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 May 22nd, 2003

2
  1                        APPEARANCES
  2  Ronald Manes            )Commission Counsel 
  3  Patrick Moore  (np)     )
  4  Daina Groskaufmanis     ) 
  5  Linda Rothstein         )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  Alan D. Gold            )Tom Jakobek
 24  Lorne Honickman         )
 25  Joyce Ihamaki           )Registrar

1 TABLE OF CONTENTS 2 Page No. 3 Exhibits 4 4 5 THOMAS R. JAKOBEK; Resumes 6 Continued Cross-Examination by 7 Mr. David Moore 5 8 Cross-Examination by 9 Ms. Linda Rothstein 44 10 Cross-Examination by 11 Mr. Alan Gold 96 12 Re-Direct Examination by 13 Mr. Ronald Manes 146 14 15 Certificate of Transcript 191 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

1 EXHIBITS 2 No. Description Page No. 3 4 33 VOLUME II Bound document titled 5 "Tom Jakobek" additional, 6 Tabs 92-99 119 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

1 --- Upon commencing at 10:00 a.m. 2 3 THE REGISTRAR: The Inquiry is now in session. 4 Please be seated. 5 MADAM COMMISSIONER: Good morning. Mr. Moore? 6 MR. DAVID MOORE: Good morning. 7 8 (WITNESS RESUMES) 9 10 MR. DAVID MOORE: Thank you, Commissioner. 11 12 CONTINUED CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. DAVID MOORE: 13 Q: Mr. Jakobek, I was -- I referred briefly 14 yesterday to the booklet that we put together with some but 15 not all of the year 2000 Steering Committee and Y2K Committee 16 minutes and I just want to ask you a couple of things to see 17 if you can help us in terms of what happened. Under Tab 14 18 of that booklet, it's Exhibit 35 that we marked yesterday. 19 There is -- this is Begdoc 2239. 20 MADAM COMMISSIONER: Sorry, which tab, Mr. 21 Moore? 22 MR. DAVID MOORE: Tab 14. 23 MADAM COMMISSIONER: Thank you. 24 25 CONTINUED BY MR. DAVID MOORE:

1 Q: And -- and the context, Mr. Jakobek, in 2 which I'm going to ask you about this is relating to some of 3 the questions you were asked about whether there was a grand 4 IT plan but also in the -- in the context of questions having 5 been raised earlier in the Inquiry about whether there were 6 needs assessment or needs analysis done by the City in 7 respect of Y2K or amalgamation, et cetera in relation to the 8 IT Department and in that context of -- this is -- appears to 9 be the minutes of Meeting 16 for the, what was then Year 2000 10 Committee. 11 If you go to the second page in, Begdoc 2240, 12 Item 8. There's reference to a survey. You see, it says: 13 "Status of the survey" 14 And I'm not going to -- I'm not going to read 15 it all out nor am I going to go back to earlier references in 16 your -- in the -- in the prior minutes that refer to this 17 survey and it appears, however, that some kind of survey to 18 identify IT needs and the like was underway. 19 At -- at Page 2242 we see reference to there 20 being at least one additional meeting scheduled for this 21 committee and it appeared that the agenda was to finish the 22 outline or included to finish the outline of the final 23 report, which I take it had something to do with that survey. 24 And the unfortunately, there's a gap in the 25 documents which still trying to determine or I'm still trying

1 to determine where the -- how to plug that gap. 2 But, in any event, with that lengthy preamble, 3 do you have any recollection or can you help at all, what was 4 done in terms of a needs assessment or a survey to identify 5 the City's IT's needs and requirements going forwarding into 6 Y2K? 7 A: No. 8 Q: Would you expect that some kind of 9 analysis along those lines must have been done? In other 10 words, before people come to Council and initially ask for -- 11 A: I have a -- I have a vague recollection, 12 sir, of a Y2K plan and perhaps a presentation that was done. 13 But, it really was not on my radar screen, nor do I believe 14 that many members of Council paid much attention to it. 15 I gave testimony to you where I said to you 16 that I'd never seen these minutes and you've corrected me to 17 say that, you know, some of these minutes did go to the 18 Standing Committee and -- 19 Q: Yes -- 20 A: -- I have to correct myself and say, if 21 they did, I don't remember even paying attention to them. 22 Because this was set up with staff and everything else and 23 Audit and it was basically on its own. 24 And you know, I just didn't have that 25 recollection. So, I have to be honest with you that when I

1 go through these I have no recollection at all and, in fact, 2 I never attended any of these meetings. 3 Q: All right. 4 A: So I don't know that I could help you with 5 that. 6 Q: All right. And in fairness to you, I'm 7 not necessarily sure that these -- there appear to be two (2) 8 Year 2000 committees. 9 The first called, the Year 2000 Committee that 10 -- and this is the last minutes that we have so far of that 11 and then it starts up again in January, called the Y2K 12 committee with Councillor O'Brien, one of the participants. 13 So, there's the -- it looks like there were 14 two (2) committees that evolved over time and in fairness to 15 you, it's the second set of minutes starting in January that 16 I believe was sent to the Clerks. 17 I don't know that the first set was sent. 18 But, I was really trying to see if you had any recall as a 19 Councillor as to what kind of process was in place at the 20 City to, in effect, figure out what does the City need, what 21 should the IT plan be, going forward. 22 And I take it you don't have a recollection of 23 that? 24 A: No, sir. 25 Q: Okay. Would it be reasonable to assume,

1 that there must have been some kind of analysis and some kind 2 of fairly extensive review before Council was asked to spend 3 initially 80 and then $150 million on Y2K? 4 A: Yes, but, I have to tell you that again, 5 it's just a recollection, I don't think many people 6 understood it in its totality. I mean they were talking 7 about traffic lights, they were talking about the need for 8 generators in police stations. 9 They were talking about City vehicles that 10 might just stop on the street if they're not replaced. There 11 were all sorts of things. 12 I just -- I don't have more that I can tell 13 you. 14 Q: All right. There's -- there's one (1) 15 document, and again in fairness to you, this is not something 16 you've seen, so please -- at least I assume you haven't, so 17 take my question in that context. 18 Just given -- given what we've been through, 19 if I can ask you about a document in the Mayor's book, Volume 20 I, Tab 1, Begdoc 1096. 21 This is a memorandum, March 10th, 1999 to the 22 Deputy Mayor. Do you have that memorandum, sir? 23 A: Yes. 24 Q: And you'll see the subject is Year 2000 25 funding, by type of expenditures. Now, I don't currently

1 know, quite frankly, to whom this is circulated, so I don't 2 wish to be suggesting to you that this went to all the 3 Councillors. 4 But, it does appear to reflect some inquiry 5 having been made to breakdown the expenditures. And over in 6 the second page, Begdoc 1097, you'll see there's an estimate 7 of how $149.6 million Year 2000 budget would be spent? 8 A: Correct. 9 Q: See that? 10 A: Yes, that's with the total of $149 11 million. 12 Q: That's right. And I take it there's 13 evidence that that number changed somewhat. But, just 14 stopping there, you'll see in that breakdown, right off -- it 15 jumps off the page, there's hardware and software voluted to 16 that adds up to in excess of $65 million. 17 Now, again, I've got no reason to believe, 18 necessarily, that you saw this or it was circulated generally 19 to Council but my question is, do you have any -- can you 20 help us at all as to -- do you have any knowledge of why the 21 Deputy Mayor was apparently making these inquiries and 22 seeking these estimates? 23 A: No. 24 Q: Who would the deputy mayor have been at 25 that point in time?

1 A: Case Ootes. The same one today. 2 Q: All right and just going back to the first 3 page of this document and it says that the reporter or the 4 analyst who respond to the request made by the deputy mayor. 5 Do you have any recollection of there being some kind of 6 outstanding monitoring or request that involved the Deputy 7 Mayor as to these breakdowns? 8 A: You'd have to ask him. I have no idea. 9 Q: All right and I take it, it may go without 10 saying given -- given your answers but I take it, from your 11 standpoint, you personally didn't get into the detail of how 12 this 149.6 million was broken down into these different 13 categories? 14 A: I'm sure that in all these documents 15 you've shown me that at some point it had to have occurred in 16 some kind of an agenda or may have been circulated to me -- 17 Q: Yes. 18 A: -- but, as I've said and I'll say again, 19 the City's budget was 5.8 or whatever billion dollars. 20 $500.63 (sic) billion and you know, we had cut off certain 21 things in the very beginning, the grants and Y2K and a couple 22 of other items and said, these are items that are going to be 23 very important. 24 These are items that are going to take a lot 25 of time or are going to be very involved. We can't deal with

1 them. Someone else has to deal with them. It's not an 2 excuse because you're still a member of City Council and 3 you're still responsible for everything. 4 Q: Yes. 5 A: But I -- I just don't remember being 6 focussed on following the Y2K costs. I know that I was 7 insistent on having Audit involved and present but I -- I do 8 not recall monitoring these costs. Case Ootes was Deputy 9 Mayor. He was, therefore, in most cases, the Chairman of the 10 Policy and Finance Committee. He was the Chairman of the 11 Policy and Finance Committee the day we deal with that 12 amendment. Perhaps in that capacity, but I'd be guessing. 13 Q: All right and -- and in your -- in your 14 evidence, you made reference to various committees. I think 15 we've heard about the Budget Committee, the Budget Advisory 16 Committee? 17 A: Yes. 18 Q: I take it, in terms of tracing through 19 what kind of reports were received, what kind of knowledge 20 may have been circulated, you'd really have to go back and in 21 a thorough way, examine the proceedings of those -- of those 22 committees, as an example, to sort that out. Is that fair? 23 A: Yes. 24 Q: All right and I take it there'll be a 25 number of other committees that might potentially have

1 received information about either the IT plan or the -- the 2 -- the potential costs or budget issues going forward. Is 3 that fair? 4 A: Yes. 5 Q: And among others, the Administration 6 Committee would be one potential committee of interest? 7 A: Most IT stuff would go through Admin. 8 Q: And of course, the Strategic Policy -- I 9 always get the name wrong. Strategic -- 10 A: Policy and -- 11 Q: -- Priorities Committee? 12 A: -- Planning. 13 Q: Or Planning. 14 A: Yeah, Planning and Priorities Committee 15 and then the successor to that, the Policy and Finance 16 Committee where it would be relevant to go through all of 17 those proceedings to trace together, you know, what had 18 happened over time. Is that fair? 19 A: Correct. 20 Q: And the Audit Committee would be another 21 committee that might have received information about tracking 22 some of these events? Is that fair? 23 A: One would hope. 24 Q: Yeah and in terms of focussing on some of 25 the issues that are at the heart of the terms of reference of

