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


1 APPEARANCES 2 Ronald Manes (np) )Commission Counsel 3 Patrick Moore (np) ) 4 Daina Groskaufmanis ) 5 Linda Rothstein (np) )City of Toronto 6 Lily Harmer (np) ) 7 Robert Centa (np) ) 8 Gordon Capern ) 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 Jennifer Searle (np) ) 23 Tony Ross )John Rollock 24 Joyce Ihamaki )Registrar 25


1 TABLE OF CONTENTS 2 Page 3 4 Exhibits 4 5 6 KARIM KASSAM, Sworn, 7 Examination-in-Chief by 8 Ms. Daina Groskaufmanis 35 9 Cross-Examination by Mr. David Moore 125 10 Cross-Examination by Mr. Gordon Capern 153 11 Cross-Examination by Mr. Hugh Mackenzie 168 12 Re-Cross-Examination by Mr. David Moore 197 13 14 JOHN ARCHIBALD ROLLOCK, Sworn 15 Examination In-Chief by 16 Ms. Daina Groskaufmanis 201 17 18 Certificate of Transcript 260 19 20 21 22 23 24 25


1 EXHIBITS 2 No. Description Page 3 4 36 Bound documents entitled 5 "Mr. Karim Kassam", 6 Tabs 1-6 29 7 (Tab 4 added on page 43 8 and tabs 5 and 6 on page 200) 9 10 37 Bound documents entitled 11 "Mr. John Rollock", 12 Tabs 1 to 3 202 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 session. 4 Please be seated. 5 6 (BRIEF PAUSE) 7 8 MADAM COMMISSIONER: Good morning, Ms. 9 Groskaufmanis. 10 MS. DAINA GROSKAUFMANIS: Good morning, 11 Commissioner. 12 MADAM COMMISSIONER: Good morning everyone. 13 After a two (2) week break, I hope we're all refreshed and 14 ready to roll. 15 MS. DAINA GROSKAUFMANIS: Madam Commissioner, 16 we had expected to start with Mr. Kassam this morning. 17 MADAM COMMISSIONER: Okay. 18 MS. DAINA GROSKAUFMANIS: Mr. -- 19 MADAM COMMISSIONER: Maybe before you start 20 with Mr. Kassam, can you let me know what's been happening in 21 the last two (2) weeks? 22 MS. DAINA GROSKAUFMANIS: Yes, I was -- I was 23 intending to go through the documents because what it'll do 24 is give us a little bit of time. We just contacted Mr. 25 Kassam on his cell phone. He's at Coxwell and O'Connor and


1 is expected to be here very shortly. 2 MADAM COMMISSIONER: I saw a car just pull 3 into the driveway so that might be him. 4 MS. DAINA GROSKAUFMANIS: All right. Then, 5 perhaps, then we could just deal with the document deduction 6 issues and I'll -- I'll advise you with what has happened 7 with respect to that since we adjourned on May the 22nd. 8 And when we adjourned two (2) weeks, we had 9 advised you that the City of Toronto, in the course of their 10 investigation of the allegations raised by Ms. Leggieri, had 11 discovered a significant number of new documents and after 12 combing through some twenty-five thousand (25,000) documents, 13 most of them being e-mails, the City determined there were 14 roughly a thousand (1,000), perhaps a little bit less, that 15 related to the allegations that were raised by Ms. Leggieri. 16 And Ms. Rothstein, on May the 22nd, advised 17 you that the City did not believe that they would be in a 18 position to have all that documentation that is relevant to 19 those witnesses available until the end of the following week 20 and anticipating that there would be some volume of new 21 documents to move through, she asked that we adjourn for a 22 period of one week in advance of our regularly scheduled 23 break to give time for all those documents to be produced and 24 give Counsel an opportunity to review them. 25 In the course of that investigation, the City


1 also discovered potential sources of other documents that may 2 or may not have been disclosed and already produced and to 3 deal with those, we also requested some time to deal with 4 them. What I'd like to take you through is what we've found 5 and what we've produced with respect to the allegations made 6 by Ms. Leggieri, as well as the other documents and then some 7 other documents or issues that have arisen. 8 So first with respect to the allegations -- 9 documents relating to the allegations raised by Ms. Leggieri. 10 As I said, the City identified approximately one thousand 11 (1,000) new documents. Most of those documents, by far the 12 bulk of them, I think around seven hundred (700) or seven 13 hundred and fifty (750) were produced to all Counsel, 14 including Counsel for Ms. Leggieri and Ms. Bulko on Friday, 15 May the 30th and on Monday, June the 3rd. 16 There were some additional documents in the 17 neighbourhood of around two hundred (200) that were produced 18 to all Counsel last Friday. The Commission Counsel is 19 completing our investigation into the allegations raised by 20 Ms. Leggieri and we expect to be in a position to recommence 21 with Ms. Leggieri's evidence late this week and Ms. Bulko and 22 perhaps some other witnesses that are related to those 23 allegations will be called into early next week. 24 MADAM COMMISSIONER: That's presuming we 25 finish the witnesses that were on the website or who's --


1 MS. DAINA GROSKAUFMANIS: That's right. I -- 2 MADAM COMMISSIONER: Okay. 3 MS. DAINA GROSKAUFMANIS: My expectation is 4 that the witnesses who were on the website for this week will 5 probably be finished by around Wednesday. 6 MADAM COMMISSIONER: That's -- no offense, Ms. 7 Groskaufmanis, but I've learned in the last six (6) months 8 not to trust completely the estimates of Counsel, much as I 9 would like to but if we are finished by Wednesday with these 10 witnesses, great. 11 MS. DAINA GROSKAUFMANIS: Let me go, then, 12 into the other documents. I just want to -- the documents 13 related to the allegations raised by Ms. Leggieri were new. 14 They never would have -- in the ordinary course, these are 15 not documents that would have been producible or that anyone 16 would have thought to produce in the first place. 17 The other documents are also documents that 18 were mostly stored in electronic form although there may be 19 some paper copies and may include some e-mails. Most of the 20 documents, as we've learned, relate to production out of the 21 Contract Management Office. 22 Initially, we also thought there may be some 23 significant document production or some document production 24 that was incomplete with respect to the Department of 25 Finance. On further investigation that we've undertaken over


1 the last two (2) weeks, we don't think that's actually the 2 case. 3 While there may be some documents, we're 4 talking mostly about a hand full. What I'd like to do, is 5 tell you the process we went through and give you some idea 6 of what we've been able to isolate and what's been produced 7 to Counsel. 8 We obtained electronic lists of all of the 9 documents and all of the folders to which City of Toronto 10 witness, significant City of Toronto witnesses had access to. 11 And your Counsel went through these lists, 12 highlighting documents that in their view, might be relevant. 13 I want to emphasize, we were simply looking at file names and 14 how they were saved. 15 And so we isolated a significant number of 16 documents. Then with the assistance of IT staff from the 17 City of Toronto, who have been very, very helpful, those 18 documents were, sort of, parsed aside from the large group of 19 documents to which witnesses had access, and were culled for 20 duplicates, were culled based on some date parameters, 21 documents created very recently, in our view probably weren't 22 going to be as relevant as obviously documents that were 23 created when these matters arose. 24 And then your Commission Counsel actually went 25 through them. And tried to see if they were already


1 produced. 2 By far, the majority of those documents have 3 already been produced to us, some have not. We took a fairly 4 stringent review on the basis of relevance. 5 We tried to really look for documents, at this 6 stage of the -- at this stage of the Inquiry, for documents 7 that were actually going to be helpful and were not simply 8 repetitive of information that we already had or were 9 actually going to be helpful to try to answer some of the 10 questions that this Inquiry is asked to look at. 11 From that, we looked at all of the documents 12 and we created a very, very small group of documents, which 13 we've advised the City that, in our view, are relevant and 14 those documents are being sent to Platinum Legal for scanning 15 and for coding, and will be distributed to all Counsel in the 16 ordinary course. 17 We recognize that that's not a perfect system, 18 in that, if a document wasn't saved with a file name that we 19 thought might be relevant to this Inquiry, we may not have 20 caught it. 21 For that reason, we have a number of checks on 22 the system. First, Counsel for the City of Toronto, is 23 actually also doing their own review, I understand. 24 Current and past employees from the City of 25 Toronto, are also reviewing their own folders and their own


1 e-mail boxes, to produce what is relevant. 2 As we found out, many of these -- much of this 3 production is already gone on and as a -- as sort of a 4 further check on the system or to make sure the production 5 process is thorough, staff from City Legal at the City of 6 Toronto, are sitting down with these witnesses and having a 7 fairly detailed discussion with them, about what kind of 8 documents they should be producing, what is relevant, where 9 we expect there may be some holes or gaps to fill, if there 10 is some -- if their documents may arise around certain 11 issues. 12 So what we actually have is your Commission 13 has checked them, Counsel for the City of Toronto is checking 14 them, Counsel -- individual employees at the City of Toronto 15 are checking them, as well as, some former employees of the 16 City of Toronto are also checking through these documents. 17 We're trying to make sure that that document production is as 18 complete and as thorough as it possibly can be. 19 But, while there are so many steps that we're 20 taking and that we have been taking over the last fourteen 21 (14) days, I want to emphasize to you Madam Commissioner, 22 that this is not something where we suddenly found that there 23 are thousands and thousands of documents, that have not been 24 produced. 25 When I'm talking about handfuls, your


1 Commission Counsel, identified less than a hundred (100) 2 documents that we thought might be -- might actually be 3 helpful to this Inquiry. 4 So, it's really a very small -- it's been a 5 grand undertaking, but, for a relatively small group of 6 documents, which were actually quite -- we were happy with 7 that result. 8 Document production has been much more 9 complete than we originally expected, not to say that there 10 aren't holes that have to be filled. 11 There are some outstanding document requests 12 from parties with standing and Commission Counsel has been 13 copied on some of these letters, from time to time. These 14 are letters that are mostly going to the City of Toronto 15 asking them to produce -- to produce documents. 16 We've spoken with Counsel for the City of 17 Toronto and we've asked them to be diligent in responding to 18 these requests and if there arise issues of privilege or 19 relevance, we've also asked them to specifically bring those 20 concerns to your Commission Counsel in a very timely manner 21 and we'll try to see if we can -- if we can resolve those 22 issues informally. 23 I think everyone agrees that no one wants to 24 see the Commission's Hearings delayed because of any issues 25 related to document production.


1 That all being said, we recognize that 2 document production is an ongoing basis -- is an ongoing 3 process. Documents we did not think were relevant have 4 become relevant as some issues have developed and your 5 Counsel and Counsel for the parties have every interest to 6 ensure that this production is complete, that it's timely and 7 it's co -- very cost-effective. 8 If I can tell you, we received extraordinary 9 cooperation from everyone, all the Counsel for parties with 10 standing. For that we're very grateful. And the new 11 productions we're going to try to roll -- we're going to try 12 to keep pushing out on a rolling basis so there's not going 13 to be a massive influx of documents at -- at the end. 14 Accordingly, we've also tried to plan our 15 witnesses for the next while to take into account what might 16 be some new documents that arrive. The plan for this week, 17 Madam Commissioner, is to hear from Mr. Kassam, followed by 18 Mr. Rollock -- 19 MADAM COMMISSIONER: Who's here, by the way. 20 Mr. Kassam is here. Right? 21 MS. DAINA GROSKAUFMANIS: Mr. Kassam followed 22 by Mr. Rollock, Dan O'Neil who was the salesperson with -- 23 for Bombardier and from Jim Hart. Thereafter, our plan is to 24 hear from Ms. Leggieri, Ms. Bulko and perhaps some other 25 Contract Management Office witnesses with respect to the


1 allegations that were raised by Ms. Leggieri. We will be 2 dealing only with those allegations and not with respect to 3 substantive administrative or procedural issues arising out 4 of the Contract Management Office for the reasons the 5 document production with respect to the Contract Management 6 Office, it will still be somewhat ongoing at that time. 7 MADAM COMMISSIONER: Explain that last part to 8 me again? 9 MS. DAINA GROSKAUFMANIS: Is -- we will -- 10 MADAM COMMISSIONER: With respect to -- 11 MS. DAINA GROSKAUFMANIS: The issues related 12 to how the Contract Management Office worked, how they 13 administered the leases, what the Contract Management Office 14 was doing or not doing will be dealt with at some later time. 15 The witnesses -- there's some overlap with witnesses. For 16 example, Ms. Bulko -- Ms. Bulko's evidence is relevant to the 17 allegations that have been raised by Ms. Leggieri. Her 18 evidence will also be relevant as manager of the -- of the 19 Contract Management Office. 20 Counsel for these witnesses, as well as the 21 witnesses themselves, have been advised that they may very 22 well be re-called. We're simply not in the position because 23 the Contract Management Office is the one area where there 24 may be some new documents that will be produced. We'll 25 simply not be in a position to produce those documents, let's


1 say, by today so that we could start next week dealing with 2 the CMO issues in -- 3 MADAM COMMISSIONER: I see. Okay. 4 MS. DAINA GROSKAUFMANIS: The issues with 5 respect to Ms. Leggieri's allegations were produced here two 6 (2) weeks ago. 7 MADAM COMMISSIONER: Okay. 8 MS. DAINA GROSKAUFMANIS: So we're in a much 9 better position. Everyone -- everyone knows we've, sort of, 10 parsed those two (2) areas apart. 11 MADAM COMMISSIONER: Okay. 12 MS. DAINA GROSKAUFMANIS: Thereafter, once we, 13 sort of -- once we've completed the -- the allegations -- the 14 evidence with respect to the allegations raised by Ms. 15 Leggieri, we're going to move on to some other area. Right 16 now, our plan is to move on to witnesses related to Oracle 17 Corporations. 18 A few other matters and starting back in 19 substantively either with the Contract Management Office 20 witnesses or the Department of Finance witnesses early in 21 July. I say either, we'll just -- we'll see how far when the 22 document production is more complete. 23 Assuming the document production is already 24 complete or very close to complete for Finance witnesses, 25 we'll probably start the Finance piece in early July. That's


1 -- that's sort of the timing that we're looking at over the 2 next couple days. 3 It's been a huge undertaking for -- for 4 everyone. Everyone has been very, very cooperative. The 5 good news is, we actually haven't found that there is a big 6 problem. What we've found is there -- production has been 7 very complete and that staff of the City of Toronto have, to 8 a great extent, turned over documents. 9 There are some that will continue to go along 10 but we have had rolling production in this Inquiry all along. 11 We're trying to minimize -- minimize any future issues that 12 might arise so there obviously are no gaps in this Hearing 13 about -- which everyone is complete -- concerned, is that we 14 are fair and that we can continue to produce in a timely and 15 in a cost-effective way. 16 MADAM COMMISSIONER: Okay. Mr. Capern, did 17 you want to say anything about -- 18 MR. GORDON CAPERN: I would like to, 19 Commissioner, with your permission. There's a couple of 20 points I would like to emphasize from the City's perspective. 21 The first is that our focus -- just to discuss 22 our focus over the last two (2) weeks to take advantage of 23 the time we had off was to do two (2) things. The first was 24 to make sure that the documents with respect to the CM -- 25 with respect to the reprisal allegations raised by Ms.


1 Leggieri were dealt with as expeditiously as possible. To 2 that end the -- as Ms. Groskaufmanis advised you, those 3 documents went into production about ten (10) days ago, 4 thereabouts. 5 There had been some additional follow up since 6 then, in addition we have completed and distributed the -- a 7 series of affidavits that have gone to all of the Counsel 8 with respect to the evidence of a group of witnesses from the 9 CMO. 10 So, that was priority number one (1). 11 Priority number two (2), was to re-visit with the City 12 employees, the fullness of their production. 13 We -- went to the -- as many of the individual 14 City employees as we could to have fairly targeted 15 discussions with them about the extent to which they've made 16 documentary production and to isolate to the best extent 17 possible, where there may have been, individual gaps. 18 The -- our efforts in that regard, have 19 isolated I think, with each of those individual -- with 20 certain of those individuals that there are small gaps in 21 production, certainly with certain of the finance witnesses, 22 we have already located and are organizing for production a 23 small number of additional documents that will be going in 24 over the next several days, into production. 25 With the CMO witnesses, the -- it's fair to


1 say that there were, in addition to the e-mail documentation 2 that relates to the reprisal allegation, there are also 3 additional e-mail communications relating to the ongoing 4 management of the CMO that did not get into production. 5 And that is our next priority, to get those 6 into production, as soon as possible. I can tell you that 7 the staff in City Legal are working quite aggressively this 8 week with, at least of the two (2) CMO witnesses, to ensure 9 that we've also captured their existing file documents, and 10 we hope that those documents will be in production in the 11 coming days. 12 So, we do echo Commission Counsel's 13 observation that with this additional shaking of the trees, 14 if I can call it that, we've succeeded in getting additional 15 documents in that we think will satisfy a substantial 16 production from the City's perspective. 17 The last thing I want to address is, the 18 targeted request for documentation that have come from 19 Counsel for the other parties, particularly, Mr. Moore, on 20 behalf of MFP. Mr. MacKenzie, on behalf of Mr. Andrew and 21 Ms. Ryley, on behalf of Ms. Viinamae. 22 That from my perspective, is my top priority 23 for this week. We -- I think that the document requests that 24 have been made and the organizational approaches that those 25 Counsel have recommended to dealing with particular documents


1 will end up being helpful to you Commissioner. 2 And now that we are, sort of, through the 3 phase of shaking the trees internally at the City, my 4 attention personally, will be turned to dealing with their 5 document requests and we also share Commission Counsel's 6 interest in ensuring that those requests are addressed 7 promptly. 8 And I will say, particularly with Mr. Anderson 9 and Mr. MacKenzie and Ms. Ryley, that we've asked them in 10 private meetings, last week, to the extent that -- except we 11 were meeting hopefully this week with Ms. Ryley on behalf of 12 Ms. Viinamae, we've asked them that to the extent that they 13 are directing document requests to us, it would be of 14 tremendous help for the City if they could also assist us in 15 advising us, the fastest way to find the documents. 16 These are frequently documents that would have 17 arisen under their authorship or under their supervision, 18 while they were employees at the City. And we're hopeful 19 that they will be able to help us get to the documents more 20 quickly. That's obviously not something we can ask of Mr. 21 Moore, but, with former City employees, we think it would be 22 a big help. 23 MADAM COMMISSIONER: Okay. 24 Anybody else want to say anything before we 25 start with Mr. Kassam?


1 MR. DAVID MOORE: Yes, I do. I am -- I hope, 2 but, I'm not at all sure, nor frankly am I satisfied that 3 we're kind of through the, shaking of the trees, as it's been 4 put. 5 Leaving aside the request for documents on my 6 behalf, which I initiated over three (3) months ago, and 7 which for the most part, I haven't had a substantive 8 response, at least from my perspective. 9 Leaving that all to one (1) side and I won't 10 go through the entire meeting, but, I had a lengthy meeting 11 last Wednesday with Mr. Capern, in which he informally 12 explained to me, the nature of the difficulties that have 13 arisen. 14 And as I understand it, in a nutshell, the 15 problem or one (1) of the problems is, that in terms of 16 review of e-mails at the City, prior to this -- these recent 17 events, that review consisted of reliance upon the KPMG 18 review of the e-mails, which I understand was restricted to 19 five (5) witnesses. 20 And I understand that as a result of inquiries 21 over the past several weeks, Counsel have learned for the 22 City that, in fact, there was a retention of e-mails, perhaps 23 contrary to what had originally been assumed but there was 24 the e-mails in that database or that source of documentation 25 was, in fact, or has, in fact, been preserved for most of the


1 important witnesses. 2 Now, obviously, that's a list that extends 3 well beyond the five (5) -- the five (5), I'm told, that were 4 reviewed through the KPMG process were done using keywords. 5 I don't yet know what those keywords were but they -- the 6 witnesses were -- were Messrs Andrew, Ms. Viinamae, Ms. 7 Liczyk, Mr. Power and Mr. Rabadi but as I understand it, 8 other than that there wasn't a review of the historical e- 9 mail database that was kept. 10 In addition -- and so what I've asked to be 11 advised is -- is, I gather Counsel has identified those 12 additional people for whom that search should took place -- 13 should take place and Counsel, Mr. Capern offered last 14 Wednesday to let me know who they've selected for that review 15 and on considering that, I took them up on that offer and 16 requested on Friday that I be given a list of the people for 17 whom that review is taking place because there may be, I 18 don't know until I get that list, there may be other 19 witnesses, who from MFP's point of view may -- may think or 20 may suggest that inquiry should be made of, as well. 21 Apart from that, my understanding is that 22 there's -- the City has something called super servers on 23 which additional documents may be kept by department. I 24 don't fully know the details of that, but there too, I 25 understand, is an area where those super servers had not been


1 previously reviewed. 2 And finally my understanding is that in terms 3 of Councillor e-mails and Councillor files, there hasn't been 4 any review of those files and that's something that I ask be 5 followed up on and I suspect we'll have some more 6 conversation about. 7 So, certainly, I am hopeful that as the 8 process continues that it may not generate a large number of 9 additional documents. Certainly, my sense of it as of last 10 Wednesday was that it was premature to draw any conclusions 11 about that. I want to stress, as I think everyone has been 12 stressing, that we want to work with -- with Council to do 13 this in the most efficient and effective way possible. 14 One of the things that Mr. Capern offered to 15 do and again, I've taken him up on this invitation by letter 16 last Friday, that I gather that it's possible with these 17 databases to print out a list of fields or folders that -- 18 that will give almost an index to what is in these databases 19 and he's offered to have us look at that and see if there are 20 particular folders that appear on the facing to be relevant 21 and we'll do that. 22 So, I -- I guess I just, from where I sit, 23 would say that I'm not -- I'm not privy to everything that's 24 been going on over the past week or two (2). Certainly, 25 there's some additional work to be done. I'll leave it at


1 that for the time being. 2 Mr. Capern and I expect we'll be working 3 together in my document requests. They include requests for 4 access to some fifteen (15) boxes of documents that I gather 5 were extracted from a fifteen hundred (1,500) page list of 6 Y2K Committee documents and there's some other follow-up 7 issues that are being put on the record now but I'm hopeful I 8 will get some response to those. 9 MR. GORDON CAPERN: If I could just address a 10 couple of points raised by Mr. Moore. I don't -- I don't 11 want you to be under the -- any misapprehension as to what 12 the City did and not do in preparation for the Inquiry, 13 Commissioner. The -- there's no particular magic to the 14 e-mail issue. These are people's live e-mail boxes that we 15 went to in the same way that you would have a live e-mail box 16 in your e-mail systems and -- 17 MADAM COMMISSIONER: Don't go to mine, okay? 18 MR. GORDON CAPERN: Okay. In the same way 19 that I might have an inbox and a live e-mail box that we 20 would go to and I will say that -- that on a couple of 21 points. It's not -- it is not fair to say and I don't -- Mr. 22 -- I haven't responded to Mr. Moore's letter to me late in 23 the day Friday yet and I will do that. 24 But there -- there is one point that I wish to 25 clarify on the record is that many of the City employees went


1 to their individual e-mail in the course of preparing for 2 either interviews with KPMG or with Commission Counsel in 3 2001 and 2002 and produced, certainly, a volume of their 4 e-mails. 5 Since then we have -- in the course of going 6 back to the interviews with these individual City employees, 7 we have advised them of other issues that have arisen or that 8 may -- we -- that have -- we've allowed -- we've been able to 9 be a little more focussed with them in our -- in our 10 questioning of them. 11 And in going back to them we've identified, 12 with some of them, some additional e-mail that needs to be 13 produced as a result of issues that have arisen over the 14 course of the Inquiry. I don't think that there's anything 15 that's unusual or inappropriate about that. It's just been a 16 result of a more targeted request that we put to those 17 people. 18 So, I don't want you to be under the mis- 19 apprehension that none of the City employees went to their 20 e-mail to review them. Many of them did and they have -- 21 they've been in production for quite some time. There's just 22 some additional stuff that will be coming out over the course 23 of that. 24 And with respect to the issue of the City's 25 electronic file servers, where it stores its electronic


1 documents, we have shared with Commission Counsel the folder 2 list that Mr. Moore referred to in his comments. 3 And subject to discussion that we're going to 4 need to have, off the record, with Counsel about the need to 5 maintain confidentiality with respect to the identification 6 of the folders, and you know, we are -- the City is going to 7 be happy to share that folder list with the relevant players, 8 as well, so that they can make any follow up requests for 9 documents. 10 I will say that Commission Counsel has gone 11 through that exercise and has already determined what may or 12 may not be relevant, and if there are additional follow up 13 steps, we'll take them. 14 MADAM COMMISSIONER: Okay. Thank you. 15 Anyone else? No? Okay. I might just repeat 16 what I said before we took this break and before I granted 17 the extra week's adjournment. 18 Is we've had six (6) months now of evidence, I 19 think I said seventy five (75) days at that point, and I 20 think we have a better sense now of what will be helpful to 21 me, in terms of ultimately making recommendations for City 22 Council and the Mayor. 23 So, I hope that when you're going through all 24 of the e-mails, I can imagine there must be thousands of 25 e-mails, just knowing how many I send out on a weekly basis,


1 I would hope that all Counsel would agree that, in terms of 2 the production for purposes of the Inquiry, that you 3 concentrate on the material that is relevant and also helpful 4 to me or the Inquiry. 5 All right. I just want to stress that. 6 Because I don't want to find myself here with suddenly with 7 more documents than we already have. 8 All right. 9 MR. GORDON CAPERN: And certainly Commissioner 10 in my discussions with Counsel last week, I think that view 11 is fully understood and shared. 12 MADAM COMMISSIONER: Okay. Thank you. 13 All right. Ms. Groskaufmanis? 14 MS. DAINA GROSKAUFMANIS: I think we're ready 15 then to call Mr. Kassam now, Commissioner. 16 MADAM COMMISSIONER: Okay. Do you need any 17 time before we call him or? 18 MS. DAINA GROSKAUFMANIS: I wouldn't mind just 19 a few moments only because I'd expect to see Mr. Kassam, 20 before he started testifying. 21 If I had ten (10) minutes, that would be more 22 than sufficient. 23 MADAM COMMISSIONER: Okay. 24 We're going to take a ten (10) minute break. 25 But, just before we do, Mr. Kassam, we can't start until you


1 get here on time. 2 And we're having to take this break and stop 3 the process of the Inquiry because you weren't here. So I 4 just thought I should let you know that. 5 We can't start until the witness gets here. 6 All right? We're at the mercy of the witnesses. 7 MR. KARIM KASSAM: I understand that. 8 MADAM COMMISSIONER: Thank you. 9 We'll see you in ten (10) minutes. 10 REGISTRAR: Order. The Inquiry will recess 11 for ten (10) minutes. 12 13 --- Upon recessing at 10:30 a.m. 14 --- Upon resuming at 10:40 a.m. 15 16 THE REGISTRAR: The Inquiry will resume. 17 Please be seated. 18 19 (BRIEF PAUSE) 20 21 KARIM KASSAM, Sworn; 22 23 MADAM COMMISSIONER: So you pronounce it 24 Kassam? 25 THE WITNESS: Yes.


1 MADAM COMMISSIONER: We've spent six (6) 2 months pronouncing your name Kassam. I wish somebody had 3 told us. We would have -- 4 THE WITNESS: That is fine, as well. Sometime 5 I call it Kazaam, like the movie. 6 7 (BRIEF PAUSE) 8 9 MADAM COMMISSIONER: All right. 10 MS. DAINA GROSKAUFMANIS: Madam Commissioner? 11 MADAM COMMISSIONER: Yes. 12 MS. DAINA GROSKAUFMANIS: Mr. Kassam has sworn 13 an affidavit on March the 31st. It's been distributed to all 14 Counsel and it's in front of Mr. Kassam and I'd ask -- 15 MADAM COMMISSIONER: I think he pronounces his 16 name Kassam, so we should -- 17 MS. DAINA GROSKAUFMANIS: I'm sorry -- 18 THE WITNESS: That's all right. 19 MS. DAINA GROSKAUFMANIS: -- that, Mr. Kassam. 20 MADAM COMMISSIONER: No, it's all right. 21 We're all in the same position but we try -- we tried very 22 hard with Ms. Liczyk to pronounce her name properly and Mr. 23 Fecenko to do his and I think we owe Mr. Kassam the same 24 courtesy. 25 THE WITNESS: Thank you.


1 MS. DAINA GROSKAUFMANIS: I would ask that Mr. 2 Kassam's affidavit then be marked as the next exhibit which I 3 understand is Exhibit 36. 4 THE REGISTRAR: That's right. Exhibit 36. 5 MADAM COMMISSIONER: Thank you. 6 7 --- EXHIBIT NO. 36: Bound documents entitled "Mr. 8 Karim Kassam", Tabs 1-6 (Tab 4 9 added on page 43 and tabs 5 and 6 10 on page 200) 11 12 IN THE MATTER OF THE TORONTO COMPUTER LEASING INQUIRY 13 AFFIDAVIT OF KARIM KASSAM 14 15 I, Karim Kassam, of the Town of Richmond Hill, 16 in the Province of Ontario, MAKE OATH AND SAY: 17 18 1. I am the Chief Executive Officer of Prescient 19 International Inc. and as such have knowledge of the matters 20 to which I herein depose. 21 22 2. Prescient International Inc. is a company that 23 provides consulting services relating to Information 24 technology. The company was incorporated on May 24, 1995, or 25 thereabouts. I have been the Chief Executive Officer since


1 the incorporation of the company. 2 3 3. The company has private sector and public 4 sector clients. 5 6 4. Prescient International Inc. has worked 7 indirectly in the past with MFP Financial Services by 8 providing consulting services to clients. 9 10 5. Prescient International Inc. has never worked 11 with MFP Financial Services by providing consulting services 12 to the City of Toronto. 13 14 6. I drafted the Request for Proposal for Leasing 15 and Value Added Services dated April 30, 1999 (the "Draft 16 Leasing RFP). This draft was created from a Template dating 17 back to 1997. 18 19 Attached hereto and marked as Exhibit 1 is a true copy of the 20 "Request for Proposal For Leasing And Value Added Services 21 RFP#: Draft 1", dated April 30, 1999, Document Number 22 COT-29280. 23 24 7. I prepared the Draft Leasing RFP from a 25 template that I had in my office. The only work I did to


1 this Draft Leasing RFP was to enter certain information, such 2 as the name "City of Toronto" into blank spaces in the 3 template. I did not revise the substance of the template to 4 particularize it to the circumstances of the City of 5 Toronto's proposed Request for Proposal for Leasing. 6 7 8. I cannot recall who requested the Draft 8 Leasing RFP. Jim Andrew of the City of Toronto may have 9 requested the Draft Leasing RFP, or it could have been Dash 10 Domi of MFP Financial Services. 11 12 9. I cannot recall to whom I sent the Draft 13 Leasing RFP. If Jim Andrew had requested it, I would have 14 provided it to him only. If Dash Domi had requested it I 15 would have provided it to him only. I would not have 16 provided a copy of the Draft Leasing RFP to any person other 17 than the person who had made the request for the template. 18 19 10. The Draft Leasing RFP was to be used as a 20 template only. The Draft Leasing RFP is not a completed 21 document. 22 23 11. Other than providing the Draft Leasing RFP (to 24 either Dash Domi or Jim Andrew) I never played any role in 25 drafting the final Request for Proposal for Leasing and Value


1 Added Services that was relied upon by the City of Toronto. 2 3 12. I do not recall ever discussing the Draft 4 Leasing RFP with either Dash Domi or Jim Andrew. I do know 5 that I would have never discussed the Draft Leasing RFP with 6 anyone other than the person who had requested it as a 7 template. 8 9 13. As a matter of practice, if Prescient 10 International Inc. is involved in drafting a Request for 11 Proposal for a public sector client, the company will not 12 communicate with any vendor that may potentially respond to 13 the Request for Proposal for the entire blackout period 14 adopted by the public sector client. 15 16 14. It is not unusual for either a vendor or a 17 municipality to ask Prescient International Inc. for a 18 template for a Request for Proposal. The company also 19 provides services to the public sector to assist in drafting 20 Request for Proposals. 21 22 15. I did not charge anyone for providing this 23 Draft Leasing RFP. I would have provided it to either party 24 as a matter of goodwill. 25


1 16. I have had two meetings with Jim Andrew. The 2 first meeting would have taken place in February or March of 3 1999. I believe the second meeting took place a couple of 4 weeks after that, but it could have been as late as April 29, 5 1999. 6 7 17. I had not expected to participate in the first 8 meeting with Jim Andrew. Dash Domi had invited me to meet 9 him for coffee at 55 John Street (Metro Hall). While having 10 coffee, Dash Domi suggested that I join him for a meeting he 11 had planned with Jim Andrew. 12 13 18. The first meeting with Jim Andrew was less 14 than half an hour in duration. Dash Domi was present at this 15 meeting. My hope was to use the meeting to discuss the City 16 of Toronto's intentions regarding the development of its 17 computer technology. We did not have the chance to discuss 18 much since Jim Andrew was busy preparing for a budget. I do 19 not recall discussing the City of Toronto's Request for 20 Proposal for Leasing at this meeting. 21 22 19. Since the first meeting with Jim Andrew was 23 fairly short, Dash Domi and I scheduled a second meeting with 24 Jim Andrew. This would have been within a few weeks, but it 25 could have been as late as April 29, 1999. Dash Domi was


1 present at this second meeting. 2 3 20. The second meeting lasted about 30 minutes to 4 an hour. At this meeting I provided Jim Andrew with a 5 description of the types of services that Prescient 6 International Inc. could provide to the City of Toronto. I 7 did not discuss the City of Toronto's Request for Proposal 8 for Leasing at this meeting. 9 10 21. I would not have discussed the City of 11 Toronto's Request for Proposal for Leasing with anyone other 12 than the person who had requested Prescient International 13 Inc.'s template. I would not have discussed the Draft 14 Leasing RFP in front of another party. 15 16 22. I never saw the City of Toronto's completed 17 and final Request for Proposal for Leasing. 18 19 23. I did not provide any assistance to MFP 20 Financial Services with respect to its response to the City 21 of Toronto's Request for Proposal for Leasing, although there 22 was an e-mail an e-mail from Sandy Pessione at MFP. 23 24 Attached hereto and marked as Exhibit 2 is a true copy of 25 e-mail from Sandy Pessione, "Latest Version", dated June 10,


1 1999, Document Number COT027547, and its attachment marked as 2 Exhibit 3 and being a true copy of the response to the RFQ, 3 dated June 11, 1999, Document Number COT027548. 4 5 24. I did not respond to Mr. Pessione's email. I 6 would not have provided any assistance to MFP since it would 7 have involved putting in leasing numbers, interest rates, 8 etc. and that would not be my domain. It would be a MFP 9 business decision. 10 11 12 13 SWORN BEFORE ME at the City of Toronto in 14 the Province of Ontario on 15 Monday, March 31, 2003 KARIM KASSAM 16 A COMMISSIONER, ETC. 17 18 MADAM COMMISSIONER: That's his affidavit and 19 the supporting documents. 20 MS. DAINA GROSKAUFMANIS: That's right. There 21 are three (3) tabs behind that. 22 MADAM COMMISSIONER: Okay. 23 MS. DAINA GROSKAUFMANIS: And I'll refer to 24 those just as Tabs 1 to 3. 25 MADAM COMMISSIONER: Okay.


