blackout convention?

1 Again, I don't want to -- it's important that 2 you give your recollection if you have one, rather than just 3 adopt what I'm suggesting to you. 4 But does that assist you at all, in terms of 5 recalling any of the confusion or not? 6 A: I mean, yeah, that's just what I mean. I 7 mean if you're going to -- if you have questions to ask, I 8 don't know what point they cut it off. Like I said, it never 9 made much sense to me. Or -- 10 Q: All right. 11 A: -- or -- that's all. 12 Q: And I think you acknowledged yesterday and 13 again this morning, when I asked you about the point, that in 14 relation to your calls to that 392 number, that you were 15 trying to keep on top or trying to follow what was happening? 16 A: Yes, I definitely -- most definitely was 17 doing that. 18 Q: All right. And I understood from the 19 questions and answers yesterday that you did have some 20 understanding that there was a process involved that would be 21 followed at the City? 22 A: Yeah. 23 Q: That there would be some evaluation? 24 A: Yes. 25 Q: And that that evaluation would be passed

1 on to the committee? 2 A: Okay. 3 Q: Was your understanding that specific? 4 A: Yes. 5 Q: There was reference yesterday to the 6 Policy and Finance Committee? 7 A: Yes. 8 Q: All right. And then you understood, as 9 well, that it was going to go to City Council at some point? 10 A: Yes, after the staff got through it, yes 11 it would. 12 Q: All right. And so -- 13 A: Go through the channels, up the ladder, I 14 guess. 15 Q: And do you recall where it was or how it 16 was that you obtained that -- that understanding such as it 17 was, about the process? 18 A: I'm sure just discussions with our -- 19 people I work with. 20 Q: Yes. And the City website -- and this is 21 not in evidence and I didn't have the document printed and I 22 may want to put it in evidence later, but I can indicate that 23 my understanding is, that the City Council was meeting in the 24 summer of 1999, on July the 6th and then July 27th to 29th, 25 and then August 31st.

1 That's, I believe, what the website indicates. 2 Do you recall whether you made any inquiries about the timing 3 of potential City Council meetings? 4 A: I'm sure I did at some point. I don't 5 know, I just -- because it was new to me, I always found it 6 interesting. 7 Q: And you knew from what you've described, 8 whether you new every last detail, but the culmination, end 9 point of the City process was that it would go to City 10 Council? 11 A: I think essentially all the work is done, 12 once it gets to Council it just kind of -- it's blessing or 13 rejected, I think, I'm not sure really. 14 Q: But, ultimately, it's City Council that 15 makes the decision? 16 A: Yes. 17 Q: And logic would indicate if what I've said 18 about the timing that summer, that it would be going to City 19 Council in July or August? 20 A: Right. 21 Q: Do you remember directing your mind to 22 that issue, at all? 23 A: No, I do not. 24 Q: All right. And when you were asked 25 yesterday about some of your phone calls to Mr. Andrew?

1 A: Yes. 2 Q: I believe the gist of your response was 3 that, again you're not sure of the content of those phone 4 calls, I'm talking now the period June 11th to the end of 5 July? 6 A: Yes. 7 Q: All right. That said, I understood your 8 evidence to be that you may have been making inquiries of him 9 as to where the process was at or where things stood? 10 A: Yes, I'm sure I did that. 11 Q: All right. That would be a logical 12 inquiry for you to make? 13 A: As far as I was concerned, yes. 14 Q: I take it in fairness, you don't have 15 specific recollection of a particular inquiry, but you're 16 trying to reconstruct things when you offer that evidence? 17 A: Yes. 18 Q: All right. And of course the context was 19 that the City was responding or was dealing with a set of 20 bids that had a -- a ninety (90) day time period in terms of 21 the quotations? 22 A: That's correct. 23 Q: All right. So, it would be I -- I take 24 it, common knowledge that one (1) would be expecting a 25 decision at some point over that summer, logic would dictate;

1 is that fair? 2 A: Yes. 3 Q: And again, I'm trying to reconstruct 4 things, and again, I don't want you just to adopt my 5 suggestion if it doesn't -- 6 A: Okay. 7 Q: -- accord with your recollection, it's 8 important -- 9 A: Okay. 10 Q: -- that you -- you try to assist the 11 Commissioner with what you can and can't remember. 12 A: Sure. 13 Q: But -- but it would seem logical to make 14 inquiries about when the timing of that might -- might be 15 coming down? 16 A: Most definitely, yes. 17 Q: All right. 18 19 (BRIEF PAUSE) 20 21 Q: And is it possible that in your calls to 22 Mr. Jakobek in that time frame, you may have inquired with 23 him about the same matter, as to what the status was or what 24 the timing might be of the matter going forward? 25 A: I may have done that.

1 Q: Do you have any specific recollection? 2 A: No, I do not. 3 Q: All right. And the cell phone records, 4 as I recall the detail, I won't ask you to turn them up, but 5 my recollection is they -- they appear to indicate that in 6 this time frame I'm asking about, that is June 11th through 7 the end of July, there don't appear to be any calls to Wanda 8 Liczyk? 9 A: I -- I guess that's the case, yes. 10 Q: All right, did you -- as a result of 11 whatever contacts you may or may not have had with Mr. 12 Anderson (sic) or Mr. Jakobek in that time frame, did you 13 know whether Ms. Liczyk had any role or did not have any role 14 in the staff evaluation or staff report? 15 A: No, I did not know if she had any role. 16 I -- I -- being at the level she was I don't know that she 17 would have a role of evaluating. 18 Q: I anticipate that the evidence will 19 indicate that she had some role in that, indeed she's 20 identified on the document. But I -- I -- whatever the 21 evidence may ultimately suggest on that, that wasn't 22 something that -- that was told to you at the time -- 23 A: No. 24 Q: -- to your recollection? 25 A: No.

1 Q: And -- and did you know, and if you don't 2 remember that's fine, but -- but I -- I just want to -- want 3 to see if you do. Did you have any belief or -- or 4 understanding, I'm talking now in -- in June/July of 1999, as 5 to whether Ms. Liczyk was favourably disposed towards 6 leasing, as opposed to some other form of financing? 7 I've asked you that question about Mr. Andrew, 8 but -- but did you have any -- can you assist in terms of 9 what your state of mind was with Ms. Liczyk's position in 10 that regard? 11 A: No, I'd probably have to say that the 12 best option for the City was probably her intention really. 13 But -- 14 MADAM COMMISSIONER: I'm sorry, the best 15 option was? 16 THE WITNESS: Whatever the best option for 17 the City was, Commissioner, I -- I'd like to think being the 18 CFO, I don't -- I can't say that she was for leasing or not, 19 really. 20 21 CONTINUED BY MR. DAVID MOORE: 22 Q: You have no recollection of her saying 23 anything to you in any of the contacts you've had up to that 24 point that -- that would -- would have told you one (1) way 25 or the other?

1 A: No, I -- I do not. 2 Q: And -- and she had been identified as one 3 (1) of the important people to be in front of or make contact 4 with, we've heard the evidence about that -- 5 A: Yes. 6 Q: -- correct? 7 A: Yes. 8 Q: And her views about whether leasing was a 9 good idea or a bad idea, given her capacity as Treasurer, 10 that could well be important