1 this Inquiry, in other words, how were the decisions made to 2 acquire the assets? How were the -- what analysis took place 3 about how it should be financed, what communications about -- 4 about all those issues took place. There's a -- it's a 5 fairly convoluted process but you'd have to trace through 6 what happened at these different committees and see what 7 communications took place. Is that fair? 8 A: Yes. 9 Q: All right and I take it that's not 10 something that you've done or it's impossible for you to do 11 for the purpose of coming to testify and given the fact 12 you're no longer on Council? 13 A: Correct. 14 Q: All right. I just want to ask you a 15 couple of questions about the Policy and Finance Committee 16 meeting on July 20th, that you spoke of in your evidence and 17 there was reference yesterday to the attendance sheets, I'll 18 call it, for lack of a better term. 19 And do you recall that that showed that there 20 was a -- I'm just going to turn it up -- 21 22 (BRIEF PAUSE) 23 24 Q: I've got the wrong reference, perhaps 25 Counsel can assist me --

1 MR. WILLIAM ANDERSON: Tab 10, Volume I. 2 MR. DAVID MOORE: Volume I? Thank you. 3 That's Begdoc 6275. 4 MADAM COMMISSIONER: And the Tab number 5 please? 6 MR. DAVID MOORE: Tab 10 of Volume I. 7 8 (BRIEF PAUSE) 9 10 CONTINUED BY MR. DAVID MOORE: 11 Q: And you see that the attendance record 12 records that there was an in-camera session from 2:12 p.m. to 13 3:00 p.m., on the day in question? 14 A: Yes. 15 Q: And then there's a second in-camera 16 session from 6:13 p.m. to 6:35 p.m., but, you're shown as 17 being absent from that second in-camera session? 18 A: Correct. 19 Q: That's consistent with what you've 20 describe as having another engagement you had to attend to? 21 A: Correct. 22 Q: So, I take it, we could -- it would be 23 correct to infer that the discussion about the report from 24 Chief Financial Officer and Executive Director of IT about 25 leasing of computer equipment, that would have occurred in

1 the in-camera session, between 2:12 and three o'clock? 2 A: I'm assuming it did. 3 Q: And there doesn't appear to be any other 4 logical time or place when that would have been dealt with -- 5 A: Right -- 6 Q: -- assuming that this attendance sheet is 7 correct? 8 A: Correct. 9 Q: All right. And do you recall whether -- I 10 wasn't sure whether you indicated yesterday that to the best 11 of your recollection, that was the only matter that was dealt 12 with in-camera, at least when you were there? 13 A: I'm -- I'm particularly, at this point in 14 my life, very careful about giving you a definitive answer 15 when I'm trying to give you my best educated guess. 16 Q: Oh and I -- 17 A: I have to tell you that this is a meeting 18 from four (4) years ago. And what I do know is that I did 19 have to leave early from that meeting. And the records 20 indicate that I did leave early from that meeting. 21 And I guesstimated it as being around five 22 o'clock. I have just only recently seen the full agenda for 23 this meeting. 24 And I have not seen the in-camera agenda for 25 this meeting. So, to answer your question, it was the only

1 item dealt with in that period. I honestly would not know. 2 Q: All right. 3 A: From what I read in the public agenda, 4 there were at least two (2) items, one (1) of which was more 5 significant in terms of debate, but, I don't know of any 6 other items, they may have been. 7 Q: Yes, this was item 3-35, at least 8 according to this sheet, and while I don't know that we have 9 the full minutes of the meeting, in evidence or in the books, 10 Counsel for the City was good enough to print off and provide 11 me with a full copy yesterday afternoon. 12 And I provided that to your Counsel overnight 13 to see if it might assist in recalling. I guess the point 14 that I was trying to clarify, was how long the discussion 15 took place surrounding the leasing report, if it was the only 16 item dealt with in that -- 17 A: I think it was -- I think it was -- my 18 memory tells me it was not a long debate. 19 Q: Okay. 20 A: It was a short debate. Now, whether that 21 was fifteen (15) minutes or twenty (20) minutes or thirty 22 (30) minutes, I just can't give you a specific. 23 Q: All right. 24 A: But, I think it's in that neighbourhood, 25 as opposed to an hour or two (2) hours.

1 Q: All right. 2 A: And I think it's in that neighbourhood as 3 opposed to twenty (20) seconds. 4 Q: All right. And I understood your evidence 5 to be that you do have a recollection of other Council 6 members speaking to the issue or discussing the issue, in 7 addition to yourself? 8 A: Yes. 9 Q: And we have a list of Council members 10 there. Now, again, Mr. Jakobek, please take my question in 11 the context of I'm asking you to reach back four (4) years 12 and remember as best you can. So it's not intended to be a 13 trick question. It's not -- there's no document that I'm 14 aware of that, you know, defines who spoke to it or who 15 didn't. 16 So we're just trying to get your best 17 recollection in the circumstances and in that context, do you 18 -- when you look at the list of names who, according to this 19 sheet, were present, do any of those names stand out in your 20 memory as having actually said something? Is there anything 21 more you could help us with? 22 A: No, I can't. 23 Q: All right and of the -- of the names of 24 the Councillors listed there -- 25 A: I mean, somebody had to second the motion,

1 sir. 2 Q: Yes. 3 A: We don't even know that. 4 Q: No, I appreciate that. I think a month or 5 two (2) ago, a question about who seconded it arose and I -- 6 as far as I understand it, we still don't know who seconded 7 the motion. 8 Let me ask you this, would the -- would the 9 Clerk maintain their own records or notes of the meeting? 10 A: They -- they -- they have notes for the 11 meeting, yes, and they -- they have those notes for the 12 meeting but I don't know if they maintain them or what they 13 do. 14 Q: Now, when -- when -- 15 MADAM COMMISSIONER: Ms. Groskaufmanis, are 16 you wanting -- 17 MS. DAINA GROSKAUFMANIS: I think this issue 18 has already been addressed with respect to the Clerk's notes 19 and just for your information, Commissioner, and I think 20 we've already said this on the record. We contacted Patsy 21 Morris, she was the clerk who was present at that meeting. 22 We asked her to try to find her handwritten notes which some 23 clerks keep and some clerks do not. 24 She does not have those notes. They would 25 have been destroyed in some ordinary process once the minutes

1 were prepared. We've also gone back to the archives to try 2 to see if perhaps there were notes there. There are not and 3 likewise, there are no videotapes of that -- of that meeting. 4 The minutes that we have, as far as we can tell, the minutes 5 that have been produced are the only minutes that exist. 6 MR. DAVID MOORE: All right. 7 MADAM COMMISSIONER: Thank you. 8 MR. DAVID MOORE: I don't remember all of that 9 but it may have come up on a day that I wasn't here but 10 anyway, that's fine. Dealing with the list of Councillors 11 who were there or appear to have been there. 12 MR. ALAN GOLD: Sorry. Your Honour, again -- 13 MADAM COMMISSIONER: Yes? 14 MR. ALAN GOLD: I wasn't here most of the time 15 and I apologize if this question is a dumb question but -- 16 MADAM COMMISSIONER: There are no dumb 17 questions here, Mr. Gold. 18 MR. ALAN GOLD: Okay, thank you. 19 MADAM COMMISSIONER: All right. 20 MR. ALAN GOLD: But would there not have been 21 interviews with the other people present. We haven't 22 received full disclosure and I just wondered, I didn't hear 23 any reference to interviews with the other Councillors 24 present or anything like that, so it just struck us if we had 25 missed something because I might like to use it in my

1 questioning with my client. 2 MADAM COMMISSIONER: Mr. Manes, can you help 3 us any? 4 MR. RONALD MANES: We don't -- Commissioner, 5 as you know, we don't share with Counsel the confidential 6 interviews that was have with any of the -- of the 7 interviewees. As to full-disclosure, Mr. Roebuck, prior to 8 Mr. Gold, received a full disclosure of all documentation as 9 did every other -- as did every other Counsel. So he's got 10 what we have, presumably. 11 MADAM COMMISSIONER: I guess what I hear Mr. 12 Gold probably saying is even if he does have full disclosure, 13 have -- is there anything in any of the materials in terms of 14 interviews with these individuals? 15 MR. RONALD MANES: To my knowledge, there is 16 not. 17 MADAM COMMISSIONER: Okay. 18 MR. ALAN GOLD: And could just -- 19 MR. RONALD MANES: We answer that by -- we 20 still don't know who from all those interviews, et cetera. 21 We don't know who seconded it. 22 MADAM COMMISSIONER: Right. 23 MR. DAVID MOORE: Can I just clarify, I don't 24 want to get into an issue about whether or not confidential 25 interviews or the refractive interview is or is not

1 confidential but I would have thought it would be helpful for 2 me, at least, to follow up to Mr. Gold's question to know 3 whether there is or is going to be any attempt to talk to any 4 of these -- these Councillors who were City -- City 5 Councillors at the time. 6 I wouldn't have thought whatever the status of 7 some other third party might be that an inquiry with a City 8 Councillor about this meeting would fall in the category of a 9 confidential. I don't know, is that -- 10 MADAM COMMISSIONER: I think we're probably 11 talking about two (2) separate things. The parties 12 withstanding have the summaries of witnesses who will be 13 called to testify when that comes up. As I think I mentioned 14 at the very beginning of this Inquiry, at that point Council 15 had interview over one hundred (100) individuals and at that 16 point, only about forty (40) were about to be called as 17 witnesses. 18 I don't know whether any of these individuals 19 were interviewed and I hear, Mr. Manes, saying that they 20 weren't. At least I thought that's what I heard him say. 21 MR. RONALD MANES: That's correct. 22 MADAM COMMISSIONER: And we still don't know 23 who seconded the motion. Okay. 24 MR. DAVID MOORE: Okay. I just -- 25 MR. RONALD MANES: I want to correct that.

1 There were some individuals that were interviewed that we 2 have at this point, we still don't know, there's no 3 recollection as to the events of this meeting, that they're 4 able to say. 5 MADAM COMMISSIONER: From those whom you 6 interviewed? 7 MR. RONALD MANES: Yes. And we have not 8 interviewed every single person that is listed at that 9 meeting. 10 MADAM COMMISSIONER: Okay. Well, I don't know 11 if you need this, Mr. Moore, for your cross examination right 12 now. If Mr. Gold and Mr. Honickman wish to speak to Mr. 13 Manes, at the break, that might be a way to address it and if 14 there's still an issue, then let me know. All right? 15 MR. DAVID MOORE: That's fine. I was just 16 following up to Mr. Gold's question and kind of indirectly -- 17 him asking me -- posing that question. 18 So, perhaps we can leave it for now -- 19 MADAM COMMISSIONER: Okay. 20 MR. DAVID MOORE: -- and Mr. Gold can -- he 21 may have some discussion about that. That's fine. 22 23 CONTINUED BY MR. DAVID MOORE: 24 Q: In any case, Mr. Jakobek, in terms of the 25 ten (10) or eleven (11) people who were shown as being

1 present, I guess ten (10), at that in-camera session, are 2 there any of those Councillors who given your knowledge of 3 their interests and experience, are there any of those 4 Councillors who you would expect would have had a particular 5 involvement, or had something specific to say about the 6 issues addressed in that report? 7 A: I don't know. I mean I -- it's not just 8 the Councillors who are members of the Committee. There are 9 other Councillors who attend the meeting. And I don't see 10 that list here. 11 And some -- quite often, Councillors who 12 attend the meeting and are not members of the Committee, will 13 engage themselves in a debate of a discussion. 14 They can't move a motion and henceforth, as an 15 example, that particular day, there was an issue regarding 16 firefighter staffing, Councillor Pitfield attended, she had 17 specific things she wanted to see done and I moved motions on 18 her behalf. 19 So, I couldn't answer that question to say to 20 you that -- I mean it was easy for me to recollect on the 21 Budget Committee who it is that would grab an IT item. 22 Q: Yes. 23 A: But, on this Committee, I just don't have 24 a clear enough memory to remember the exact debate because 25 quite frankly, it wasn't a major issue to me.