1 EXAMINATION-IN-CHIEF BY MS. DAINA GROSKAUFMANIS: 2 Q: Mr. Kassam, I'm going to take you through 3 your affidavit very briefly just highlighting some of the 4 points and asking you some questions about things that aren't 5 clear to me. As I understand it, you're the Chief Executive 6 Officer of a company called Prescient International? 7 A: That's right. 8 Q: And you say in Paragraph 2 of your 9 affidavit that Prescient is a company that provides 10 consulting services related to information technology? 11 A: That's correct. 12 Q: What kind of consulting services do you 13 offer? 14 A: Consulting around technology with respect 15 to application development, network design, networking 16 condition, systems integration, any information technology 17 management or operation issues or just general direction in 18 -- in the field of information technology. 19 Q: Do you provide consulting services with 20 respect to leasing? 21 A: No. 22 Q: Do you provide consulting services with 23 respect to hardware and hardware supply? 24 A: Consulting services, yes. We don't 25 provide hardware.


1 Q: So you -- 2 A: We would recommend what type of hardware 3 the client should get based on his specific solution but we 4 do not provide hardware. 5 Q: But you're not an authorized reseller, for 6 example, for different types of hardware or software? 7 A: No, we are not. 8 Q: And I understand you started this company 9 in or around March -- I'm sorry, May the 24th, 1995? 10 A: That's right, yes and if I may just add to 11 that, just to clarify in respect to the point of the 12 provisioning of hardware. It was a conscious decision when 13 we started Prescient not to be in the provisioning of 14 hardware and software because we knew that since we would be 15 consulting to clients and making recommendations, we did not 16 want anyone coming back at us and point fingers and say well, 17 they recommended hardware manufacturer X because they get 18 commission on it. Just to separate two (2) of them, we just 19 said, we're just going to provide consulting services and not 20 get involved in any sort of provisioning of hardware or 21 software. 22 Q: I understand. Thank you. 23 MADAM COMMISSIONER: Who's we? You said, when 24 we -- 25 THE WITNESS: Prescient.


1 MADAM COMMISSIONER: And was there somebody 2 else besides you involved, then, in setting up Prescient? 3 THE WITNESS: Yes. When we started Prescient 4 it was myself and my ex-partner. 5 MADAM COMMISSIONER: And do we have that name? 6 THE WITNESS: Yes. You don't have it right 7 now. I can provide his name. His name is Mr. Rustam Ahmed. 8 MADAM COMMISSIONER: Can you -- would you mind 9 spelling that for us? 10 THE WITNESS: R-U-S-T-A-M. 11 MADAM COMMISSIONER: Yes. 12 THE WITNESS: Is the first name and Ahmed, 13 A-H-M-E-D. 14 MADAM COMMISSIONER: Thank you. 15 THE WITNESS: Last name. 16 MADAM COMMISSIONER: So when you say it was a 17 conscious decision, that was with you and Mr. Ahmed? 18 THE WITNESS: That's right. 19 MADAM COMMISSIONER: Okay. Thank you. 20 21 CONTINUED BY MS. DAINA GROSKAUFMANIS: 22 Q: You say in Paragraph 3 that the company 23 has both private and public sector clients. In 1999, roughly 24 what percentage of your business was in the public sector and 25 what was in the private sector?


1 A: In '99? Well, in that certain year almost 2 90 percent of all business came from the public sector. 3 Q: And that continues to be the case? 4 A: That's right. 5 Q: Have you ever provided consulting services 6 to the City of Toronto? 7 A: Not to the new City of Toronto. The old 8 City of Toronto, yes. 9 Q: And is that actually the former -- the old 10 City of Toronto, not one of the other Municipalities? 11 A: That's right. 12 Q: And what? When did you provide those 13 consulting services to the former City of Toronto? 14 A: That was done, if I'm not wrong, around 15 the December, no, December, 1996, January, 1997 time frame. 16 Q: And who did you? What kind of consulting 17 services did you provide at that time? 18 A: The City had implemented a network in the 19 current City offices' at Queen and Bay, and we were asked to 20 validate that network before a sign-off by the City. 21 Q: What do you mean "Validate".-- 22 A: So to test, to make sure that it was as 23 per the specifications in the Contract with the Vendor. And 24 it was as per the proposed methods set out in the Contract. 25 Q: And who did you --. What staff at the


1 City of Toronto did you work with the most closely? 2 A: At that point it was an IT Director. I 3 think his name John, I don't recall. I don't think he's 4 there anymore -- any longer. 5 Q: I think that's John Birss, who as we 6 understand has since passed away. 7 A: Its possible, yes. 8 Q: In Paragraph 4 you state that Prescient 9 International has worked indirectly in the past with MFP 10 Financial Services, to provide consulting services to 11 clients. Can you describe the relationship that you have 12 with MFP, and have had with MFP? 13 A: At present, none. 14 Q: And what -- 15 A: -- In the past, we did provide consulting 16 services to MFP, and through MFP, to its clients. 17 Q: And is it the same kind of consulting 18 services that you've already described to me, for example, 19 with respect to Network Support and Application Selection? 20 A: That's right. Yes. -- And including 21 Project Management as well. 22 Q: And, but you have not supplied those 23 services either directly, or through MFP to the new City of 24 Toronto? 25 A: No.


1 Q: At Paragraph 6, and at Exhibit 1 -- at Tab 2 1 of your Affidavit. You state that you drafted the request 3 for Proposal for Leasing and Value Added Services, dated 4 April the 30th 1999 and if we turned to the document at Tab 5 1, its our document number. 6 You'll see at the top its document number COT- 7 029280. Mr. Kassam, just for reference those are documents 8 that we've now scanned into our own internal database and 9 that's how we identify them. So we referred it, to them as 10 Begdoc. 11 12 (BRIEF PAUSE) 13 14 Q: How do you know that you've created this 15 document? 16 A: The wording of the document; the format of 17 the document. 18 MS. DAINA GROSKAUFMANIS: Ok. I'm also going 19 to take you to a document that you and I discussed this 20 morning. Madam Commissioner, it's Exhibit 9, and it's the 21 document that Mr. MacKenzie provided during the course of 22 Mr. Wolfraim's examination. It was marked as a separate 23 exhibit. 24 MADAM COMMISSIONER: I was just wondering why 25 it wasn't in his exhibit book? Why this is not in Mr. --


1 MS. DAINA GROSKAUFMANIS: It isn't -- 2 MADAM COMMISSIONER: -- Kassam's book. 3 MS. DAINA GROSKAUFMANIS: There would be -- 4 there would be not trouble if we added it in Tab 4. Its 5 already a separate exhibit. 6 MADAM COMMISSIONER: Ok. -- It doesn't mean 7 -- I'm just for, my purposes if it ever, was all in the same 8 place, then it makes it easier for me to find something 9 rather than look for Exhibit No. 9. 10 MS. DAINA GROSKAUFMANIS: I'll arrange then, 11 that at the, at the break, its added as Tab No. 4 in 12 everyone's book. 13 MADAM COMMISSIONER: It can stay as Exhibit 9, 14 we'll just -- 15 MS. DAINA GROSKAUFMANIS: Yes. 16 MADAM COMMISSIONER: Okay. 17 18 19 CONTINUED BY MS. DAINA GROSKAUFMANIS: 20 Q: -- All right. Mr. Kassam, I'm going to 21 ask you questions about how you created the document, and 22 what steps you took, and who you may or may not have 23 distributed the document to? But I'd like to take you 24 through the document that it is in front of you now. It's 25 Begdoc number 43241.


1 And this was a document that was provided to 2 us by Mr. Andrew's lawyer, Hugh MacKenzie. On the front 3 page, there appears to be a box on the left hand side that is 4 a summary of the document that is found at Tab 1, being the 5 draft leasing RFQ. 6 Can you explain to me how I should be 7 interpreting or what I should be taking from this -- the 8 information that is in this box at Document 43241? For 9 example, where it says, title, subject, author, company and 10 so on. 11 A: Sure, no problems. First, in order to get 12 to this tab you have to go into the properties of the 13 document itself, and I've used Microsoft Word in creating 14 this document. And if you're go into file, there's tab item 15 called properties and that's where this shows up. 16 The title, the subject, in fact, all the 17 fields can be typed in. By default, when you register a copy 18 of the software it'll ask you your name. And it takes that 19 name automatically and puts it in as the author. 20 MADAM COMMISSIONER: You could change that 21 name, the previous -- ? 22 THE WITNESS: You can change that name. In 23 fact, everything can be changed previously. 24 MADAM COMMISSIONER: So, whoever is using the 25 computer can change that name?


1 THE WITNESS: That's right. 2 MADAM COMMISSIONER: Right, okay. 3 4 CONTINUED BY MS. DAINA GROSKAUFMANIS: 5 Q: So let's just maybe go through this line 6 by line. Where it says, title, what does that mean? 7 A: It's the title of the document. You can 8 give it any name you want, and in this case, it's the City of 9 Toronto. 10 Q: So this would be what the document was 11 saved as? 12 A: No. It's just a name given to -- you -- 13 you can have, let's say if I'm writing a book and the title 14 of the book is, "Toronto Computer Leasing Inquiry". And so I 15 can create a title called "Toronto Computer Leasing Inquiry" 16 and that would have multiple documents, and it can have -- 17 each one (1) of those documents has different subject. 18 So I would have, at the same time, for every 19 document, for a different subject. And so that in the 20 future, if I want to go and search for all documents related 21 to the Inquiry, all I have to do is go into the properties 22 and say, get me all the documents that have got Toronto 23 Leasing Inquiry in the title. 24 Q: Okay. 25 A: And the system will give them to me.


1 Q: All right, I'm following. And where it 2 says, subject leasing RFP-April 30th, 1999, is that something 3 you would have also had to type in? 4 A: That's right. 5 Q: And that would also be something separate 6 from what the document was actually saved as? 7 A: That's right. 8 Q: All right. Author is Karim Kassam. 9 You've already explained to us that that's because the 10 default is, that is the name in which the Microsoft Word 11 software was registered? 12 A: That's right. 13 Q: And company, I take it, is something you 14 can also register when you -- register as part of Microsoft 15 Word? 16 A: That's right, yes. 17 Q: Where it says, key words, Toronto RFP, is 18 that something you'd have to type in at the time? 19 A: Yes. 20 Q: And here, on our document, under comments, 21 you've written, copyright -- or, there is written, copyright 22 Prescient International Inc., property of Prescient 23 International Inc.? 24 A: I typed that in. 25 Q: And is it --


1 MADAM COMMISSIONER: I'm sorry, you typed that 2 in? 3 THE WITNESS: Yes. 4 5 CONTINUED BY MS. DAINA GROSKAUFMANIS: 6 Q: And is it your regular practice that this 7 is what you would type in -- this kind of information you 8 would type in for each document? 9 A: Absolutely. 10 Q: If I could ask you then to turn to the 11 second page of that document -- 12 MADAM COMMISSIONER: I just want to confirm, 13 I'm sorry to interrupt, here. But on all of these things, 14 including the copyright Prescient International Inc., if 15 somebody wanted to change that, they could? 16 THE WITNESS: Oh, absolutely, yes. 17 MADAM COMMISSIONER: Okay. 18 THE WITNESS: Yes. 19 MADAM COMMISSIONER: Thank you. 20 21 CONTINUED BY MS. DAINA GROSKAUFMANIS: 22 Q: If I could ask you now to turn to the 23 second page of that document, which is Begdoc 43242, and 24 although it's not as clear on this photocopy, it appears that 25 this is information taken from the statistics tab of the --


1 of the properties menu. 2 Can you explain to me, Mr. Kassam, what -- 3 what is meant where it says, created, modified, accessed and 4 printed? 5 A: Sure, that's Microsoft's way of keeping 6 track of -- of the -- the document, itself, keeping an audit 7 trail on it. In most cases, it doesn't work. 8 Q: Why doesn't it? 9 A: Well, it's quite clear over here that the 10 document was created in May 3rd '99, but printed on March 9, 11 1998, a year earlier and I can explain that, as well. 12 Q: Well, could you explain that to me, then? 13 A: Sure. The original document was created 14 by myself in -- sometime in February of -- or March of '97. 15 There was a template. And when I was creating this document, 16 I took the original template, so I probably created this 17 document, that one (1) that we're referring to, in -- on May 18 3rd, 99, based on the template in '97. And I did a cut and 19 paste across. 20 And because I did the cut and paste across, it 21 also took in the historical information from the old document 22 and put it in here. So that document was probably printed 23 some time in '98, so it brought that forward as well. 24 Q: Just -- just so that I can make sure that 25 I have it clear, then, the document that is at Tab 1, what


1 we've been calling the Draft Leasing RFQ -- or RFP, was 2 created -- this document was created on Monday, May the 3rd, 3 1999. 4 But the reason that it shows that it was 5 printed more than a year before that date is because you 6 create it from a '97 template that you printed in 1998? 7 A: That's right. 8 Q: And I take it, sir, if -- because it shows 9 that it was printed for what appears to be the last time, in 10 1998, when this RFP was given to anyone, it would not have 11 been given in a printed form? 12 A: Not necessarily. 13 Q: What do you mean? 14 A: I can explain that, as well. Say, if I 15 made a copy of this document, let's say I put it on a 16 diskette and took it home and then print it, it'll not 17 reflect on the original document, it would reflect on the 18 document I took home. So the document I would have at home 19 would have the updated data on it. 20 So if I make multiple copies of this document, 21 let's say it's sitting on the server and we did a backup 22 somewhere and -- and then I copied it onto my local drive and 23 then did a printing, the updated data would be reflected on 24 my local driver as opposed to on a server. 25 So the server would still would have the 1998


1 date but the copy on my desktop would have the more recent 2 date. 3 Q: These properties pages -- 4 A: Yes. 5 Q: -- these pop up boxes, as I said, were 6 provided to us through Mr. Andrew's lawyer. 7 A: Yes. 8 Q: Are these -- this information about 9 properties, would that be something that would be accessed 10 through Prescient? 11 A: No, anyone can access properties. 12 Q: Anyone who has the document -- 13 A: Anyone who has the electronic version of 14 the document, yes. 15 Q: -- who has the document on their system? 16 A: That's right. 17 MADAM COMMISSIONER: So basically, anyone who 18 has an electronic version of the document -- 19 THE WITNESS: An electronic version of the 20 document. 21 MADAM COMMISSIONER: Right. 22 THE WITNESS: That's right, yes. 23 MADAM COMMISSIONER: But they couldn't access 24 that with a hard copy? 25 THE WITNESS: No. No, they would not. Also,


1 as far as the dates are concerned, you can manipulate the 2 dates by changing the system time on your computer. So if I 3 went onto your computer right now and changed the date to 4 2006 and then brought in the electronic version of this 5 document, and printed the document, the printed date -- the 6 date on section that gets printed, would indicate 2006. 7 MADAM COMMISSIONER: Okay. 8 THE WITNESS: So, that is information can be 9 manipulated. 10 MADAM COMMISSIONER: Okay. 11 MS. DAINA GROSKAUFMANIS: Mr. Kassam, have you 12 gone back -- 13 MADAM COMMISSIONER: Mr. Kassam. 14 MS. DAINA GROSKAUFMANIS: Mr. Kassam, I'm 15 sorry. 16 17 CONTINUED BY MS. DAINA GROSKAUFMANIS: 18 Q: Mr. Kassam, have you gone back to locate 19 the document that's at Tab 1 on your -- in your computer 20 system? 21 A: Absolutely. When William Blake, the 22 Investigator for the Commission came to my office -- 23 Q: Hmm hmm? 24 A: -- I did tell him that I was looking 25 through our archives. And I did. And I called him back a


1 couple of days later and said, yes, I have located the file 2 and I have an electronic version of it. 3 Q: Okay. 4 A: Fortunately we keep archives of old 5 documents from the time we started Prescient. 6 Q: I'm sorry? 7 A: I said, fortunately we keep archives of 8 old documents, going back to the time when we started 9 Prescient. 10 Q: And I take it, then, if you went back and 11 looked at that electronic version that is on the Prescient 12 system, you could print us, or provide us with copies of the 13 properties boxes as they exist for you? 14 A: Absolutely. 15 Q: Would you provide that to us, Mr. Kassam? 16 A: Sure. 17 MADAM COMMISSIONER: That was not asked for, 18 before? 19 MS. DAINA GROSKAUFMANIS: No. 20 21 CONTINUED BY MS. DAINA GROSKAUFMANIS: 22 Q: Mr. Kassam, can you tell by looking at 23 these properties boxes, whether this information comes from 24 the Prescient system or whether it comes from somebody else's 25 computer system?


1 A: No. 2 Q: Okay. I want to ask you a little bit more 3 about how you actually created the documents at Tab 1. 4 A: Sure. 5 Q: In paragraph 7, you say -- state -- and 6 you've already said this morning, that you created the Draft 7 Leasing RFP from a template that you had in your office and 8 then you simply entered the City of Toronto into certain 9 blank spaces in the template. 10 And that you took no steps to particularize it 11 to circumstances that were unique to the City of Toronto. 12 That's accurate? 13 A: That's accurate, yes. 14 Q: Okay. Mr. Kassam, how -- what 15 circumstances did you come to create this draft leasing RFP, 16 who asked you to create it? 17 A: I probably created this document when 18 working on our other project, way back in '96/97 time frame. 19 Q: Okay. That's the original one (1)? 20 A: Yes. 21 Q: And so the original template was created 22 for another client? 23 A: That's right. 24 Q: When you created it for the City of 25 Toronto --


1 A: Yes. 2 Q: -- so, the actual one (1) that we have at 3 Tab 1. 4 A: Hmm hmm. 5 Q: Do you remember who asked you to create 6 it? 7 A: No. 8 MR. DAVID MOORE: Can I just -- when My Friend 9 asks for the City of Toronto, I take it she means in relation 10 to the City of Toronto, not for the City of Toronto in the 11 sense of something he'd done for the City of Toronto? 12 THE WITNESS: That's what I understood, yes. 13 MADAM COMMISSIONER: Okay. 14 MS. DAINA GROSKAUFMANIS: Yes, that's right. 15 MR. DAVID MOORE: Thank you. 16 17 CONTINUED BY MS. DAINA GROSKAUFMANIS: 18 Q: You state in paragraph 8, that Jim Andrew 19 of the City of Toronto could have requested the draft leasing 20 RFP, or it could have been Dash Domi from MFP Financial 21 Services? 22 A: That's correct. 23 Q: Why do you say it could have been either 24 of those two (2) gentlemen, and not somebody else? 25 A: Because Jim was the only person that I'd


1 met at the City, and with respect to the City it was only 2 Dash Domi that I was dealing with at MFP. 3 MADAM COMMISSIONER: I'm sorry? 4 THE WITNESS: With respect to MFP, it was only 5 Dash Domi that I was dealing -- was working at -- for -- or 6 working with the City. 7 MADAM COMMISSIONER: Were -- you were -- were 8 you working with other people at MFP? 9 THE WITNESS: Yes, absolutely. 10 MADAM COMMISSIONER: So, why would it be only 11 Dash Domi? 12 THE WITNESS: Well, because if it had to do 13 with the City of Toronto, he was the rep for it, he was 14 account exec for the City of Toronto. 15 MADAM COMMISSIONER: Right, but were there not 16 other people responsible for the City of Toronto? 17 THE WITNESS: Not to my knowledge. 18 19 CONTINUED BY MS. DAINA GROSKAUFMANIS: 20 Q: Is there a reason that Ms. Payne -- you 21 can be -- that for example, that Irene Payne would have 22 requested this document? 23 A: I think at that time when Dash Domi was 24 there, Irene Payne was the Senior Vice-President -- no. 25 Q: How can you be so sure?


1 A: Because I don't recall having a 2 conversation with respect to the City of Toronto with Ms. 3 Payne. 4 Q: Did you have conversations with respect to 5 the City of Toronto with Mr. Domi? 6 A: Yes, absolutely. He said there was lots 7 of business to be done there, and busy contract, and all that 8 kind of stuff, yeah. 9 Q: Mr. Kassam, do you have any reason or any 10 explanation you can provide us why Mr. Andrew might have 11 requested it? 12 A: Normally clients ask us or you know, 13 organizations will ask us for templates of an RFP to cut down 14 on the time required for them to prepare an RFP, or to assist 15 them in coming up with the structure for an RFP. Writing an 16 RFP document is very complex and very time consuming, and 17 sometimes people just want a good start, you know, show me 18 what one (1) looks like, it's like writing a business case, a 19 business plan for a new company. 20 If you're going to sit down and start one from 21 scratch, it's very difficult. Other words, if you go to the 22 Internet and download five (5) or six (6) of them, it gives 23 you a good indication as to what should be in a good business 24 plan and how to go about writing one (1). 25 Q: So, you can use it sort of as a precedent?


1 A: And, yes, and also you know, for example, 2 you know, when you download a business plan from the 3 Internet, it is not the actual business plan, it's just the 4 frame work. Same thing in our case, it's not the actual RFP, 5 it's just a frame work to assist in getting to that RFP. 6 Q: And you've told us already that 90 percent 7 of your clients are in the private -- or sorry, in the public 8 sector. Is it common for them to ask you for RFP templates? 9 A: Yes, actually. 10 MR. DAVID MOORE: I -- excuse me, I understood 11 his evidence was that 90 percent of his business was in 12 relation to the public sector, not that 90 percent of his 13 clients were actually public sector. I may have 14 misunderstood, but -- 15 MADAM COMMISSIONER: Are they the same thing 16 for you? 17 THE WITNESS: Yes, the same thing for us. 18 MADAM COMMISSIONER: He means the same thing 19 by it. 20 21 CONTINUED BY MS. DAINA GROSKAUFMANIS: 22 Q: Mr. Kassam, why would Mr. Domi have 23 requested such -- to have requested a draft RFP? 24 A: Oh, I can guess at a lot of things. It 25 may be possible that maybe he was asked for a copy of an RFP


1 and he didn't get one (1), and maybe that's why he asked me. 2 It is possible, I have no idea. 3 Q: Had he asked you for one (1) for -- on any 4 other occasion? 5 A: No. This was the only one (1). 6 Q: And just to be clear, you don't have any 7 recollection whatsoever, of whether you gave this draft RFP 8 to Mr. Andrew or Mr. Domi or even anybody else? 9 A: No, I do not. And I went farther to check 10 on our e-mail archives as well, just to confirm whether I 11 e-mailed a document to either -- to Mr. Domi or to Mr. 12 Andrew, and unfortunately we don't keep e-mail archives going 13 back eighteen (18) months. Or sorry, we only keep e-mail 14 archives going back eighteen (18) months, and not beyond. 15 Q: And so, in your -- in your e-mail archives 16 that you have now checked, you have no record of sending an 17 e-mail version or an e-mail that enclosed this document to 18 either Mr. Domi or to Mr. Andrew? 19 A: That's right. 20 MADAM COMMISSIONER: If Mr. Domi had asked you 21 for it, would you have sent it to him electronically then, or 22 given him a hard copy? 23 THE WITNESS: It could have been either one 24 (1), I don't recall if maybe he might have just said, no, 25 give me a printed copy, because Mr. Domi was not very


1 computer literate. 2 MADAM COMMISSIONER: Right. 3 THE WITNESS: And for him, you know, for me 4 sending him an e-mail it would have been a lot more difficult 5 for him to read, so -- 6 MADAM COMMISSIONER: If it was an attachment? 7 THE WITNESS: Yeah, so if it was Mr. Domi, it 8 would probably -- most probably would have been a paper copy. 9 MADAM COMMISSIONER: Okay. 10 THE WITNESS: But I don't recall. 11 MADAM COMMISSIONER: So, if Mr. Domi had been 12 given a paper copy -- 13 THE WITNESS: Yes. 14 MADAM COMMISSIONER: -- and if he had given 15 that to Mr. Andrew, then Mr. Andrew would not have been able 16 to access the property section, unless he had an electronic 17 version? 18 THE WITNESS: That's right, yes. 19 MADAM COMMISSIONER: Okay. 20 THE WITNESS: If this document C0T0-43241 came 21 from Mr. Andrew's console, then it is quite evident that Mr. 22 Andrew has or had an electronic version of the copy, of the 23 RFP. 24 MADAM COMMISSIONER: Well, that somebody did, 25 it's not necessarily Mr. Andrew.


1 THE WITNESS: Okay. 2 MADAM COMMISSIONER: Right? 3 THE WITNESS: I thought that this came from 4 Mr. Andrew. 5 MADAM COMMISSIONER: It came from -- well, I 6 don't know where it came from, it came from Mr. Andrew's 7 lawyer, I don't know where it came from before that, that's 8 sort of what we're trying to find out. 9 MS. DAINA GROSKAUFMANIS: And just to -- 10 THE WITNESS: Well, if this came from Mr. 11 Andrew's lawyer, then he must have an electronic copy, 12 because nobody prints out the properties and keeps it on 13 file. 14 MADAM COMMISSIONER: Yes. 15 THE WITNESS: So, this must have been printed 16 recently, and therefore they must have the electronic copy. 17 MADAM COMMISSIONER: Somebody -- whoever gave 18 it to Mr. Andrew's lawyer, has an electronic version of it. 19 I don't know if that's Mr. Andrew or not yet. 20 THE WITNESS: Okay. 21 MADAM COMMISSIONER: Would that be fair to 22 say? 23 THE WITNESS: Sounds fair. 24 MADAM COMMISSIONER: Okay. 25


1 CONTINUED BY MS. DAINA GROSKAUFMANIS: 2 Q: And just so I can be very clear, I think 3 you -- I think you've already given this answer implicitly, 4 you've never printed out these properties boxes and provided 5 them to Mr. Andrew? 6 A: No. 7 Q: Or to anybody else? 8 A: No. 9 Q: Okay. In paragraph 9 of your Affidavit, 10 you state that: 11 "If Mr. Andrew had requested it --" 12 And we're talking about the draft leasing RFP: 13 "I would have provided it to him only. If 14 Mr. Domi had requested it, I would have 15 provided it to him only. I would not have 16 provided a copy of the draft leasing RFP, 17 to any person other than the person who had 18 made the request for the template." 19 A: That's correct. 20 Q: Is that -- why is that your practice? 21 A: Well, if Mr. Andrew asked me, it would 22 have been, from my perspective, unethical to give it to Mr. 23 Domi. 24 Q: Why would it have been unethical to give 25 it to Mr. Domi?


1 A: Because, to start off, it would have been 2 none of Mr. Domi's business and number two (2), if Mr. Andrew 3 had asked me, you know, if it was on the basis that he wanted 4 to issue an RFP for leasing, and therefore, you know, to 5 follow business practice, it would not be right for me to 6 provide a copy to Mr. Domi. 7 Q: Is there some -- are you saying, Mr. 8 Kassam, that there's something improper about a -- that there 9 was something improper about MFP having this draft leasing 10 RFQ? 11 A: No. 12 Q: Okay, then I'm not sure I understand and 13 what you've said was -- 14 A: I'll just -- I'll just clarify what I've 15 stated in the affidavit, that's if Mr. Andrew had asked me, I 16 would have just given it to Mr. Andrew and nobody else. 17 Q: And I -- 18 MADAM COMMISSIONER: Well, if Mr. Domi had 19 asked you and then -- and you gave him a hard copy, and then 20 if he asked you, well, could you send this to Jim Andrew, 21 then you would have done that, would you not? 22 THE WITNESS: If he asked me for a hard copy 23 -- no, I wouldn't have sent the same document, I would have 24 modified it, it would have been a totally different template. 25 I -- I would never give the same document.


1 MADAM COMMISSIONER: Oh, I see. 2 THE WITNESS: Yes. 3 MADAM COMMISSIONER: So, let's just say -- and 4 I don't actually know what the answer to this is -- 5 THE WITNESS: Yes. 6 MADAM COMMISSIONER: -- but let's say if Mr. 7 Andrew asked you for it, then you would have sent it by 8 e-mail to Mr. Andrew; right? 9 THE WITNESS: Possibly, yes. 10 MADAM COMMISSIONER: Possibly, possibly a hard 11 copy? 12 THE WITNESS: That's right. 13 MADAM COMMISSIONER: If Mr. Domi had asked you 14 for it, you would have sent him a version either in hard copy 15 or by -- or electronically? 16 THE WITNESS: That's right. 17 MADAM COMMISSIONER: Right. If Mr. Domi said, 18 and I don't know if this is the case, right. If Mr. Domi 19 said, thank you very much for having given this to me, would 20 you mind sending a copy to somebody at the City, presumably 21 then you would have done that? 22 THE WITNESS: Well, I would first -- if he had 23 asked me to send it to somebody at the City -- 24 MADAM COMMISSIONER: Right. 25 THE WITNESS: -- I would say, no, I would like


1 a request from somebody in the City. 2 MADAM COMMISSIONER: Okay. 3 THE WITNESS: I wouldn't just automatically 4 just forward it to somebody in the City, because there would 5 be no reason for me to do that. 6 MADAM COMMISSIONER: Okay, then -- 7 THE WITNESS: And had the request come from 8 the City, then I would have modified the documents and then 9 given it and keep in mind that we're talking about a frame of 10 the templates not the particular RFP. 11 12 CONTINUED BY MS. DAINA GROSKAUFMANIS: 13 Q: That's right. And just so I can be 14 clear, is there anything improper about Mr. Domi asking you 15 for a template for an RFP? 16 A: No. 17 Q: And why do you say that? 18 A: Well, because it's standard practice in 19 the industry for people to ask for copies of templates so 20 they can give it to other people. And MFP wasn't the only 21 organization that had asked me. In fact, most of the major 22 vendors over there have asked me for copies of -- of 23 templates to present to their clients. Or potential clients. 24 As I mentioned earlier, it's a -- it's a frame 25 work. It helps. It's not the final document. If one (1)


1 party had it and another party did not have it, it would 2 provide no competitive advantage whatsoever. 3 MADAM COMMISSIONER: It would what? Sorry. 4 THE WITNESS: It would provide no competitive 5 advantage. 6 MADAM COMMISSIONER: If what? If one (1) 7 party had it? 8 THE WITNESS: Yes. So if, you know, if 9 Company A had a copy of the template and Company B did not, 10 and they are bidding on the same RFP with a public sector 11 organization with a similar structure, it would provide no 12 competitive advantage because this document is a framework. 13 It's called a skeleton only. There's -- there's no substance 14 to it, there's no details in it, to provide a competitive 15 advantage. 16 As I say, no, this is bones. The meat and 17 potatoes is missing. 18 MADAM COMMISSIONER: The details are missing. 19 If someone has never responded to an RFP before, it would 20 give them an idea of what they should be looking for? 21 THE WITNESS: These documents have relevant 22 out -- we are not the organization -- we are not the only 23 organization -- 24 MADAM COMMISSIONER: No, I understand. But if 25 I --


1 THE WITNESS: Yes. 2 MADAM COMMISSIONER: -- if I didn't know -- 3 THE WITNESS: Yes. 4 MADAM COMMISSIONER: -- if I'd never seen an 5 RFP before -- 6 THE WITNESS: That's right. 7 MADAM COMMISSIONER: -- and I'm going to try 8 to figure out how to respond to something, but I don't -- 9 I've never seen one (1) before -- 10 THE WITNESS: Hmm hmm. 11 MADAM COMMISSIONER: -- if I get a copy from 12 you as a template -- 13 THE WITNESS: Yes. 14 MADAM COMMISSIONER: -- at least then I -- I 15 have some idea of what it is that I'm going to have to 16 address? 17 THE WITNESS: It would give you an idea of, 18 you know, what type of -- what type of structure there is in 19 an RFP. 20 MADAM COMMISSIONER: Right. Right. 21 THE WITNESS: But exactly how to respond is a 22 different -- 23 MADAM COMMISSIONER: Right. But it would give 24 me some idea of -- 25 THE WITNESS: Yes.


1 MADAM COMMISSIONER: -- you know, I know I'm 2 not responding to a letter, for example? 3 THE WITNESS: That's right, yes. 4 MADAM COMMISSIONER: I know I have a structure 5 and -- 6 THE WITNESS: You've got it. 7 MADAM COMMISSIONER: -- I know I have to -- 8 okay. 9 THE WITNESS: Exactly. 10 MADAM COMMISSIONER: All right. 11 THE WITNESS: Yes. 12 13 CONTINUED BY MS. DAINA GROSKAUFMANIS: 14 Q: So what it's providing a potential bidder 15 is some background information, but not necessarily the 16 specifics by which they could frame a bid? Frame their bid 17 response? 18 A: You've got it. And for the purposes of 19 providing this document to Mr. Domi at MFP, it would not have 20 provided him with any competitive advantage because they had 21 worked on so many RFP's, they knew what the structure of RFP 22 is. 23 Q: But Mr. Domi, we've heard, hadn't worked 24 on a previous -- Mr. Domi, personally -- 25 A: Yes.


1 Q: -- had not responded to a previous RFP? 2 A: That's right. 3 Q: But you're telling me that it wouldn't be 4 providing Mr. Domi -- it wouldn't provide MFP a competitive 5 advantage because this isn't news to them, and it would be 6 providing Mr. Domi information? 7 A: Well, it would just be educating him on 8 what structure of an RFP would be. Knowing Mr. Domi, he 9 would not be directly involved in responding to an RFP. 10 Q: Why do you say that? 11 A: Working with RFP's, I knew they had a team 12 looking into responding to RFP's. 13 Q: And you say, at paragraph 12, that you 14 don't recall ever discussing this Draft Leasing RFP with 15 either Mr. Domi or Mr. Andrew? 16 A: That's right. 17 Q: Mr. Kassam, this -- the hard copy of this 18 document was found in Mr. Domi's file. Do you have any 19 knowledge, information or belief on how this Draft RFP might 20 have ended up in Mr. Domi's file? 21 A: No idea. 22 Q: And did you charge anyone for providing 23 this template? 24 A: No. 25 Q: In paragraph 13 of your affidavit, you


1 state that, 2 "As a matter of practice, if Prescient is 3 involved in drafting a request for proposal 4 for a public sector client, the company 5 will not communicate with any vendor that 6 may potentially respond to the request for 7 proposal for the entire blackout period 8 adopted by the public sector client." 9 A: That's right. 10 Q: I want to ask you a few questions about 11 that. Let's start with a really simple one (1). What is the 12 blackout period? That's the simple question. 13 A: Exactly, yes. So, when a public sector 14 entity issues an RFP, the individuals directly responsible 15 for that RFP, and for the evaluation of the RFP, are 16 requested not to talk to any of the potential vendors or 17 respondents of the RFP until the evaluation is complete. 18 That is a blackout period. 19 Q: So it starts then, sir, when the RFP or 20 RFQ is issued? 21 A: On the day it is released, yes. 22 Q: So in this case, we know that the RFQ was 23 issued on May the 31st. That's the start of the blackout 24 period? 25 A: Exactly and the blackout period is


1 specifically related to issues with respect to the contents 2 of the RFP. 3 Q: I'm going to come back to that in a 4 second. 5 A: Sure. 6 Q: I just want to get where the -- where you 7 tell me that the blackout period ends. You tell me it ends 8 when the evaluation is complete? 9 A: That's right, yes. So you -- you -- the 10 -- the people that have already evaluated the RFP, they know 11 who the winner is, they've made presentations and they are in 12 the process of announcing that now. So that's when the 13 blackout period should end. 14 Q: Okay. It -- for many public sector 15 clients and for municipalities -- 16 MADAM COMMISSIONER: You just said announced 17 -- I -- sorry. 18 THE WITNESS: Yes. 19 MADAM COMMISSIONER: Is that where you were 20 going? Okay, go ahead. 21 22 CONTINUED BY MS. DAINA GROSKAUFMANIS: 23 Q: For many public sector clients and for 24 municipalities, as you may know, this is a decision that may 25 not be made by staff. It may be made by some governmental


1 body or some authority. 2 A: Actually, not quite. 3 Q: Okay. I'm trying to -- what I'm trying to 4 get at, sir, is when you said it was -- when it was 5 announced -- 6 A: Hmm hmm. 7 Q: -- is that after the -- the formal con -- 8 I'm trying to understand what you mean by announced. Does 9 that mean the evaluation is complete but it necessarily 10 doesn't have legal formality? 11 A: That's right, yes. My experience working 12 with public sector is that there's a committee set up to 13 perform the evaluation of the RFP for tenders and it is that 14 committee that makes recommendations to the senior execs. 15 What I understand, also, is that the senior execs have 16 virtually no say in the outcome of an RFP. 17 MADAM COMMISSIONER: In the what, sorry? 18 THE WITNESS: In the outcome of the RFP. 19 MADAM COMMISSIONER: The senior executives 20 have no say? 21 THE WITNESS: Absolutely. 22 MS. DAINA GROSKAUFMANIS: That the decision is 23 made by the evaluators -- 24 MADAM COMMISSIONER: I thought you said they 25 make recommendations to the --


1 THE WITNESS: They make recommendations, yes. 2 MADAM COMMISSIONER: Binding recommendations? 3 THE WITNESS: They make recommendations and 4 until -- less there's something grossly wrong with that 5 recommendation, the senior execs have no say because they 6 have no way of determining whether it should be company A or 7 company B since they would have not gone through reading the 8 response and therefore would not know whether -- whether, you 9 know, they should go with company A or company B. It would 10 be based on the recommendations by the committee. 11 MADAM COMMISSIONER: Mr. Kassam, can you help 12 me. 13 THE WITNESS: Sure. 14 MADAM COMMISSIONER: Have you worked in the 15 government before? 16 THE WITNESS: Yes. 17 MADAM COMMISSIONER: And you worked in which n 18 -- in provincial or federal or municipal? 19 THE WITNESS: I worked in the provincial. 20 MADAM COMMISSIONER: And with which ministry? 21 THE WITNESS: Initially, I was with the 22 Ministry of National Resources and then I was with the 23 Ministry of Community and Social Services. 24 MADAM COMMISSIONER: Okay and were you working 25 on evaluations?


1 THE WITNESS: Absolutely. Lots of them. 2 MADAM COMMISSIONER: Okay and so you would 3 make a recommendation to whoever your senior -- your person 4 was and -- your director, for example? 5 THE WITNESS: That's right. So a committee 6 would look at -- a committee would be set up to do the 7 evaluation. 8 MADAM COMMISSIONER: Right. 9 THE WITNESS: And they would come up with the 10 results and they would have vendors 1, 2 and 3 -- 11 MADAM COMMISSIONER: Right. 12 THE WITNESS: -- list by list and they would 13 make those recommendations to the senior execs, being either 14 the Director or the Assistant Deputy Minister and, you know, 15 the collective evaluation, here's the process we use, here's 16 the summary and here's the company that has the lowest 17 evaluated bid -- 18 MADAM COMMISSIONER: And so -- 19 THE WITNESS: -- and we recommend that -- 20 MADAM COMMISSIONER: -- it's your view that -- 21 THE WITNESS: -- company. 22 MADAM COMMISSIONER: -- the -- that the 23 Director or the Assistant Deputy Minister or whoever would 24 not be able to say anything -- they'd have to take your 25 recommendation, is that right?


1 THE WITNESS: Absolutely. 2 MADAM COMMISSIONER: Okay. Even if -- 3 THE WITNESS: In my experience. 4 MADAM COMMISSIONER: Even if your -- even if 5 they thought your process was flawed? 6 THE WITNESS: If the process was flawed then 7 they could ask us to go back and review the whole thing or 8 re-issue the RFP but in my experience, there's never been a 9 case whereby the Assistant Deputy Minister has walked in and 10 said, oh, by the way, I want that company to win. 11 12 CONTINUED BY MS. DAINA GROSKAUFMANIS: 13 Q: So while your recommendations, sir, are 14 not, perhaps, formally binding. In practice, you say, that 15 in effect, those -- the recommendations of an evaluation 16 committee, -- they are going to be -- they are effectively 17 binding? 18 A: Absolutely, yes. 19 Q: I just want to get a little bit more when 20 you said it was announced. In the example you've taken the 21 Commissioner through with respect to the Province where the 22 decision is made by a Director or an ADM or a Minister, the 23 ultimate decision. 24 When you say that it would be improper to 25 communicate with the successful bidder until it was


1 announced, would that communication be prohibited until the 2 decision was accepted by the higher up, whoever he or she is? 3 A: Our process would be once a recommendation 4 is made, there would be a request for permission to notify 5 the vendor. And if the permission is granted then the vendor 6 can be notified, saying, yes, you are the successful vendor, 7 that's only relation and it is based on, like, any other RFP 8 document, successful negotiations of the contract. 9 Q: But that would be some formal request, or 10 some formal permission that would be granted by -- 11 A: Well -- 12 Q: -- the higher ups? 13 A: -- not necessarily formal, sometimes it's 14 just a chat, okay, now, we have our condition, can we let the 15 vendors know. Because there are lots of vendors out there 16 just, you know, if the quarter end and they don't let you 17 know, did we get it or did we not get it, and lots of phone 18 calls coming in, and somebody needs to be notified, so that's 19 what happens. 20 Q: The situation, sir, that we're -- have you 21 worked with a Municipality before? 22 A: Yes, absolutely. 23 Q: And as you probably know, in a 24 Municipality, the procedure, because it's a subordinate form 25 of Government to the Province, it's a little bit different,


1 and that authority to enter into contracts, must usually be 2 approved by either through a series of committees and 3 ultimately by Municipal Council? 4 A: Hmm hmm. 5 Q: Do you agree? 6 A: Yes. 7 Q: And -- 8 A: Up to a point. 9 Q: What do you mean, up to a point, sir? 10 A: Sometimes the Municipality issue a 11 business case that gets approved by Council, and then they 12 don't need to go to Council any further to get further 13 approval. 14 Q: Okay, fair enough. That's not the case 15 that we're -- that we are dealing with here, there certainly 16 was an RFP -- RFQ, pardon me, that was issued on May the 17 31st, where the bidding of 1999 -- the bidding closed on June 18 the 11th -- 19 A: Hmm hmm. 20 Q: -- '99, and thereafter an evaluation of 21 that RFQ took place. I'm trying to understand where the 22 blackout period would end. Let me give you a little bit of a 23 chronology perhaps, then you can help me. 24 A: Hmm hmm. 25 Q: As I explained, the bidding closed on June


1 the 11th, 1999, we've been certainly able to establish that 2 an evaluation of the bid responses took place through -- 3 through the end of June and into early July of 1999. A 4 report was submitted to the Policy and Finance Committee, 5 which is a committee of Councillors, which ult -- and the 6 report from staff, ultimately recommended the selection of 7 MFP to provide leasing services for three (3) years. 8 That report was completed on or around July 9 the 9th, '99, that committee -- the meeting of that committee 10 took place on July -- oh, the date's slipping -- 11 MR. DAVID MOORE: Twentieth. 12 MS. DAINA GROSKAUFMANIS: Twentieth, thank 13 you. 14 15 CONTINUED BY MS. DAINA GROSKAUFMANIS: 16 Q: July the 20th, 1999, and it was formally 17 approved by City Council on the 27th of July, 1999. I'm now 18 trying to have some understanding where that blackout period 19 ends. It certainly doesn't end on June the 11th -- 20 A: '99, no. 21 Q: -- 1999, the date that the bids were 22 submitted? 23 A: That's right. 24 Q: Okay. Does it end, sir, when staff have 25 completed their report that recommends MFP as the successful


1 bidder, but that report is still confidential, and has not 2 been approved by either City Council Committee, or City 3 Council itself? 4 A: Technically that's when the blackout would 5 end. 6 Q: It would end when the report is complete. 7 A: That's right, because unless Committee has 8 something that the evaluators do not have, which is highly 9 unlikely; the recommendations would go through. And from 10 that point on, it's just a formality. 11 Q: It does not matter to you, sir, that that 12 staff report could be changed by -- could be accepted or 13 rejected or even amended, as it was in this case, by a City 14 of Toronto Committee? 15 A: It could be accepted or rejected, that's 16 about it. And most RFP have the option that the public 17 sector client has the option of either accepting the 18 proposals or rejecting them. I don't believe that any 19 Council would be able to overthrow that decision, and say, we 20 need somebody else in -- in place. 21 Q: I'm just -- what I'm trying to understand 22 is we know here that there was an amendment made to the 23 recommendations put forward by -- by staff, to the Committee? 24 A: Hmm hmm. 25 Q: Are you saying that there could be no --


1 in your -- in your experience, sir, there should be no 2 amendment? 3 A: In my experience -- well, no, there can be 4 an amendment but no change in the outcome, because if you 5 follow due process, the evaluation criteria for evaluating 6 RFP's is sealed before the closing of the RFP. 7 The Committee that evaluates RFP's has to 8 follow that process and the evaluation criteria. 9 The selection of the vendor is based on the 10 process and the evaluation criteria, irrespective of anything 11 else. So once the evaluation team has selected or come up 12 with a recommendation of the finalist based on the criteria, 13 nobody should be able to change that. 14 And in my experience, nobody changes that, 15 until something new has come about and therefore the vendors 16 are told that there is change in the RFP and therefore 17 resubmit, or the RFP is cancelled. You cannot change the 18 criteria half way through an RFP evaluation. 19 Q: And -- 20 MADAM COMMISSIONER: Half way through an RFP 21 evaluation? 22 THE WITNESS: That's right, yes. So if I've 23 got seven (7) method of evaluating an RFP and I give points 24 for every section of the RFP, I have to cast it in stone. I 25 cannot go about changing them based on who has submitted the


1 bids because they it's not a fair process. 2 3 CONTINUED BY MS. DAINA GROSKAUFMANIS: 4 Q: And, sir, if I understand you correctly, 5 then, when staff have finalized their report -- 6 A: Hmm hmm. 7 Q: -- even if that has not been formally 8 accepted and has no binding legal authority, the blackout 9 period is ended? 10 A: Well, there's no way of influencing the 11 outcome now. The way I say it is, once you've gone through 12 the process and gone with the evaluation criteria and 13 selecting a vendor based on the evaluation criteria, there's 14 no way of changing that outcome. 15 You can't say, okay, well based on our 16 recommendations it's Company A. And then all of a sudden, 17 when the report is going from stage 1 to stage 2, it becomes 18 Company B. And then from stage 2 to stage 3 becomes company 19 C. You just can't do that. 20 MADAM COMMISSIONER: Can I ask? Just, if I'm 21 the bidder? 22 THE WITNESS: Yes? 23 MADAM COMMISSIONER: How would I even know 24 that the public servant has made the recommendation? 25 THE WITNESS: You wouldn't. You would have to


1 be informed about it. 2 MADAM COMMISSIONER: All right. 3 THE WITNESS: Yes. So there's two (2) ways of 4 doing it, either it's a formal document that goes out to 5 everyone saying, you know, we've completed the evaluation 6 process. And sorry, no, you didn't get it, somebody else got 7 it. 8 MADAM COMMISSIONER: But I'm saying, at this 9 point, let's say, as in our case, the -- it's just a 10 recommendation -- 11 THE WITNESS: Yes. 12 MADAM COMMISSIONER: -- at this point, to a 13 committee and then to City Council. So how would the 14 bidder -- the bidder wouldn't be notified until City Council 15 makes a decision as to who the successful bidder is? 16 THE WITNESS: No. Actually, that would be 17 their own process. The City Council would have no idea on 18 who to select, they have not looked at the RFP responses that 19 would have gone into the evaluation criteria. How can they 20 come up with a final recommendation as to who the successful 21 vendor should be? 22 The evaluation of the RFP is based on the 23 response from the bidder, not on what the Council thinks. 24 25 CONTINUED BY MS. DAINA GROSKAUFMANIS:


1 Q: Mr. Kassam, I think I'm following you. I 2 just want to make sure that we're -- and it may be a question 3 that we're -- 4 A: Yes. 5 Q: -- we're using some different language. 6 A: Oh, okay. 7 Q: I -- I certainly understand that what 8 you've told us so far is that there is an evaluation process? 9 A: That's right. 10 Q: And that evaluation process is -- should 11 be based on some objective criteria and it's being done by 12 staff? 13 A: That's right. 14 Q: And in your experience, the -- to make 15 that decision legally binding, whether it's approved by 16 someone very senior, as it may be at the Province or in the 17 case of a municipality where it's formally approved by 18 Council, you haven't seen, in practice, any change from the 19 recommendation to the final approval? 20 A: That's right. Yes. And -- and the key 21 word, legally binding. 22 Q: Yes. 23 A: Yes. 24 MADAM COMMISSIONER: I'm sorry? The key one 25 (1) what?


1 THE WITNESS: The key word was, legally 2 binding. 3 MADAM COMMISSIONER: All right. 4 THE WITNESS: Yes. 5 MADAM COMMISSIONER: Well, how would you know 6 whether you've seen any change, if you're from -- are you 7 asking, Ms. Groskaufmanis, when he's in government or when he 8 was outside of government? How would he know, if he's 9 outside of government? 10 THE WITNESS: I'm basing -- I'm basing my 11 answer on the experience working with the government and of 12 public sector clients, and helping them through the process. 13 MADAM COMMISSIONER: Okay. 14 THE WITNESS: So we've been on both sides of 15 this. We've been -- I've been part of the government in 16 issuing the RFP. I've been part of Prescient International 17 responding to RFP's. And I've been part of Prescient 18 International working with the public sector, helping them 19 issue an RFP and evaluating it. 20 That's all. When I'm working with the public 21 sector in issuing the RFP and helping them evaluate, I've 22 never seen a recommendation change. It is unheard of. 23 MADAM COMMISSIONER: By you? 24 THE WITNESS: Yes. And if it does change, 25 then I'll question it, because, when you go from the


1 evaluation committee to Council, is it? 2 3 CONTINUED BY MS. DAINA GROSKAUFMANIS: 4 Q: Yes. 5 A: And then it goes to the next step? 6 Q: It actually goes from -- within evaluating 7 by staff. And if staff -- 8 A: Yes. 9 Q: And the staff reports to a -- 10 A: Yes. 11 Q: -- to a committee -- 12 A: To a committee. 13 Q: -- and then on to Council. 14 A: So, I've gone from staff to committee. 15 Like, the committee does not look at all the bids and all the 16 responses in detail. They have no way of determining who 17 they select -- so there -- they have to go based on the 18 recommendations made by staff who have taken time and effort 19 going through the details of the response, and selecting the 20 appropriate Vendor, based on a preset criteria. 21 Q: Sir, how many times have you in your 22 experience been part -- you with Prescient, been part of 23 working with the public sector issuing an RFP and then 24 assisting in evaluating it since 1995, roughly? 25 A: I would say about two (2) or three (3)


1 times a year. 2 Q: Ok. So. -- If you had -- over that eight 3 (8) year period, sixteen (16) to thirty (30)-- 4 A: Yes -- 5 Q: -- times you've been part of that-- 6 A: -- Somewhere in this neighbourhood. Yes. 7 Q: And that's -- and it's that experience on 8 which you are basing your answers. 9 A: That's right 10 Q: And have you -- of those sixteen (16) to 11 thirty (30) times that you have worked with a public sector 12 entity to issue an RFP and evaluate it, how many times have 13 the public sector entity been a municipality? 14 A: About six times. 15 Q: How would a bidder -- I take it the 16 communication, then, when the blackout period ends, when 17 you're going to advise a bidder that they have been 18 successful, or I suppose, even unsuccessful; that would have 19 to be contact that was initiated by the -- by the 20 municipality or by the public sector entity, right? 21 A: That's right. Normally there is an RFP 22 coordinator, who is responsible for all communications 23 between the entity -- public sector entity and the bidders. 24 And all communications get channelled through that person. 25 Q: And have you ever worked with a


1 municipality has made it very clear, sir, that those 2 communications with the successful or unsuccessful bidder 3 should not be taking place until a formal -- until City 4 Council has formally approved the selection of the successful 5 bidder? 6 A: No. 7 MS. DAINA GROSKAUFMANIS: Madam Commissioner, 8 I notice it's 11:30, although I have a few questions left in 9 this area, I am going to move on to something else shortly. 10 This may be a good time for our morning break. 11 MADAM COMMISSIONER: Okay. All right, we'll 12 break until ten (10) to. 13 THE REGISTRAR: Order. The Inquiry will 14 recess until ten to 12:00. 15 16 --- Upon recessing at 11:32 a.m. 17 --- Upon resuming at 11:50 a.m. 18 19 THE REGISTRAR: The Inquiry will resume, 20 please be seated. 21 22 (BRIEF PAUSE) 23 24 MADAM COMMISSIONER: Mr. Kassam, do we have 25 your -- Mr. Kassam, do we have your titles in here anywhere,


1 when you were in the Provincial Government, and is it in the 2 affidavit? 3 MS. DAINA GROSKAUFMANIS: No. 4 MADAM COMMISSIONER: No, okay. Just sort of 5 give me a general idea of what you -- when you worked in the 6 Provincial Government, when that was and what your titles 7 were? 8 THE WITNESS: With the Ministry of Natural 9 Resources, it was between -- from February of -- February or 10 March of '89 to about let's see, June of 1990. 11 MADAM COMMISSIONER: Okay. 12 THE WITNESS: And then with the Ministry of 13 Community and Social Services, I believe it was June 9th, if 14 I recall, I think June 9th, right. 15 MADAM COMMISSIONER: Yes. 16 THE WITNESS: Exactly, there you go. And with 17 the Ministry of Community and Social Services, from June of 18 '90 to July 31st, '95. 19 MADAM COMMISSIONER: Okay. And what were you 20 doing with both of those Ministries? 21 THE WITNESS: With the Ministry of Natural 22 Resources, I was working in the GIS Department, as Systems 23 Operator. 24 MADAM COMMISSIONER: Okay. 25 THE WITNESS: And with the Ministry of


1 Community and Social Services, I started off as a Technical 2 Support Analyst. 3 MADAM COMMISSIONER: Okay. 4 THE WITNESS: And over time my role changed, I 5 became an internal consultant. 6 MADAM COMMISSIONER: Okay. So, when you were 7 the Systems Operator at Natural Resources, you wouldn't have 8 been with RFP's and the bidding process or anything like 9 that -- 10 THE WITNESS: No. 11 MADAM COMMISSIONER: -- as the Systems 12 Operator. And as a Technical Support Analyst, you wouldn't 13 be involved -- 14 THE WITNESS: In fact, I was -- 15 MADAM COMMISSIONER: -- later on I'm thinking, 16 was more -- 17 THE WITNESS: -- no, no, actually -- 18 MADAM COMMISSIONER: No. 19 THE WITNESS: -- as soon as I started with the 20 Ministry of Community and Social Services, I think it was 21 within the first three (3) months, I was asked to come up 22 with the framework for an RFP. 23 MADAM COMMISSIONER: Okay. And in that time 24 period when you were at Community and Social Services, how 25 many RFP's, RFQ's or anything like that, would you have done?


1 THE WITNESS: Well, at least one (1) a year. 2 And in some cases two (2) or three (3) a year, I think at the 3 end it was more like, in the '93 -- specific '93/94, there 4 would be at least three (3) in each of those years. 5 MADAM COMMISSIONER: Okay. Three (3) of them, 6 sorry? 7 THE WITNESS: Yes, in '93 and '94. 8 MADAM COMMISSIONER: Okay. 9 THE WITNESS: Yes. 10 MADAM COMMISSIONER: And when you had to come 11 up with the frame work, when -- that was the frame work for 12 an RFP? 13 THE WITNESS: Yes. 14 MADAM COMMISSIONER: When you first started at 15 MCSS, how did you go about doing that? 16 THE WITNESS: Oh, okay. I talked to my 17 manager, I said, look, I've never really done an RFP, so do 18 you have one (1) that has been issued by the Ministry before, 19 and they gave me a copy of an RFP that was issued in 1987. 20 So, I took that and then I went down to see 21 Purchasing, and had a chat with them with respect to document 22 process policies, understanding that, and getting an idea of 23 the type of information that they would require, in terms of 24 evaluating it, and how to go about evaluating RFP's. 25 MADAM COMMISSIONER: Okay. Now, the -- the --


1 the template, if I can call it that, that they gave you -- 2 THE WITNESS: Yes. 3 MADAM COMMISSIONER: -- in 1993, was one (1) 4 that dates back to 1987? 5 THE WITNESS: No, the template that I got in 6 1990, dated back to '87. 7 MADAM COMMISSIONER: Okay, so when you started 8 in -- 9 THE WITNESS: I started with the MCSS 1990, 10 and -- 11 MADAM COMMISSIONER: Okay. 12 THE WITNESS: -- within the first few months, 13 they asked me to write an RFP for -- 14 MADAM COMMISSIONER: Okay. 15 THE WITNESS: -- hardware requisitions. 16 Specifically, desktops, printers and servers. 17 MADAM COMMISSIONER: Okay. And so in 1990, 18 you asked for a template, the most recent one (1) they had, 19 then? 20 THE WITNESS: That's right. It was '87. 21 MADAM COMMISSIONER: Which I believe was in 22 1987? 23 THE WITNESS: Yes. 24 MADAM COMMISSIONER: So from 1987 to 1990, 25 MCSS wasn't really doing a lot of RFP's then?


1 THE WITNESS: No, they issued that one (1) big 2 RFP in '87 for the acquisition of hardware and a Vendor of 3 Record for a bid of three (3) years. 4 MADAM COMMISSIONER: Okay. 5 THE WITNESS: And so the three (3) years were 6 up and it was time to write another RFP. 7 MADAM COMMISSIONER: All right. 8 THE WITNESS: Yes. 9 MADAM COMMISSIONER: And is that what you were 10 working on? Was that the new one (1)? 11 THE WITNESS: That's right. I worked on the 12 new one (1) in 1990. And then we did that one (1) for a 13 period of one (1) year and so there was one (1) in '91, one 14 (1) in '92. And then in '93. There were several -- 15 MADAM COMMISSIONER: Okay. 16 THE WITNESS: -- in '94. 17 MADAM COMMISSIONER: Is that what we heard 18 from -- about -- Sandy Pessione about? Is that what he 19 was -- 20 THE WITNESS: Yes, Sandy was part of the team 21 as well, at the later stages of '94. 22 MADAM COMMISSIONER: You knew him from -- 23 THE WITNESS: Yes, that's where I met Sandy 24 Pessione, at the -- at the Ministry of Community and Social 25 Services, yes.


1 MADAM COMMISSIONER: Okay. Okay. And had you 2 met Jim Andrew before? 3 THE WITNESS: I've heard of Jim Andrew when I 4 was at Ministry of Natural Resources. Never met him until, I 5 think I met him when he was at the City. Yes. I don't think 6 I met him when I -- 7 MADAM COMMISSIONER: With Dash Domi or before 8 then? 9 THE WITNESS: I might have bumped into him 10 before then. Yes, actually I did. Sorry, let me correct 11 that. Yes, my colleague and I went to see him in '97, 12 August. Around that time frame, July, August of '97. 13 MADAM COMMISSIONER: Okay. In his capacity at 14 the City -- 15 THE WITNESS: That's right. 16 MADAM COMMISSIONER: -- at the old City of 17 Toronto? 18 THE WITNESS: That's right, yes. 19 MADAM COMMISSIONER: Okay. 20 MR. GORDON CAPERN: He was at Metro, 21 Commissioner. 22 MADAM COMMISSIONER: Oh, he was at Metro? 23 THE WITNESS: At Metro Hall, yes. 24 MADAM COMMISSIONER: Okay. And was that it, 25 before, then, until the next --


1 THE WITNESS: Yes. After that it was when I 2 think I met him with Mr. Domi. 3 MADAM COMMISSIONER: Okay. 4 MS. DAINA GROSKAUFMANIS: Madam Commissioner, 5 I'm going to get to those meetings with Mr. Andrew is just a 6 few moments. I just wanted -- I have a couple of clean up 7 questions with respect to the issue of the blackout period. 8 THE WITNESS: Sure. 9 10 CONTINUED BY MS. DAINA GROSKAUFMANIS: 11 Q: Mr. Kassam, how would a bidder know when 12 the evaluation is complete and a report, for example, has 13 been finalized by staff or the evaluating committee? How 14 would a bidder know that? 15 A: Two (2) methods. One (1), it is stated in 16 the RFP. 17 Q: Hmm hmm. 18 A: There's a schedule of events in an RFP 19 that says, you know, here's our estimated time frame. This 20 is when we're going to issue it, this is when it closes, this 21 is when we expect to finish the evaluation. This is when we 22 expect you to come in and give us a presentation, this is 23 when we're going to do -- present it to committee or Council 24 or whatever. So that's one (1) way. 25 The other way is, somebody within the


1 evaluation team, the RFP Coordinator, has the authority to 2 notify the bidders, especially the unsuccessful ones. 3 MADAM COMMISSIONER: I'm sorry, what's the 4 second way? 5 THE WITNESS: The second way is, the RFP 6 Coordinator would notify the bidders, especially the 7 unsuccessful ones. 8 MADAM COMMISSIONER: Okay. 9 10 CONTINUED BY MS. DAINA GROSKAUFMANIS: 11 Q: So the communication would come from the 12 entity that had issued the RFP and was evaluating the bid? 13 That's -- that's the second way that they would know? 14 A: That's right, yes. 15 Q: And this isn't one (1) of those -- is it 16 appropriate for a bidder on a contract, to be contacting 17 the -- the entity that issued the -- the tender, in this 18 case, the City of Toronto, or to make inquiries about the 19 evaluation process or what was going on? 20 A: Oh, that happens all the time. Bidders 21 would call in and find out, you know, what's happening with 22 the evaluation or how far have you gotten? Is there anything 23 else that you need from us? It happens all the time. 24 And the standard response from the public 25 sector is, sorry, it's a blackout period. Call up the -- the


1 RFP Coordinator. 2 Q: So the communications, if they are coming 3 from the bidders, should be -- 4 A: Channelled through the RFP Coordinator. 5 Q: And what you're telling me is that it's 6 not uncommon, though, for bidders to -- is it common for 7 bidders to contact someone other than the RFP Coordinator? 8 A: Oh, all the time. Yes. In fact, I 9 remember when I was at Social Services, I would get calls 10 from bidders saying, well, you know, if this was a horse 11 race, and I was a blue horse, you know, where would I be? It 12 isn't a horse race. Call the RFP Coordinator. 13 Q: Okay. 14 A: Yes, they would try all sorts of things 15 just to try and get some information. Not that it's going to 16 help them in any way, you know, it's just they are kind of on 17 the edge. You know, they would like to let their senior 18 execs in, as to what's happening, what are the chances. Some 19 of those things are quite huge and there's a lot riding on 20 it. 21 You know, sometimes RFP's process costs as 22 much as, you know, half a million to $1 million. You take an 23 RFP that's about fifty (50) pages thick. There are at least 24 is two (2) or three (3) people working on it, right? 25 Q: So what you're saying -- what you've told


1 us, if I understand then, is that it's not uncommon for 2 bidders to try to find out where they're at but the standard 3 response from the entity that issued the -- the tender is, I 4 can't talk to you? 5 A: You got it. 6 Q: Go through official channels. 7 A: You got it. That's right, yeah. 8 Q: All right. I'd now like to shift 9 directions a little bit and talk to you about the meetings 10 that you had with the City of Toronto and you've already said 11 that you met with Mr. Andrew when he was at Metro in August 12 of 1997? 13 A: That's right. July, August '97, yes. 14 Q: And in Paragraph 16, you say that you had 15 two (2) meetings with Mr. Andrew. I take it this is outside 16 of the 1997 meeting? 17 A: That's right. 18 Q: And that the first meeting took place in 19 February or March of 1999 and the second meeting took place a 20 couple weeks after that but it could have been as late as 21 April the 29th, 1999? 22 A: That's correct. 23 Q: Okay. How do you know that -- actually, 24 before we even get into those meetings, did you meet with 25 anybody else from the City other than Mr. Andrew in the


1 1999/2000/2001 period? 2 A: 1999, 2000, 2001? Yes, I did. There was 3 a gentleman looking after the networking side. 4 MADAM COMMISSIONER: Looking after what, 5 sorry? 6 THE WITNESS: A gentleman looking after the 7 networking aspect of things. The name slips me. I think his 8 name is Mike. 9 MS. DAINA GROSKAUFMANIS: Michael Franey? 10 THE WITNESS: That's right, yes. Michael 11 Franey, yes. Thank you. 12 13 CONTINUED BY MS. DAINA GROSKAUFMANIS: 14 Q: Did you meet with Mr. Franey more than 15 once? 16 A: No, just once. 17 Q: And do you know when you met with him? 18 A: Exactly, no. Sorry. I cannot remember 19 exactly the date. 20 MADAM COMMISSIONER: Can you -- can you, sort 21 of, give us a general idea? Was it -- 22 THE WITNESS: Yeah. 23 MADAM COMMISSIONER: -- before you met with 24 Mr. Domi and Mr. Andrew or long after that or -- 25 THE WITNESS: No, It would have been after


1 that. It was probably sometime in the fall of '99 or spring 2 of 2000. 3 MS. DAINA GROSKAUFMANIS: Do you have a 4 calendar or anything like that that you could go back and try 5 to pinpoint that meeting? 6 THE WITNESS: If it was more than eighteen 7 (18) months ago, no. 8 MADAM COMMISSIONER: Sorry, Mr. Kassam. 9 THE WITNESS: Yeah. 10 MADAM COMMISSIONER: I probably misunderstood 11 you then. I thought you said it would not have been after 12 your meeting with Mr. Domi and Mr. -- 13 THE WITNESS: No, I said yes, it would have 14 been. 15 MADAM COMMISSIONER: It would have been. 16 THE WITNESS: It would have been, yes. 17 MADAM COMMISSIONER: Okay. 18 THE WITNESS: It would have. Yes, it was in 19 the fall '99 or spring of 2000. I remember -- the reason why 20 I remember it would have been after is the meeting was set up 21 by a new employee of ours who had been working in the City 22 for another company and he knew Michael Franey so he had set 23 up a meeting for us to go and talk to him about network 24 services. 25 MADAM COMMISSIONER: Okay.