1 Q: All right. 2 A: And it wasn't a major issue, I believe, to 3 anybody on the Committee that day. We were too caught up in 4 major items that day. 5 Q: All right. And would it be the case that 6 some Councillors would make notes on their agenda or notes on 7 the report that they might have -- I guess Councillors 8 wouldn't all have the same practice in that regard, but, 9 would some Councillors have a practice of making notes of 10 what was going on, in your experience? 11 A: Very few. 12 Q: All right. And as a matter of practice 13 again, I expect it would vary from Councillor to Councillor, 14 but, in your experience, would some Councillors potentially 15 keep their records of minutes like this or meetings like 16 this, going back some years? 17 A: Very few. 18 Q: And I asked you yesterday about the 19 reference in one (1) of your letters to this process of 20 sending material to the Clerk's office for archiving 21 purposes, can you help me at all, a little more about what 22 the practice was or -- was there a common practice in that 23 regard? 24 A: We're almost -- you were correct the other 25 day by differentiating between what materials. Obviously,

1 constituency files are relevant and you don't necessarily 2 want to lose them because they may be necessary later on. 3 Committees that you have an interest in, if 4 it's to Save the Don Committee or something of that nature, 5 you might tend to keep that. 6 But, general standing committee agendas, you 7 wouldn't have enough room to put them in. Even Council 8 minutes you wouldn't have enough room to put them in. 9 I still have a huge box of binded Council 10 minutes taking up a whole section of my garage from ten (10) 11 years ago, that at some point, I'm just going to cut the 12 emotion and throw them out. 13 Q: Yes. 14 A: Because there's just no use. So, we 15 actually, at one point, took a vacant room in the Alderman's 16 area and called it the library and shoved agendas into the 17 library. You -- you -- you know what I'm talking about. So 18 I -- I -- I have to tell you that if you're thinking that 19 maybe somebody who attended the meeting took some notes and 20 they kept them in their file, not a chance. 21 Q: All right. 22 A: I don't think so. I'd be very surprised. 23 Q: All right and just while I'm on the topic 24 of this meeting and -- and I'm going to this to see if it 25 assists in reconstructing things at all, because I think it

1 would be helpful for everyone to get as much information 2 about this meeting as possible and again, in the Mayor's book 3 under Tab 16, Begdoc 14222. Again, sir, -- 4 A: In the Mayor's book? 5 Q: This in the Mayor's book -- Tab -- Volume 6 I of the Mayor's book. 7 MADAM COMMISSIONER: This is Tab 16. 8 MR. DAVID MOORE: Tab 16. 9 THE WITNESS: Which one was it? Sorry. 10 MADAM COMMISSIONER: 16. 11 MR. DAVID MOORE: 16. 12 THE WITNESS: Yes? 13 14 CONTINUED BY MR. DAVID MOORE: 15 Q: And I believe, I -- I hope I'm correct in 16 laying some context by saying that this, I believe, is a 17 briefing note that was prepared on -- prior to and for the 18 purpose of potential questions which might arise at the 19 Policy and Finance Committee meeting. Now, again, sir, to 20 put it in -- put it fairly for you, I'm not aware of any 21 documentation that would indicate that this briefing note was 22 circulated to the Committee members. 23 I just don't know but that being said, if you 24 look at this briefing note, do any of the topics voluted to 25 there ring any bells in terms of the discussion at the Policy

1 and Finance Committee meeting? 2 A: Well, just there's -- Number 3 says: 3 "Which equipment can possibly be used for 4 five (5) years and what would the 5 incremental cost for the two (2) years 6 maintenance and upgrade?" 7 Q: Yeah. 8 A: I mean, that's in line with the report 9 that has three (3) to five (5) years as -- 10 Q: All right and you'll see, the first item 11 in this briefing note, it was a question raised about the 12 cost of further equipment in excess of 43.15 million which IT 13 intends to lease with full details and the answer was 14 written: 15 "It is unknown at this time but any funds 16 in operating for IT equipment/software, 17 it's a possibility." 18 Do you recall whether there was any discussion 19 about that? 20 A: No. The only discussion I had I've 21 already said, which was, you know, about the length of time 22 and what you do with these things after three (3) years. 23 Q: All right and then Item 2 was a chart with 24 a breakdown of some of the budgets or budget sources, I 25 guess, I'm not sure if that's the right terminology,

1 indicating that this was not all budgeted in Y2K. 2 A: Correct. 3 Q: And as I read this, it -- it appears that 4 about 47 million, and I'm rounding here, was Y2K related and 5 there was a little over 6 million that was not IT -- was not 6 Y2K related. 7 MADAM COMMISSIONER: Did you say 47 million 8 was Y2K related? 9 MR. DAVID MOORE: Yes, 46 or 47. 10 MADAM COMMISSIONER: Okay. 11 MR. DAVID MOORE: I'm just doing the math 12 quickly here. 13 MADAM COMMISSIONER: You're doing it very -- 14 THE WITNESS: Too quick. 15 MADAM COMMISSIONER: -- quickly because the 16 total is only 43. 17 MR. DAVID MOORE: Sorry, 30 -- 30 -- 36 18 million. 19 THE WITNESS: You ought to work for the City. 20 21 (BRIEF PAUSE) 22 23 THE WITNESS: That was a joke. That was just 24 a joke, sorry. 25 MR. DAVID MOORE: I shouldn't be trying.

1 THE WITNESS: I withdraw the remark, I do. 2 3 CONTINUED BY MR. DAVID MOORE: 4 Q: In any event, do you recall, was there any 5 discussion about where the budgeting was for -- for this -- 6 A: No, sir. 7 Q: -- equipment? 8 A: No, sir. 9 Q: And as I read this, it appears to suggest 10 that there was a separate budget for SAP, which I understand 11 to be an accounting software system of some kind? 12 A: Yes. 13 Q: And -- and do you recall that being the 14 case, that there was a separate and distinct -- 15 A: Yes, I can even remember the debate 16 because I didn't agree with SAP. 17 Q: Okay. So that would indicate that there's 18 a variety of different budget sources or budget approvals for 19 this type of equipment. Is that fair? 20 A: Yes. 21 Q: And -- and again, there would be, I guess, 22 special projects, if you will. Is that -- is that the right 23 thing to call something like SAP? 24 A: Yes, it was a specific project that was 25 voted on by City Council in which they went through a whole

1 process to decide what financial computer system they were 2 going to go with. 3 Q: Yes. 4 A: And at the end of the day, they chose SAP 5 and then there was a budget for it and there was a monitoring 6 system that was supposed to be built on -- built in, in order 7 to make sure they didn't go over budget. 8 Q: And so in a sense the Y2K budget, that 9 would be a special project, as well? 10 A: Right. 11 Q: And so those would be two (2) budgets -- 12 A: I'm pretty sure that those two (2) would 13 be separate budgets -- 14 Q: Yes -- 15 A: -- but, I'm not 100 percent. 16 Q: I infer from the breakdown here, that they 17 were, but, again, I'm just trying to clarify you know, what 18 the source, if one (1) wants to go back and find out when did 19 City Council consider what was needed and what the 20 perspective costs might be, that -- may be of some 21 assistance, in reconstructing these events. 22 So, those are two (2), in effect, I'll call 23 them special projects where there be a specific budget for 24 these types of things? 25 A: Yes.

1 Q: And that would be distinct from the 2 operating department budgets? 3 A: Oh -- I'm not going to be able to answer, 4 I -- 5 MADAM COMMISSIONER: He can't answer that -- 6 THE WITNESS: It's just too -- 7 MADAM COMMISSIONER: That's fine -- 8 THE WITNESS: -- it's too much. I can't do it. 9 MR. DAVID MOORE: Fine. 10 11 (BRIEF PAUSE) 12 13 CONTINUED BY MR. DAVID MOORE: 14 Q: And lastly before I leave this note again, 15 I don't know if we're going to hear from anyone else who was 16 at this meeting, so I'll ask you. Item 4, there's a question 17 about other non-financial advantages of leasing. 18 My question is, looking at that, does that 19 ring a bell at all, in terms of any discussion that may have 20 taken place at the in-camera session? 21 A: Well, yes, because what this tells me is 22 that what I told you is correct. That my recollection was 23 that the only arguments that I could recall, was the peaking 24 thing again. That you know, we have better financial -- I'm 25 not suggesting that that is a good argument.

1 I'm just saying that it was an argument that 2 was made and this indicates that that was the number one (1) 3 thing that they were making or it was the first one that they 4 were making. 5 But, this also tells me in Number 4, that the 6 concern that some of us had, which was that in IT they tended 7 to like to change things a little quicker. 8 That when it says: 9 "Reduce technology obsolescence." 10 You know, that was the thing that always 11 worried us. You know, you're not up to date and we've got to 12 change it and so, you know, those are the arguments that we 13 had and this briefing note, which I doubt which we would have 14 seen -- 15 Q: Yes -- 16 A: -- was anticipating what their argument 17 would be and what our arguments might be and so it's 18 interesting that those are there, you know, flat line budget, 19 all those things that I described without having even looked 20 at this docket -- 21 Q: Yes -- 22 A: -- are there. 23 Q: All right. And if I understand you 24 correctly, from your perspective the IT Department would be 25 pushing for quicker refresh, get the latest and greatest

1 gizmos I think was the term you used yesterday, that would -- 2 from your perspective be their inclination or bias, if you 3 will? 4 A: Sir, in fairness to the IT Department, 5 everybody who works in the building is a professional. I'd 6 like to believe that they all have their own belief in what 7 they do. 8 So, you know, if you're talking about the 9 young man who is in charge of the Forestry Department, you 10 know he wants to plant more trees and he believes that we're 11 not maintaining the trees we have. 12 And I don't fault him for it. I may disagree 13 with him on how many we can afford on a particular time, but, 14 that's he job. He's supposed to be pro-active for trees. 15 In this particular case, the IT Department 16 wanted us to always be up to date. Wanted us to be ahead of 17 people. Wanted us to be ready and, you know, all the rest of 18 it and we couldn't always do it, or we couldn't always agree 19 on it. 20 Q: Yes. 21 A: But, I don't -- I want to answer your 22 question by saying, I don't want my comments to be taken as 23 necessarily these people were out to lunch, or something. 24 They were pro-active for what they did on a day to day basis. 25 Q: No and sir, actually, in fairness, it may