1 CONTINUED BY MS. DAINA GROSKAUFMANIS: 2 Q: And did MFP have any part of your meeting 3 with Mr. Franey? 4 A: No. 5 Q: Did you -- do you know who Brendan Power 6 is? 7 A: I've heard of him. 8 Q: And did -- did you -- have you heard of 9 him in the context of working at the City? 10 A: No, actually, my understanding was that he 11 used to work at the Province in the Management Board -- but, 12 I could be wrong on that one. 13 Q: Did you ever meet with Mr. Power in the 14 context of doing any business with the City of Toronto? 15 A: No. 16 Q: Did you meet with Lana Viinamae at the 17 City of Toronto? 18 A: Not while I was with Prescient, no. I met 19 with her when I was working at the Province. 20 Q: So this was prior to 1995? 21 A: It was prior to July of '95, yes. 22 Q: Did you meet with Ms. -- with Wanda Liczyk 23 while she was at the City of Toronto? 24 A: When did she leave the City of Toronto? 25 Q: June 2000 --


1 A: June -- 2 Q: -- 2001. 3 A: -- 2001? Okay, so I did not meet her at 4 the City of Toronto. I did meet her at a golf tournament. 5 Q: Whose golf tournament? 6 A: Oh, I think it was the City's golf 7 tournament. Mayor Lastman's golf tournament. I think that's 8 when I met her. 9 Q: And do you know when that gold tournament 10 was? 11 A: Sometime in 2000. 12 Q: And how did you come to play in the 13 Mayor's golf tournament? 14 A: The City sent out a fax, and they were 15 looking for sponsors. The City sent out two (2) requests a 16 year, I think. One (1) is for the Mayor's tournament, and 17 the other one (1)is for the IT Department's golf tournament, 18 and they ask vendors to sponsor a hole or a -- or a breakfast 19 or something of the sort. 20 And -- and I believe that we did sponsor a 21 hole, yes. 22 Q: And have you had an opportunity to meet 23 with Katherine Bulko at the City of Toronto? 24 A: Don't even know who she is. 25 Q: Let's get back to your two (2) meetings


1 with Mr. Andrew. 2 A: Sure. 3 MADAM COMMISSIONER: Just before then, of the 4 people that you've given us that you've just been asked 5 about, had you had occasion to ever send any of them any 6 materials? That being Mr. Franey, who was it, Mr. Power, Ms. 7 Viinamae, Ms. -- 8 THE WITNESS: We might have sent Mr. Franey 9 information about our services, as to what Prescient, but 10 that's about it. 11 MADAM COMMISSIONER: Thank you. 12 13 CONTINUED BY MS. DAINA GROSKAUFMANIS: 14 Q: In paragraph 17 of your affidavit, you 15 state that you're not expected to participate in the first 16 meeting that you had with Mr. Andrew, and that Dash Domi had 17 invited you to meet him for coffee at Metro Hall, and while 18 having coffee, Mr. Domi suggested that you join him for a 19 meeting that he had planned with Mr. Andrew? 20 A: That's correct. 21 Q: And at -- at the time, do -- do you recall 22 the reason for meeting with Mr. Domi? 23 A: He wanted some assistance in understanding 24 how the public sector works and I had another meeting 25 downtown, so I agreed to meet with him.


1 Q: So, this was just -- it was essentially a 2 -- a social call? 3 A: Yeah, absolutely, yeah. 4 Q: And how did you know Mr. Domi? 5 A: From MFP. 6 Q: In this -- in this early winter and 7 through spring of 1999, were you doing a lot of work with MFP 8 at the time? 9 A: '99, no we were just coming to the tail 10 end of -- of one of our projects, and I think that was the 11 last project that we did. 12 Q: And had anyone asked you to meet with Mr. 13 Domi and to assist him? 14 A: I believe Ms. Payne had mentioned that I 15 should meet with Mr. Domi and to assist him. 16 MADAM COMMISSIONER: I'm sorry, I -- I didn't 17 hear what you said, Ms. Payne had asked you? 18 THE WITNESS: Yes. 19 MADAM COMMISSIONER: To meet with Mr. Domi? 20 THE WITNESS: Yeah. In fact, she'd asked me 21 to meet with several of the account execs at MFP. And Mr. 22 Domi happened to be one (1) of them. 23 MADAM COMMISSIONER: Okay. 24 25 CONTINUED BY MS. DAINA GROSKAUFMANIS:


1 Q: And I certainly understand that you had 2 experience in the private -- I'm sorry, in the public sector 3 and in the Province, and that's one (1) of the reasons you 4 could share that information with Mr. Domi and with others. 5 I'm just trying to understand, were you 6 providing some kind of consulting services to MFP, or did you 7 do this as a favour to Ms. Payne? 8 A: Neither. 9 Q: Okay. 10 A: It was in the hopes that if they get some 11 business, we might be able to get some business out of it, 12 it's marketing. 13 Q: Okay. 14 A: Right. 15 Q: You state at paragraph 18, that the first 16 meeting with Mr. Andrew was less than a half an hour in 17 duration, and Mr. Domi was present, and that you wanted to 18 use this meeting as an opportunity to understand what the 19 City's -- where the City was going with this development of 20 its computer technology. 21 A: Hmm hmm. 22 Q: You also state that you did not have a 23 chance to discuss much, because Mr. Andrew was busy preparing 24 for a budget, and that you do not recall discussing the City 25 of Toronto's Request for Proposal for leasing at this


1 meeting? 2 A: That's correct. 3 Q: Do you remember what you did discuss, 4 other than some generalities? 5 A: It was just, you know, hi, how are things 6 going, and I believe Mr. Andrew, said, no, I've got this 7 budget to get done and it was, you know, it was very tense. 8 And I think it was just general talk, that's about it. 9 Q: Do you know how long -- 10 A: Nothing specific. 11 Q: -- okay, I'm sorry, I didn't mean to cut 12 you off -- 13 A: That's okay. 14 Q: -- Mr. Kassam. Do you know how long that 15 meeting lasted? 16 A: I don't think it was more than half an 17 hour, I think it would be even less than that, because Mr. 18 Andrew was in and out, you know, playing around with papers, 19 coming back in and all that stuff, yes. 20 Q: So, he didn't sit down and actually speak 21 with you for any length of time? 22 A: You know, five (5) minutes at the most, 23 maybe ten (10) minutes, that's about it. 24 Q: And Mr. Domi already had a scheduled 25 meeting with Mr. Andrew, that was your understanding?


1 A: That was my understanding, yes. 2 Q: In paragraph 19, you state that you've 3 scheduled a second -- Mr. Domi and you scheduled a second 4 meeting with Mr. Andrew, and that this could have been within 5 a few weeks, or it could have been as late as April the 29th, 6 '99, and that Mr. Domi was also present? 7 A: That's right. 8 Q: You don't have a specific recollection, or 9 any way of actually pinpointing the date of that second 10 meeting? 11 A: No. 12 Q: Mr. Kassam, if I could ask you turn up the 13 documents that are called Dash Domi Volume II, at Tab 28? 14 15 (BRIEF PAUSE) 16 17 A: Ok. 18 Q: This a document, 13447. And it's a -- 19 it's an entry from Mr. Andrew's calendar for Thursday, April 20 the 29th, 99, indicating a, a meeting time from 10:00 until 21 11:00 a.m. with Kanim and Dash Domi. 22 Mr. Domi in his testimony on January the 30th 23 of this year, agreed that that was actually a meeting with 24 you, Mr. Kassam -- Kassam and that it wasn't -- that Kanim 25 was Karim?


1 A: That's right. 2 Q: You can't tell me though whether that 3 meeting actually took place on April the 29th? 4 A: I can not. I can't recollect. 5 Q: Do you remember what happened at that 6 second meeting regardless of what the date was? 7 A: Again, it was --those-- the second meeting 8 was just general talk about what was happening in the City. 9 There's no specifics with respect to any business. 10 Q: And why -- is this a meeting that that you 11 setup with Mr. Andrew, specifically? 12 A: No. Not me. 13 Q: Who set it up? 14 A: If the meeting was setup, it was probably 15 setup by Dash Domi. 16 Q: And was it setup for Mr. Domi to meet with 17 Mr. Andrew, and you tagged along? Or was this a meeting that 18 was setup for you to meet with Mr. -- 19 A: -- I guess -- this was probably a follow- 20 up of the previous meeting that didn't take place, or took 21 place, and didn't take place, sort of. Since Mr. Andrew was 22 busy doing the budget in the first meeting, a second meeting 23 was setup. 24 Q: Ok. And what you've said is that this was 25 a general meeting about trying to figure out where the City


1 was going? 2 A: Yeah. 3 Q: And I take it sir, you were also then 4 trying figure out how you could sell Prescient's services to 5 the City? Is that fair? 6 A: Yes, and no. We basically stayed away 7 from doing business with the City. Because the process was 8 very slow. And I was just to busy doing the Y2K on top of 9 everything else to get involved in anything. 10 Q: So if the -- if you weren't, if you 11 weren't targeting the City for business, sir -- 12 A: Yes -- 13 Q: I'm trying to understand why you were 14 taking time to meet with -- 15 A: -- Oh, because Mr. Domi had asked me. 16 I'll be going there to assist Mr. Domi. Not for the purpose 17 of Prescient getting business. 18 Q: And how were you assisting, Mr. Domi? 19 A: Mr. Domi, as I mentioned is not a very 20 technology literate person. Say if there was any technical 21 aspect of the -- if there was any discussion with respect to 22 any of the technologies, then I was going to explain to him 23 at a later stage, as to what is involved. 24 Q: And did you charge either Mr. Domi or MFP 25 for providing these services?


1 A: No. 2 Q: This was just simply -- 3 MADAM COMMISSIONER: Do you know why, Mr. Domi 4 was using you for this as opposed to -- this is free. You're 5 doing this for free. Why was he not using somebody from MFP? 6 Do you know why he might not of been using someone from MFP? 7 THE WITNESS: I guess comfort level. Also, 8 the fact that he knew that I knew my technology stuff. 9 MADAM COMMISSIONER: What do you mean by 10 "Comfort Level"? Comfort level with you that he had? 11 THE WITNESS: That's right. Yes. Yeah. 12 MADAM COMMISSIONER: I thought you didn't know 13 him all that well? 14 THE WITNESS: Oh, prior to him joining MFP, 15 no. After that, I think we used to speak on a regular basis. 16 Just like, you know, any other person that you would meet in 17 -- in terms of a business relationship. You start talking to 18 them. 19 MADAM COMMISSIONER: So, were you on a general 20 Retainer with MFP, then? 21 THE WITNESS: No. We used to work on projects 22 for MFP. 23 MADAM COMMISSIONER: Right. 24 THE WITNESS: A lot of projects. And, you 25 know, I didn't think that this would require a general


1 Retainer because we're already in a lot business with them, 2 so. 3 MADAM COMMISSIONER: Ok. I'm just not sure 4 how or when Mr. Domi would have developed that comfort level 5 with you? 6 THE WITNESS: I think -- you know it was in 7 the first couple of meetings. Like, he and I met, and we 8 were introduced and we started having chats about different 9 things. He would come to the office and just ask me 10 questions about technology. And asked me questions about, 11 you know, how does this process work and can you help me out 12 over here. 13 Just that type of stuff. 14 MS. DAINA GROSKAUFMANIS: Ok. 15 16 CONTINUED BY: MS. DAINA GROSKAUFMANIS: 17 Q: When you say, sir, that he went to your 18 office; did you have an office at MFP's offices? 19 A: No. My office was at Yonge and Finch. 20 Q: And that's where he would drop by to see 21 you? 22 A: Yeah he would call me and say, look, I'm 23 here, you know, do you have time to grab a coffee or can I 24 call for half an hour, whatever. Sometimes it would be, you 25 know, are you going to be downtown and can we meet someplace?


1 Q: During the course of Mr. Domi's cross- 2 examination by counsel for Jim Andrew, he was asked about 3 this meeting. I'm going to read you some excerpts. 4 Actually before I do that, let me -- let me 5 ask you one (1) more question. Do you remember how this 6 meeting ended? 7 A: I think -- no, I don't remember. But it 8 would be just like any other meeting, you know? Thank you 9 very much for the time and we'll see you later. 10 Q: And there's nothing that particularly 11 stands out in your mind about that meeting, other than what 12 you've already told us? 13 A: No. 14 Q: On January the 30th of this year, when Mr. 15 Domi was cross-examined by Mr. Andrew's counsel, at page 174, 16 and he was questioned about that meeting, starting at -- at 17 line 6. 18 "Question. Okay, in my -- 19 MADAM COMMISSIONER: Just let me get there, 20 please? 21 MS. DAINA GROSKAUFMANIS: I'm sorry. 22 23 (BRIEF PAUSE) 24 25 MADAM COMMISSIONER: Okay.


1 CONTINUED BY MS. DAINA GROSKAUFMANIS: 2 Q: Question, starting at line 6, 3 "Okay, my question was, what was the 4 purpose or objective of that meeting?" 5 Answer, 6 "Perhaps Karim talking about what services 7 his -- he provides or working with jointly 8 with MFP, I don't know. Obviously 9 something." 10 Question, 11 "Do you recall, sir, how that meeting 12 ended?" 13 Answer, 14 "No, I don't." 15 Question, 16 "Do you recall, sir, that Mr. Andrew was 17 extremely upset at Mr. Kassam? Kassam?" 18 Answer, 19 "No." 20 Question, 21 "No?" 22 Answer, 23 "No, I do not." 24 And he goes on to talk about the nature of 25 that -- that meeting.


1 (BRIEF PAUSE) 2 3 Q: And if I could ask you, then -- I'm going 4 to read to you from page 177, starting at line 11. 5 "Okay. Do you recall Mr. Kassam asking Mr. 6 Andrew if he would assist in cancelling, or 7 cancel contracts with Questech Computers, 8 SHL or GE Capital that were already in 9 effect?" 10 Answer, 11 "Do I recall him asking to cancel?" 12 Question, 13 "Yes." 14 Answer, 15 "No, I don't recall that." 16 Sir, did you ask Mr. Andrew whether he would 17 assist in cancelling or cancel contracts with Questech, SHL 18 or GE Capital that were already in effect? 19 A: Absolutely not. 20 Q: How can you be so certain? 21 A: I would never ask such a thing. That 22 would be absurd. These are legal contracts between two (2) 23 parties. Who am I to interfere with the business of the two? 24 Q: Did you know, sir, in 1999, whether the 25 City of Toronto had contracts in place with certain providers


1 of -- of hardware? 2 A: I didn't know who the hardware providers 3 were. No, I did not. 4 Q: Did you have any discussions with Mr. Domi 5 about who those hardware providers might be? 6 A: I don't recall any discussions with Mr. 7 Domi as to who the hardware providers were. 8 Q: How about with Mr. Andrew? 9 A: No. You see, there would be no reason for 10 me to discuss who the hardware providers are because Questech 11 was not in the business of providing hardware. That's why I 12 find it absurd that I would actually ask somebody to cancel 13 contracts for hardware provisioning. 14 Q: So if Mr. -- 15 A: I -- I would not see them as being 16 competitors in that sense. 17 Q: So if Mr. Andrew gave evidence, which we 18 haven't -- and we have not heard from him, yet. 19 A: Hmm hmm. 20 Q: I want to be very clear. If he gave 21 evidence that you asked him to assist in cancelling or to 22 cancel contracts with Questech, SHL or GE Capital, it's your 23 evidence that that is not what happened and that would be 24 untrue? 25 A: Exactly, yes.


1 Q: Sir, if I could take you to paragraph 22 2 of your affidavit. You say that you never saw the City of 3 Toronto's completed and final Request for Proposal for the -- 4 the one (1) that was actually issued by them? 5 A: That's right. 6 Q: You -- and then you go onto say, in 7 paragraph 23, that you did not provide any assistance to MFP 8 with respect to its response to that -- to the RFQ, although 9 there was an e-mail which is at Tab 22 -- sorry, Tab 2. It's 10 Document 27547 that was sent by Mr. -- sent to you at what 11 appears to be Prescient from Mr. Pessione, copied to Mr. 12 Wilkinson and Mr. Domi and it enclosed the document that is 13 at Tab 3, which is a fairly late draft of MFP's response to 14 the RFQ. It's Document 27548. 15 Do you know why Mr. Pessione would have sent 16 you that -- that draft response? MFP's draft response to the 17 City of Toronto RFQ? 18 A: He -- I can only guess that he probably 19 wanted us to review it and give him comments and feedback. 20 We get that on a regular basis for some of MFP's responses. 21 Q: You -- 22 A: But I don't know why he would send me this 23 specific one because, you know, it's to do with leasing. 24 Q: And when you say -- you -- you're -- the 25 way you're saying that it's as if you don't provide advice


1 with respect to leasing? 2 A: Exactly. You know, the number crunching 3 part is theirs, it is not ours. 4 MADAM COMMISSIONER: It's their what? 5 THE WITNESS: It's the RFP -- sorry? 6 MADAM COMMISSIONER: I just -- you went a 7 little fast and I didn't hear what you said. 8 THE WITNESS: Oh, sorry. The number crunching 9 part is their expertise, not ours. So there would be, you 10 know, no way for us to provide any advice on that. If it had 11 to do technology, that's a different story. 12 We would provide advice or recommendations or 13 you know, give information as to what to put in and what not 14 to put in but if it came to leasing, what I'd tell them, I'd 15 just take the Canada Bond Rate and increase by two (2) basis 16 points. It's not our expertise. 17 MADAM COMMISSIONER: Okay. So when you're 18 giving advice to people, then, would you be only giving 19 advice on the actual numbers as opposed to the form or the 20 content, generally, apart from the actual numbers? 21 THE WITNESS: When -- when we're working on a 22 response to an RFP with clients, we would give advice on the 23 content, the form and the recommendations. In this case, you 24 know, it had to do with leasing and we would have no interest 25 providing or no expertise in providing a response to that and


1 since Mr. Pessione already worked for the Province, he would 2 have known how to respond to an RFP coming from the other 3 side of the public sector. 4 5 CONTINUED BY MS. DAINA GROSKAUFMANIS: 6 Q: I'm confused about one thing, now -- 7 A: Yes. 8 Q: -- that you said where this -- where you 9 said this is not something you provide advice on. 10 A: Yes. 11 Q: If you wouldn't be providing advice with 12 respect to leasing -- 13 A: Yes. 14 Q: -- on what basis, sir, then were you 15 providing a template for a draft leasing RFP? 16 A: Asking questions of leasing is different 17 than responding to questions on leasing. If you ask me what 18 are the, you know, ten (10) questions I could ask on leasing, 19 I can give you ten (10) questions. If you ask me, you know, 20 how do you come up with the numbers, that's out of my scope. 21 So if you ask me to sit down with somebody and 22 evaluate whether, you know, should it be Bid A or Bid B, I 23 wouldn't know but I can say, you know, there are the ten (10) 24 questions you could ask and that's what the RFP states. 25 Q: Did you ask Mr. Pessione or anyone else at


1 MFP to send you their response to the City of Toronto RFQ on 2 leasing? 3 A: No. 4 Q: And you say in Paragraph 24 you didn't 5 respond to that -- to that e-mail? 6 A: That's right. 7 MS. DAINA GROSKAUFMANIS: Madam Commissioner, 8 I -- 9 MADAM COMMISSIONER: Just on that and I'm only 10 going from memory here but my recollection was that Ms. Payne 11 had asked that it be sent to Mr. Kassam. 12 MS. DAINA GROSKAUFMANIS: That's right. 13 MADAM COMMISSIONER: Yeah. 14 MS. DAINA GROSKAUFMANIS: That's certainly 15 what Mr. Pessione said. 16 MADAM COMMISSIONER: Okay. 17 18 CONTINUED BY MS. DAINA GROSKAUFMANIS: 19 Q: Do you have -- do you know whether Ms. 20 Payne -- had you had any discussion with Ms. Payne about 21 receiving a copy of MFP's draft response? 22 A: No. 23 Q: And -- 24 A: There were discussions with MFP with 25 respect to responding to other RFP's. There were a couple


1 out in BC we were helping out with that but not this specific 2 one, no. 3 Q: This one in particular? 4 A: No. 5 Q: And you have no knowledge about why -- do 6 you have any knowledge or information or belief why it would 7 have been sent to you other than you get sent them from time 8 to time? 9 A: Exactly. That's right. 10 MADAM COMMISSIONER: You don't know why Ms. 11 Payne would have suggested that he send this to you? 12 THE WITNESS: The question over here is 13 whether Ms. Payne specifically asked them to send me this 14 specific RFP or whether she made a general statement to her 15 staff saying, you know, any RFP responses, put it through 16 Prescient and they can give us advice. So -- 17 MADAM COMMISSIONER: Well -- 18 THE WITNESS: -- there's a difference between 19 a general statement being made because we were working on 20 other RFP responses for MFP and a statement made with respect 21 to this specific RFP. 22 MADAM COMMISSIONER: I thought that he said 23 that Ms. Payne had asked him to send it to you directly, with 24 respect to this -- this RFP, and I'm just wondering, did she 25 ever say anything to you about that, or --


1 THE WITNESS: Not that I recall, no. 2 MADAM COMMISSIONER: Had you worked with her 3 before? 4 THE WITNESS: In what sense? 5 MADAM COMMISSIONER: I don't know. 6 THE WITNESS: She was the account rep when I 7 was working at the Province. 8 MADAM COMMISSIONER: Oh, she was the 9 account -- 10 THE WITNESS: No, MFP was providing leasing to 11 the Province of Ontario. 12 MADAM COMMISSIONER: Right. 13 THE WITNESS: And working at Social Services, 14 Ms. Payne was the account rep. 15 MADAM COMMISSIONER: The account rep, oh, I 16 see. 17 THE WITNESS: Yes. 18 MADAM COMMISSIONER: Okay. 19 MS. DAINA GROSKAUFMANIS: Madam Commissioner, 20 that actually finishes my questions for Mr. Kassam. I just 21 want to remind you, Mr. Kassam, that you've undertaken to 22 provide me the properties printout from the -- from that -- 23 the draft leasing RFP document that's on your system, and 24 that -- 25 THE WITNESS: Sure.


1 MS. DAINA GROSKAUFMANIS: -- you'll provide 2 those to me -- that you'll provide those property printouts 3 to me. 4 THE WITNESS: How do I send it, do I just 5 bring it over here and drop it off? 6 MS. DAINA GROSKAUFMANIS: Yeah, sure, I'll -- 7 I'll -- we can talk about the logistics of it. 8 THE WITNESS: Oh. 9 MS. DAINA GROSKAUFMANIS: I just wanted to 10 remind you of your undertaking? 11 THE WITNESS: Okay. 12 MS. DAINA GROSKAUFMANIS: Okay. 13 MADAM COMMISSIONER: Thank you. All right, 14 who's next? Have you agreed? 15 MR. DAVID MOORE: Actually we haven't -- we 16 haven't had any specific discussion about that. 17 MADAM COMMISSIONER: Do you want to have a 18 little huddle, while I'll stay here. 19 MR. HUGH MACKENZIE: Commissioner, generally 20 the order appears to be that I go next. My concern is 21 this -- 22 MADAM COMMISSIONER: No, I understand your 23 concern, so you'd want to go last, I'm assuming? 24 MR. HUGH MACKENZIE: Well, that would be my 25 proposal, but for -- for a different reason. And the


1 document that we've been looking at, which is marked as Tab 4 2 of Mr. Kassam's -- 3 MADAM COMMISSIONER: You know, Mr. -- okay, 4 Mr. MacKenzie, what I was going to suggest is why don't you 5 have your little huddle first, and if everybody agrees that 6 you go last, you don't have to address anything to me at all. 7 MR. HUGH MACKENZIE: Well, and I have to 8 address it I guess to you, and -- and then to Mr. Kassam. 9 And the reason I say that is because what we have here is a 10 document that says that this is revision number 4. And I 11 would very much like to -- to have, for the purposes of my 12 cross-examination, revision number 3, of -- of the template. 13 MADAM COMMISSIONER: I see. 14 MR. HUGH MACKENZIE: I apologize for that, I 15 should have asked for it earlier. 16 MADAM COMMISSIONER: Yeah, this came from you, 17 we didn't know about this until you gave it to us. 18 MR. HUGH MACKENZIE: I know. 19 MADAM COMMISSIONER: Mr. Kassam, on the page 2 20 of that -- 21 THE WITNESS: Hmm hmm. 22 MADAM COMMISSIONER: -- Exhibit 9. 23 THE WITNESS: Yes. 24 MADAM COMMISSIONER: It says last saved by 25 you, and the revision number is 4. And what Mr. MacKenzie is


1 asking for is he'd like to have revision number 3, if that 2 exists. Is there someone in your office who would be able to 3 get that faxed to us or e-mailed to us, or I guess faxed, 4 because we -- 5 THE WITNESS: Okay, so that would be next to 6 impossible, and the reason why I say that is, I don't 7 remember where I got this document from, from what template. 8 MADAM COMMISSIONER: Okay. 9 THE WITNESS: So I don't remember, you know, 10 whether it was, you know, City of Timbuktu or Ministry of 11 whatever, that the RFP was written for. 12 MADAM COMMISSIONER: Okay. 13 THE WITNESS: In order to determine what 14 revision 3 was. It is also possible that revision 3 was the 15 same document, and all I did was just went and modified a 16 couple of things in there and re-saved, so it's possible that 17 that was -- so, if you want me to go back and determine what 18 revision 3, is next to impossible. 19 MADAM COMMISSIONER: All right. 20 THE WITNESS: I can get you the original 21 document that was created in '97, I have that in electronic 22 format, and you can -- in fact I've got a printout of it with 23 me. 24 MADAM COMMISSIONER: Well, don't worry just 25 yet.


1 THE WITNESS: Okay. 2 MADAM COMMISSIONER: Let's see if we can -- 3 can we agree on the order of cross-examination? 4 MR. DAVID MOORE: Mr. Capern and I had a brief 5 discussion -- 6 MADAM COMMISSIONER: Yes. 7 MR. DAVID MOORE: -- and actually before just 8 now, and as I understand the City's position, you may recall 9 when the April 30th document came up in prior questioning, 10 and the premise of the questions seemed to be on the 11 assumption that it was a City authored, internal, 12 confidential document, representing the City's draft of the 13 RFQ. 14 And as I understand, the City position at 15 least, when we argue additional information that's come to 16 light since that time, it -- I think the City agrees with 17 that -- that assumption, appears to have been incorrect. 18 And -- 19 MADAM COMMISSIONER: The City's assumption is 20 that -- 21 MR. DAVID MOORE: That's right. 22 MADAM COMMISSIONER: -- it may be incorrect? 23 MR. DAVID MOORE: Well, and in fairness, I 24 don't think the City was wrong in making that assumption, I 25 think various people made that assumption when the document


1 was first distributed -- 2 MADAM COMMISSIONER: Can I -- 3 MR. DAVID MOORE: -- so, in light of that. 4 MADAM COMMISSIONER: -- I just need to know 5 who's going next. 6 MR. DAVID MOORE: No, in light of -- no, but I 7 say that, and the reason -- I'm not just wasting your time by 8 saying that, I'm content on the basis of that understanding, 9 to go next. 10 MADAM COMMISSIONER: Well -- 11 MR. DAVID MOORE: If it was different, I might 12 well make a submission that I'd want to go after Mr. Capern. 13 MADAM COMMISSIONER: Okay, well, I don't 14 actually care what the -- no offense, to the City, I don't 15 mean I don't care what the City thinks about this. 16 But from your perspective, you're saying that 17 the City isn't taking as strong a position as it might have 18 before, if the City had thought that it came from the City's 19 files. We still don't know that, okay? 20 MR. DAVID MOORE: Well -- 21 MADAM COMMISSIONER: From my perspective. 22 MR. DAVID MOORE: Well -- 23 MADAM COMMISSIONER: So I don't actually care, 24 between the two (2) of you, of how you want to arrange your 25 cross-examination; it's fine with me. I'm not coming to the


1 same conclusion until I hear all the evidence. 2 MR. DAVID MOORE: No, I appreciate that. 3 But -- but it was the City, not exclusively, but the City 4 probably more than anyone else, whose questions were premised 5 on the assumption that it -- that this was a document 6 actually authored by the City. 7 Now, I appreciate there's issues about, did 8 Mr. Andrew get it and if so how, et cetera. But in terms of 9 the authorship of the document, that -- that assumption has 10 been made before and I won't repeat what I've said but that's 11 my understanding. 12 And based upon that, I'm prepared to go next. 13 MADAM COMMISSIONER: All right. 14 MR. DAVID MOORE: Thank you. 15 MADAM COMMISSIONER: Mr. Moore, I'll hear from 16 you. This is Mr. David Moore and he is the lawyer acting 17 for MFP. 18 19 (BRIEF PAUSE) 20 21 THE WITNESS: Can I ask a question? 22 MADAM COMMISSIONER: Maybe. Yes, go ahead. 23 THE WITNESS: Why are we discussing the draft 24 template or the framework of the document as to who had it 25 and who did not have it?


1 MADAM COMMISSIONER: Well, that -- 2 THE WITNESS: Because I don't think the draft 3 document, irrespective of who has it and who didn't have it, 4 has any bearing on what the outcome is. Because the -- as I 5 understand or have been told, that the final RFP document 6 didn't resemble that draft at all. 7 MADAM COMMISSIONER: Yes, Mr. Kassam, thank 8 you for that. Ultimately, I have to make that decision. No 9 offense to you, but it's up to me to decide what's relevant, 10 okay? 11 THE WITNESS: I was just asking. 12 MADAM COMMISSIONER: No, no, I understand. 13 But it's -- I have to look at a lot of different things, and 14 looking at the Terms of Reference here. In the final 15 analysis, I have to look at all sorts of different 16 components, and this is just one (1). So that's why -- 17 you're being called just on a small part of the Inquiry and 18 we'll see where it takes us. 19 THE WITNESS: Hmm hmm. 20 MADAM COMMISSIONER: All right? Okay, this is 21 David Moore, the lawyer for MFP. 22 23 CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. DAVID MOORE: 24 Q: Thank you. Sir, you've given evidence 25 about the meetings that you attended with Mr. Andrew. I --


1 I -- would it be fair to say, you don't have any particularly 2 distinct recollection of those meetings, is that fair? 3 A: That would be fair. 4 Q: And I take it that nothing happened during 5 any of those meetings that particularly stood out in your 6 mind? Or stands out in your mine? 7 A: You got it. 8 Q: And specifically, you didn't come away 9 with any observation of anything, any unusual relationship, 10 per se, between Mr. Domi and Mr. Andrew? 11 A: None whatsoever. 12 Q: And -- and if you had made such an 13 observation at the time, I take it, that's something you'd 14 likely remember today? 15 A: Oh, absolutely, yes. 16 Q: All right. You've been asked a number of 17 questions about these templates. And you mentioned -- did 18 you have the actual template with you? 19 A: The document that I printed? Yes. 20 Q: Yes? 21 A: Yes. 22 Q: Could I just take a quick look at that? 23 A: Sure. 24 25 (BRIEF PAUSE)


1 MADAM COMMISSIONER: Did we have this before? 2 Have we seen this, Ms. Groskaufmanis? 3 MS. DAINA GROSKAUFMANIS: I'm fairly confident 4 we -- we have not see the original template. 5 MADAM COMMISSIONER: Okay. And is there a 6 reason why we haven't asked Mr. Kassam for this before? 7 MS. DAINA GROSKAUFMANIS: Well, Madam 8 Commissioner, we were obviously focussed on what the -- the 9 template that went to the City of Toronto was. And what that 10 document -- 11 MADAM COMMISSIONER: Oh, was it? 12 MS. DAINA GROSKAUFMANIS: -- was, and not what 13 was created in 1997. 14 THE WITNESS: I have it here. 15 MADAM COMMISSIONER: Do you have it here? 16 THE WITNESS: I -- it was -- 17 MADAM COMMISSIONER: Just hang on, Mr. Kassam. 18 Sorry. The only way that we can hear what you're saying is 19 if you're speaking in the microphone. So, we'll wait for you 20 to get back. 21 THE WITNESS: Sorry. I was saying that I had 22 it in that binder over there. 23 MADAM COMMISSIONER: And it's gone? 24 THE WITNESS: I don't see it. I have my other 25 documents.


1 (BRIEF PAUSE) 2 3 THE WITNESS: Did I give you that copy? 4 MS. DAINA GROSKAUFMANIS: I have -- Mr. 5 Kassam, you provided me with not -- I don't believe you 6 provided me with the original, you provided me with the one 7 (1) of the ones for the City of Toronto. 8 MADAM COMMISSIONER: Which we already have, is 9 that the -- 10 MS. DAINA GROSKAUFMANIS: Yes. 11 MADAM COMMISSIONER: Is it the same as the one 12 (1) we have? 13 MS. DAINA GROSKAUFMANIS: If I can just 14 quickly look at it. This is -- you provided me, sir, with 15 the one (1) you printed out for the City of Toronto, which is 16 the document we already have. 17 THE WITNESS: Sorry, can I have a look at 18 that? 19 MADAM COMMISSIONER: All right. Would you -- 20 do you guys want to take five (5) minutes -- 21 MS. DAINA GROSKAUFMANIS: Yeah. 22 MADAM COMMISSIONER: -- and see if you can 23 resolve some of this and I'll -- we'll just break for five 24 (5) minutes. 25 THE REGISTRAR: The Inquiry will recess for


1 five (5) minutes. 2 3 --- Upon recessing at 12:35 p.m. 4 --- Upon resuming at 12:40 p.m. 5 6 THE REGISTRAR: The Inquiry will resume. 7 Please be seated. 8 MADAM COMMISSIONER: Okay. Are we ready? 9 MR. DAVID MOORE: Thank you. 10 MADAM COMMISSIONER: Mr. Moore? 11 12 CONTINUED BY MR. DAVID MOORE: 13 Q: As I understand it, sir, and informally 14 we've ascertained that -- that, in fact, you don't appear to 15 have a hard copy of that original template with you? 16 A: That's right. 17 Q: I take it that's something that you have 18 gone back and looked at and found in your archives? 19 A: That's right. 20 Q: All right and then so that's something 21 that, like the other document that Commission Counsel raised, 22 that you could -- you could provide a copy of to the 23 Commissioner for the purposes of this Inquiry, correct? 24 A: That's correct. 25 Q: All right and so I take it implicit in


1 that, you -- when you were approached about this question, 2 that is questions relating to the April 30th document, you 3 actually did go back yourself and look at your own records? 4 A: Absolutely. 5 Q: And I take it, it would be fair to say 6 that prior to that you wouldn't have any particular reason to 7 remember that specific document? 8 A: You got it. 9 Q: It would be one of a huge number that you 10 would have prepared or been involved in over the -- over the 11 years? 12 A: On an annual basis, we create one hundred 13 thousand (100,000) documents. 14 Q: All right and so, I take it then as a 15 result of having received certain inquiries, you went back 16 and dug out some material from the archives? 17 A: That's right. 18 Q: And I take it from that, that you 19 satisfied yourself that, indeed, you or your company, 20 Prescient, had, in fact, been the author of that document? 21 A: That's correct. 22 Q: All right and I take it as a result of the 23 inquiries you made, you were able to satisfy yourself that 24 this was not something you did for the City in the sense of 25 being retained by the City or consulting for the City?


1 A: That's correct. 2 Q: Something you did independent of the City? 3 A: That's correct. 4 Q: All right and as I understand your 5 evidence, you're not able to recall or be specific as to what 6 path that document went? Specifically the April 30th version 7 as to who it was sent to, by what means, et cetera? 8 A: That's right. 9 Q: All right. 10 A: And I just want to clear something up. I 11 think you were asked by Ms. Groskaufmanis as to, you know, 12 how you could explain or if you'd explain how the document 13 may have -- how a hard copy of the document may have ended up 14 in an MFP file and I understood you to say you couldn't 15 explain that. 16 Let me just put that in some context. I take 17 it the explanation could obviously be that either you 18 provided it to MFP, the hard copy, correct? 19 A: That's right. 20 Q: Or another explanation could be that you 21 sent the document by e-mail or otherwise to someone at MFP 22 and they kept a copy in their file? 23 A: That's also a possibility. 24 Q: All right and you're just not able to 25 assist as to how that might have occurred?


1 A: There are also other possibilities. 2 Q: I appreciate that but those are -- 3 A: Yeah. 4 Q: -- two (2) possibilities? 5 A: At least, yes. 6 Q: All right and I think -- 7 MADAM COMMISSIONER: What are you say -- what 8 are you getting at when you say that there are other 9 possibilities? 10 THE WITNESS: Well, it's either I give it to 11 Mr. Domi in paper form or an electronic copy or I sent it to 12 somebody at MFP who would then gave it to Mr. Domi or I gave 13 it to somebody at the City who then gave it to MFP. 14 MADAM COMMISSIONER: Okay. 15 THE WITNESS: That's all. 16 17 CONTINUED BY MR. DAVID MOORE: 18 Q: And in any event, in terms of the document 19 itself, I take it there was nothing special in the document 20 that made it stand out in your mind? 21 A: No, nothing. 22 Q: And I take it nothing special in the 23 process, whatever that process was, of sending that document 24 off that stood out in your mind at the time? 25 A: That's right, yeah.


1 Q: And that's why you're not able to 2 remember, specifically, how and to whom it was sent? 3 A: Exactly. 4 Q: All right because we know the evidence, I 5 appreciate you're likely not familiar with it all, but the 6 evidence in this case would indicate that there were other 7 people at MFP who were involved at various points in the 8 process. We've heard -- we've heard about Mr. Pessione, for 9 example, who was assisting in working on the draft response 10 to the RFQ? 11 A: Okay. 12 Q: All right and there was a Mr. Wilkinson 13 had -- who had some involvement, as well? 14 A: Already mentioned, yes. 15 Q: Do you know who Mr. Wilkinson is? 16 A: Yes. 17 Q: All right and Ms. Payne. I'm not going to 18 try to encapsulate the evidence but Ms. Payne also had some 19 involvement in terms of people reporting to her and her 20 monitoring what was happening? 21 A: Possibility, yeah. 22 Q: All right. So there -- there were several 23 other people at MFP who you might have sent the document to? 24 A: Oh. 25 Q: Is that fair?


1 A: No. I would not have sent it to Mr. 2 Wilkinson or Ms. Payne. 3 Q: Well, how can you be so sure about that 4 when you don't remember what the process was? 5 A: Oh, very simple. Mr. Wilkinson is a 6 number cruncher. 7 MADAM COMMISSIONER: He's a what, sir? Oh, I 8 see. 9 THE WITNESS: He's a number cruncher. 10 MADAM COMMISSIONER: Right. 11 THE WITNESS: You give him the numbers and 12 he'll tell what the lease rates are and all that kind of 13 stuff. I had -- I know of Mr. Wilkinson. I met with him 14 when I was in and out of MFP offices when I was there, but we 15 didn't actually have meetings on a regular basis, and would 16 have no discussions with respect to any of the RFP's. 17 So, I would have no reason to send him a copy 18 of an RFP or a draft or a template. 19 20 CONTINUED BY MR. DAVID MOORE: 21 Q: Okay, well, so -- so when you say -- 22 A: So he's off the list right off the bat. 23 Q: Sorry, well, when you say that, I take it 24 you're applying a kind of logic and deduction to that, you 25 don't have a specific recall; isn't that fair?


1 A: That's right, yes. 2 Q: All right. Because there is a note in 3 evidence, sir, from the diaries or -- or notebooks of 4 Christine Vivaldo that has an entry: 5 "Dash RFP, Karim was to send to Rob W. 6 Jim is looking for City template." 7 Now, again, I'm not -- I'm not saying, I'm not 8 asserting to you that anyone at MFP has a good recollection 9 of this either, because they don't. I can tell you that 10 right off the top. 11 But I take it you don't have any recollection 12 of a discussion about sending it to Mr. -- to Mr. Wilkinson? 13 A: No, and the statement that you just made 14 could mean different things. 15 Q: All right, can you -- I'm not -- I'm not 16 sure what you mean by that, but I'll ask you anyway. 17 A: Well, to me it could mean that Rob 18 Wilkinson to send it to Jim. 19 Q: No, but this -- the note -- this note may 20 not be accurate and, quite frankly, as counsel for MFP, I can 21 tell you that the people there do not have a good 22 recollection of this either -- 23 A: You've got to stick to the interpretation. 24 Q: I just -- 25 MADAM COMMISSIONER: Just help me, Mr. Moore,


1 of where that is in -- 2 MR. DAVID MOORE: I'm sorry -- 3 MADAM COMMISSIONER: -- in the materials, so 4 you can actually tell me at the break, if that -- 5 MR. DAVID MOORE: All right. 6 MADAM COMMISSIONER: -- if that's easier, 7 okay. Just tell Ms. Groskaufmanis, so I know -- 8 MR. DAVID MOORE: Yes. 9 MADAM COMMISSIONER: -- for my purposes here. 10 MR. DAVID MOORE: Yes, thank you. 11 MADAM COMMISSIONER: All right. 12 13 CONTINUED BY MR. DAVID MOORE: 14 Q: And at any rate, sir -- 15 MADAM COMMISSIONER: Do you know who -- do you 16 know who Ms. Vivaldo is? 17 THE WITNESS: She was, I think, the executive 18 assistant to Ms. Payne. 19 MADAM COMMISSIONER: Right. 20 THE WITNESS: Yes. 21 MADAM COMMISSIONER: And she took some notes. 22 THE WITNESS: Okay. 23 MADAM COMMISSIONER: And she did that on a 24 regular basis, and one (1) of the notes she took, in the 25 materials that we have, is this one (1) that Mr. Moore has


1 just read to you, which was: 2 "Dash, RFP, Karim was to send Rob W. 3 Jim is looking for a template." 4 A City template does it say, or -- 5 MR. DAVID MOORE: It says: 6 "RFP, Karim was to send to Rob W." 7 And then another line: 8 "Jim is looking for City template." 9 MADAM COMMISSIONER: Okay. 10 THE WITNESS: Now, would that be Jim Andrew 11 or Jim Holeran, because Jim Holeran worked at MFP, and he 12 used to work -- he used to do work for -- I think he's a 13 councillor to Lindsay, Peterborough and those areas. 14 MADAM COMMISSIONER: Well, how do you spell 15 his last name, do you know? 16 THE WITNESS: Oh, Holeran, H-O-L-E-R-A-N, if I 17 recall. 18 MADAM COMMISSIONER: Okay. And he was 19 responsible for -- 20 THE WITNESS: He was an account exec at MFP, 21 and I think he looked after some of the Municipalities from 22 our firm. So, which Jim would that be? 23 24 CONTINUED BY MR. DAVID MOORE: 25 Q: Well, that's a question that no one's


1 asked me so far, and I'll take that up and -- and I don't 2 know the answer to that, sir. But -- but in any -- 3 MADAM COMMISSIONER: It just gets thicker and 4 thicker. 5 6 CONTINUED BY MR. DAVID MOORE: 7 Q: In any event, and I'm not going to take 8 you to this document either, but my recollection is that -- 9 that in notes prepared referable to a meeting involving Dell 10 Financial Services, there's some bleak reference to the City 11 perhaps looking for a template. 12 Did I understand your evidence to be that it's 13 not uncommon for public sector clients to ask for templates 14 of RFP's or RFQ's? 15 A: That's right, it's a common practice. 16 Q: All right. So if -- if at the end of it 17 all, the inference that -- that we're able to piece together, 18 from what I fear is going to be an incomplete recollection of 19 what happened, if the inference that -- that is ultimately 20 drawn is that the City of Toronto was requesting vendors for 21 templates of -- of potential RFP or RFQ to do its leasing - 22 take that assumption - in your experience, that wouldn't be 23 particularly unusual? 24 A: That's right, it would not. 25 Q: All right, and you wouldn't think there


1 was anything untoward or inappropriate about that, if in fact 2 that's what happened? 3 A: Exactly, yeah. 4 Q: All right. And -- and I think in the 5 course of your questioning, you indicated that -- that the 6 draft RFQ might give a potential bidder background 7 information; that was the way I think one (1) of the 8 questions was put to you? 9 A: Hmm hmm. 10 Q: All right, and -- and my -- my note of 11 that, that the context of that was, if we're talking about 12 someone who didn't know anything about the RFQ or RFP 13 process, it might provide a person with -- with no such 14 background, some insight into what the document might look 15 like; is that fair? 16 A: That's right, yeah. 17 Q: But in the case of someone like MFP who 18 had experience in dealing with RFP's and RFQ's generally, a 19 template or a draft like this wouldn't derive really any 20 additional information, would it? 21 A: That's exactly what I stated earlier. 22 Yes. 23 Q: All right. 24 MADAM COMMISSIONER: That's what, sorry? 25 THE WITNESS: That's exactly what I stated


1 earlier. 2 MADAM COMMISSIONER: Okay. 3 4 CONTINUES BY MR. DAVID MOORE: 5 Q: And you indicated, as I understood it, in 6 answer to Commissioner Bellamy, that Mr. Domi would call you 7 from time to time and ask you -- and ask you questions 8 periodically? 9 A: Yeah. Or he would just call me say, how 10 are things going, you know, what's happening, what's new, 11 what projects are you working on. 12 Q: In your experience, or in your 13 observation, was he the kind of person who'd -- who would 14 place kind of chit-chat phone calls like that frequently, 15 without necessarily a lot of substance to them? 16 A: Yes. Absolutely, yeah. 17 Q: All right -- 18 A: Not too many phone calls, you know, five- 19 minute phone calls, yeah, that kind of stuff. 20 MADAM COMMISSIONER: I'm sorry, you speak -- 21 THE WITNESS: Sorry. 22 MADAM COMMISSIONER: -- very fast -- and I 23 THE WITNESS: -- I'm sorry, I'll slow down -- 24 MADAM COMMISSIONER: -- can't always hear -- 25 THE WITNESS: I'll slow down -- I will slow


1 down. Not too many phone calls here, or pardon me, a chat 2 there. 3 MADAM COMMISSIONER: Okay. 4 5 CONTINUED BY MR. DAVID MOORE: 6 Q: And I take it -- I've asked you whether 7 anything particularly stood out in connection with the 8 meetings involving Mr. Andrew, and Mr. Domi. 9 Is there anything that particularly stands out 10 in -- in whatever number of phone calls Mr. Domi may have 11 placed to you over -- over the time frame? 12 A: No, nothing. 13 Q: And I'd take it they would be kind of a 14 general nature, often very short? 15 A: Yes. 16 Q: All right. And kind of picking your brain 17 about general topics about the public sector, that kind of 18 thing? 19 A: Well, about public sector or, you know, 20 upcoming golf tournaments or, you know, what do you think 21 about that event taking place, and that type of stuff. 22 Q: All right -- 23 A: Or I'd ask him about, you know, how things 24 were going at MFP and whether he was settled in and... 25 Q: All right. But nothing -- to be certain,


1 there's nothing specific in any of those phone calls with Mr. 2 Domi that -- that you can remember that -- that might be of 3 particular significance to this leasing contract? 4 A: No. Nothing. 5 Q: All right. You indicated that, in your 6 experience, it would be commonplace for bidders to inquire 7 about the status of the evaluation process? 8 A: That's right. 9 Q: All right. And, I take it one (1) of the 10 things that bidders might inquire about was -- that they try 11 to find out as much information as possible, I take it? 12 A: That's their job. 13 Q: All right. And -- and one (1) of the 14 things that a bidder might try to find out is what the timing 15 might be of the process? 16 A: Absolutely. 17 Q: Because there -- there's been some 18 evidence in this case, I'm not going to direct you to the 19 specifics, but there's been some -- some evidence suggesting 20 that some account -- people from Dell Financial had attended 21 or were going to attend one of the Policy and Finance 22 Committee meetings. 23 There's also evidence -- I think it first came 24 from Mr. Jakobek, actually, that Mr. Domi had been at the 25 July 20th Policy and Finance Committee meeting.


1 Now, in your experience would it be normal for 2 bidders to try to find out when the committee might be 3 meeting to consider an issue? 4 A: Absolutely, yes. 5 Q: And would bidders sometimes find that out? 6 A: They would. 7 Q: Yes. In that finding the timing of the 8 process would be something quite different than finding out 9 what your particular recommendation was, or what the content 10 of a draft report might say; is that fair? 11 A: That's right. 12 Q: All right? 13 A: And bearing in mind that none of that has 14 an impact on the outcome. 15 Q: All right. 16 17 (BRIEF PAUSE) 18 19 Q: And lastly, you were asked a number of 20 questions about this blackout period. I understood you to 21 say in one of your answers that -- that -- that the 22 evaluators were -- were told about a blackout period. 23 Now, I just want to -- have you ever seen 24 anything in writing that defines what a blackout period is? 25 A: I'll just correct you. I did not state


1 that the evaluators were told. I stated that the evaluators 2 should have been told there is a blackout period. 3 Q: All right. I may have made a mistake in 4 taking down the note but I just wanted to clarify that. 5 A: Okay. 6 Q: Have you ever seen anything in -- in 7 writing kind of defining the length or scope of a blackout 8 period? 9 A: When I was at the Province, yes. But 10 that's about it. 11 Q: Well -- 12 A: -- and normally working with clients we 13 would talk to them about it, guide them, and then define the 14 blackout period. 15 Q: And so do I understand you correctly to be 16 saying, that in your experience from working at the Province, 17 that would be an issue that would be specifically identified 18 and addressed in writing? 19 A: Absolutely. 20 Q: And would be in the RFQ document, or some 21 other type of document? 22 A: Actually it's normally in the RFP 23 document and, also, notification given to the evaluation team 24 that they're not to talk to anyone, any vendors, with respect 25 to the RFP.


1 Q: All right. 2 A: In fact, some of them, you know, went to 3 the extreme and say, you're not to talk to any vendors 4 period. 5 Q: Yes? So the reason I ask that, sir, there 6 have been different people come and have asked -- been asked 7 questions about the blackout period. And I think I'm safe in 8 saying that -- that there have been varying interpretations 9 of what time frame it applies to and the scope of it, et 10 cetera. 11 And if I understand you correctly, I think 12 you'd agree that -- that the best way to deal with that is to 13 put something in writing to define exactly what it is and 14 when it is. Is that fair? 15 A: That would be fair, yes. 16 Q: All right. And -- and do you know if you 17 would have any examples from your past work experience in the 18 province, of -- of where that kind of written definition 19 could be found? It might be of assistance to -- to the 20 process here, if you had such an example. 21 A: Do I have it in any of the files at 22 present? No. Would it be in any of the files of the 23 province? Highly likely, yes. 24 MR. DAVID MOORE: All right. Those are my 25 questions. Thank you, sir.


1 MADAM COMMISSIONER: Next? Thank you, Mr. 2 Moore. 3 This is Mr. Gord Capern and he is a lawyer 4 representing the City of Toronto. Okay, Mr. Capern...? 5 THE WITNESS: Yes, thank you. 6 MR. GORDON CAPERN: I will be very brief, Mr. 7 Kassam. 8 THE WITNESS: Sorry, before you carry on, can 9 I just answer -- 10 MADAM COMMISSIONER: Mr. Moore? 11 THE WITNESS: -- to Mr. Moore? Going back to 12 COT0-29286 -- 13 MADAM COMMISSIONER: Is that under Tab -- 14 THE WITNESS: That's Tab 1. 15 MADAM COMMISSIONER: Hmm hmm. 16 THE WITNESS: Section 3.5.3. 17 MADAM COMMISSIONER: 9286? I'm sorry, 3 point 18 what? 19 THE WITNESS: 3.5.3. In fact, the whole 20 section of 3.5 that relates to vendor questions. 21 MADAM COMMISSIONER: About the -- 22 THE WITNESS: So that talks about -- 23 MADAM COMMISSIONER: -- amending the terms of 24 the RFP documents? Is that -- 25 THE WITNESS: That's right. In fact, the


1 whole of Section 3.5 talks about the amended questions and 2 whose responsibility and the channel of communication. 3 MADAM COMMISSIONER: Right. That's in the 4 draft one? 5 THE WITNESS: That's right. 6 7 (BRIEF PAUSE) 8 9 MADAM COMMISSIONER: Go ahead, Mr. Moore. 10 MR. DAVID MOORE: Sorry, just very quickly. 11 12 CONTINUED BY MR. DAVID MOORE: 13 Q: All right, just very quickly on that. Sir, 14 I take it, and I didn't take you to this document because, as 15 I understand it, you had no part in authoring or drafting the 16 RFQ as actually issued by the City? 17 A: That's correct. 18 Q: All right. And -- and so, I won't take 19 you to specific provisions, but there are provisions in the 20 City RFQ that deal with both pre submission and post 21 submission in context -- 22 A: Yes, sir. 23 Q: -- I take it, whatever they may say, you 24 had no part in drafting those? 25 A: That's true.


1 MR. DAVID MOORE: All right. Thank you. 2 MADAM COMMISSIONER: Just before you leave, 3 Mr. Moore, while you're on your feet, I'll just ask this one 4 (1) question. 5 Mr. Kassam, in the template that you have, 6 this 3.5.3, it says, 7 "No employee or representative of the City 8 of Toronto is authorized to amend or waive 9 the terms of the RFP documents in any way, 10 unless the amendment or waiver is approved 11 and signed by the RFP Coordinator." 12 Okay? 13 THE WITNESS: That's right. 14 MADAM COMMISSIONER: Now, presumably you put 15 in the words, "City of Toronto"? 16 THE WITNESS: Hmm hmm. 17 MADAM COMMISSIONER: From whatever it was 18 before? 19 THE WITNESS: Yes. 20 MADAM COMMISSIONER: Is that right? 21 THE WITNESS: That's right. 22 MADAM COMMISSIONER: Now, in something like 23 this, if the RFP, or in our case an RFQ, went out and it was 24 for three (3) years. And ultimately when the -- the actual 25 vendor signed with the City, it ended up being for a five (5)


1 year RFQ? 2 THE WITNESS: Yes. 3 MADAM COMMISSIONER: Or five (5) year contract 4 as opposed to a three (3) year contract? 5 THE WITNESS: Hmm hmm. 6 MADAM COMMISSIONER: Is that something that 7 you would have seen as being a significant enough amendment 8 that it would have required the approval of the RFP 9 Coordinator, or the approval of somebody? 10 THE WITNESS: Absolutely. 11 MADAM COMMISSIONER: Okay. And tell me why 12 that is. 13 THE WITNESS: Because if it is to do with 14 leasing or hardware acquisition or technology acquisition, 15 pricing can change based on three (3) years and five (5) 16 years. 17 How a company responds to a five (5) year bid 18 is different from how a company would respond to a three (3) 19 year bid. 20 MADAM COMMISSIONER: Okay. In what sense? 21 THE WITNESS: If you're looking at interest 22 rates, in this case it's a leasing RFP, it's an interest 23 rate, the company might be a little more aggressive in a 24 shorter term than a longer term. 25 MADAM COMMISSIONER: I get it.


1 THE WITNESS: Right? 2 MADAM COMMISSIONER: Okay. 3 THE WITNESS: So if it's a five (5) year, they 4 may not be that aggressive so. 5 MADAM COMMISSIONER: And so what would you 6 expect, then, in a situation where the bid goes out for three 7 (3) years and, ultimately, they change their mind and say 8 they want it to be for five (5) years? Would you expect them 9 to issue a new bid? 10 THE WITNESS: I would expect the -- 11 MADAM COMMISSIONER: Or -- 12 THE WITNESS: -- the public sector entity to 13 issue an amendment to the RFP. 14 MADAM COMMISSIONER: Okay. 15 THE WITNESS: And request the vendors to 16 propose a five (5) year bid as well. 17 MADAM COMMISSIONER: Okay. 18 THE WITNESS: And normally when I'm working 19 with public sector clients, I would put in the provision for 20 that, knowing very well that it's going to happen. 21 You put in a three (3) year initial term with 22 a possibility of extending to five (5) years, so you don't 23 have to issue an amendment later on. So you ask for three 24 (3) year pricing and you ask for five (5) year pricing. 25 MADAM COMMISSIONER: You mean in your capacity


1 with Prescient -- 2 THE WITNESS: That's right. 3 MADAM COMMISSIONER: -- you get your clients 4 to ask for a three (3) year -- 5 THE WITNESS: You got it. 6 MADAM COMMISSIONER: -- bid and a five (5) 7 year bid? 8 THE WITNESS: You got it. Absolutely. 9 MADAM COMMISSIONER: Okay. So that the client 10 can then select which one they want? 11 THE WITNESS: That's right. 12 MADAM COMMISSIONER: But in something like 13 this where if it went from three (3) to five (5), you would 14 have expected then that bidders would be allowed to bid at 15 least on the five (5) year? 16 THE WITNESS: That's right. 17 MADAM COMMISSIONER: Okay. 18 THE WITNESS: So there should have been an 19 amendment from the City to this RFP saying, you know, we've 20 changed our mind. We don't want three (3) years anymore and 21 we want it five (5) years. 22 MADAM COMMISSIONER: All right. 23 THE WITNESS: And can you please resubmit your 24 pricing based on five (5) years. 25 MADAM COMMISSIONER: Okay. Mr. Moore...?


1 MR. DAVID MOORE: Yes. 2 3 CONTINUED BY MR. DAVID MOORE: 4 Q: I take it you would regard that following 5 the -- the appropriate processes for that would be 6 responsibility of the people involved in the process at the 7 public sector client involved? 8 A: That's right. 9 Q: Okay. 10 A: Yes. 11 MADAM COMMISSIONER: Thank you. 12 MR. GORDON CAPERN: Commissioner, I expect to 13 be about -- 14 MADAM COMMISSIONER: Oh. 15 MR. GORDON CAPERN: -- ten (10) minutes. I'm 16 told Mr. MacKenzie will be fifteen (15) to twenty (20) 17 minutes. 18 MADAM COMMISSIONER: Okay. 19 MR. GORDON CAPERN: I'm happy to start now, if 20 you wish. I'm happy to take a lunch now and start after 21 lunch. 22 MADAM COMMISSIONER: I think we'll take lunch 23 now and we'll come back after lunch. 24 25 (BRIEF PAUSE)


1 MADAM COMMISSIONER: And we'll come back at 2 2:30. 3 THE REGISTRAR: Order. The Inquiry is 4 adjourned until 2:30. 5 6 --- Upon recessing at 1:02 p.m. 7 --- Upon resuming at 2:30 p.m. 8 9 THE REGISTRAR: The Inquiry will resume, 10 please be seated. 11 12 (BRIEF PAUSE) 13 14 MADAM COMMISSIONER: Mr. Capern...? 15 MR. GORDON CAPERN: Thank you, Commissioner. 16 17 CROSS EXAMINATION BY MR. GORDON CAPERN: 18 Q: Sir, in your affidavit, at paragraph 16, 19 you refer to the fact that you had two (2) meetings with Jim 20 Andrew, and that the first meeting would have taken place in 21 February or March of 1999? 22 A: That's correct. 23 Q: The -- am I to gather from paragraph 17 of 24 your affidavit, that the first meeting with Mr. Andrew was 25 one (1) in which Mr. Domi had set up?


1 A: That's correct. 2 Q: You took no part in setting up that 3 meeting? 4 A: That's correct again. 5 Q: Did you have discussions with Mr. Domi 6 prior to that meeting, about the City? 7 A: We had lots of discussions about the City. 8 Q: And did you have discussions in 9 particular, about Mr. Andrew and what he was interested in 10 doing at the City, with respect to the leasing of IT 11 equipment? 12 A: No. 13 Q: None at all? 14 A: None whatsoever. 15 Q: Did Mr. Domi give you any information 16 about Mr. Andrew, in advance of that meeting, that gave you 17 anything about what the City's interests were at that time, 18 and with respect to leasing of IT equipment? 19 A: No, none whatsoever. I don't believe that 20 Mr. Domi had any information at that point, I think that was 21 the purpose of the meeting. 22 Q: Okay, so from your -- from where you sat, 23 you thought the purpose of Mr. Domi's meeting with Mr. Andrew 24 was to gather more information about the City's leasing 25 needs --


1 A: No -- 2 Q: -- for IT? 3 A: -- as to what the City was going to do, 4 not necessarily leasing needs. 5 Q: Well, had -- had -- at least from where 6 you sat, was it apparent to you from that meeting, that the 7 City -- from the City's perspective, the matters had advanced 8 to the point that they had decided they were going to issue 9 an RFP? 10 A: The first meeting was very short, Mr. 11 Andrew was busy doing his budget stuff, so there was no 12 discussion with what the City was going to do and what they 13 were not going to do, that's why the second meeting was 14 supposed to have been set up. 15 Q: So, the second meeting, which you say you 16 believe it took place a couple of weeks after that, but could 17 have taken place as late as April 29th of 1999, that's the 18 second meeting that was set up as a follow up to that? 19 A: That's right, yeah. 20 Q: And was that second meeting set up because 21 there had been inadequate opportunity to -- 22 A: Well the -- 23 Q: -- discuss the leasing needs at the first 24 meeting? 25 A: -- I'm sorry, I need to clarify. Not


1 discuss the leasing needs, just discuss the needs of the 2 City. It didn't have to do specifically with leasing. 3 Q: So, at the -- just let's take these one 4 (1) meeting at a time. At the first meeting, did either -- 5 was -- did either you or Mr. Domi know that the City was in 6 the process of considering putting out a leasing -- an RFQ 7 for leasing of IT equipment? 8 A: At the first meeting, no. 9 Q: By the time you got to the second meeting, 10 was it apparent to you that the City was in the process of 11 considering or putting together an RFQ for the leasing of IT 12 equipment? 13 A: That's possible, not that I recall, it is 14 possible that I might have known. 15 Q: And what information did Mr. Andrew convey 16 to you in that meeting? 17 A: I can't recall the details, but if he did, 18 it would have been just the general stuff that he would have 19 spoken to any other vendor, you know, this is who we are, 20 this is what we do, did we have so much in technology, so 21 many desktops, here's the type of technology we use, and all 22 that kind of stuff that anyone could find on the website. 23 Q: And how would you describe, at least as of 24 that date, in -- if you -- if the meeting in fact took -- the 25 second meeting, in any event, regardless of when it took


1 place, how would you describe the relationship between Mr. 2 Domi and Mr. Andrew? 3 A: Just friends. 4 Q: Mr. Domi tell you -- sorry, just friends? 5 A: Yes, just like anywhere else, just as, you 6 know, as you meet people in business. 7 Q: Did they appear to know each other? 8 A: Yes, they greeted each other. Mr. Domi 9 knew Mr. Andrew's and vice versa. 10 MADAM COMMISSIONER: I'm sorry? They what? 11 THE WITNESS: Mr. Domi knew Mr. Andrew and 12 vice versa. 13 MADAM COMMISSIONER: Okay. Go ahead. 14 15 CONTINUED BY MR. GORDON CAPERN: 16 Q: Was it apparent to -- just to follow up 17 on your comment that they were -- they were friends, you mean 18 that in a socializing sense? 19 A: No, in -- in a business sense. In a 20 business sense. 21 Q: So the meeting's were cordial? 22 A: Yes. 23 Q: And professional? 24 A: Very professional, yes. 25 Q: And the point of that meeting, what are


1 you able to help us with? Did you have any understanding 2 about what Mr. Andrew's prior experience had been in IT 3 leasing, either in his then current position at the City, or 4 in any previous position that he'd held? 5 A: No. 6 Q: Did you know, for example, that Mr. Andrew 7 may have been involved in leasing of IT equipment at the 8 Province? 9 A: It's possible, yes. 10 Q: I'm asking you, at the time, did you know 11 that? 12 A: At the time? No. 13 Q: All right. And are you able to help me at 14 all with -- with this issue, I think Mr. MacKenzie will have 15 some follow up questions for you on this point, but -- but am 16 I right that -- that you brought a draft RFP with you to that 17 meeting? 18 A: I don't think so. 19 Q: Are -- are you aware of whether Mr. Andrew 20 had a copy of the draft RFP that you had prepared and that 21 we've looked at in your evidence today, are you aware of the 22 fact that he had that draft, at least as at the time of that 23 meeting? 24 A: At that meeting? To be honest, I don't 25 recall.


1 Q: All right. Was it apparent to you, one 2 (1) way or the other, about whether Mr. Andrew would have 3 looked to that draft as providing him with any guidance on 4 the drafting of the City's upcoming RFQ for leasing of IT 5 equipment? 6 A: Well, if I had given Mr. Andrew a draft 7 copy, it was on the basis of -- on the understanding that the 8 City would be issuing an RFP. 9 Q: But you -- I think you -- your testimony 10 thus far has been that you don't know whether you gave it to 11 Mr. Andrew or not? 12 A: That's why I said, if. 13 Q: Right. I'm just -- I'm just asking for 14 the facts, sir. 15 A: Yes. 16 Q: Which is -- and whether or not -- 17 A: Well, since I don't recall whether I gave 18 it to him or not, I have to go based on if I'd given it to 19 him, then it would be on the understanding that he would be 20 issuing an RFP and he wanted some sort of a structure. 21 Q: All right. But that's all very helpful, 22 it's if you don't know if you did it or not? 23 A: Exactly. 24 Q: All right. 25 A: I've stated that several times.


1 Q: And so just going back, then, regardless 2 of whether you gave it to him or not, I just want to clarify. 3 At -- as at the meeting, the second meeting you had -- 4 A: Yes? 5 Q: -- which may have taken place, on your 6 Affidavit, as late as April of 1999 -- 7 A: Hmm hmm? 8 Q: -- to the best if your knowledge, did Mr. 9 Andrew or did he not have a copy of that document, regardless 10 of whether it had come from you? 11 A: As I responded earlier, no, I don't 12 recall. 13 MADAM COMMISSIONER: I'm sorry? 14 THE WITNESS: As I responded earlier, I do not 15 recall whether he had a copy or not, at that point. 16 17 CONTINUED BY MR. GORDON CAPERN: 18 Q: And was there any conversation or any 19 other communication that came to you, that would have led you 20 to understand that Mr. Andrew needed or wanted a template or 21 a draft RFP for any purpose? 22 A: If there was a conversation that he needed 23 a draft RFP or a template, then I would -- then I would have 24 forwarded one (1) to him. 25 Q: That wasn't my question, sir. My question


1 was, -- 2 MADAM COMMISSIONER: I just didn't hear the 3 answer, either. 4 THE WITNESS: Sorry. I said, if there was a 5 need then I would have provided him with a copy, yes. 6 7 CONTINUED BY MR. GORDON CAPERN: 8 Q: My question, sir, was whether or not you 9 had any information at that point, about whether Mr. Andrew, 10 in fact, needed or wanted a draft RFP template for any 11 purpose? 12 A: It is possible that I might have some 13 information, I don't recall. 14 Q: You don't recall, today? 15 A: No. 16 Q: All right. And you'd -- you'd mentioned 17 Mr. Power in your testimony earlier and you'd said that you'd 18 at least heard of him? 19 A: That's right. 20 Q: And I think you identified in your 21 testimony that you understood him to have been an employee of 22 the Management Board at the Province? 23 A: That's right. 24 Q: All right. And in -- were you also aware 25 of the fact, sir, that Mr. Power had some responsibilities at


1 the Province with respect to its IT leasing? 2 A: At -- at Management Board, yes, possibly. 3 Q: Well, I'm asking you whether you -- 4 A: Yes. 5 Q: -- knew that or not? 6 A: I believe -- 7 Q: I'm not asking whether it's possible, I'm 8 asking what you know? 9 A: My recollection is that Mr. Brendan Power 10 worked at Management Board in the Purchasing Department. 11 Q: All right. 12 A: So -- 13 Q: In the course of that, are you aware -- do 14 you know whether or not he had any IT leasing experience in 15 that role? 16 A: No, I'm not aware. 17 Q: Did you have any conversations with 18 anyone, including Mr. Domi and Mr. Andrew, that led you to 19 understand about what Mr. Power's role would be for the City 20 in the drafting of the RFQ for leasing? 21 A: The first time I found out that Mr. Powers 22 is -- was involved was when I read the transcript from the 23 website. 24 Q: So well after the fact? 25 A: Oh yeah.