1 be the way my question was put, that may have given rise to 2 your concern. 3 I wasn't meaning to suggest that anything 4 other and perhaps different wording would have been more 5 appropriate, but, the IT folks were advocates of IT as one 6 (1) might expect. 7 A: Right. 8 Q: And from time to time, I take it, the gist 9 of what you're saying is that that would run up against the 10 financial reality that it might not always be possible to 11 have the latest -- 12 A: Correct. 13 Q: -- and the best -- 14 A: Correct. 15 Q: -- as quickly as you might like? 16 A: Correct. 17 Q: And I take it that would be particularly 18 the case in the environment back in 1999 with all the 19 financial constraints and difficulties that the City was 20 trying to wrestle with? 21 A: Correct. 22 Q: All right. 23 24 (BRIEF PAUSE) 25

1 Q: And there's just a couple of additional 2 things I want to ask you about to see if you have any 3 recollection, and you may not, arising out of a couple of 4 references in the Year 2000 Steering Committee materials. 5 At Tab 25 of Exhibit 35 is Begdoc 70. Item 1, 6 the last sentence indicates that the Steering Committee 7 agreed that the Y2K Steering Committee minutes should be 8 tabled at each SMT meeting and I believe there's reference 9 elsewhere to indicate that SMT means Senior Management Team. 10 Can you assist us in terms of what that was? 11 Was that a regular set of meetings for which there might be 12 records or do you know? 13 A: I don't know. 14 Q: All right. 15 A: I know Mr. Garrett always referred to the 16 Senior Management Team but I don't know of any committee or 17 structure or whatever. 18 Q: All right and under Tab 53, this is in a 19 -- there's a number of other references I might take you to 20 but I think, you know, since you haven't seen the documents, 21 I'll try to limit it as much as I can. Just a couple of 22 additional ones. Tab 53, Begdoc 15210. These are minutes 23 from the October 7, 1999 meeting and you'll see there's 24 reference there to Oracle licenses, Item Sub 1. 25 A: Hmm hmm.

1 Q: Do you have any recollection of that 2 coming up on your radar screen at all? 3 A: No, I don't have a recollection. No. 4 Q: All right. 5 A: I mean, all this is telling me is that the 6 committee that we set up was dealing with all these important 7 issues with regards to Y2K. 8 Q: All right and did I understand your 9 evidence to be -- there's various references in these 10 documents to the fact that -- that apart from the minutes 11 being circulated, there were going to be periodically, 12 sometimes suggested monthly, reports to the Strategic 13 Planning Committee. 14 A: And as I said to you before, I -- I don't 15 even know whether or not they did. I'm assuming they did. I 16 don't know that we paid much attention to it at the time. 17 Q: All right. I was actually just wanting to 18 clarify whether you do have a recollection as to whether, in 19 fact, the documents say what they say in terms of that 20 apparently happening but do you recall whether, in fact, such 21 reports were submitted on a periodic basis? 22 A: I assume that they were and I'm -- I'm 23 sure they were but I don't personally have a recollection of 24 it. 25 Q: And Tab 59, Begdoc 39673, Item 2, Sub A.

1 It's actually Pol -- by this time it's at Policy and Finance 2 Committee, I misspoke myself. It refers to a report being 3 submitted and then refers to a request, it doesn't say from 4 whom, then the next report, the following might be covered: 5 "A good rate for acquisition received and 6 leasing program." 7 And then it goes on: 8 "A breakdown by department / divisions will 9 be provided to Finance -- to Finance and 10 departments on leasing cost and impact for 11 the year 2000 budget." 12 Does that ring a bell at all, in terms of 13 anything that caught your attention at the time? 14 A: No, sir. 15 16 (BRIEF PAUSE) 17 18 Q: And you made the comment that -- just a 19 moment ago, that you thought the Policy and Finance 20 Committee, assuming that there were reports submitted from 21 time to time, from the Y2K committee that people didn't pay 22 too much attention to them? 23 A: That's my recollection, sir. 24 Q: Can you just elaborate on that and put 25 that in some context for us?

1 A: I thought I elaborated on it when I said, 2 was it yesterday or whatever, you know, you'd have a $5.6 3 billion budget, and you'd go to City Council and you'd spend 4 most of your time on a fifty thousand dollar ($50,000) 5 Councillors budget. 6 Q: Yes? 7 A: It just wasn't -- you know -- people had 8 other items that were more important to them. 9 Q: I appreciate that, but, in this case, 10 we're dealing not with a fifty thousand dollar ($50,000) 11 budget, or budget item, but $150 million or potentially -- 12 A: I think it's fair to say, and I certainly 13 understand what you're saying to me, but, I think it's fair 14 to say that City Council as a whole, had approved a staff 15 recommendation and staff reports, that said you've got a 16 problem, it's called Y2K. You have a short period of time in 17 which to address it. 18 This is what we think the ballpark figure is. 19 And I still stick to the 153, I don't know where the heck it 20 came from, but, it's in my head -- 21 Q: Right -- 22 A: -- million dollars and here is the 23 mechanism that you are setting up, staff mechanism to monitor 24 it, to do it to give periodic reports and we will do the job 25 and you delegate it to us. And I think that's what

1 ultimately is why very few people, like even myself, would 2 have monitored it that closely. 3 Q: All right. 4 A: Because you know, you can't do everything. 5 Q: All right. And just finally, in Book 2, 6 of -- your documents, Tab 17, is a letter from Commission 7 Counsel of November 22, 2002, there's no Begdoc, but, the 8 third page in. I just want to briefly ask you about item 7. 9 10 (BRIEF PAUSE) 11 12 Q: And my question there is, do you follow 13 the budget reports in 2000 and 2001, which describe the 14 growing cost of leasing and did you make any enquiries into 15 the reason that these costs were rising? 16 Now, I take it, do you know the specifics of 17 what budget reports may be referred to there in Commission 18 Counsel's question? 19 A: Well, in 2001 I wasn't there. So I 20 wouldn't have a clue. 21 Q: Sticking with 2000? 22 A: In 2000, I'm trying to think of whether or 23 not, I was given the report or shown the report. But, my 24 answer to that would be, since when when I get a report that 25 told me that there was a rising cost somewhere in some

1 department. 2 So, I -- 3 Q: All right. I take it to really deal with 4 that question, once again, one would have to go back to the 5 various committees or sub-committees and systemically go 6 through and see what the reports were and what the minutes 7 showed and that kind of thing, is that fair? 8 A: Yes. 9 Q: All right. And I take it, to the extent 10 that there are such reports or were such reports, that's a 11 question that might be directed not just at you, but, to any 12 other Council members, who similarly would have received such 13 reports? 14 A: Absolutely. 15 MR. DAVID MOORE: Thank you. Those are my 16 questions. 17 MADAM COMMISSIONER: Thank you, Mr. Moore. 18 Ms. Rothstein...? 19 This is Linda Rothstein, lawyer for the City, 20 21 (BRIEF PAUSE) 22 23 MADAM COMMISSIONER: Ms. Rothstein, do you 24 have any sense of how long you think you might be? 25 MS. LINDA ROTHSTEIN: No more than two (2)

1 hours. 2 MADAM COMMISSIONER: She said that out loud. 3 No more than two (2) hours. Okay. That's not including the 4 break. 5 THE WITNESS: Thank you. 6 7 (BRIEF PAUSE) 8 9 MS. LINDA ROTHSTEIN: Commissioner, just 10 before I begin, I think I should put on the record the 11 discussions that I had with Mr. Honickman yesterday 12 afternoon. Following Mr. Jakobek's testimony last Thursday, 13 we did some research with respect to whether or not his 14 testimony had gone so far as to constitute either a voluntary 15 or an implied waiver of solicitor-client privilege with 16 respect to his communications with Mr. Roebuck. 17 I told Mr. Honickman yesterday that we had 18 come to conclusion that it had. Mr. Honickman and Mr. Gold 19 disagree. They continue to that the position that the 20 communications other than those that have been disclosed thus 21 far by Mr. Jakobek between Mr. Jakobek and Mr. Roebuck are 22 cloaked with solicitor-client privilege. 23 I said to Mr. Honickman, is it okay for me to 24 start my cross-examination knowing that at some stage I may 25 take the position that I can't ask any further questions

1 without a determination of that issue and Mr. Honickman said, 2 yes, by all means and hopefully it won't become necessary for 3 a need for determination of that issue to be made at all. 4 I agree. Hopefully it will not become 5 necessary for any determination of that issue to be necessary 6 and I have told Mr. Honickman that I intend to pursue my 7 cross-examination to the limit but that it may be that that 8 becomes academic. 9 I simply want it on the record that out of 10 fairness to Mr. Jakobek and his Counsel, there is, at least, 11 the prospect that my time estimate is inaccurate because 12 there will be some issue that has to be determined before I 13 can complete my cross. 14 MADAM COMMISSIONER: I see, okay. Mr. Gold? 15 MR. ALAN GOLD: Yes, could I just say one 16 thing that obviously certain matters have been tested by, 17 too, My Friend is completely able to cross-examine on that. 18 We want to make it clear that Mr. Jakobek, in answering any 19 questions, at no time intends to waive privilege. Okay? 20 MADAM COMMISSIONER: Okay. 21 MR. ALAN GOLD: But on the other hand, he does 22 wish to answer cooperatively to try to avoid getting into 23 litigation. So we hope that he'll be able to answer the 24 questions in cross-examination in such a way to satisfy 25 Counsel without the necessity to litigate.