1 Q: Indeed, well after the Inquiry was called? 2 A: That's right. 3 Q: All right and I just wanted to clarify 4 your relationship with Mr. Domi at MF -- well, first of all, 5 generally with Mr. Domi. Is it your evidence, sir, that you 6 met him at MFP or while he was employed there? 7 A: That's right. 8 Q: Was the introduction arranged by Ms. 9 Payne? 10 A: The introduction was arranged -- it is 11 possible that it was arranged by Ms. Payne, yes. 12 Q: And just help me understand, I think 13 you've testified about this earlier today but I gathered from 14 your testimony that Ms. Payne asked you to put together or at 15 least to assist with some of the account executives at the 16 company, is that right? 17 A: That's correct. 18 Q: What was the -- what was she asking you to 19 assist in? 20 A: Having them understand technology and what 21 can be done with technology. 22 Q: So, by which you mean from the technical 23 side as opposed to from the financial side? 24 A: No, from the business side. 25 Q: What does that mean? Help me understand


1 that. 2 A: How you can use technology for business 3 automation, business advancement, productivity improvements, 4 stuff like that. 5 Q: And what was her objective in having you 6 speak to the account executives about that topic? 7 A: Well, so that they can go to the client 8 base and say, you know, here's technology and this is what 9 you can do with it and have you thought of doing A, B, C with 10 it. 11 Q: And was that all with a view to get -- 12 then getting those customers to buy more equipment which they 13 would then lease? 14 A: Exactly, yes. In the view of getting more 15 business from the clients. 16 Q: So her theory, if I've got it right, was 17 that to the extent that the account executives were more 18 technologically proficient, that would enhance their ability 19 to encourage their own customers to buy more equipment that 20 would be put on lease through MFP? 21 A: Not necessarily. She thought that there 22 would be technology to be more proficient. They would just 23 understand the use of the technology, not necessarily 24 understand the technology. 25 Q: And just trying to understand, sir, what


1 was your interest in helping them out like that? 2 A: Well, it goes back to the old saying, you 3 scratch my back, I'll scratch your back. 4 MADAM COMMISSIONER: Pardon? 5 THE WITNESS: So -- it goes back to that one 6 saying -- 7 MADAM COMMISSIONER: You speak very quickly, 8 sir. 9 THE WITNESS: Sorry. 10 MADAM COMMISSIONER: Sometimes I have a little 11 bit of trouble. 12 THE WITNESS: It goes back to that old saying 13 that, you know, you scratch my back and I'll scratch your 14 back. 15 MADAM COMMISSIONER: Oh, I see. Okay. Yes, I 16 know that. 17 THE WITNESS: So what we were hoping is that 18 as a result of our educating some of their account reps, that 19 they would be able to get some business and as a result, they 20 would pass some of the business to us or recommend our 21 company to do business with their clients. 22 23 CONTINUED BY MR. GORDON CAPERN: 24 Q: And what kind of work were you interested 25 in doing for the clients? Was it the IT consulting work?


1 A: IT consulting work, project management, 2 application development, network design, systems integration. 3 Q: So you were hoping that to the extent, for 4 example, that a particular Ministry at the Provincial 5 government needed IT consulting work, that if they called MFP 6 that MFP would refer them on to you? 7 A: That's right or MFP would get the contract 8 and they would subcontract to us to do the work. 9 Q: I see. So you -- you contemplated that 10 you might, at least from time to time, be participating 11 indirectly in MFP bidding on business? 12 A: That's right, yes. 13 Q: And was that, in fact, the case at any 14 point at the City of Toronto? 15 A: No. 16 Q: Did you ever contemplate that you would be 17 providing services to the City of Toronto directly or 18 indirectly through MFP? 19 A: No. 20 Q: Not in any way? 21 A: No. 22 MADAM COMMISSIONER: Just help me. Why 23 wouldn't you? 24 THE WITNESS: Because the work that they were 25 going after at the City of Toronto was strictly leasing.


1 They were interested in leasing, they didn't - 2 - they were not interested in selling hardware because at 3 that point, I think senior management of MFP had decided to 4 get out of the hardware distribution aspect of the business. 5 MADAM COMMISSIONER: No, what I'm wondering 6 about is why did you not think that you might provide some 7 sort of services to either the City or become sub-contracted 8 from MFP? 9 THE WITNESS: Well, because the interest of 10 MFP in the City was to get the leasing business only not any 11 other business and since we do not provide any services 12 related to leasing, there was no expectation that we would 13 get any other business through that relationship, from the 14 City. 15 16 CONTINUED BY MR. GORDON CAPERN: 17 Q: It just that to help me understand this -- 18 you, you'll forgive perhaps my cynicism on this point, but, 19 am I right that the reason that you were at the meeting in a 20 -- at least one of the reasons you were at the meeting in 21 April of 1999, was to figure out whether there might be a 22 place for you to provide services directly to the City of 23 Toronto? 24 A: Directly. Not for MFP. There's a 25 difference.


1 Q: But that's why you were -- that's at least 2 part of the reason why you were there? 3 A: That's part of the reason. 4 Q: I mean you weren't there just simply to 5 altruistically help MFP? 6 A: No. 7 MR. GORDON CAPERN: Okay. Those are my a 8 questions Commissioner, thank you. 9 MADAM COMMISSIONER: Ok. 10 MR. GORDON CAPERN: Thank you, Mr. Kassam. 11 12 (BRIEF PAUSE) 13 14 MADAM COMMISSIONER: All right. -- Mr. 15 MacKenzie, and he is the lawyer for Mr. Andrew. 16 17 CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. HUGH MACKENZIE: 18 Q: Sir, I'd like to take you first to Tab 2 19 of you materials? 20 A: Sure. 21 Q: The second page, the Begdoc is 43242, sir. 22 MADAM COMMISSIONER: Pardon? 23 MR. HUGH MACKENZIE: The document -- 24 MADAM COMMISSIONER: Mr. MacKenzie -- 25 MR. HUGH MACKENZIE: -- I'm sorry. Begdoc.


1 If Tab -- four (4), I'm sorry -- 2 MADAM COMMISSIONER: That's okay. 3 THE WITNESS: -- That is 43241 -- 4 MADAM COMMISSIONER: Do you have that in yours 5 at Tab 4? 6 THE WITNESS: Yes, 43241. 7 MADAM COMMISSIONER: Yes. 8 MR. HUGH MACKENZIE: In the second page of it 9 sir is 43242. 10 THE WITNESS: Yes. 11 12 CONTINUED BY MR. HUGH MACKENZIE: 13 Q: And on that document, it has a creation 14 date of Monday, May 3, 1999? 15 A: Hmm hmm. 16 Q: And it says that this is Revision No. 4? 17 A: That's right. 18 Q: And it also says total editing time, nine 19 (9) minutes? 20 A: Okay. 21 Q: So, this particular document was created 22 by you, or revised by you, on Monday, May 3rd, 1999? Is that 23 correct? 24 A: Possibility, yes. 25 Q: Possibility of being created on that day,


1 or having been revised that day? 2 A: Both. 3 Q: Okay. And you don't have with you any of 4 the prior revisions -- the Revision No. 3, or 2 or 1? 5 A: I don't think I would have it. 6 Q: Okay? Would you have the -- the original 7 iteration of this -- the -- the first document from which it 8 was developed? 9 A: Highly probable, yes. 10 Q: Would you provide that and any of the 11 other iterations, or versions? No. 1, No. 2., or No. 3, if 12 you can locate them please and provide them to us -- 13 A: I -- I will provide any document that 14 relates to this document, or the source of this document 15 irrespective of the version numbers. 16 Q: Okay? Now, it says total editing time, 17 sir, nine (9) minutes? 18 A: Yes. 19 Q: And would that be the time that it took 20 you to make revisions to this document? 21 A: That would be correct. 22 Q: Okay. So, what you were doing for a 23 period of nine (9) minutes is making changes to this document 24 from the document that you revised it from? 25 A: Correct.


1 Q: And that would have Revision No. 3. 2 A: Possibly, yes. 3 MADAM COMMISSIONER: Would that mean -- I just 4 want to make sure that that's the right -- the question was, 5 that means you'd be making revisions for nine (9) minutes. 6 Does it mean that you'd be making a revisions for nine (9) 7 minutes, or that the document would be in use and you could 8 be on the phone or doing other things for nine (9) minutes? 9 THE WITNESS: It meant the document was open 10 for nine (9) minutes. 11 MADAM COMMISSIONER: It was open for nine (9) 12 minutes? Okay. Thanks. 13 14 CONTINUED BY MR. HUGH MACKENZIE: 15 Q: And in some portion of that time you 16 would've been making revisions to it? Is that fair? 17 A: Either that, or the document was open for 18 nine (9) minutes, and I just closed it again after that. 19 Q: Okay. And, Mr. Andrew will say that the 20 meeting that you had with him, with Mr. Domi, occurred on 21 April 29th? 22 A: Fair enough. 23 Q: Between ten (10) and eleven (11)? So 24 would it be fair to say sir that at that meeting, in that 25 this document was created, or revised on May 3rd, that Mr.


1 Andrew did not have this document? 2 A: It's possible. 3 Q: How could it not be possible, sir. If its 4 created four (4) days after the meeting? 5 A: Like I had mentioned earlier, in the 6 morning testimony, that I can recreate a date; a document 7 dated July 1st, 2007, and present it you tomorrow. 8 Q: Mr. Domi, you said that you met him at -- 9 at MFP? 10 A: That's right. 11 Q: And you also said that your first meeting 12 with Mr. Andrew was somewhere around February or March? 13 A: Correct. 14 Q: Had you at that point in time, been 15 working with Mr. Ashbourne? 16 A: Rob Ashbourne? 17 Q: Yes? 18 A: With respect to the City of Toronto? 19 Q: Yes? 20 A: No. 21 Q: Okay. Because my understanding is that 22 Mr. Domi commenced his work at MFP in early November of '98, 23 and that he worked with Mr. Ashbourne for a period of time, 24 and Mr. Ashbourne was no longer working or in association 25 with Mr. Domi for the City business, after about March?


1 A: Possibility, I wouldn't know that. 2 Q: Okay, so you didn't work with Mr. 3 Ashbourne? 4 A: Mr. Ashbourne, as far as I know, used to 5 work on the Ministry of Natural Resource account. 6 Q: Okay, so you don't know that he was 7 involved in the City of Toronto business? 8 A: That's right. 9 Q: Okay. And would it be possible that you 10 sent this document to Mr. Ashbourne? 11 A: Well, if I did, then I would have known 12 that he worked for the City of Toronto account. 13 Q: Okay. Sir, you've said you're not certain 14 to whom this document was -- was sent, this is the document 15 at Tab 1 of your materials. 16 MADAM COMMISSIONER: Just before we go there, 17 Mr. Kassam, on -- 18 THE WITNESS: Yes. 19 MADAM COMMISSIONER: -- the property section 20 where it says when it was created and modified and accessed, 21 et cetera, Mr. MacKenzie mentioned about the May the 3rd 22 date -- 23 THE WITNESS: That's right. 24 MADAM COMMISSIONER: -- when it was created 25 and modified. And do you know whether you ever purposely


1 changed any of the dates in the properties or not? 2 THE WITNESS: Nope. 3 MADAM COMMISSIONER: No. 4 THE WITNESS: The dates that you see on the 5 second page -- 6 MADAM COMMISSIONER: Right. 7 THE WITNESS: -- the 43242, are based on the 8 system timing clock. 9 MADAM COMMISSIONER: Right. 10 THE WITNESS: So, if I was using a computer 11 that had the wrong date and time, then that's what would be 12 collected in the -- 13 MADAM COMMISSIONER: Right, but if the date 14 and time were -- so, if the date and time on your computer 15 was wrong, then that would be what the date was. But if it 16 was right, then this would be a correct date? 17 THE WITNESS: That's right. 18 MADAM COMMISSIONER: Right? 19 THE WITNESS: Yes. 20 MADAM COMMISSIONER: So, I gather all you're 21 saying is that it is possible to change the date, I hear you 22 saying to me now, that you haven't yourself actually changed 23 these dates? 24 THE WITNESS: Intentionally, no. 25 MADAM COMMISSIONER: Intentionally, all right.


1 So, this is either correct or not correct, or for all sorts 2 of reasons, but not because you actually changed the date? 3 THE WITNESS: That's correct. 4 MADAM COMMISSIONER: Okay. Does that help, 5 Mr. MacKenzie? 6 MR. HUGH MACKENZIE: Yes, thank you. 7 8 CONTINUED BY MR. HUGH MACKENZIE: 9 Q: You have told us that the document at 10 Exhibit 1 is a Prescient document, and you were the creator? 11 A: That's correct. 12 Q: And I'd like to take you, sir, to 6.2.1. 13 A: 6.2.1. 14 Q: That's at Begdoc 29292. 15 16 (BRIEF PAUSE) 17 18 Q: And that section reads: 19 "The vendors must provide lease/buy back 20 costs for the configurations outlined in 21 Appendices B." 22 And then in brackets it says: 23 "(This will have Jim's list of existing 24 configurations.)" 25 Do you see that?


1 A: Yes. 2 Q: Would you agree with me, sir, that if this 3 document had been prepared by you and sent by you to Jim 4 Andrew, that it wouldn't say, "This will have Jim's list of 5 existing configurations", but rather would have your list of 6 existing configurations? 7 A: Not necessarily. 8 Q: It would write in the -- in the second 9 person to -- to Jim Andrew? 10 A: It is possible that Jim Andrew would give 11 the document to somebody else to put it in, to put in the 12 configuration. 13 Q: But what I'm saying, sir, is this appears 14 to have been written to somebody else, in that it says, this 15 will have Jim's list of existing configurations? 16 A: That's right. 17 Q: And this is from you to whomever? 18 A: Yes. 19 Q: And all I'm saying is that it would seem 20 to make sense to put that in, only if the person to whom you 21 were sending this was not Jim Andrew? 22 A: Not necessarily, it's a matter of how you 23 look at the English language. So, from my perspective, if 24 I'm giving to somebody such as Jim Andrew and he was probably 25 going to give it to somebody, because I wouldn't expect the


1 Executive Director of the Information Technology Group to 2 write an RFP. He would probably give it to somebody in his 3 staff to complete the rest of it. 4 Q: Okay. So I want to just -- I want to make 5 a comment and ask you if these are the kinds of services that 6 Prescient would provide to a municipal body, and specifically 7 the City: 8 Where there are server and micro-computer 9 hardware and associated peripheral devices responsible for 10 the installation, maintenance, training and other support 11 responsibilities associated with that equipment? 12 A: Well, we would not provide hardware and 13 software. 14 Q: No. But what I'm saying is, the 15 installation, maintenance, training and other support 16 responsibilities? 17 A: Okay. So let me break that down into -- 18 to different components as I've identified. 19 Q: Okay. 20 A: We've done installation for one (1) and 21 only one (1) client, ever, because it is not part of our core 22 competency. 23 As far as maintenance, no, we've never done 24 maintenance, it's not part of what we do. 25 Training? No, we don't do that either.


1 Associated services? Depends on what you're 2 referring to. If the associated services are project 3 management technology consulting? Sure. If the associated 4 services are, come and put this cable in and connect my 5 printer, no. 6 We are a consulting company and we pride 7 ourselves in being cerebral, we think. We provide brain-work 8 not legwork. 9 Q: Does Prescient provide support services 10 where there's a desktop rollout? 11 A: Yes, we do provide support services from a 12 technical aspect of it, not from a low level aspect of it. 13 Q: What kind of services, then, would 14 Prescient be involved in, in that kind of desktop rollout, 15 sir? 16 A: So, if it's a desktop rollout, then we 17 would come up with a rollout plan, project manage the entire 18 project. 19 Now, we've only done one (1) implementation of 20 a complete rollout of desktops, ever and that's because the 21 client asked us to do it; but that is not part of what we 22 normally do. 23 Q: Okay, so it's been done by Prescient 24 before? 25 A: Yes.


1 Q: But not generally done by Prescient? 2 A: You got it. 3 Q: Okay. And was that something that you 4 discussed with Mr. Andrew at the meeting of April 29th? 5 A: I would have discussed with him, if I was 6 talking to him about services, it would be about network 7 services, GIS in specific, because I know that the City, at 8 that time, was looking into geography information systems. 9 And so I'd be talking to him about that. 10 I'd be talking to him about project management 11 services but not necessarily systems integration or desktop 12 rollout or maintenance, no. 13 Q: At the meeting of April 29th, sir, what 14 was it that you were discussing with Mr. Andrew? 15 A: Well, if I did recall the details, then I 16 would have stated that in the morning. 17 Q: Okay. So you don't know what -- what the 18 subject -- 19 A: The details? 20 Q: -- of that meeting was? 21 A: Not the details. 22 Q: When you left that meeting -- 23 A: Yes? 24 Q: -- what, if any, opportunities do you see 25 for Prescient?


1 A: At the City? None. 2 Q: You saw none at all? 3 A: Absolutely. 4 5 (BRIEF PAUSE) 6 7 Q: You mentioned, sir, that you're no longer, 8 or Prescient is no longer working with MFP. When did that 9 arrangement change, sir? 10 A: We finished our last project over there 11 some time in the year 2000. 12 Q: Okay. 13 14 (BRIEF PAUSE) 15 16 Q: Sir, you can't tell us, today, what 17 revisions were made to this document at Tab 1, other than to 18 change, say, the references to the City of Toronto? 19 A: And the places where it says, xxx and yyy, 20 I would have removed the dates and put in the xxx and yyy 21 and, of course, put in the address Section 3.2.2, 3.3.1. 22 Q: The Tab 5.3, which is at Begdoc 29290, 23 sir. 24 A: 29... 25 MADAM COMMISSIONER: I don't think he means


1 the tab. I mean the -- 2 MR. HUGH MACKENZIE: Tab 1. 3 MADAM COMMISSIONER: Tab 1 sits at Tab 5.3. 4 MR. HUGH MACKENZIE: Oh, I -- 5 MADAM COMMISSIONER: Tab 1, 5.3. 6 MR. HUGH MACKENZIE: Tab 1, Section 5.3. 7 THE WITNESS: Hmm hmm. 8 MR. HUGH MACKENZIE: My apologies. 9 10 CONTINUED BY MR. HUGH MACKENZIE: 11 Q: That's a section entitled Subcontracting, 12 sir. 13 A: Yes. 14 Q: Can you tell us today if you added that 15 particular paragraph to this template on May 3rd, 1999? 16 A: That's a standard clause in any RFP that 17 I've written. 18 MADAM COMMISSIONER: I'm sorry? 19 THE WITNESS: That's a standard clause in any 20 RFP that I have written. So -- 21 MADAM COMMISSIONER: Okay. 22 THE WITNESS: -- the answer to your question 23 would be, I didn't specifically add that on May 3rd. 24 MR. HUGH MACKENZIE: Okay. 25


1 CONTINUED BY MR. HUGH MACKENZIE: 2 Q: So that wasn't something that you expected 3 to be added to this leasing RFQ? 4 A: No, I wouldn't add it specifically. 5 MADAM COMMISSIONER: If you had been asked to 6 provide a template for an RFQ -- 7 THE WITNESS: Yes? 8 MADAM COMMISSIONER: -- as opposed to an RFP, 9 would you have provided the same kind of template -- 10 THE WITNESS: Hmm -- 11 MADAM COMMISSIONER: -- or would you have 12 provided something else? 13 THE WITNESS: No, so, my understanding was 14 that I'm providing a template for an RFP. 15 MADAM COMMISSIONER: Who gave you that 16 understanding? 17 THE WITNESS: It was either Jim or Dash who I 18 wrote this thing for. It would be an RFP. This structure is 19 for an RFP, not for an RFQ. 20 MADAM COMMISSIONER: And if someone had asked 21 you for an RFQ -- 22 THE WITNESS: There would be -- 23 MADAM COMMISSIONER: -- what would you 24 provide? 25 THE WITNESS: -- a total different template.


1 MADAM COMMISSIONER: Totally different 2 template? 3 THE WITNESS: Yes. 4 MADAM COMMISSIONER: Would you have been able 5 to provide them something like that for an RFQ? 6 THE WITNESS: Yes, although we haven't done 7 that many RFQ's. I think we've only done one (1) so far. 8 MADAM COMMISSIONER: Okay, but it would have 9 looked substantially different from this? 10 THE WITNESS: Correct. 11 MADAM COMMISSIONER: What would it have looked 12 like? What would it -- what would be the differences that 13 one would expect to see in an RFQ versus an RFP? 14 THE WITNESS: The RFQ would have more 15 specifics in it. The RFP is kind of vague. 16 MADAM COMMISSIONER: Hmm hmm. 17 THE WITNESS: The RFP says, you know, we need 18 some mechanism of going from Point A to Point B, we need 19 something with six (6) tires and all that. 20 An RFQ would be specific saying, we need to go 21 one hundred (100) miles with a car with fifteen (15) seats. 22 So, there's a difference. 23 MADAM COMMISSIONER: Okay. 24 THE WITNESS: So RFQ is a little more specific 25 than an RFP.


1 MADAM COMMISSIONER: Have you ever seen the 2 RFQ that we're talking about here? 3 THE WITNESS: The final version of -- 4 MADAM COMMISSIONER: Yeah. 5 THE WITNESS: -- it? No. 6 MADAM COMMISSIONER: No? 7 THE WITNESS: I haven't. 8 MADAM COMMISSIONER: I won't ask you the next 9 question. All right. 10 11 CONTINUED BY MR. HUGH MACKENZIE: 12 Q: Sir, if between the first iteration of 13 this template, the one that you believe you can locate -- 14 A: Hmm hmm. 15 Q: -- and this fourth version -- 16 A: Yes. 17 Q: -- of the template, if the subcontracting 18 section is different, would you provide us with an 19 explanation as to why the differences -- 20 A: Absolutely. 21 Q: -- in wording? 22 A: 100 percent. 23 Q: Okay and you'd be prepared, if necessary, 24 to come back and -- and discuss those with us? 25 A: More than happy.


1 Q: Okay. 2 A: And the reason why I state that is that is 3 a standard closing in all the RFP's that I've written. That 4 wording hasn't changed since I first created this document. 5 6 (BRIEF PAUSE) 7 8 Q: So you were a former civil servant with 9 the Government of Ontario and while you were at the 10 Government of Ontario, were there guidelines in effect that 11 dealt with the blackout period? 12 A: Yes. 13 Q: All right and you were aware of those? 14 You had a copy of those or they were accessible to you? 15 A: Did I have a copy of those? I cannot say 16 I had a copy. I was made aware of them, yes. 17 Q: And who would have made you aware of 18 those, if you know? 19 A: My immediate supervisor. 20 Q: Okay and as well, when an RFP or an RFQ 21 was sent out by the provincial government, were you aware 22 that -- that the blackout period was specifically dealt with 23 in that document? 24 A: In the document itself? I believe there 25 could have been provisions there saying -- stating something


1 to the effect that vendors are not to communicate with any of 2 the staff members involved in this RFP. 3 Q: During the blackout period? 4 A: During the blackout period -- 5 Q: Hmm hmm. 6 A: -- that all communications should be 7 channelled through the RFP coordinator. 8 Q: Okay and not only that, not was the 9 requirement to direct communication to the RFP or RFQ 10 coordinator, but was there a definition in that materials as 11 to what constituted the blackout period? 12 A: Not in the RFP document itself, no. 13 Q: Okay. So, the only place that you would 14 get that definition was in the materials that -- that were 15 effectively the guidelines? 16 A: Exactly. 17 Q: Okay. 18 A: And plus when there was an RFP going on, 19 there would be regular e-mails from the senior management, 20 you know, just reminding everyone that there's an RFP on the 21 street, please refrain from meeting with vendors and 22 discussing aspects related to the RFP. 23 Q: Okay, so any issues with respect to -- or 24 any substantive issues with respect to -- 25 A: The content of the RFP, yes.


1 Q: Okay. Was it part of that, if -- if a 2 bidder or a representative of a bidder contacted you and 3 asked in various ways what the status was, would you say to 4 them something to the effect of, I can't speak to you with 5 respect to this? 6 A: Absolutely. 7 Q: Okay. 8 A: In fact, I would direct them to the RFP 9 coordinator. 10 Q: Okay, without discussion? 11 A: Without discussion, saying, please contact 12 RFP coordinator. 13 Q: Now, you said earlier, sir, and I just 14 want to clarify this, but -- that where in the City there's a 15 committee that is there as -- as the central stage between 16 Council and the evaluators, you said: 17 "The committee must go on the basis of the 18 recommendations of the senior executives." 19 A: The committee should go on the basis of 20 the recommendations of the evaluation team. 21 Q: Of the evaluation team? 22 A: Yes. 23 Q: And when you say "of the evaluation team," 24 who do you -- who's part of the evaluation team? 25 A: Well, it depends on where you are. In the


1 case of some, they have business users, the end clients were 2 part of the evaluation team, there's the IT Department, 3 there's some representation from the Purchasing Department. 4 Q: Where there is a report written by staff 5 but under the signature of a senior executive or two (2) 6 senior executives. 7 A: Hmm hmm. 8 Q: Are those senior executives part of the 9 evaluation team? 10 A: In some cases, yes; in other cases, no. 11 Q: Okay, what would define that membership of 12 those senior executives? 13 A: If you are sitting down and going through 14 every page of the response of every vendor, and understanding 15 what each proposal is and how they comply with the RFP 16 requirements, that would be considered to be part of the 17 evaluation team. 18 If they're sitting at the back somewhere and 19 expecting someone to come and tell them, oh, by the way, you 20 know, we think this is it, they cannot be considered to be 21 part of the evaluation team. 22 Q: Okay. So if the senior executives are not 23 part of that evaluation process, and don't equate themselves 24 with each of the bids separately, and do the math, if you 25 will, as to which is the best of those bids, they are not


1 part of the evaluation team? 2 A: I need to clarify, what do you mean by "do 3 the math"? 4 Q: Well, if they're not doing the math, if 5 they're not making a determination or a calculation as to 6 which of the bids is the best bid -- 7 A: Exactly, if they're not doing an 8 evaluation of the bids, how can they be considered to be part 9 of the evaluation team. 10 Q: Okay, so it's fair to say then, sir, that 11 they are not part of the evaluation team? 12 A: That's right. 13 Q: Thank you. 14 15 (BRIEF PAUSE) 16 17 Q: Now, during the blackout period, sir, did 18 you have an opportunity to speak with Mr. Domi, with respect 19 to the RFP bid, the bid submission, and the evaluation 20 process? 21 A: I'm sure we had lots of chats about 22 different things, and maybe that's possible, we could have 23 that chat about the RFP process. 24 Q: But there's nothing that you recall today 25 that would make you think or believe that there was a breach


1 of that process? 2 A: Nothing -- yes, absolutely, nothing to 3 make me believe that there was a breach. 4 Q: Okay. 5 A: And -- 6 Q: He didn't tell you that, for instance, MFP 7 had been successful before the -- the blackout period had 8 passed? 9 A: That wouldn't be a breach. 10 Q: That wouldn't be a breach? 11 A: Absolutely not. 12 Q: Okay, why would it not be a breach, sir? 13 A: Finding out that MFP was successful before 14 everyone else knew is not a breach. 15 A breach would be whereby you actually 16 influence somebody to make sure that MFP won, that would be a 17 breach. 18 Q: Okay. And using your definition, sir, 19 were you aware of a breach from Mr. Domi or from anyone at 20 MFP? 21 A: See, a vendor getting the information is 22 not a breach. A public sector employee, a member of the 23 evaluation team passing information is a breach. There's a 24 difference. 25 Q: Okay.


1 A: A vendor getting the information is just 2 good work. 3 Q: Let me ask again -- thank you for 4 straightening me out, sir. Were you aware of any breach 5 through your communication with Mr. Domi or anyone at MFP? 6 A: No. 7 8 (BRIEF PAUSE) 9 10 Q: Sir, you said to My Friend Mr. Capern, a 11 moment ago, that it was possible, at the second meeting, that 12 Jim Andrew discussed the City's plans with respect to 13 leasing. Do you recall any such conversations? 14 A: Details, specifics? No. 15 Q: Okay. So you were guessing? 16 A: Absolutely. 17 Q: Okay. The conversation that you had at 18 that meeting, on April 29th, was really just a general 19 conversation to try and understand the City's intentions or 20 directions with respect to leasing and IT equipment and 21 services? 22 A: That's right. 23 Q: Okay. 24 A: And not necessarily focussed on leasing 25 but just general direction of the Information Technology


1 Division or organization within the City, thinking 2 information on that, yes. 3 Q: So when you walked away from that meeting 4 you were satisfied that there were no business opportunities 5 for Prescient? 6 A: That's correct. 7 Q: And you had no information with respect to 8 leasing? 9 A: I didn't state that. 10 Q: Okay. What information did you have that 11 the City was leasing? 12 A: I don't recall what information. It is 13 possible that they had mentioned, during the conversation, 14 that it might be leasing. 15 Q: Okay. But you have no recollection? 16 A: I have no recollection of it, no. 17 Q: Okay. The note that we looked at earlier, 18 sir, was one that -- that indicated that on the 29th of 19 April, 1999 Mr. Andrew was scheduled to meet with you, sir, 20 and Mr. Domi. 21 And you don't have any information as to why 22 you were included in that meeting, other than to provide 23 comfort to Mr. Domi? 24 A: Well, the second meeting, if it took place 25 on the 29th of April, was as a result of a follow up of the


1 meeting that took place in February or March, because that 2 meeting, actually, technical didn't take place. 3 Q: Right. 4 A: So because I was at the first one, I was 5 automatically at the second one. 6 Q: Okay. At the first one, was there any 7 indication of what kind of services Prescient could provide 8 to the City? 9 A: That meeting was a short meeting. Mr. 10 Andrew was busy with his budget stuff and, in fact, I 11 wouldn't even call it a meeting. Like, he was in and out of 12 the office, we didn't discuss much. 13 Q: Okay. 14 15 (BRIEF PAUSE) 16 17 Q: You would agree, though, that -- that one 18 (1) of the objects of your attending that meeting was to 19 determine whether or not there were opportunities for 20 Prescient with the City? 21 A: Absolutely. 22 Q: Okay. Because earlier you weren't quite 23 clear about that, but now you're satisfied that that's true? 24 A: Well, I would attend a meeting if there 25 was potential business but, you know, we had tried to get


1 business from the City before. We didn't see it going 2 anywhere, but there was a meeting there, so. 3 4 (BRIEF PAUSE) 5 6 MR. HUGH MACKENZIE: Those are my questions. 7 Thank you, sir. 8 MADAM COMMISSIONER: Thank you, Mr. MacKenzie. 9 Anyone else? Ms. Ryley? 10 MS. BAY RYLEY: No. 11 MADAM COMMISSIONER: No. Mr. Anderson? No. 12 Ms. Groskaufmanis? 13 MS. DAINA GROSKAUFMANIS: I have no re-direct. 14 MADAM COMMISSIONER: Okay. I just wanted to 15 ask you just a couple things. I got the impression from Mr. 16 Domi when he was here that you had been involved in the 17 assisting of the drafting of the response to the RFQ. You 18 don't have any recollection of that? 19 THE WITNESS: No, I would not be assisting in 20 -- no, sorry. 21 MADAM COMMISSIONER: Okay. 22 THE WITNESS: No, I would not be assisting in 23 responding to that RFQ. 24 MADAM COMMISSIONER: Okay and I'm just going 25 to ask you, did you ever get to go to any of the hockey games


1 with MFP? 2 THE WITNESS: Yes. 3 MADAM COMMISSIONER: At the box -- at the Air 4 Canada Centre? 5 THE WITNESS: Yes, I did. 6 MADAM COMMISSIONER: Yeah? Okay. 7 THE WITNESS: Yes. 8 MADAM COMMISSIONER: Roughly how many would 9 you have gone to? 10 THE WITNESS: Oh, jeez. Not that many, I 11 don't like hockey. 12 MADAM COMMISSIONER: You don't like hockey? 13 And was there anybody in particular you went with from MFP? 14 THE WITNESS: No, it depends. Sometimes Dash 15 Domi asked me. Sometimes Ms. Payne would have asked me. Al 16 Shaw, you know, different people asked me to attend. 17 MADAM COMMISSIONER: All right. At the end of 18 this Inquiry when it's finished I have to make 19 recommendations to the City Council mayor. Is there anything 20 you can think of that you think would be of assistance that 21 you think I should consider in making recommendations to 22 them? 23 THE WITNESS: I -- I don't know what you've 24 gone through so far but just to review the internal processes 25 of the City.