1 MADAM COMMISSIONER: Okay. 2 MR. ALAN GOLD: So that's kind of our 3 overall -- 4 MADAM COMMISSIONER: All right. 5 MR. ALAN GOLD: -- attitude but if asked, we 6 certainly do not intend to waive anything but he does wish to 7 give as complete a testimony as he can. 8 MADAM COMMISSIONER: Okay. Thank you, Mr. 9 Gold. 10 MS. LINDA ROTHSTEIN: So as I understand the 11 ground rules, I'm free to ask questions. If I ask a question 12 that Mr. Gold and Mr. Honickman are of the view goes 13 inappropriately far in piercing the solicitor-client 14 privilege, I'll hear an objection, I'll stop and we'll see 15 from there whether I can simply rephrase the question or get 16 to a point where I say to you, Commissioner, I'm sorry I 17 can't continue without having this issue determined. 18 MADAM COMMISSIONER: Okay, I'm -- I'm -- 19 MR. LORNE HONICKMAN: That's exactly right. 20 MADAM COMMISSIONER: Okay, perfect. All 21 right. Let's go. 22 23 CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS. LINDA ROTHSTEIN: 24 Q: Harold Perry trips, I don't think that 25 raises any privilege issue, Mr. Jakobek. When you testified

1 last Wednesday, sir, you told us that with respect to the 2 flight to Philadelphia, you were always under the impression 3 that you had gone on a trip with Harold and that you had 4 absolutely no reason to believe it was anything other than 5 one of Harold's trips. Is that a fair summary of your 6 evidence, sir? 7 A: I believe I clarified it to say I assumed 8 it. 9 Q: I took it from what you were saying, Mr. 10 Jakobek, that you never squarely asked the question, Mr. -- 11 Harry, who's paying for this trip? Is that fair? 12 A: Correct. 13 Q: And he never squarely answered with the 14 words, I'm paying? 15 A: Correct. 16 Q: All right. You derived that impression, I 17 understand it, from the history that you had with Mr. Perry 18 of other trips? 19 A: Correct. 20 Q: All right. I need to ask you about that, 21 sir, how many trips have you gone on with Mr. Perry? You 22 told us you went to Cuba? 23 A: Yes. 24 Q: And -- 25 A: A group of us --

1 Q: A group of you. 2 A: -- went then. 3 Q: Who else went to Cuba, sir? 4 A: Friends. I can -- I can -- you know, no 5 one at City Hall or anywhere else but I mean, I can get you a 6 list of friends. 7 Q: Are they all personal friends? Is that 8 what you're saying -- 9 A: Yes. 10 Q: -- Mr. Jakobek? 11 A: Or family members, yeah. 12 Q: Or family members. Mr. Perry was going as 13 a friend of yours? 14 A: We were going as friends, yes. 15 Q: All right. There wasn't any business 16 connection between you and Mr. Perry? 17 A: No, we've had no business connection. 18 Q: You each paid your own way? 19 A: Overall, yes. Each trip is different. 20 Sometimes I would book tickets, I would -- I would organize a 21 trip and I would book tickets and sometimes other people 22 would organize a trip and book tickets and then sometimes 23 someone would book the hotel or find the condominium that we 24 could rent or something of that nature. 25 Q: You see, because what I've understood you

1 to say, and I was actually just asking about Cuba, is that 2 you had paid for the trip to Cuba, initially for Mr. Perry, 3 and he had reimbursed you. Did I understand your evidence -- 4 A: That is a recollection I have of that 5 trip. It may or may not be totally correct, because I may 6 have been confusing it with Mexico. I have friends in Mexico 7 that I've stayed with. 8 And so usually when we go to Mexico and I've 9 gone with other people, other than Harold Perry, who are 10 personal friends, I always make the hotel arrangements. 11 So, I really -- couldn't give you more than 12 recollections, which may be accurate or not accurate. It's 13 just that it wasn't a -- we don't go and buy packages from 14 travel agencies. 15 You know, we book tickets, we look for a good 16 place to go and -- 17 Q: Sure -- so somebody makes the original 18 arrangements and somebody throws their Visa towards the 19 original arrangements, but, the understanding is that 20 everybody his own way, subject to a little bit of dinner or 21 drinks here and there, is that it? 22 A: Yes. 23 Q: Well, if that's so, then why was this a 24 trip that was going to be, that is to say, Philadelphia, paid 25 for by Mr. Perry?

1 A: We do other things together, it's really 2 not -- I hate to say it, but, it really wasn't a big expense, 3 it wasn't a big deal to me. I -- 4 Q: Your evidence is, sir, that the notion 5 that Mr. Perry would be offering you a free trip by private 6 jet and all expenses paid to Philadelphia to see a playoff 7 game, was part of your friendship with Mr. Perry? 8 A: It's not impossible, yes. 9 Q: Impossible, I haven't asked about. You're 10 saying it was part of the relationship that you had 11 established with Mr. Perry, out of friendship, he paid your 12 way on junkets like this? 13 A: Ma'am, what I've said -- what I've said 14 is, I have not suggested to you that Mr. Perry paid my way on 15 junkets. 16 Q: Okay. 17 A: What I said to you is that, as a friend, 18 we'd been on trips together, we'd done other things together 19 and that we had been fairly casual with our accounting as to 20 who pays for what. And so, it would not be -- it would not 21 be unusual for Harold or for me, for that matter, to pick up 22 the hotel or pick up a plane ticket, and either get 23 reimbursed later, or not get reimbursed. 24 Because in the overall picture, we always kind 25 of, would balance things out.

1 Q: And what did, Mr. Perry, tell you about 2 the reason for, Mr. Domi's presence, on the trip? 3 A: He invited him. No, I want to back that 4 up. I don't know that he said he invited him, or anything. 5 He just said, he was coming. 6 Q: Why? Why did he -- why did he say he was 7 coming? Where did he come from? 8 A: He knew him. He knew him. 9 Q: How? 10 A: I honestly don't know. He knew him. 11 Q: You weren't curious to understand anything 12 more about Mr. Domi's presence on the trip? 13 A: No, I was -- I was going on a trip. It 14 wasn't really a trip, it was a hockey game. We were going to 15 a hockey game. It's just that a hockey game was in another 16 City. 17 It wasn't you know, maybe I would have got 18 into those questions Ma'am, if I was staying overnight and 19 everything else. But, it wasn't. It was just boom, get on 20 the plane, go to the hockey game and see the game. 21 Q: And Mr. Domi's presence and, in 22 particular, his connection to his very famous brother, was of 23 no moment, one (1) way or the other? 24 A: Oh, I was intrigued by that, sure. 25 Q: And didn't that intrigue cause you to make

1 some enquiries, about what he was doing on this flight? 2 A: No. 3 Q: Were there any corporate interests behind 4 any of the trips that you've taken with Mr. Perry, Mr. 5 Jakobek? 6 A: No. 7 Q: There was never a case, when one (1) of 8 those trips that you took with Mr. Perry, was paid for, not 9 by you or by him, but, by a third party interested in doing 10 business with you or him? 11 A: Not that I'm aware of. 12 Q: Your evidence sir, is that you have never 13 taken a trip paid for by a person or corporation doing 14 business with the City of Toronto or intending to do business 15 with the City of Toronto? 16 A: I -- I don't know that I said that, and I 17 mean my -- my general recollection is that I haven't, I -- I 18 don't know. 19 Q: Okay. You can't think of any at the 20 moment? 21 A: Not at this moment. 22 Q: Your evidence, sir, is that you never 23 actually played golf with anyone from MFP, except the Hunt 24 Club game that you arranged with Mr. Domi in September of 25 '99; do I have that correct, sir?

1 A: That's my recollection, yes. 2 Q: Is it possible that you actually accepted 3 an invitation from MFP and then didn't show? Is that 4 possible, sir? 5 A: It's possible, but unlikely. 6 Q: Take a look at Volume II, Tab 83, please. 7 8 (BRIEF PAUSE) 9 10 A: Is that Begdoc 29107? 11 Q: It -- it is, sir. This appears to reflect 12 the invitation list for the MFP Invitational held on 13 Thursday, September 23rd, 1999. It comes from MFP. 14 You'll see that under City of Toronto, you are 15 the first name and the reply is indicated as a yes. Does 16 that assist your recollection, Mr. Jakobek, as to whether in 17 fact someone accepted on your behalf or you accepted, and 18 then perhaps didn't go? 19 A: No. 20 Q: This is in error, is it? 21 A: It could be. I -- I don't remember ever 22 saying I would go to the MFP Invitational, and I know that I 23 didn't actually go. 24 Q: But it's possible that at some stage you 25 thought you were going to go and didn't. That's a

1 possibility, sir? 2 A: No, I don't think so, because -- I just 3 don't, no. 4 Q: So, this document is, as you understand 5 it, in error? You never accepted -- 6 A: I mean, I read this document it says 7 reply, right, and it says yes by my name, but I -- I have no 8 idea why they did that. 9 Q: Assuming that it indicates that you had 10 said yes, you are coming, or someone on your behalf had said, 11 yes, you are coming. Your recollection is that's an error? 12 A: Yes. 13 Q: Okay. Mr. Jakobek, you've looked at the 14 cell phone records that record your calls with Mr. Domi from 15 your cell phone and his calls to you from his cell phone? 16 A: I -- I have looked at them, but not in 17 great detail. 18 Q: You realize of course that all Commission 19 Counsel has amassed in terms of telephone records, are cell 20 phone records. You understand that, sir? 21 A: Yes. 22 Q: It does not capture the documentation that 23 we've seen, the land line to land line calls? 24 A: Okay. 25 Q: Okay. It's likely, sir, that there were

1 in fact additional telephone contacts between you and Mr. 2 Domi that were land line to land line, and are therefore not 3 captured on that record of calls; is that fair? 4 A: May or may not. 5 Q: Is it likely, sir? 6 A: Well, to the best of my knowledge, from 7 what I have been shown, what I have been shown, Mr. Domi 8 practically only used his cell phone, so I would think that 9 everything you see for Mr. Domi is for Mr. Domi. 10 In terms of my phone, I don't recall calling 11 Mr. Domi anymore than I've seen so far in terms of record, 12 because I don't remember calling him that often, but could I 13 have called him on a land phone, sure. 14 Q: And could he have called you on a land 15 phone, sure? 16 A: I -- I don't think so, I -- I -- I think 17 the evidence to date and certainly my recollection is this 18 guy always used his cell phone. 19 Q: Well, certainly when he testified, sir, 20 and I asked him about that, he said, yes, the majority of the 21 time he used his cell phone, but he did use a land line, 22 particularly at the MFP office. Is it your evidence, sir, 23 that you don't think that ever happened with you? 24 A: No, ma'am, I -- I just don't have 25 recollection of it, that's all.

1 Q: Mr. Lyons, he only -- he took DFS, his 2 client, to see you, you don't remember that. You accept that 3 it's possible that he did. Have I got your evidence so far? 4 A: Yes. 5 Q: He told us when he testified, that you 6 were the only Councillor that he saw fit to introduce to DFS 7 in the run up to the computer leasing RFQ. He told us that 8 he told his client, and it was his considered view, that you 9 were one (1) of the three (3) key decision makers at the City 10 of Toronto, with respect to the outcome of the computer 11 leasing RFQ. He was wrong? 12 A: Well, absolutely he'd be wrong. 13 Q: Based on his knowledge of you over the 14 years, his relationship with you, and the work that he does 15 at City Hall, was he in a position to know that you weren't 16 in fact a key decision maker on that issue? 17 A: You would think. 18 Q: So, what you're telling us is that Jeff 19 Lyons' testimony that it was impossible to get a meeting with 20 you, except with his assistance to talk about this DFS 21 proposal, that's not true either? 22 A: I -- I would say that Mr. Lyons was a 23 salesman with a company and that he would have told them or 24 may have told them that, you know, I can get into see 25 somebody or whatever. But the reality is anybody could have

1 picked up the phone and called and said, I want to see Tom 2 Jakobek, and they would have got in to see him, or they could 3 have gone to City Hall and waited until I came out of a 4 meeting and they would have got to see me. They didn't need 5 a lobbyist or a lawyer, never have. 6 Q: So, Mr. Lyons has completely inflated his 7 role? 8 A: I -- I -- yes, I think I would say, yes. 9 Q: And he's completely inflated your role? 10 A: Without a doubt. 11 Q: And if Dash Domi also testified that based 12 on his intelligence at City Hall and the people he was 13 talking to, you were a key decision maker with respect to the 14 outcome of the computer leasing RFQ, he too was wrong? 15 A: Yes. 16 Q: And so too, Irene Payne? 17 A: Whoever thought that somehow I could be a 18 key decision maker is wrong, yes. 19 Q: And so too Vince Nigro? 20 A: Whomever. 21 MADAM COMMISSIONER: Ms. Rothstein, I'm just 22 going from memory here, but I just want to make sure that 23 you're capturing Mr. Lyons' testimony correctly. 24 MS. LINDA ROTHSTEIN: Hmm hmm. 25 MADAM COMMISSIONER: The question you asked

1 Mr. Jakobek was that Jeff Lyons' testimony was that it was 2 impossible to get a meeting with Mr. Jakobek, except without 3 his assistance. And my recollection was that he didn't say 4 it was impossible, but that it might be more difficult to get 5 a meeting in a quick time frame. 6 MS. LINDA ROTHSTEIN: I should have added 7 that, and that actually was in my notes, Commissioner. I 8 think your recollection is bang on. 9 I think what he said is within the three (3) 10 month period available between February and the end of the 11 May. 12 THE WITNESS: My answer would be the same. 13 14 CONTINUED BY MS. LINDA ROTHSTEIN: 15 Q: I thought so, Mr. Jakobek, but thank you, 16 Commissioner, because I think that is a more accurate 17 representation of the evidence we heard from Mr. Lyons. 18 Either way, he has inflated his role? 19 A: Yes, ma'am, that was my impression. 20 Q: Your evidence then, sir, is that you never 21 went to bat for MFP on this computer leasing transaction in 22 any way whatsoever, fair? 23 A: Yes. 24 Q: Did you ever go to bat for MFP after they 25 had won the computer leasing transaction at the end of July

1 of '99, in respect to other business that they were 2 interested in doing with the City of Toronto? 3 A: No, they had an interest in leasing 4 vehicles. 5 Q: Hmm hmm. 6 A: Because they -- they had heard the debate 7 we'd had at Budget regarding our difficulty with our fleet 8 management. But, no, I -- I wouldn't say that I went to bat 9 for them, no. 10 Q: Well, did you specifically speak to Wanda 11 Liczyk about MFP's interest in the proposed vehicle leasing? 12 A: Specifically MFP? 13 Q: Hmm hmm. 14 A: I don't recall one (1). 15 Q: Did you ever speak to Len Brittain about 16 MFP's interest in the vehicle fleet leasing -- 17 A: No, but I spoke -- 18 Q: -- for the City of Toronto? 19 A: -- no, but I spoke to both people at the 20 time about our leasing of fleet and what it was that we were 21 analysing. 22 Q: Help me with that then, sir, what did you 23 say? 24 A: I wasn't convinced that simply leasing as 25 opposed to purchasing a vehicle, would make economic sense.

1 I always felt that if you were looking at leasing your fleet, 2 you would have to look at it with another objective, which is 3 dealing with the issue that started the debate in the first 4 place, and that issue was the high cost of operating City 5 owned garages. 6 And so it was the opinion of the Budget 7 Committee, that you probably couldn't ever curtail the cost 8 of our fleet, in terms of repair and maintenance, with 9 publicly owned garages. 10 So the only argument would be, if you were to 11 lease and somehow do a lease with a bumper to bumper or 12 something of that nature, then maybe you wouldn't need the 13 public garages and then the whole economic picture changes. 14 And we never got to that point and so that's 15 why it never went anywhere, I think. 16 Q: So, are you saying, Mr. Jakobek, that at 17 the end of the day, your conclusion was unlikely that leasing 18 is a good idea for our fleet? Is that what you're saying? 19 A: Yes. 20 Q: And if anything, you were opposed to 21 leasing the fleet, if anything? 22 A: No, no, I wouldn't say that. I -- I think 23 what I said to you, is that if you could lease vehicles as 24 opposed to purchasing them, and if you could give them -- if 25 you could obtain that lease -- a guarantee that you've got a

1 bumper to bumper warranty, so that you know, if the car 2 breaks down, because we need these vehicles right? 3 So that if a car breaks down it's going to get 4 fixed, et cetera, then there might be an economic model if 5 you can close the City owned garages. But, if you can't 6 close the garage, if it's just a question of lease versus 7 purchase, I didn't see the argument. 8 Q: All right. So, what you were saying to 9 the City staff, be it Mr. Brittain or Ms. Liczyk, if I hear 10 you correctly, is that you're going to have to show me why it 11 is in the economic interest of the City to lease the fleet 12 and you're going to have to show me that you've actually 13 considered this from the point of view, of the cost of 14 maintaining our garages, fair? 15 A: I believe I actually had a conversation 16 similar to that with Len Brittain, possibly Wanda Liczyk, 17 beside him, in a Council chamber and when we discussed it, I 18 said, you know, you missed the point completely. 19 This all started -- this all started because 20 of our garages and the inability for the garage to produce. 21 That's what happened. 22 Q: And it's not possible, if I hear you 23 correctly, Mr. Jakobek, that you were encouraging them to 24 look at leasing, as opposed to rejecting it out of hand. 25 That's not possible?

60
  1                 A:  I -- look again, you know, I'm in a
  2  position where I'm the Chairman of a committee and I'm
  3  echoing the Committee's thoughts.  I'm not necessarily the
  4  author and I think it's fair to say, that as I gave testimony
  5  earlier, we were looking for out of the box suggestions.
  6                 The Committee had spent a gruelling period
  7  with the poor guy who was trying to run the fleet and was
  8  questioning him on things, as silly as you know, how much it
  9  costs to change an oil.
 10                 And it came to me during that debate, that it
 11  was a crazy debate, when we started getting into the details,
 12  when you talk about micro-management of how many mechanics
 13  and all this sort of stuff, versus the private sector.
 14                 And that was really Councillor Shiner,
 15  Councillor Balkissoon, who were really pushing the fleet
 16  issue.
 17                 My point to the staff was, if you're just
 18  doing an analogy of leasing versus purchasing, I can't see
 19  how you could possibly make an economic argument and you'd be
 20  missing the whole point of what you do with these vehicles.
 21                 Because if you lease them and you're still
 22  repairing them, you don't deal with the issue, which is in
 23  the public garage.  I don't know if that helps you.
 24                 Q:  But, it's certainly not the case that you
 25  said anything to Wanda Liczyk or Len Brittain, that indicated

1 that MFP's interest in leasing should be pursued more 2 seriously? 3 A: Well, I would hope they didn't take it 4 that way. That certainly wasn't my intent. 5 Q: November 2001, Mr. Jakobek, you're first 6 contacted by KPMG, yes? 7 A: Yes. 8 Q: You understood that they had been retained 9 by the City of Toronto, which you had formally served for a 10 long, long time to conduct some kind of investigation into 11 the computer leasing RFQ, you understood that? 12 A: Yes. 13 Q: You understood that their job was to go 14 out and try and get information from anybody who might have 15 some information about what had happened and why? Any 16 problem with that? 17 Any problem with the City retaining KPMG to do 18 that, sir? 19 A: No. 20 Q: Perfectly proper? 21 A: Sure. 22 Q: Everybody who has information to give, 23 should cooperate fully? 24 A: Yes. 25 Q: Certainly you would expect that of any

1 City employee who was still working for the City of Toronto, 2 that they would have to meet with KPMG and tell them 3 everything they know? 4 A: Yes. 5 Q: Same for any sitting Councillor? 6 A: Sure. 7 Q: Any different for you because you were no 8 longer a sitting Councillor? 9 A: Yeah. 10 Q: Yeah. Your obligation to tell everything, 11 to cooperate fully, had expired? 12 A: No, what I -- the reason why I felt that 13 was different is because I was in the blind. I didn't have 14 any files. I didn't have any reports. I didn't have any 15 records and I wasn't going to shoot in the dark because, as 16 you've learned in this hearing, the minute you say something 17 and it's not absolutely correct because you've said it 18 without any backup information. They're -- you know, people 19 are going to say you didn't say the right thing. 20 So, no, I was -- I was -- I was reluctant to 21 get myself involved in anything at City Hall, quite frankly. 22 I had more requests, not just from KPMG but from other 23 people, to come and make deputations, et cetera and I was, 24 quite frankly, trying to go to school and develop a new 25 career and I wasn't interested in going back to City Hall. I

1 hadn't been therein two (2) years. 2 Q: So when KPMG contacted you and asked you 3 to meet with them to answer questions, you were simply 4 unwilling to do that? 5 A: That's not true. 6 Q: You weren't prepared to meet with them 7 unless you knew in advance precisely what questions they were 8 gonna ask you and what documents were possibly available to 9 you or to them that could answer their questions? 10 A: Correct. 11 Q: You were only prepared to answer the 12 questions, in the end, that were submitted in writing? 13 That's what you said. 14 A: I wanted to see their questions. I didn't 15 want to walk into who knows what. 16 Q: They sent you questions in writing? 17 A: Yes. 18 Q: You gave them a general answer? That's 19 how you described it last Wednesday. 20 A: Okay. 21 Q: You didn't answer any specific questions 22 that they raised in their letter to you? 23 A: Yes. 24 Q: You didn't volunteer any information you 25 had with respect to your contacts with representatives of

1 MFP? You didn't say, I've met these folks. I can't possibly 2 be specific as to when and where until I have more documents. 3 You didn't volunteer that much, sir, did you? 4 A: Well, I -- I think it's fair to say that I 5 wasn't going to guess on anything. 6 Q: It would have been guessing to say I've 7 met these folks before? 8 A: Well, obviously I would have met them 9 before because they were doing business with the City but I 10 think the question was more specific than whether you've ever 11 met them and I -- I'm just saying to you that I -- I -- I've 12 always said that if people want to ask me a question, by all 13 means, but I'm not going to be taken blind sided. I want to 14 know what people are asking me and if they're referring to 15 documents, I want to know what the documents are. 16 Q: And at the end of your seven (7) line 17 e-mail, you said I have no further comment to make as I was 18 never involved in the contracts for lease terms. 19 A: That's true. 20 MR. ALAN GOLD: It's contracts, there's no 21 "the". 22 MS. LINDA ROTHSTEIN: I thought it was the, 23 sorry. 24 THE WITNESS: That's true. 25