1 MADAM COMMISSIONER: Okay. 2 THE WITNESS: Because the City does have 3 document policies and procedures and you know, if this 4 Inquiry has not looked at those policies and procedures to 5 start with, that would be the beginning because they set the 6 guideline, they set the tone of how to go through an 7 evaluation. 8 MADAM COMMISSIONER: Okay. 9 THE WITNESS: All right. 10 MADAM COMMISSIONER: All right. Thank you. 11 Any questions rising out of mine? Mr. Moore? 12 MR. DAVID MOORE: I take it Mr. Shaw had 13 nothing to do with the City of Toronto contract as far as you 14 know? 15 THE WITNESS: That's correct. 16 MADAM COMMISSIONER: Well, what does that have 17 to -- how did that come out of mine -- my question? 18 MR. DAVID MOORE: Because I think he said Mr. 19 Shaw asked him to the box from time to time arising out of 20 your question. 21 MADAM COMMISSIONER: Mr. Shaw? Oh, I missed 22 that. So -- 23 THE WITNESS: Yes. When you asked me -- 24 MADAM COMMISSIONER: Sorry. 25 THE WITNESS: -- whether I had gone --


1 MADAM COMMISSIONER: I missed Mr. Shaw's -- 2 THE WITNESS: -- to the Air Canada -- 3 MADAM COMMISSIONER: -- name. 4 THE WITNESS: -- Centre for hockey. 5 MADAM COMMISSIONER: Sometimes you speak a 6 little too quickly for me. 7 THE WITNESS: Okay. 8 MADAM COMMISSIONER: I missed Mr. Shaw's name. 9 Okay, sorry, Mr. Moore. 10 11 RE-CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. DAVID MOORE: 12 Q: And so would there be times where you 13 would go to the box and there'd be other clients of MFP, 14 non-City -- non-City of Toronto personnel -- 15 A: Oh. 16 Q: -- you'd see there? 17 A: Absolutely. 18 Q: Would that, from time to time, without 19 being specific include other -- other governmental 20 representatives. 21 A: That's right. 22 Q: All right. 23 A: And non-government. 24 Q: All right. Thank you. 25 MADAM COMMISSIONER: Anyone else? No. Okay,


1 thank you very much. So Mr. Kassam, Ms. Groskaufmanis, I 2 think, will be in touch with you with respect to the 3 undertakings we made today and I'll let the two (2) of you 4 figure out when you're -- she's a little busy right now. I 5 think she has another witness as soon as -- as soon as you 6 leave, so she'll be giving you a call to talk about the other 7 documents. 8 THE WITNESS: No problem. 9 MADAM COMMISSIONER: Okay. 10 THE WITNESS: Okay. 11 MADAM COMMISSIONER: Thank you very much for 12 coming. 13 THE WITNESS: Thank you. 14 15 (WITNESS STANDS DOWN) 16 17 MADAM COMMISSIONER: All right. Ms. 18 Groskaufmanis, do you need a couple minutes to set up for Mr. 19 Rollock or do you want to start right this second? 20 MS. DAINA GROSKAUFMANIS: Well, we would 21 usually take a break -- 22 MADAM COMMISSIONER: We usually take a break 23 about 3:30 but I don't mind taking one right now, if you 24 like. 25 MS. DAINA GROSKAUFMANIS: Perhaps it's easier


1 if we take the break now and then we'll -- 2 MADAM COMMISSIONER: We'll start with Mr. 3 Rollock right after the break? 4 MS. DAINA GROSKAUFMANIS: Yes. 5 MADAM COMMISSIONER: Okay. 6 MR. DAVID MOORE: Commissioner, before I 7 forget, you had asked me to give you the reference for 8 that -- 9 MADAM COMMISSIONER: Oh, yes. 10 MR. DAVID MOORE: -- document and I know if I 11 don't do it right away, I will forget. 12 MADAM COMMISSIONER: Yes. 13 MR. DAVID MOORE: So it's -- it's the third 14 volume of Irene Payne's documents, which were marked as 15 Exhibit 11 and within that third volume, it's under Tab 11. 16 We didn't have Begdocs then. I'm not sure -- 17 MADAM COMMISSIONER: All right. 18 MR. DAVID MOORE: -- if we do now but if we 19 do, I don't have it at hand. It was the fifth page in under 20 that tab. Subsequent to that I forwarded Commission Counsel 21 a better copy of that page because the end margin was cut 22 off. That -- I don't know if we're actually inserted in the 23 book or have it -- if we've marked that officially or not but 24 that's where the origin of that comes from. 25 MADAM COMMISSIONER: Okay. Thank you very


1 much. 2 MS. DAINA GROSKAUFMANIS: Madam Commissioner, 3 sorry. Just before we break, the Registrar has reminded me 4 that we added additional tabs to Mr. Kassam's books and just 5 to make it clear on the record, the document that was -- that 6 I introduced as Exhibit 9, is Tab 4, Tabs 5 and 6 are 7 documents that were provided to us by Mr. MacKenzie. 8 MADAM COMMISSIONER: Okay. 9 MS. DAINA GROSKAUFMANIS: They weren't 10 referred to, though. 11 MADAM COMMISSIONER: Okay. We'll see you at 12 twenty-five to. 13 THE REGISTRAR: The Inquiry will recess until 14 twenty-five to 4:00. 15 16 --- Upon recessing at 3:20 p.m. 17 --- Upon resuming at 3:37 p.m. 18 19 THE REGISTRAR: The Inquiry will resume. 20 Please be seated. 21 22 (BRIEF PAUSE) 23 24 MADAM COMMISSIONER: Ms. Groskaufmanis? 25 MS. DAINA GROSKAUFMANIS: Madam Commissioner,


1 the next witness is Mr. Rollock who will be sworn. 2 3 JOHN ARCHIBALD ROLLOCK, Sworn; 4 5 MADAM COMMISSIONER: Good afternoon. Sorry to 6 keep you waiting all this time, Mr. Rollock. 7 THE WITNESS: That's fine. 8 MS. DAINA GROSKAUFMANIS: Madam Commissioner, 9 I've already explained to him that it's my fault and that I 10 can't time the witnesses. 11 MADAM COMMISSIONER: And you were going to 12 introduce me to -- there's another counsel at the table? 13 MS. DAINA GROSKAUFMANIS: Yes, I was. 14 MADAM COMMISSIONER: Okay, thank you. 15 MS. DAINA GROSKAUFMANIS: Madam Commissioner, 16 Mr. Rollock has brought his counsel, it's -- Mr. Tony Ross is 17 sitting directly behind me. 18 MADAM COMMISSIONER: Good afternoon, Mr. Ross. 19 20 EXAMINATION IN-CHIEF BY MS. DAINA GROSKAUFMANIS: 21 Q: Mr. Rollock, you've sworn an affidavit 22 that I've provided to you and to all the counsel, on March 23 the 24th of this year, before your counsel, Mr. Ross. And 24 you have that affidavit in front of you now, sir? 25 A: I do.


1 MS. DAINA GROSKAUFMANIS: Madam Commissioner, 2 if I could have that affidavit and the documents attached to 3 it, Tabs 1 to 3 marked as the next exhibit, which is Exhibit 4 37? 5 MADAM COMMISSIONER: Exhibit 37? 6 MS. DAINA GROSKAUFMANIS: Yes. 7 MADAM COMMISSIONER: Thank you. 8 9 --- EXHIBIT NO. 37: Bound documents entitled "Mr. 10 John Rollock", Tabs 1 to 3 11 12 IN THE MATTER OF THE TORONTO COMPUTER LEASING INQUIRY 13 AFFIDAVIT OF JOHN ROLLOCK 14 15 I, John Rollock, of the Town of Oakville in 16 the Province of Ontario, MAKE OATH AND SAY: 17 18 1. I am the former General Manager of Ontario 19 Government at MFP Financial Services Ltd. ('MFP'), and as 20 such have knowledge of the matters hereinafter deposed to. 21 22 2. I have worked in the information and 23 technology area since 1968, and have more than 25 years of 24 managerial experience in this sector. 25


1 3. I have worked for a number of large companies. 2 I have also worked for the Provincial government, and I was 3 the Assistant Deputy Minister in the Ministry of the 4 Solicitor General and Correctional Services. I left the 5 Provincial government in 1995 and went to work for IBM in the 6 marketing area for public safety and justice. 7 8 4. In 1998, I joined MFP. I left MFP in 2000 and 9 commenced my own IT management consulting business, which I 10 still operate. 11 12 EMPLOYMENT WITH MFP 13 14 5. MFP had been the 'vendor of record' for IT 15 supply and leasing for the Provincial government, but had 16 lost this designation to GE Capital in or around 1995. 17 18 6. By way of background, a 'vendor of record' at 19 the Province is a designation that is bestowed on certain 20 vendors of goods and services to the Province. One is 21 selected as a vendor of record after a competition (i.e., a 22 tendering process). Thereafter, a Ministry may acquire good 23 or services through the vendor of record without conducting 24 their own competition. There is no obligation upon a 25 Ministry to use a vendor of record but, if they do not, they


1 must select an alternative supplier through a competitive 2 process. Given that the tendering process is very time 3 consuming (it may take from 6 to 9 months to solicit and 4 receive bids, to evaluate them, and to enter into a 5 contract), a vendor of record designation may generate a 6 considerable amount of Provincial business for a company. 7 8 7. There was an expectation in the marketplace 9 that the Provincial government would be re-tendering for a 10 vendor of record for IT supply and leasing in 1999 (its 11 contract with GE Capital had expired in 1999, but had been 12 renewed for one additional year). Irene Payne, knowing of my 13 extensive IT background and experience in the Provincial 14 government, approached me to see if I was interested in 15 taking on responsibility for the Provincial government 16 account. 17 18 8. I accepted the position of General Manager of 19 Ontario Government in November 1998. Irene Payne had, prior 20 to my joining MFP, hired two sales representatives to assist 21 me with the Provincial government work: Don Ross and Dash 22 Domi. 23 24 9. I did not formally interview either Mr. Ross 25 or Mr. Domi, and I was not involved in their hiring, although


1 I was asked to come to MFP to meet Mr. Ross and Mr. Domi 2 prior to their start date. While Mr. Ross had been a sales 3 representative prior to joining MFP, Dash was inexperienced 4 as a sales representative. This was also the first time any 5 of us had worked in leasing. My job was to manage the 6 Provincial Government accounts and the Provincial Government 7 sales team. It was also agreed that any commissions earned 8 by the team, for which I had responsibility, would be shared 9 between Mr. Domi, Mr. Ross and myself. 10 11 10. Although I understood that I was to have 12 responsibility for all Provincial government accounts (i.e., 13 for all Ministries and agencies), I soon learned that some 14 Ministries were allocated to other sales representatives, who 15 did not report to me. 16 17 11. Irene Payne, before she was appointed to the 18 Vice President's position, was responsible for all Provincial 19 accounts. Upon her promotion, her accounts were allocated to 20 other sales representatives, such as Rob Ashbourne and Hal 21 Shaw. Mr. Ashbourne, for example, had responsibility for the 22 Ministry of Natural Resources and Mr. Shaw for the Ministry 23 of the Solicitor General and Correctional Services, along 24 with the Ministry of the Attorney General. Mr. Shaw reported 25 to Mr. Ashbourne.


1 12. Shortly after I started working with MFP, in 2 early 1999, Irene Payne advised me that she wanted Mr. Domi 3 to work on the City of Toronto account with Mr. Ashbourne. 4 At this time the City of Toronto account was assigned to Mr. 5 Ashbourne. I agreed to her request. Although I continued to 6 involve Mr. Domi with Provincial government accounts where 7 appropriate, Mr. Domi started doing work on the City of 8 Toronto with Mr. Ashbourne, outside of my supervision. 9 10 13. In May 1999, Ms. Payne again approached me and 11 advised me that she wished Mr. Domi to work full-time on the 12 City of Toronto and report directly to her on this account. 13 Ms. Payne requested that I take back the Provincial 14 Government accounts assigned to Mr. Domi. I agreed, and 15 thereafter I had no involvement whatsoever with Mr. Domi's 16 work. The commission sharing scheme also ceased, as Mr. Domi 17 was no longer a part of the Provincial Government team. 18 19 14. I have reviewed the evidence of Vince Nigro. 20 Mr. Nigro stated that 'the three of us' (meaning Mr. Domi, 21 Ms. Payne and I) were 'around quite a bit' and that I was 22 around 'the third most frequently' (evidence of Vince Nigro, 23 January 21, 2003 at pages 55-56). He also said that Mr. 24 Domi, Ms. Payne and I would 'hang out' at City Hall and that 25 I 'would be depressed, sitting in [Mr. Nigro's] office'


1 (evidence of Vince Nigro, January 21, 2003 at page 78). I 2 strongly disagree with these statements. 3 4 15. I recall that I attended at City Hall 5 approximately three times in the 18 months I worked at MFP, 6 although I do not know the precise dates (in the first 6 7 months). On one occasion, I attended at Mr. Domi's request, 8 with Ms. Payne. We met Mr. Nigro in his office for 9 approximately 15 minutes. On two other occasions, I was 10 asked by Mr. Domi to go with him to City Hall. Once, we 11 informally met in the lounge on the second floor of City Hall 12 where Councillors and staff would assemble (a Council 13 meeting may have been taking place). On the other occasion, 14 Mr. Domi and I met with Mr. Nigro in his office. 15 16 16. I do not know many of the City of Toronto 17 staff to whom reference has been made during the course of 18 this Inquiry. I knew Jim Andrew and, to a lesser extent, 19 Brendan Power from the Province. I met Mr. Nigro through 20 Mr. Domi. I believe that I met Wanda Liczyk once at a Tie 21 Domi dinner and I met Lana Viinamae at a MFP social function. 22 I do not know Tom Jakobek. 23 24 17. I had no other involvement with the City of 25 Toronto account. I did not supervise Mr. Domi on the City of


1 Toronto account; I had no idea with whom he was meeting or 2 entertaining; I did not read the RFQ for leasing in 1999; I 3 did not see, review or in any way participate in drafting 4 MFP's response to the leasing RFQ; and I had no involvement 5 with the leases MFP had with the City. Mr. Domi never asked 6 for my approval on any of the expenditures he undertook. 7 8 18. My responsibilities were with the Provincial 9 government accounts. I only earned my income with respect to 10 business from the Provincial government. 'Hanging around' 11 City Hall or working on business related to the City of 12 Toronto would have been a waste of my time. 13 14 19. I left MFP after 18 months of employment, in 15 May 2000. I left of my own volition. The reason was simple. 16 I was hired to manage the expected Provincial competition for 17 IT supply and leasing. The Province continued to extend the 18 contract it had with GE Capital. I did not feel I could 19 continue to 'wait around' and I left voluntarily to pursue 20 other opportunities. 21 22 DASH DOMI'S EXPENSE ACCOUNTS 23 24 20. I have reviewed the evidence of Irene Payne. 25 Ms. Payne testified that she delegated the review of the


1 details Mr. Domi's expense reports to me. She said I would 2 then pass the report to Ms. Payne's assistant, Christine 3 Vivaldo. Ms. Payne would only look for my initial or 4 signature and then approve the expense report (evidence of 5 Irene Payne, January 14, 2003 at pages 21-22). I disagree 6 with Ms. Payne's statements. 7 8 21. Ms. Payne was also directed to Mr. Domi's 9 expense report from May 1999, being Document COT0-25611, and 10 June 1999, being Document COT0-25682. Ms. Payne testified 11 that the initials appearing on the 'Approval' line appear to 12 be 'J E R' and that I approved these expense reports 13 (evidence of Irene Payne, January 14, 2003 at pages 8 -10). 14 I have reviewed these documents in particular, and Mr. Domi's 15 expenses and expense reports, and disagree with Ms. Payne's 16 statements. 17 18 Attached hereto and marked as Exhibit 1 is a 19 true copy of the expense report for Dash Domi, May 1999, in 20 the amount of $10,110.93, Document Number COT0-25611. 21 22 Attached hereto and marked as Exhibit 2 is a 23 true copy of the expense report for Dash Domi, June 1999, in 24 the amount of $3,385.68, Document Number COT-25682. 25


1 22. The initials on Mr. Domi's expense report from 2 May 1999, being Document COT0-25611, and June 1999, being 3 Document COT0-25682 are not mine (my initials are 'J A R'). 4 In fact, I have never reviewed or approved Mr. Domi's 5 expenses. 6 7 23. I never trained Mr. Domi on what expenses were 8 appropriate to submit or how to complete expense reports, nor 9 was I asked to do this. I did not have any training from 10 human resources staff at MFP or anyone else about MFP's 11 expense policies. 12 13 24. MFP had generous expense accounts. It is true 14 that neither I nor any of the sales representatives with whom 15 I worked had limits on what we could spend. I did not have 16 an expense budget per se. However, expenses are always a 17 matter of common sense. I know, and I would expect that most 18 other people would know, that expenses should be related to 19 an account and should have a business purpose. 20 21 25. Dash Domi is an outgoing and friendly person. 22 He did not have any sales or leasing experience. 23 24 26. Entertaining of clients, particularly in the 25 public sector, is a sensitive matter. I know that the


1 Province has very strict rules about staff accepting gifts. 2 When I worked on the Provincial government account, I would 3 occasionally invite Provincial staff for business lunches 4 and, when MFP had access to a box at the Air Canada Centre 5 for hockey or basketball games, I would invite Provincial 6 government staff. 7 8 27. Without commenting on the propriety of Mr. 9 Domi's entertaining of clients from the City of Toronto, I do 10 not believe that it was entertainment that won MFP the City's 11 business. MFP wanted to win the City of Toronto account and 12 they therefore over-invested and put in the lowest bid. It 13 was aggressive pricing, and not entertainment, that won MFP 14 the account. 15 16 JEFF LYONS 17 18 28. I recall that Ms. Payne asked me to meet with 19 Jeff Lyons in his office in the spring of 1999. I understood 20 that MFP had never used lobbyists and Ms. Payne wanted a 21 'second opinion' about Mr. Lyons. 22 23 29. Mr. Lyons' attended a meeting at MFP's offices 24 with Ms. Payne and I (Mr. Domi and Mr. Ashbourne may also 25 have been present). I recall Mr. Lyons stating that he could


1 assist us with identifying opportunities at all levels of 2 government, including the City of Toronto. 3 4 30. I understand that, shortly thereafter, Ms. 5 Payne retained Mr. Lyons. I had no involvement in Mr. Lyons' 6 retainer or any other financial or business arrangements that 7 there were made between Mr. Lyons and MFP. 8 9 31. In late May 1999, Ms. Payne came to my office, 10 obviously upset. She advised me that she had learned that 11 Mr. Lyons was also working for Dell Financial Services at the 12 City of Toronto. 13 14 32. On Ms. Payne's instructions, I drafted a 15 letter to Mr. Lyons. She reviewed it thoroughly and made a 16 number of changes. I assumed that she would have given her 17 assistant, Ms. Vivaldo, the draft with her changes to prepare 18 the final letter for her signature to be sent to Mr. Lyons. 19 20 Attached hereto and marked as Exhibit 3 is a 21 true copy of a letter from Irene Payne to Jeff Lyons, dated 22 May 26, 1999, Document Number COT0-40451. 23 24 33. I was not involved in Ms. Payne's decision to 25 re-hire Mr. Lyons in September 1999, and only learned about


1 it through my review of the transcripts of this Inquiry. 2 3 SWORN BEFORE ME at the City of Toronto in 4 the Province of Ontario on 5 March 24th, 2003 JOHN ROLLOCK 6 A COMMISSIONER, ETC. 7 8 CONTINUED BY MS. DAINA GROSKAUFMANIS: 9 Q: Mr. Rollock, I understand that you were 10 formerly the General Manager of Ontario Government at MFP, is 11 that correct? 12 A: Yes, I was. 13 Q: But you started working in the Information 14 Technology area in 1968? And you have more than, according 15 to your Affidavit, twenty-five (25) years of managerial 16 experience in this sector? 17 A: Yes, I do. 18 Q: What -- what kind of Information 19 Technology work were you doing in 1968? 20 A: In 1968 I started with Consumers Glass, 21 after graduating from Queen's University. And I started in 22 manual systems, back in those days, and these were policies 23 and procedures, and then I finally went into programming and 24 the IT side of the business. 25 Q: So, you started essentially -- on the IT


1 side, you started as programmer? 2 A: I started in manual systems, for about a 3 year, and then I went into the IT side. 4 Q: I'm sorry, perhaps I just don't understand 5 what manual systems are? 6 A: Oh, all of the processes in most 7 organizations that are not automated, are what we call manual 8 processes. 9 So, documenting those and -- and streamlining 10 those kind of processes is the kind of work that I started 11 off doing. 12 Q: And then that was eventually moved from 13 being a manual process to being an early stage electronic 14 process? 15 A: It could be, yes. Or it could stay 16 manual. 17 Q: You say in paragraph 3 of your Affidavit 18 that you've worked for a number of large companies, as well 19 as the Provincial Government, and that you were the Assistant 20 Deputy Minister in the Ministry of the Solicitor General and 21 Correctional Services. What -- when did you hold -- when did 22 you start with the Provincial Government? 23 A: I started in 1984, and I left -- well, in 24 1984. 25 Q: I'm sorry, you were going to say when you


1 left? 2 A: In 1995. 3 Q: And when were you the ADM at the -- the 4 Solicitor General and Correctional Services? 5 A: I think from about '92 to '95, somewhere 6 in that area. 7 Q: And did -- you worked for other Ministries 8 other than the Solicitor General and Correctional Services? 9 A: Yes, I worked for the Ministry -- I worked 10 for the Management Board of Cabinet or Management Board 11 Secretariate I should say. 12 Q: Hmm hmm. 13 A: I worked for the Ministry of Natural 14 Resources. 15 Q: Hmm hmm. 16 A: I worked for the Ministry of the Solicitor 17 General. 18 Q: Hmm hmm. 19 A: And then that Ministry was merged with the 20 Ministry of Correctional Services, and formed a new Ministry 21 called, Solicitor General and Correctional Services. 22 MADAM COMMISSIONER: Sorry, when did you say 23 you started in the Ontario Government then? 24 THE WITNESS: 1984. 25 MADAM COMMISSIONER: '84?


1 THE WITNESS: Yes. 2 MADAM COMMISSIONER: Okay, sorry, I wrote down 3 the wrong thing, thank you. 4 5 CONTINUED BY MS. DAINA GROSKAUFMANIS: 6 Q: And you left the Provincial Government in 7 1995 to work for IBM in the marketing area, for public safety 8 and justice? 9 A: Yes, I did, I ran what they call one (1) 10 of their verticals, which was Public Safety and Justice. And 11 that was for the whole country of Canada. And basically my 12 job was to sell -- to market solutions in the Courts, police 13 and corrections, across Canada. 14 Q: When you say you were marketing solutions, 15 does that mean you were -- what -- what kind of solutions are 16 you talking about? 17 A: Well, things like Court case management 18 systems, correctional/institutional systems, any solutions, 19 any part of the justice system. 20 Q: Were you selling hardware and software 21 consulting, or some combination of those? 22 A: Solutions, which we did a combination of 23 all three (3). 24 Q: Okay. And I take it then you were at IBM 25 from roughly 1995 to 1998?


1 A: Yes, I was. 2 Q: And then you went to join MFP? 3 A: Yes, I did. 4 Q: And you left MFP in 2000, and according to 5 paragraph 4 of your Affidavit, you commenced your own IT 6 management consulting business, that you still operate? 7 A: Yes, that's correct. 8 Q: What's the -- what's the nature of that 9 consulting business, what exactly are you doing there? 10 A: Well, I'm doing management consulting, and 11 also project management -- 12 Q: Hmm hmm. 13 A: -- so, my first job was with the Ministry 14 of the Environment, after the Walkerton crisis, and I did 15 some work for them. 16 Q: Hmm hmm. 17 A: Around an IT vision and strategy to ensure 18 that some of the future solutions would fix many of the 19 information problems that happened with Walkerton. 20 I then won a tender and I went back to the 21 Ministry of the Solicitor General of Correctional Services as 22 the CIO for about eighteen (18) months. And -- and then with 23 the Ministry of Health, working on a -- a physician solution 24 for the Province of Ontario. 25 Q: Have you ever provided any consulting or


1 management consulting services to the City of Toronto? 2 A: No, I haven't. 3 Q: Or to any other Municipality? 4 A: No, I haven't worked in Municipalities. 5 Q: At Paragraph 5 of your affidavit, you 6 state that MFP was the Vendor of Record for IT supply and 7 leasing for -- for the Province but it lost its designation 8 to GE Capital in 1995. Can you explain to me exactly what a 9 Vendor of Record is? We've heard that term batted around a 10 number of times in this Inquiry. 11 A: I can give you my definition of it. 12 Basically, what the Province did -- every ministry had the 13 right to write an RFP, in the past and to select its own 14 leasing vendor. What the Province of Ontario did was the 15 Management Board Secretariat issued an RFP for a Vendor of 16 Record for leasing and supply for the entire government of 17 Ontario for three (3) years with the option to extend for two 18 (2) additional one year periods. 19 What that gave the vendor the right to do was 20 to supply any Ministry in the Government who wanted to use 21 its services. It was not compulsory. However, if you did 22 not use a Vendor of Record, you'd have to write your own RFP 23 to select a vendor. 24 So it's really the right that is conferred 25 upon a vendor to do business under the selected terms and


1 conditions for a period of time at fixed prices and those 2 fixed prices might have escalation over a period of time. 3 Q: Were you involved at all in that initial 4 RFP that selected MFP as the Vendor of Record? 5 A: No, I was not. It was run by Management 6 Board Secretariat. 7 Q: And that was not at the time where you 8 were at Management Board Secretariat? 9 A: No, I had left. 10 Q: I take it then that having a Vendor of 11 Record designation is something that a bidder would be -- 12 would find very financially advantageous? 13 A: Oh, it's extremely advantageous to be a 14 Vendor of Record because really you have no competition 15 during that period of time. Effectively because most 16 Ministries did not wish to right RFP's. 17 Q: Sir -- 18 A: Go on. 19 Q: I'm sorry. So I take it, it just makes it 20 easy to go back and use the Vendor of Record? 21 A: Easy to do business, yes. 22 Q: Okay. So while it's not technically or 23 even legally exclusive. It -- it's a -- it's a way that 24 you're going to get a lot of business from the Province. Is 25 that fair?


1 A: That's fair, yes. Now, by the way, they 2 can be made exclusive. There are other Vendors of Record put 3 out by the Province where they have a number of companies on 4 the Vendor of Record and you have to use that vehicle. 5 So if -- if you state that is exclusive right 6 out front, it can be but the leasing Vendor of Record was not 7 exclusive. It was voluntary. 8 Q: So MFP lost to GE Capital in '95 and you 9 state at Paragraph 7 that there was an expectation in the 10 marketplace that the Province would be re-tendering for its 11 Vendor of Record for leasing in around 1999 and that even 12 though the original contract with GE Capital, the initial 13 arrangement with GE Capital was for three (3) years, it had 14 been extended by a further year. Is that -- 15 A: That's correct, yes. 16 Q: And based on that, Ms. Payne approached 17 you to see if you were interested in taking on responsibility 18 for the Provincial government account. 19 A: The timing of the expected RFP was 20 something that warranted having this position which -- which 21 they didn't have in MFP before, so -- 22 Q: Who was looking after the Provincial 23 government business before? 24 A: Ms. Payne was. 25 Q: And did you know -- did you know Ms.


1 Payne? 2 A: Yes, I did. 3 Q: Before she approached you -- 4 A: Yes. 5 Q: -- at the end of '98? How did you know 6 Ms. Payne? 7 A: Well, I -- I met her first at the Ministry 8 of Natural Resources when she was selling there. I also met 9 her at the Ministry of Solicitor General Correctional 10 Services. 11 Q: And was she selling MFP services there, as 12 well? 13 A: Yes, she was. 14 Q: When did you first meet Ms. Payne roughly? 15 A: Probably the late '80's. 16 Q: And when you were with the Ministry of 17 Natural Resources and the Solicitor General, was leasing 18 something that you had to look at? Was that something that 19 fell within your scope of responsibility? 20 A: Not at the Ministry of Natural Resources. 21 I -- I was a Director there, there was another Director of 22 Operations that did the leasing, not me. I was Director of 23 Development. 24 While I was with the Ministry of the Solicitor 25 General, I was a CIO, an Assistant Deputy Minister. So the


1 Director who looked after leasing did report to me. 2 Q: So you -- you didn't have direct 3 responsibility for leasing, but that was something that fell 4 within your -- the envelope of the things you had to look 5 after? 6 A: Yes. 7 Q: Is that fair? 8 A: Yes, that's correct. 9 Q: And what did Ms. Payne say to you, to 10 recruit you to come to MFP in late '98? 11 A: Well, the -- certainly, the -- the rewards 12 at MFP were greater. And I'll be quite frank, in terms -- 13 the -- the commission system that MFP had was probably a 14 better commission system than most companies in the industry. 15 16 And I saw an opportunity there, from a 17 financial point of view, to do fairly well, given that a 18 Vendor of Record was expected in the next year, which would 19 have been somewhat -- about three (3) times as big as 20 Toronto. So certainly I -- I left for the financial 21 opportunity. 22 And secondly, it was -- it remained in the 23 Information Technology business, so I wasn't leaving the 24 sector completely. I was, however, going into a financial 25 area that I hadn't been in before, which -- which was an


1 opportunity to learn something new, so. 2 Q: Financial area, being an area of leasing? 3 A: Yes. 4 Q: And you state in paragraph 8 that you were 5 hired as the General Manager, Ontario Government in November 6 of '98. And that prior to your hiring, Ms. Payne had hired 7 two (2) sales representatives to assist you, gentlemen by 8 the name of Don Ross and Dash Domi? 9 A: Correct. 10 Q: Were you involved at all in the hiring of 11 either Mr. Ross or Mr. Domi? 12 A: No, I wasn't. 13 Q: Did you meet them before you started? 14 A: Yes, I did. I had -- I was invited in, 15 prior to all of us starting, to meet Dash and Don. I did go 16 in and have conversations with them. 17 Q: Did you know that there was a plan that 18 you would be -- that MFP would be hiring sales 19 representatives to assist you at the Provincial level? 20 A: Well, I was told that, as a part of my 21 coming to -- to MFP, that they had looked at these two (2) 22 representatives. And, you know, they asked me to have a 23 look, but as far as I was concerned, the decision had already 24 been made to hire these gentlemen, so. 25 Q: So this was not something that you made


1 any substantial comment on? 2 A: Not really, no. 3 Q: Did you have -- when you met with them, 4 did you have any concerns about their abilities or what they 5 were going to be doing at MFP or with you? 6 A: Well, let me put it this way, Irene Payne 7 was looking for new talent, who did not have lots of 8 experience in the leasing business. She was concerned about, 9 I think, the performance of some people who had been in the 10 business for a long time, I had no fresh ideas. 11 And the three (3) of us, I guess, we all had 12 different skills to bring to the table. I had a long history 13 in Information Technology, which would have been useful. Don 14 was a sales representative for a long time, in companies like 15 Xerox. And Dash was a person that had a great personality 16 and -- and Irene thought could make the transition, so. 17 Q: So it's your understanding and without 18 disparaging Mr. Domi, he was being hired because he was a 19 people person, he was friendly? 20 A: Absolutely, yes. 21 Q: He was outgoing? 22 A: Yes. 23 Q: But not because he had any substantial, of 24 frankly, even any sales or leasing experience? 25 A: He definitely wasn't hired for that, no.


1 Q: You said that you joined MFP because the 2 commission structure was -- was generous? 3 A: Yes. 4 Q: How as your commission structure affected 5 by these two (2) sales reps that were going to be working 6 with you, Mr. Ross and Mr. Domi? 7 A: Well, when we started, Irene Payne put in 8 place, a structure where we would have shared our 9 commissions, the three (3) of us. 10 And she did that primarily because we were all 11 new to the business, and it probably -- and I agreed with it, 12 that it would have been more advantageous to all of us in 13 that any one (1) of us that got business early, we would have 14 been able to share those commissions. 15 Q: So, this was with respect to any business 16 coming out of the Province? 17 A: Yes. 18 Q: Would be shared? 19 A: That's correct. 20 Q: And would this be existing business or new 21 business, or both? 22 A: Both. And I should say, it was only for 23 those accounts that reported to me, because the Province has 24 many Ministries, but there were some Ministries, I discovered 25 when I got to MFP, that did not report to me.


1 Q: How did that happen? How were all not 2 reporting to you, if you were the Manager of the Ontario 3 Government? 4 A: Well, I've had many discussions with Ms. 5 Payne about that, and she had promised to address that issue, 6 and but because when she got her promotion to be a Vice- 7 President, she had given some of her accounts to Rob 8 Ashbourne, who was the other sales manager in charge of 9 private sector, but who also ended up with two (2) Provincial 10 accounts. 11 And the two (2) Provincial accounts he ended 12 up with were the Ministry of Natural Resources and the 13 Ministry of Solicitor General and Correctional Services, who 14 were the two (2) biggest accounts in the Ontario Government. 15 So, it would have affected their commissions 16 if she had taken those accounts away from those gentlemen, 17 and given them to me right off the bat, and she didn't want 18 to do that initially, so they were left under Rob Ashbourne's 19 control. 20 Q: If I could just ask you to take a look at 21 paragraph 11 in your Affidavit, you do say that. Paragraph 22 11 is on the third page. 23 A: Okay. 24 Q: But you also say that there's the -- Ms. 25 Shaw's -- Ms. Shaw's, I'm sorry, Ms. Payne's accounts were


1 allocated essentially to both Mr. Ashbourne and Mr. Shaw -- 2 A: That's correct. 3 Q: -- Hal Shaw. And Mr. Ashbourne had 4 responsibility for the Ministry of Natural Resources and Mr. 5 Shaw for the Ministry of the Solicitor General, as well as 6 the Attorney General? 7 A: Right. 8 Q: Is that -- is that what you meant? 9 A: Yes, Mr. Shaw reported to Mr. Ashbourne, 10 so when I said -- 11 Q: Oh. 12 A: -- when I said Mr. Ashbourne had them 13 both, they're -- 14 Q: I'm sorry, I didn't understand that. 15 A: They were under his management control. 16 Q: And -- and I take it this is something 17 that -- did you understand that this was going to be the 18 situation before you joined MFP? 19 A: No, I didn't. I was a little surprised. 20 Q: I take it not pleasantly surprised? 21 A: Not pleasantly, no. 22 Q: In paragraph 12, you say that shortly 23 after you started working with MFP in early '99, Ms. Payne 24 advised you that she wanted Mr. Domi to work on the City of 25 Toronto account with Mr. Ashbourne?


1 Did Ms. Payne explain why she wanted Mr. Domi 2 to work with Mr. Ashbourne, and why she wanted him to work on 3 the City of Toronto account? 4 A: I don't have any detailed recollection of 5 that conversation, but I believe that she did mention that 6 Dash seemed to know a number of people in the City. 7 Q: Do you know if she mentioned who Dash knew 8 at the City? 9 A: No, she didn't. 10 Q: Okay. And I take it you agreed to this 11 change? 12 A: Well, it was common knowledge among us 13 that the City of Toronto was soon going to -- was thinking 14 about going out for leasing, and therefore the -- since the 15 Vendor of Record for the Province had not yet been issued, it 16 was most important from a company perspective, that we put 17 some more effort into Toronto. 18 So, I was a team player, and it seemed -- it 19 seemed the sensible thing to do. 20 Q: Wouldn't you say that it was well known 21 that the City of Toronto was going to issue an RFQ for 22 leasing, how was that well known? 23 A: Well, Rob Ashbourne had been working on 24 the City account for some period of time, and you know, it 25 was just basic intelligence back through Rob, that the City


1 was thinking about going that path. 2 Q: Okay. And you say that Mr. Domi started 3 working on the City of Toronto account with Mr. Ashbourne, 4 did he still work on the Provincial account with you as well, 5 during this time? 6 A: Yes, he did. Yes, he did. 7 Q: Did Mr. Domi report to you on what he was 8 doing at the City of Toronto? 9 A: Very informally, yeah. During the early 10 days, obviously, with this transition I was still his boss 11 and -- so I'd still travel with Dash quite a bit to -- I had 12 to take him to the Provincial accounts because I, kind of, 13 trained him. So yes, occasionally we would talk about the 14 City and what he was doing there. 15 Q: I'm going to take you through a number of 16 steps. First of all, how did you start to train Dash Domi to 17 work on the Provincial accounts? What kind of things were 18 you doing? 19 A: Well, these were existing accounts. You 20 know, the Ministry of Economic Development. I trade with a 21 lot of his accounts. So, first of all, I had to set up -- I 22 had to set up meetings with the key -- both IT staff that 23 we're dealing with the implementation of their 24 infrastructure. 25 And I took Dash around and the first thing


1 that we tried to do was look at the issues that they were 2 having -- issues and problems that they may have been having 3 as an account. So as we started to discuss those issues, you 4 know, I'd be the lead. Dash would sit and listen so that he 5 could get some comprehension of what was involved in managing 6 an account and we would talk about those things after -- 7 after we left. 8 Q: Did you talk to -- did you take Mr. Domi 9 on any other meetings you had with Provincial officials that 10 weren't sales calls? For example, did you take -- did you 11 entertain anyone from the Province and did you take Mr. Domi 12 along? 13 A: Well, I didn't take Mr. Domi along from an 14 entertainment point of view. What we had at MFP were a 15 number of events. We had a box at the Air Canada and it was 16 expected that all sales representatives would invite guests 17 to the box. So, yes, if there events at the box, Dash would 18 invite people from his own accounts. I'd invite people from 19 my own accounts. 20 Q: Did you have any discussions with Mr. Domi 21 about what was appropriate entertaining and what was 22 inappropriate entertaining? 23 A: Not formally. I mean, we certainly didn't 24 sit down with a book of guidelines and review anything like 25 that.


1 Q: Did you ever have -- did you ever go 2 through any kind of policies that MFP may have had in place 3 with respect to entertaining or -- 4 A: No, I didn't. 5 Q: Did anyone ever -- when you started, did 6 anyone ever take you through those policies and procedures? 7 A: No. 8 Q: And you never took Mr. Domi through those 9 policies and procedures? 10 A: No, I didn't. 11 Q: Did you even know that those policies and 12 procedures existed? 13 A: I wouldn't have known that they would have 14 existed. I would assume that they existed. 15 Q: What do you mean? 16 A: Well, I worked in a number of large 17 companies and they all had policies and procedures. So I 18 didn't MFP would be any different. Although MFP was not a 19 very large company, but I -- I assumed they had those 20 policies, yes. 21 Q: So it's an assumption that there were 22 policies but you didn't actually -- no one ever pointed them 23 out to you or advised you where you could take a look at them 24 and read them or train you on them? 25 A: That's correct.


1 Q: Let's go back just to Mr. Domi and when he 2 started working with you -- or he started working on the City 3 of Toronto account. I'm still talking about early 1999, 4 prior to May of '99. Did he tell you what steps he was -- 5 what steps he was taking at the City of Toronto or how he was 6 trying to win that business? I think you said before you'd 7 talk in some generalities? 8 A: No, he didn't. Remember, at this time Rob 9 Ashbourne was the lead on this account and I assumed that 10 Dash was playing the same role with Rob that he played with 11 me, which was he was a junior who was tagging along to 12 meetings. 13 Q: So he would have been tagging along with 14 Mr. Ashbourne the same way he was tagging along with you to 15 the Province? 16 A: I assumed that that was what was 17 happening, yes. 18 Q: Did you have any discussions with Mr. Domi 19 where he specifically said either, yes, that I'm doing that 20 or b) this is what I'm doing on my own? 21 A: Nothing that I can remember. Nothing 22 stands out. 23 Q: Okay. In Paragraph 13 you talk about a 24 bit of another shift with respect to Mr. Domi's 25 responsibilities. In May of 1999, Ms. Payne approached you


1 and advised you that she wished Mr. Domi to work full time on 2 the City of Toronto account and to report directly to her on 3 this account. 4 Did Ms. Payne explain why she wanted Mr. Domi 5 to report directly to her? 6 A: I think, to the best of my recollection, 7 she discussed it in the context of Dash growing in stature. 8 I guess by now he'd -- he'd introduced her to people like 9 Vince Nigro at the City and he was getting to know a wider 10 number of people at the City. 11 And she felt that it was time that he could 12 stand on his own two (2) feet on this particular account. 13 Rob Ashbourne had had the account, in her opinion, for a very 14 long time and no inroads had been made. And so she decided 15 to give it to Dash. 16 And I think she decided to keep the account 17 herself because she didn't want a rookie salesperson and a 18 rookie manager, on probably the most crucial account of -- at 19 that period of time, so. 20 Q: When you say, rookie manager, are you 21 saying Mr. Ashbourne was a rooking manager? 22 A: No, I'm talking about myself. 23 Q: Oh, okay. 24 A: Rookie manager in leasing. 25 Q: Okay. Okay, I've got you.


1 A: Lots of management years and other things. 2 Q: Okay. You also state, in paragraph 13, 3 that Ms. Payne requested that you take back the Provincial 4 accounts that Mr. Domi had been working on. And you go on to 5 say that thereafter, you had no involvement whatsoever with 6 Mr. Domi's work? 7 A: No. At that point, I re-assigned those 8 accounts that he had at the province. I had another 9 salesperson that I took on called Brad Stewart and he was re- 10 assigned some of the accounts. 11 Q: Hmm hmm? 12 A: And basically, after that, Dash worked the 13 City of Toronto account directly with Irene. 14 Q: And you also state that the commission 15 sharing scheme that you had with respect to Provincial 16 business also stopped with respect to Mr. Domi because he's 17 no longer on Provincial government? 18 A: Well, I think that was a key part of the 19 arrangement, that once Mr. Domi was no longer working for me, 20 and he was working directly for Irene, then he -- there was 21 no need for him to participate in the sharing arrangement 22 that we had at the Province, because he had no provincial 23 accounts anymore. 24 And again, that was -- that arrangement had to 25 be set up by Ms. Payne because she was the only one that


1 could. 2 Q: Okay. Do you know whether Mr. Domi ever 3 earned any commissions with respect to the Provincial 4 government business? 5 A: Yes, he did. 6 Q: Do you know roughly what those 7 commissioners were? 8 A: I can't quite remember. I think it may 9 have been about twenty thousand (20,000). It was from my 10 account, so I do remember it. 11 Q: So really it was money out of your pocket, 12 Mr. Rollock? 13 A: Yes, I have to speak to him. I mean, he 14 never did pay me back my commission, but. 15 Q: Okay. At paragraph 14, you comment on the 16 evidence of Mr. Nigro. Mr. Nigro stated in his -- when he 17 testified here on January the 21st, 2003, that he saw the 18 three (3) of you. And he was questioned and he agreed that 19 was Mr. Domi, Ms. Payne and you, around quite a bit. 20 And that you, Mr. Rollock, were around the 21 third most frequently and he also stated that Mr. Domi, Ms. 22 Payne and you would hang out at City Hall. And then he said, 23 you, Mr. Rollock, would be depressed sitting in Mr. Nigro's 24 office, in his office. And you've said you disagree with 25 these statements.


1 Mr. Rollock, did you attend at City Hall with 2 Mr. Domi, Ms. Payne or on your own, to meet with Mr, Nigro? 3 A: As I said in my Affidavit, I went to City 4 Hall three (3) times, to the best of my knowledge, in the 5 eighteen (18) months I was there, at MFP. The first time I 6 went was with Irene Payne and Dash, and Dash had set a 7 meeting up with Vince Nigro, to introduce Irene and myself to 8 Vince. So that was the first meeting. 9 The other two (2) meetings were meetings where 10 we were on our way to a Provincial account -- account 11 development and trade, was at Wellesley and Bay and in both 12 instances Dash wanted to stop at the City, so since I was 13 accompanying him, in those days we -- we often drove in one 14 (1) car to those accounts, because I was a senior person 15 taking Dash around. 16 So, yes, we did stop off at Vince's office, 17 and since I wasn't very interested in what was going on 18 there, I -- I didn't know I gave the impression I was 19 depressed, but I wanted to get onto my account -- my 20 Provincial account. So, I -- I must have displayed that. 21 That would be the only three (3) times that I 22 remember going to the City, and -- and this was in the first 23 couple of months when Dash was working with -- with Rob, but 24 he was still working with me, so -- 25 Q: If you were -- were you working at all on


1 any City of Toronto business, you personally? 2 A: No, I wasn't. 3 Q: So, why would Mr. Domi ask you to go with 4 him and with Ms. Payne to meet Mr. Nigro? 5 A: Well, remember I was still Dash's boss at 6 the time. 7 Q: Yes. 8 A: And these arrangements were very loose, 9 you know, Rob -- Rob had the account, Dash was reporting to 10 him, but Dash was also reporting to me, on an organization 11 chart. So, he -- he kind of invited me anywhere he went on 12 that point in time, because he was new to the organization 13 and I was a person that he related to. 14 Q: Okay. Did you earn any commissions from 15 any City of Toronto business? 16 A: No, I didn't. 17 Q: And so other than those three (3) visits 18 you've described, you cannot recall attending at the City of 19 Toronto or meeting with Mr. Nigro on any other occasion? 20 A: No, I was reading the transcripts, I was 21 kind of shocked to hear that I was part of the stomping 22 ground, but those are the only three (3) times I -- I 23 remember going to the City. 24 Q: I'm going to ask you about some City of 25 Toronto staff, and I just want you to tell me whether you


1 know these people, and whether you've had a chance to meet 2 with them, and if you do know them, how do you know them? 3 Mr. Rollock, do you know Jim Andrew? 4 A: Yes, I do. 5 Q: How do you know him? 6 MADAM COMMISSIONER: I'm sorry? Jim Andrew? 7 MS. DAINA GROSKAUFMANIS: Jim Andrew. 8 MADAM COMMISSIONER: Thanks. 9 10 CONTINUED BY MS. DAINA GROSKAUFMANIS: 11 Q: How do you know Jim Andrew? 12 A: Jim Andrew actually reported to me when I 13 was at the Ministry of Natural Resources. I -- I was the IT 14 Director, and he actually left a few months after I came to 15 go to the City. So, I -- I knew him at the Ministry of 16 Natural Resources for a short time. 17 Q: Okay. And did you know Mr. Andrew when he 18 was at either Metro, or the new City of Toronto? 19 A: Well, I mean, having -- having worked for 20 me for a short period of time at Natural Resources, we kind 21 of remained acquaintances, up until now, we still are. 22 Q: Okay. 23 MADAM COMMISSIONER: Up until when, sorry? 24 THE WITNESS: Now. 25 MADAM COMMISSIONER: Now?


1 THE WITNESS: Yes. 2 3 CONTINUED BY MS. DAINA GROSKAUFMANIS: 4 Q: Sir, do you know Brendan Power? 5 A: I know of Brendan Power, actually I know 6 him now because he's working at the Ministry of Health, so 7 I've met him personally recently. 8 Q: Okay. 9 A: But, yeah, I mean I knew of him, when he 10 was at Management Board -- 11 Q: Hmm hmm. 12 A: -- but I didn't know him personally, I 13 never had any dealings with him. 14 Q: Did you know him at all when he was at the 15 City of Toronto? 16 A: No, I didn't. 17 Q: And you've described to us how you met Mr. 18 Nigro, and that was I take it -- 19 A: That was through Dash, yes. 20 Q: How about Ms. Liczyk, Wanda Liczyk, the 21 CFO and Treasurer of the City, did you -- did you know her or 22 did you meet her? 23 A: I met her very fleetingly at a -- I think 24 one (1) of Ty Domi's charitable events that he has every 25 year, and I think Dash introduced her to me in passing, so --


1 Q: And how about Lana Viinamae. 2 MR. WILLIAM ANDERSON: I'm sorry, just can I 3 get a clarification, I missed a word that the witness said, 4 that he met her and I missed the word. 5 MS. DAINA GROSKAUFMANIS: Fleetingly. 6 THE WITNESS: Fleetingly, yes. 7 MR. WILLIAM ANDERSON: Thank you. 8 THE WITNESS: Hi, you know, pleased to meet 9 you, and that was about it. 10 MR. WILLIAM ANDERSON: Thank you. 11 12 CONTINUED BY MS. DAINA GROSKAUFMANIS: 13 Q: Just shook her hand and moved on. 14 A: Right. 15 Q: That was what you seemed to demonstrate? 16 MR. WILLIAM ANDERSON: I thought he said 17 frequently, which was why I wanted to clarify that. 18 THE WITNESS: The opposite of frequently. 19 20 (BRIEF PAUSE) 21 22 CONTINUED BY MS. DAINA GROSKAUFMANIS: 23 Q: How about Ms. Viinamae? Did you know Ms. 24 Viinamae from the City of Toronto? 25 A: I met her once, again, at an MFP function.


1 Q: Do you know Kathryn Bulko or have you 2 met -- 3 A: No, I don't. 4 Q: -- Kathryn Bulko? Okay. Sir, do you know 5 Tom Jakobek? 6 A: No, I don't. 7 Q: Mr. Rollock, did you supervise Mr. Domi at 8 all on the City of Toronto account? 9 A: No, I did not. 10 Q: Okay. Do you know who -- with whom he was 11 meeting or who he was entertaining from the City of Toronto? 12 A: No, I did not. 13 Q: The City of Toronto issued an RFQ for 14 leasing at the end of May of 1999. Did you -- have you seen 15 that RFQ? 16 A: I may have seen it when I was at MFP. I 17 never did read it but I did see it when I was given the 18 papers for this Inquiry. 19 Q: But you never saw it at the time? 20 A: I wouldn't say I never saw it. I will say 21 I never read it. 22 Q: Okay. Did you participate in any way in 23 drafting of MFP's response to the City of Toronto leasing 24 RFQ? 25 A: No, I did not.


1 Q: Did you have any involvement while you 2 were at MFP with the leases that were signed with the City of 3 Toronto? 4 A: No. 5 Q: Leasing arrangements that were made? 6 A: No, I did not. 7 Q: Other than the three (3) meetings that 8 you've described with Mr. Nigro, did you have any other 9 involvement whatsoever with the City of Toronto account? 10 A: No, I didn't. 11 Q: Okay. Mr. Rollock, why did you leave MFP? 12 A: The -- the Province of Ontario, after the 13 three (3) year GE contract expired gave GE a second year. 14 That was -- at the end of '98, I think, it expired so they 15 got '98 and '99 and we fully expected -- the marketplace 16 fully expected -- as a matter of fact, I went to some 17 meetings with the Province in which they were briefing 18 vendors on the RFP that they were going to issue. 19 However, one (1) year later the Province 20 decided to extend the contract with GE for a second year and 21 at that point, it was extremely difficult for me to sell 22 against a Vendor of Record. 23 I think we explained earlier on why ministries 24 would not buy other than from a Vendor of Record. So getting 25 new business was very tough and without a VOR RFP on the


1 horizon, I decided that it was time for me to -- to try my 2 own business which was something I always wanted to do and I 3 took the opportunity to do that. 4 Q: Was this an amicable departure? 5 A: Oh, yes, it was. Yeah. 6 Q: Okay. Mr. Rollock, I'm going to ask you 7 some questions about Mr. Domi's expense accounts and some of 8 the testimony that Ms. Payne gave but before that, I'd like 9 to ask you some questions and see if in your experience at 10 the Province -- particularly at the province and working at 11 the Province if you can assist us with some of the terms that 12 we've been trying to grapple with at this Inquiry. 13 When you were working at the Province, did you 14 have the opportunity to issue RFP's or to be part of a group 15 that issued and evaluated RFP's? 16 A: Yes, I did. 17 Q: Did you ever issue them for leasing 18 services? 19 A: I think of the -- before the VOR's were 20 put out by the government that we did one leasing RFP at the 21 Ministry of the Solicitor General, yes. That was for supply 22 and leasing. 23 Q: Other than the fact that leasing is a 24 different kind of service than, let's say, the supply of, I 25 don't know, widgets or whatever.


1 A: Yeah. 2 Q: Is there any -- is the leasing RFP or RFQ 3 unique in any way? Is it actually distinguishable from other 4 kinds of tenders that are called? 5 A: Well, there -- there are many forms of RFP 6 and we -- we at the Province never issued RFQ's for major 7 contracts like this -- like the City of Toronto did. I think 8 it's more befitting of an RFP, myself. That's just my 9 opinion, by the way. 10 The -- you can issue an RFP just to get a 11 lease rate, where you get the supply from a separate vendor. 12 So you buy your -- your hardware, software from whatever 13 vendors you want to buy them from. 14 Q: Hmm hmm. 15 A: And then you say, you go to a leasing 16 market and say, you know, I've got $50 million worth of 17 hardware, software, I'd like a lease. Please give me a 18 quote. 19 Then, it primarily boils down to a rate, 20 what -- what is the best rate and terms that you get. 21 Whereas you can also, in the early days, the government VOR 22 was like this, they combine the supply of the hardware and 23 software with the leasing, which forced the -- the 24 marketplace to go into a consortium mode. 25 And in that mode, the RFP would be a lot more


1 detailed, in that you'd be asking for the types of hardware 2 you wanted, you'd be looking at the issues of, how do you 3 green-field your infrastructure, i.e., keep it -- green-field 4 meaning keeping it current over time. 5 You'd be looking at some of the services, 6 implementation services. You'd be looking at imaging your 7 software onto your computers in advance of installing them. 8 So, it -- it's -- if you go for leasing and 9 supply, it's a much more complex RFP. 10 Q: Okay. I want to go back to something you 11 said and that's that, in your opinion, for a large contract 12 such as this at the City of Toronto, I take it, you think an 13 RFP is more appropriate. Why do you think so? 14 A: Well, leasing can become relatively 15 complex over time. What -- what you're trying to do when 16 you're leasing, you -- you have to go back to what is the 17 problem that you're trying to solve. And what was happening, 18 say, in the City of Toronto was that you had the amalgamation 19 of the City. And you had many types of computers, all of 20 which were not compatible. 21 So, the -- the CIO may have been trying to 22 build a common infrastructure. And to build a current 23 infrastructure you might be looking at, you know, many years 24 of trying to get, say, fourteen (14), fifteen thousand 25 (15,000) computers all on the same infrastructure and all at


1 the same level of software and so on. 2 And -- and you -- in most cases, you can only 3 achieve getting a modern common infrastructure through 4 leasing. It is extremely difficult to achieve that in a 5 large organization through buying because nobody ever has the 6 money upfront to buy. 7 Therefore, what governments have done over the 8 years, prior to leasing, was, at the end of the year, 9 whatever money was left in the budget they went out and 10 bought computers. And -- and every year you ended up with -- 11 with a bunch of different types of computers that could never 12 talk to each other and so on. 13 So, the -- the problem that you're trying to 14 solve, through leasing, is very important. And therefore, 15 when you write in an RFP, basically what you're asking the 16 marketplace is to help you solve a very huge business 17 problem, which takes many years to put in place, and which 18 needs a strategic approach to keep in sync over time. 19 Q: Okay. Let me -- let me try to take that 20 in some different steps. 21 Basically, that leasing is -- leasing might 22 not simply be built, I take it, Mr. Rollock, simply on the 23 absolute lowest rate. In your opinion, there may be other 24 advantages to leasing that leasing companies could offer a 25 large corporation like the City of Toronto?


1 A: Absolutely. Yes. 2 Q: And that you could -- and one (1) of those 3 things could be refreshing technology over a period of time? 4 A: Yeah, the way you refresh. I mean, that 5 also has an impact on your rates, as well. But normally, 6 what we're trying to do in the leasing is to not just buy the 7 computers the first time, but to make sure that we have a 8 cycle that keeps them current. 9 Q: Okay. 10 A: Through the leasing contract. 11 Q: Right. So it's a means of trying to 12 manage your -- to manage your -- your hardware? And I -- 13 A: Yes. 14 Q: -- take it, inadvertently, your software, 15 to make sure that it remains current, remains up to date and 16 you have a plan in place? 17 A: Hmm hmm. 18 Q: And I take it, a rate is in an important 19 part of that but it may not be the only part of that? 20 A: Correct. 21 Q: And an R -- why would an RFP address that 22 better than an RFQ would, that need for a strategic plan? 23 MADAM COMMISSIONER: Why would it, or would it 24 not? 25 MS. DAINA GROSKAUFMANIS: Why would -- I


1 thought I heard Mr. Rollock explain why an RFP would better 2 address the need -- 3 MADAM COMMISSIONER: Right. 4 MS. DAINA GROSKAUFMANIS: -- for a strategic 5 plan than an RFQ. 6 MADAM COMMISSIONER: Sorry, I thought you said 7 why wouldn't it. 8 MS. DAINA GROSKAUFMANIS: Oh. 9 MADAM COMMISSIONER: Never mind, whatever. I 10 think Mr. Rollock knows -- 11 THE WITNESS: I will take your approach is why 12 wouldn't it. 13 So normally with an RFQ, it's very short term, 14 so you say, look, I have these five thousand (5,000) 15 computers and they're valued at X and, you know, please give 16 me a rate for the next three (3) years. And that's it. 17 So, I mean, there's not much to evaluate when 18 you get back other than a rate. 19 And if that's -- if that's all you want to do, 20 that's fine. But from my perspective, I'm not solving my 21 business problem, I'm just -- I'm just taking some computers 22 I bought, and I'm deciding to lease them over three (3) 23 years. 24 25 CONTINUED BY MS. DAINA GROSKAUFMANIS:


1 Q: Is it fair to say then when -- when the 2 City -- when an entity asks for an RFQ, and tries to get the 3 best rate, it's solving a short term, perhaps a short term 4 financial problem, an RFP is providing a long term solution? 5 A: Sure. Usually there's not enough money in 6 the budget to pay for them, and leasing helps you to stretch 7 your payments out. 8 Q: And that's true whether -- that's true 9 whether the solution came through an RFP or through an RFQ? 10 A: Sure, that's correct, right. 11 Q: But what you've described to us that an 12 RFP can do is provide you a different kind of plan and a 13 different kind of way of managing your Information Technology 14 resources? 15 A: Yeah, you take the leasing company as a 16 partner to help you solve a long-term business problem, yes. 17 Q: I hesitate to -- this would only be a few 18 minutes, but perhaps I'll ask the question and perhaps you'll 19 have an answer. 20 Mr. Rollock, what's a blackout period? 21 A: In ten (10) words or less? 22 Q: How about this, when does the blackout 23 period start? 24 A: Okay. And again, I'm speaking from my 25 experience as Provincial jurisdictions, although the


1 principles should be the same. 2 First of all, the objective of a blackout is 3 to ensure that the integrity of the procurement process is 4 maintained, and that no information or contacts between the 5 vendor and those involved in the process will in any way 6 contaminate the process. 7 The procurement -- the blackout period on a 8 procurement should start when you have officially issued your 9 -- your RFQ or RFP to the vendor community. 10 Q: So, in this case when the RFQ was issued 11 on May the 31st, the blackout period starts on that date? 12 A: Should, yes. 13 Q: Okay. So, before I go to when it ends, 14 when you say that it's to make sure that there is no -- to 15 maintain the integrity of the -- of the procurement process, 16 I take it, sir, that part of that is not act -- not just 17 actually to maintain it, to make sure there is actually no 18 transfer of information, it's also to perceive that the 19 process is fair? 20 A: Yeah, perception plays a big part in this, 21 yes. 22 Q: So, it's not just whether there was 23 actually influence or any kind of hanky-panky, it's whether 24 there could have been perceived to be any influence or -- 25 A: That's correct, I would put perceptions


1 into this as well, yeah. 2 Q: Okay, so when does the blackout period 3 end? 4 A: In my opinion, it ends when whatever 5 management approval process you have in place for the 6 evaluation has ended. Okay, so there's -- there's an 7 evaluation, there's a team that evaluates, the team makes a 8 recommendation, you then go into the approval process. Now, 9 you're still in the evaluation process. 10 Q: Hmm hmm. 11 A: The -- the approval process is part of the 12 evaluation process. Whatever that may be, it's different at 13 the Province than it is in Municipalities. At the end of 14 that process you -- you're free to inform the vendor, but I - 15 - I must put a caveat on that informing the vendor, it's 16 still not legally binding. You inform the vendor on the 17 basis that you can negotiate a successful contract. 18 I've -- there are situations where even though 19 vendors have been informed that they won something, if there 20 were -- if you're unsuccessful in negotiating a contract, you 21 reserve the right, in the evaluation process, to go back to 22 the second -- the number two (2) vendor. 23 So, your process is not even finished after 24 you tell the vendor that they've won, they've only won on the 25 basis that you can sign the contract.


1 Q: Okay, when you said that -- that the 2 blackout period ends when it's at the end of the management 3 decision-making process? 4 A: Yes. 5 Q: Is that correct? 6 A: Yes. 7 Q: I want to try to understand what that 8 means in practice. We've heard some evidence that because 9 management -- management tends to approve or usually approves 10 the recommendations of the evaluation committee, is formal 11 management approval actually required to end that -- to end 12 that blackout period? 13 A: The only situation that I can think of in 14 which it is not required is if management decides to delegate 15 that responsibility downwards. The role of management is to 16 approve and I would not undermine that role. 17 Q: So even if 9.99 times out of ten (10) 18 management accepts the recommendations of the evaluation 19 team, it is not until management has approved it that the 20 approval process is at an end; right? 21 A: That's correct. 22 Q: And it's not until that approval process 23 is at an end that the blackout period ends? 24 A: That's correct. 25 Q: And sir, --


1 A: Now, there -- there are situations in 2 which because of time factors, if you want to get on with a 3 project, there are -- there are mechanisms by which you can 4 go to management and say, you know, I need -- I need these 5 vendors to start working on something otherwise I won't meet 6 my deadlines and you can use an instrument like a letter of 7 intent and so on to get going but you still have to go to 8 management to get that approved. So, management does play a 9 role in the approval process. 10 MS. DAINA GROSKAUFMANIS: Madam Commissioner, 11 I only have a few more questions on this area. I know we're 12 at 4:30, I'd just like to finish this up. 13 MADAM COMMISSIONER: Sure. 14 MS. DAINA GROSKAUFMANIS: All right? 15 MADAM COMMISSIONER: Fine. 16 17 CONTINUED BY MS. DAINA GROSKAUFMANIS: 18 Q: In your experience in the province, who 19 are we talking about when we talk about management? 20 A: It depends on the size of the RFP. Some 21 RFP's can be approved by the Director level in a, maybe, one 22 hundred thousand dollar ($100,000) RFP or something. Other 23 RFP's would go to the Assistant Deputy Minister. So, it has 24 to do with your signing authority. 25 Q: Sir, and for -- part of this is because we


1 don't -- I, personally, and I imagine some of us in the room 2 don't know as much about the provincial government and its 3 processes as we have now learned about the municipal 4 government. 5 Is there a requirement that RFP's or RFQ's of 6 a certain size be approved by Cabinet or by the Legislature? 7 A: Absolutely. Again, it has to do with the 8 level of signing authority. Some Deputy Ministers have a 9 certain signing authority on the huge contracts, like -- 10 something like $100 million contract, you would normally go 11 to Management Board to get approval just to send the RFP out. 12 Obviously, if there's a VOR you'd bypass that 13 step. With a VOR in place, I don't think it is necessary to 14 go back to Cabinet because what the Cabinet has really done 15 with a VOR is say they have approved the entire government 16 user list instrument to procure computers. So, normally, 17 it's just done by -- if it's a large procurement, it would go 18 to the Deputy Minister. 19 Q: In the context of the municipality, we've 20 certainly heard evidence that municipal governments, because 21 they are subordinate levels of government and features of the 22 province that authority much come ultimately from Council. 23 It goes through committee s -- it usually goes 24 through -- in the City of Toronto and many municipalities it 25 goes through a committee system but all actions must


1 ultimately be approved by Council. Without Council approval 2 there can be -- there -- there is no -- there is no approval 3 without Council approval. 4 A: Is that for all levels of procurements? 5 Q: Well, that's a -- that's a tricky 6 question. 7 A: Okay. 8 Q: And certainly it depends on the size of 9 the contract. 10 A: Right. 11 Q: I don't think there's any dispute here 12 where a contract is in the range of $43 million, it would 13 have to be approved by -- 14 A: Right. 15 Q: -- by City Council. In that -- in that 16 case, where Council approval is actually necessary, does the 17 approval process -- can the approval process end before the 18 successful bidder is approved by Council? 19 A: If approval by Council is considered in 20 the municipality to be part -- an integral part of the 21 approval process of a large procurement, then it has to go 22 there. If it is not considered to be an integral part of the 23 approval process then it goes wherever the approval -- 24 wherever it's designated to go. 25 Q: So whatever the ultimate approval is --


1 A: Yes. 2 Q: -- whether it's -- whether it's a -- a 3 person in -- in the municipality, a staff person in the 4 municipality -- 5 A: Right. 6 Q: -- up to a certain signing authority. But 7 if it has -- if a contract must be -- if an arrangement or a 8 contract must be approved by Council, then that's where the 9 approval process ends? Wherever the ultimate decision making 10 is -- is taking place, right? 11 A: Yes. But I think that has to be clearer 12 to everybody whose involved in the process. 13 Q: Hmm hmm. 14 A: I mean, unless people in the bureaucracy 15 understand that, if it's nebulous, then, you know, people are 16 not going to know the true definition of what a blackout 17 really means. 18 Q: Fair enough. But, sir, to make it very 19 clear then, once staff has simply written a report -- 20 A: Yes? 21 Q: -- even one (1) that is signed off at -- 22 at very high levels, once staff have written a report, but 23 before it is approved by either committee or Council, if that 24 must happen, the approval process is not over? 25 A: If -- yes, if -- if a municipality wants


1 that process -- something that Management Board does quite 2 often is, when they approve something, if they want you to 3 come back, in the minute, they will put, please return to the 4 Board, okay, for approval. 5 So I -- I would suggest that that process 6 could be -- like, when you first took the 43 million to 7 Council for approval to issue an RFP, right in the approval 8 they could say, come back to Council for -- 9 Q: Well, given that that wasn't there, I -- I 10 just want to make it very clear, though. A staff report -- 11 A: Yes. 12 Q: -- that must ultimately be approved by a 13 committee and ultimately by City Council, a staff report 14 alone does not end, in your view, the approval process? 15 A: It -- 16 Q: If it has to be approved by a committee, 17 it has to be approved by Council, a staff report is not the 18 end of the road, right? 19 A: If I was designing the process for -- for 20 a City with procurements of this size, that's how I would 21 design it, that it has to go to Council for that -- for 50 22 million, yes. 23 Q: So while -- while staff have written a 24 report that recommends a certain bidder, but before it is 25 approved by Council, as it had to be in this case, the


1 blackout period is not over, in your view? 2 A: Right. 3 4 (WITNESS RETIRES) 5 6 MS. DAINA GROSKAUFMANIS: Madam Commissioner, 7 I thank you for -- for the extra time. I do have some other 8 areas of questioning for -- for Mr. Rollock, and I apologise 9 for asking him to come back and for his counsel to have to 10 return tomorrow, but I don't think I'll finish today. 11 MADAM COMMISSIONER: Okay. Do you have any 12 idea how long you'll be tomorrow? 13 MS. DAINA GROSKAUFMANIS: I expect I'd 14 probably be in the nature of about half an hour. 15 MADAM COMMISSIONER: All right. And do people 16 have any idea how long they might be tomorrow? Is it fair to 17 tell Mr. Rollock that he should be done tomorrow and have 18 someone else here? Yes? Everybody's nodding, okay. 19 MS. DAINA GROSKAUFMANIS: It would be very 20 helpful to us if we got some estimate of -- some realistic 21 estimate. 22 MADAM COMMISSIONER: All right. 23 MS. DAINA GROSKAUFMANIS: And I appreciate I'm 24 the worst offender to determine how long Mr. Rollock will be 25 so I can tell the next witness when to stand by.


1 MADAM COMMISSIONER: Mr. Anderson...? 2 MR. WILLIAM ANDERSON: I expect that I've 3 asked my only question of this witness, thank you. 4 MADAM COMMISSIONER: Unless he says another 5 fleetingly -- frequently -- 6 MR. WILLIAM ANDERSON: I may have a few 7 questions, but relatively few. 8 MADAM COMMISSIONER: All right. So you'll 9 likely be under five (5) minutes? Mr. Capern...? 10 MR. GORDON CAPERN: Thirty (30) to forty-five 11 (45), at the very most. 12 MADAM COMMISSIONER: Thirty (30) to forty-five 13 (45) minutes for the City. All right. 14 Mr. Moore, for MFP? 15 MR. DAVID MOORE: About the same, depending 16 upon what's solicited through the City cross-examination. 17 MADAM COMMISSIONER: All right. Mr. 18 MacKenzie...? 19 MR. HUGH MACKENZIE: Plus or minus the same as 20 Mr. Anderson. 21 MADAM COMMISSIONER: Okay. Ms. Ryley...? 22 MS. BAY RYLEY: Very few, if any, questions. 23 MADAM COMMISSIONER: Okay. So and how long 24 did you say you would be, Ms. -- 25 MS. DAINA GROSKAUFMANIS: Well, I -- I'm


1 estimating half an hour. Let's say forty-five (45) minutes 2 to be safe. 3 MADAM COMMISSIONER: Okay. 4 MS. DAINA GROSKAUFMANIS: So perhaps I'll then 5 ask -- 6 MADAM COMMISSIONER: So it sounds like Mr. 7 Rollock should be out before lunch? 8 MS. DAINA GROSKAUFMANIS: I expect that's 9 accurate. 10 MADAM COMMISSIONER: All right. And then we 11 should have another witness here, then, ready to go, just in 12 case we finish at noon. All right? 13 MS. DAINA GROSKAUFMANIS: Okay. 14 MADAM COMMISSIONER: Okay. Thank you. See 15 you all tomorrow morning at ten o'clock. 16 THE REGISTRAR: Order. The Inquiry is 17 adjourned until ten o'clock tomorrow morning. 18 19 --- Upon adjourning at 4:40 p.m. 20 21 Certified Correct, 22 23 __________________ 24 Carol Geehan, Ms. 25