1 CONTINUED BY MS. LINDA ROTHSTEIN: 2 Q: In contracts or lease terms? 3 A: That's true. 4 Q: All right. You didn't suggest that you 5 would be prepared to answer any more questions? 6 A: I -- I -- I don't think I ever refused, 7 ma'am. I think that was -- I think that was the only -- I 8 sent my e-mail and I don't think I ever heard from them 9 again. 10 Q: They had no power to compel you to answer 11 their questions, did they, sir? 12 A: No but they could have asked if they -- if 13 they really wanted more information from me and they gave me 14 documents and said, can you verify this or whatever. I would 15 have assisted. I would have participated but I wasn't going 16 to shoot in the dark. 17 Q: Your position, Mr. Jakobek, is that your 18 response is all you owed the City of Toronto? Is that fair? 19 A: No, my position is that I've been around 20 long enough to know that when people are investigating or 21 people are asking you questions that you need to know the 22 facts before you answer and I wish I knew that better before 23 I came here because otherwise, if you don't have all the 24 facts, you give your best recollection. Someone tells you 25 your recollection isn't correct, then you have to clarify it

1 and then they tell you you lied. 2 So, I -- I d -- I -- I was trying not to avoid 3 that. I was living my own life and you know, quite frankly, 4 I didn't have the access to all the information that these 5 people had and that a City Councillor would have. So I -- I 6 -- that's my take on it. 7 Q: And if KPMG didn't have any fix on whether 8 or not you'd ever met these people, too bad? If they didn't 9 have any information that suggested that, in fact, Dash Domi 10 and Irene Payne had met with you twice; that, in fact, Dash 11 Domi had pestered you persistently then too bad? 12 A: Ma'am, they didn't ask me any more 13 questions after I sent my e-mail and I didn't say I would not 14 respond. So, I have to assume that they -- they didn't have 15 anything further to ask me. 16 Q: And it never occurred to you, Mr. Jakobek, 17 that maybe they didn't have anything further to ask you 18 because they simply didn't know the truth? 19 A: I have no idea. 20 Q: Commission Counsel. You first heard from 21 Ms. Groskaufmanis in August of last year? 22 A: Correct. 23 Q: She requested an interview with you, sir? 24 A: Correct. 25 Q: She told you that she believed, that

1 Commission Counsel believed that you had information that was 2 relevant to the work of the Inquiry? 3 A: Correct. 4 Q: You were not prepared to meet with her? 5 A: I sent her a letter. 6 Q: You were not prepared to answer open-ended 7 questions? 8 A: I sent her a letter. 9 Q: You were not prepared to meet with 10 Commission Counsel unless and until they were able to tell 11 you what questions they wanted answered and to provide you 12 with every document they had that was relevant to those 13 questions. Fair? 14 A: I believe that's contained in the letter I 15 sent. 16 Q: That's a fair summary? 17 A: The letter is the best summary. 18 Q: Is it fair, Mr. Jakobek, to say that you 19 took the position that you need not meet with them or say 20 anything unless you knew what evidence they had that could 21 contradict you? 22 MR. LORNE HONICKMAN: Your Honour, excuse me. 23 Could Mr. Jakobek just have a copy? He keeps referring to 24 the letter. 25 MS. LINDA ROTHSTEIN: Sure.

1 MR. LORNE HONICKMAN: And -- 2 MS. LINDA ROTHSTEIN: There's a number of 3 letters and I'm happy to go through them with him. 4 MR. LORNE HONICKMAN: Just so he can see -- 5 MS. LINDA ROTHSTEIN: Absolutely. 6 MR. LORNE HONICKMAN: -- and refresh his own 7 memory. 8 MS. LINDA ROTHSTEIN: Absolutely. Mr. 9 Jakobek, if you want to start at Volume II, Tab 13. 10 MADAM COMMISSIONER: 13? Thank you. 11 12 (BRIEF PAUSE) 13 14 CONTINUED BY MS. LINDA ROTHSTEIN: 15 Q: That's the first letter, I believe, that 16 Ms. Groskaufmanis wrote following simply a telephone 17 conversation with you. Is that right, sir? 18 A: Yes. 19 Q: And then as I understand it, you followed 20 up with a letter that is undated that appears at Tab 14 of 21 that same volume. There's no Begdoc number, Commissioner. 22 A: It's dated August 19th. 23 Q: At Tab 14? 24 MADAM COMMISSIONER: Yes. 25 THE WITNESS: Yeah.

1 MADAM COMMISSIONER: It's -- 2 THE WITNESS: It's -- 3 MADAM COMMISSIONER: -- the fourth line down. 4 THE WITNESS: -- exactly five (5) days 5 after -- 6 MS. LINDA ROTHSTEIN: Oh, sorry. It's in -- 7 it's buried in the -- 8 9 CONTINUED BY MS. LINDA ROTHSTEIN: 10 Q: Sorry, I missed that, Mr. Jakobek. I 11 apologize. I saw your address and I saw Commission Counsel 12 address and I didn't see the date in the middle of that. 13 August 19th. That's your response? 14 A: Yes, ma'am. 15 Q: Is that right? 16 A: Yes, ma'am. 17 Q: All right and did you want to take a 18 moment to read that? 19 A: Okay. I'm familiar with it. 20 Q: And is it fair to say, looking at that 21 letter, sir, and looking at the exchange of correspondence 22 which followed from Ms. Groskaufmanis on the 6th of 23 September, 2002, your response on the 9th -- 24 Actually, just -- just before we go too far. 25 There's a letter, November 22nd, at Tab 18 of Volume 2 and

1 again, there's no Begdoc number, Commissioner. 2 MADAM COMMISSIONER: Tab 18? 3 MS. LINDA ROTHSTEIN: Tab 17, excuse me. 4 5 CONTINUED BY MS. LINDA ROTHSTEIN: 6 Q: There's nothing that follows that and so I 7 don't know, sir, whether you or anyone on your behalf 8 responded to the thirteen (13) questions that are set out in 9 that letter. Can you assist me with that, please, Mr. 10 Jakobek? 11 A: I'm lost as to which letter? Is this the 12 Dec -- the November 22nd? 13 Q: That's right. 14 A: Oh, I think -- November 22nd. 15 Q: It's a -- 16 A: I -- 17 Q: -- long letter and a long list of 18 questions and I haven't been able to find, maybe I'm wrong, 19 but I haven't been able to find a response to that letter and 20 I simply don't know whether you did or you didn't? 21 A: I -- I don't know whether or not -- I 22 don't know whether, at that point, I had retained Counsel and 23 they had spoken to Mr. Manes or not. Maybe he can help with 24 the answer, I don't know. 25 MADAM COMMISSIONER: Yes, Mr. Manes?

1 MR. RONALD MANES: I believe that we heard in 2 writing from Mr. David Roebuck on December the 6th and in 3 that letter, from what I recall, it's not in front of me, Mr. 4 Roebuck requested on behalf of Mr. Jakobek that he be 5 interviewed. 6 Now, whether that's -- that in combination 7 with a telephone call or not, I don't recollect but I am 8 quite sure that Mr. Roebuck requested an interview and it was 9 on or about December the 6th. 10 MADAM COMMISSIONER: Okay. 11 MS. LINDA ROTHSTEIN: Not the interview or 12 just -- 13 MADAM COMMISSIONER: No, I think the 14 telephone. 15 MS. LINDA ROTHSTEIN: The telephone. 16 MADAM COMMISSIONER: He said he heard from Mr. 17 Roebuck on December the 6th. 18 MR. RONALD MANES: Right. 19 20 CONTINUED BY MS. LINDA ROTHSTEIN: 21 Q: So, Mr. Jakobek, am I to understand that 22 following Ms. Groskaufmanis' letter of November 22, 2002, you 23 put the issue of responding to the letter in the hands of 24 your lawyer, Mr. Roebuck; is that right? Is that fair? 25 A: I -- I believe -- I retained counsel, or

1 -- that's -- did I put it in my -- I -- I don't know how to 2 -- I mean up until November 22nd I just simply wrote back and 3 said, here's the information I want and here's what I can -- 4 whatever. And then on November 22nd, I -- I said to my -- I 5 retained counsel and said, you know, I guess -- I don't know 6 how to answer that question. I guess I just say yes. I 7 don't -- 8 MR. LORNE HONICKMAN: Well, perhaps -- perhaps 9 if Ms. Rothstein would specify what she means by put to Mr. 10 Roebuck -- I'm not -- put in the hands -- 11 MADAM COMMISSIONER: You put the issue of 12 responding -- 13 14 CONTINUED BY MS. LINDA ROTHSTEIN: 15 Q: I'm trying to be very general with you, 16 Mr. Jakobek, because I don't know. This is all news to me. 17 A: Okay. 18 Q: I'm suggesting that responding to this 19 letter, among other things, was something that you delegated 20 or instructed your counsel, Mr. Roebuck, to deal with; is 21 that fair? 22 A: I -- I believe so. I -- to the best of my 23 ability, yes. 24 Q: Is it fair to say, Mr. Jakobek, that you 25 didn't personally engage with Commission Counsel following

1 the receipt of the November 22, 2002 -- 2 A: Yes, that's true -- 3 Q: -- letter? 4 A: -- that's true, yeah, that's true. 5 Q: Mr. Jakobek, is it fair to say that in 6 essence, you took the position with Commission Counsel, that 7 you were not prepared to answer their questions unless and 8 until they provided you with every document that they had 9 that was relevant to those questions? 10 A: Yes. 11 Q: And I'm suggesting to you, sir, that the 12 reason you took that position is because you weren't, as 13 you've told us, prepared to say anything to them, until you 14 knew what evidence they had that could contradict you? 15 A: Unless I had information that would allow 16 me the same information that City Councillors and everybody 17 seemed to have, and I didn't, I had nothing. Or very little. 18 MADAM COMMISSIONER: And what, sorry? Or -- 19 THE WITNESS: Or very little. 20 MS. LINDA ROTHSTEIN: Commissioner, I have a 21 new topic, so is this a convenient time -- 22 MADAM COMMISSIONER: Oh, sure. 23 MS. LINDA ROTHSTEIN: -- a few minutes early 24 to take the morning break? 25 MADAM COMMISSIONER: Okay, we'll come back at

1 ten (10) to. 2 THE REGISTRAR: Order. The Inquiry will 3 recess until ten to 12:00. 4 5 --- Upon recessing at 11:27 a.m. 6 --- Upon resuming at 11:50 a.m. 7 8 THE REGISTRAR: The Inquiry will resume, 9 please be seated. 10 11 (BRIEF PAUSE) 12 13 CONTINUED BY MS. LINDA ROTHSTEIN: 14 Q: Mr. Jakobek, on January the 24th of this 15 year, Royston James wrote an article in the Toronto Star, 16 entitled: 17 "Star Witness Testimony Doesn't Open Many 18 Doors." 19 MS. LINDA ROTHSTEIN: Commissioner, I've asked 20 that that article be reproduced again, and you should have a 21 copy, Mr. Jakobek, you should have a copy of the actual 22 article. It's originally part of Volume II, Tab 23, but my 23 copy at least, did not seem to be complete, Commissioner, and 24 I was concerned that perhaps others were in the same boat. 25 MADAM COMMISSIONER: Oh, I see. You've had

1 one (1) put right into this, okay, all right. 2 MS. LINDA ROTHSTEIN: Because the Internet 3 copy that I had did not appear to be complete when I read -- 4 MADAM COMMISSIONER: Right. 5 MS. LINDA ROTHSTEIN: -- it this morning. 6 MADAM COMMISSIONER: Right, okay. 7 8 CONTINUED BY MS. LINDA ROTHSTEIN: 9 Q: Mr. Jakobek, sir, you have that in front 10 of you? 11 A: Yes, ma'am. 12 Q: Okay. The only words in that story that 13 refer to you are the words that ended up in your -- in your 14 lawyer's letter of January 27th, the words: 15 "Specifically, and this will likely come up 16 next week, was former Toronto Budget Chief 17 and Mayoral candidate, Tom Jakobek, on a 18 hockey trip to Philadelphia, a trip Jakobek 19 says he didn't take, though others tell a 20 different story." 21 Is that fair, sir? 22 A: I'm reading it, yes. 23 Q: Those are the only words in the story that 24 refer to you, Mr. Jakobek? 25 A: I believe so.

1 Q: Your lawyer at the time was Mr. David 2 Roebuck? 3 A: Yes, ma'am. 4 Q: He was representing you for the purposes 5 of this Inquiry? 6 A: Yes, ma'am. 7 Q: He had been retained, you told me before 8 our break, at least as of December of 2002? 9 A: I don't remember the exact date, but 10 earlier. 11 Q: Some time after the letter from Commission 12 Counsel, which you didn't respond to, that we referred to 13 before the break? Or before? 14 A: No, I believe that we said there was a 15 response to it, and it was from him. 16 Q: From you personally, sir. Quite so. But 17 was it before or after you received that letter from Ms. 18 Groskaufmanis, that Mr. Roebuck was retained? And I don't 19 need a precise date, sir? 20 A: I -- I -- I believe -- I believe it was on 21 or after. 22 Q: But certainly, as of early December he was 23 retained; is that fair? 24 A: Yes. 25 Q: He had been, as you've told us, in

1 communication with Commission Counsel on your behalf? 2 A: Yes. 3 Q: He was the person who was charged by you 4 with fielding their requests for information from you? 5 A: Yes. 6 Q: You told Mr. Roebuck, your lawyer, that 7 you were not on the flight to Philadelphia? 8 A: Correct. 9 Q: You told him that in January of 2003? 10 A: Correct. 11 Q: You knew that was untrue? 12 A: Correct. 13 Q: You lied to your lawyer, Mr. Jakobek? 14 A: Yes. 15 Q: You also told him that you would testify 16 at this Inquiry, that you were not on the plane? 17 A: Yes, by approving it, yeah. 18 Q: Because he would not have written the 19 January 27th letter to the Toronto Star, containing those 20 words, unless you told him that? 21 A: Correct. 22 Q: You asked him to write the letter to the 23 Star? 24 A: Correct. 25 Q: You told him that you thought the James

1 article was unfair to you? 2 A: Words to that effect; correct. 3 Q: It wasn't Mr. Roebuck's idea to write the 4 letter? 5 A: To the best of my recollection, correct. 6 Q: It was your idea? 7 MADAM COMMISSIONER: I'm sorry. 8 9 CONTINUED BY MS. LINDA ROTHSTEIN: 10 Q: It was your idea? 11 A: Correct. 12 Q: In late January you instructed Mr. Roebuck 13 to tell the Toronto Star that you were not on the flight to 14 Philadelphia? 15 A: The January 27th letter, correct. 16 Q: You told him to tell the Star that you 17 would repeat that denial under oath at this Inquiry? 18 A: I've said correct. 19 Q: You told your lawyer to repeat something 20 to the Star and potentially to the public, Mr. Jakobek, that 21 you absolutely knew was false? 22 A: Correct. 23 Q: And to seek a retraction on that basis? 24 A: Correct. 25 Q: This was not a moment in time, is it fair

1 to say, sir, that you were under enormous pressure to answer 2 the media requests for information? 3 A: Absolutely I was. 4 Q: When you looked at the Toronto Star 5 article, you were not being asked for a comment? 6 A: And there was a previous article by Mr. 7 James on January the 8th or something like that, where he had 8 a whole bunch of things that had been brought out by this 9 Inquiry, some of which were true and not true, that -- that 10 all were coming out. I just packaged it all together. 11 Q: You didn't respond to that earlier 12 article, Mr. Jakobek? 13 A: I don't believe so, no. 14 Q: You didn't instruct your lawyer or anyone 15 on your behalf, to respond to the earlier article? 16 A: No. 17 Q: This was not a case where you had agreed 18 to an off the record interview, only to see your words in the 19 press thereafter? 20 A: You have to clarify that question, because 21 I want to make sure I -- 22 Q: Mr. Royston James hadn't engaged in some 23 off the record discussion with you that he then decided to 24 print without your permission? 25 A: I -- I don't remember how we prefaced it,

1 I -- I generally speaking think you're correct. 2 Q: Is there really any doubt about that, Mr. 3 Jakobek? 4 A: I think there's no doubt that I said 5 something that wasn't true and that I repeated it, and that 6 I'm responsible for it, and that I've apologized and I am -- 7 how else can I describe it? Sorry, I ever did it. 8 Q: You don't need to apologize anymore, Mr. 9 Jakobek. 10 A: Thank you. 11 Q: You simply need to answer my questions. 12 A: Okay. 13 Q: Mr. James had not misquoted you? 14 A: I don't believe so. 15 Q: He had not misreported your words to him? 16 A: I don't believe so. 17 Q: He had not published words that you'd said 18 to him without permission? 19 A: I don't recall, but I have no reason to -- 20 Q: It's not really fair to say, is it, Mr. 21 Jakobek, that by the 24th of January, this issue of whether 22 or not you were on the flight to Philadelphia was coming out 23 of the blue? 24 A: Say that again please? 25 Q: It's not really fair to say that by the

1 24th of January, this issue of whether or not you were on the 2 plane to Philadelphia was hitting you by surprise? 3 A: No, that's correct. 4 Q: You'd had lots of time to think about the 5 fact that you'd previously misled the press? 6 A: Yes. 7 Q: On numerous occasions? 8 A: Yes. 9 Q: Now, Mr. Jakobek, when you testified last 10 Thursday and last Wednesday, you were at great lengths to say 11 that those initial lies to the press were regretful, you took 12 responsibility for them, you wished they hadn't happened, but 13 no one should conclude that those lies to the press reflected 14 any intention on your part to lie to Commission Counsel, Mr. 15 Manes, or to Commissioner Bellamy; is that fair? 16 A: Yes. 17 Q: You said it over and over? 18 A: Yes. 19 Q: It never, ever, from August of 2002, ever 20 crossed your mind that you would say anything to Mr. Manes, 21 or to Commissioner Bellamy, that wasn't true? 22 A: Correct. 23 Q: Come now, Mr. Jakobek, you were never ever 24 contemplating telling the Inquiry anything but the truth, but 25 you were still lying to your own lawyer?

1 A: Correct. 2 Q: You're asking the Commissioner to believe 3 that you were prepared to tell Mr. Manes the truth -- 4 MR. ALAN GOLD: Sorry, Your -- Your Honour, I 5 -- I'm sure the question could be asked, that Mr. Jakobek 6 isn't asking the Commissioner to believe anything, he's just 7 answering questions. So, I'm objecting to the way the 8 question is being put, I don't think that's fair. 9 MS. LINDA ROTHSTEIN: I'll rephrase it. 10 11 CONTINUED BY MS. LINDA ROTHSTEIN: 12 Q: Mr. Jakobek, your sworn testimony is that 13 you were prepared to come clean with Mr. Manes at any time, 14 when you hadn't even come clean with your own lawyer? 15 A: Yes, ma'am. 16 Q: You were planning to tell the truth to 17 this Inquiry, while you were telling Mr. Roebuck to tell the 18 Star effectively the opposite? 19 A: Yes, ma'am. 20 Q: Mr. Jakobek, I suggest to you, sir, that 21 your repeated protestations to that effect, that you never, 22 ever contemplated misleading Mr. Manes or Commissioner 23 Bellamy, are a self serving overstatement? 24 A: I disagree. 25 Q: They were a deliberate attempt, sir, to

1 repair your damaged credibility? 2 A: I'm sorry I said it. 3 Q: They were not true. 4 A: Correct. 5 Q: Your protestations that you were always 6 going to tell the truth were not true, Mr. Jakobek? 7 A: I disagree with you. 8 Q: If your explanation for the Philadelphia 9 trip was so benign, if all it was was accepting an offer from 10 Mr. Peerenboom to go on a hockey trip, without knowing there 11 was any connection to MFP money, why did you hide that benign 12 explanation from your own lawyer? 13 A: Because I was stupid to have said it. 14 Q: I suggest to you, Mr. Jakobek, that you're 15 anything but. I suggest to you, Mr. Jakobek, that you were 16 not prepared to tell the truth to your own lawyer or to 17 anyone else about Philadelphia until you were confronted with 18 irrefutable proof that you were on that plane? 19 A: No. 20 Q: When did you first learn, sir, that 21 Commission Counsel had subpoenaed your phone records? 22 A: I don't recall the exact date. 23 Q: Did you have an opportunity to review 24 those records before you or anyone on your behalf came clean 25 with Mr. Manes, about Philadelphia?

1 A: I don't recall. 2 Q: Mr. Jakobek, those records clearly show 3 that your cell phone made a call from Philadelphia on the 2nd 4 of May of 1999 to your home; right? 5 A: Correct. 6 Q: You know that? 7 A: Yes. 8 Q: You were provided with those records by 9 Commission Counsel? 10 A: I -- I believe we were, yes. 11 Q: After all your requests for all the 12 information, all the documents that Commission Counsel had 13 that could possibly have anything to do with your involvement 14 in this matter, those were some of the records that you were 15 provided with; right? 16 A: Correct. 17 Q: And I'm suggesting to you, Mr. Jakobek, 18 that that's the reason you came clean? 19 A: No. 20 Q: Let's talk about responsibility, Mr. 21 Jakobek. How many times do you think you told Commissioner 22 Bellamy that you accept responsibility for the lie you told 23 the press about the trip to Philadelphia? 24 A: I don't know, you'd have to read the 25 transcript, I don't know.

1 Q: Over and over last week? 2 A: I'm sure. 3 Q: Yet when confronted with a further lie to 4 the press, the one that was contained in Mr. Roebuck's 5 letter, what you said under oath, and I will take you to the 6 transcript, sir, if you wish. Is that you had not had an 7 opportunity to review the January 27th letter, or any 8 previous draft before it went out the door? Is that true? 9 A: I was trying to recollect, and I -- I did 10 not recollect the draft of the 24th, I believe is what I 11 said. 12 Q: Before we get to your recollection, Mr. 13 Jakobek, isn't that what you said? 14 A: I don't -- 15 Q: Would you like -- 16 A: -- I -- I don't have the transcript, 17 sorry. 18 Q: All right. 19 A: I'm