Military Police Commission d'examen des Complaints...

613-521-0703 StenoTran www.stenotran.com

Military Police Commission d'examen des Complaints plaintes concernant Commission la police militaire

FYNES PUBLIC INTEREST HEARINGS held pursuant to section 250.38(1) of the National Defence Act,

in the matter of file 2011-004/ LES AUDIENCES D'INTÉRÊT PUBLIC SUR FYNES

tenues en vertu du paragraphe 250.38(1) de la Loi sur la défense nationale pour le dossier 2011-004

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS/

TRANSCRIPTION DE L'AUDIENCE BEFORE/DEVANT: Mr. Glenn Stannard Chairperson/Président Ms Raymonde Cléroux Registrars/Greffières Ms Hanan Rahal APPEARANCES/COMPARUTIONS: Ms Geneviève Coutlée Mr. Mark Freiman Ms Beth Alexander

Commission counsel/ Avocats de la Commission

Ms Elizabeth Richards Ms Korinda McLaine

For/pour Sgt Jon Bigelow, MWO Ross Tourout, LCol Gilles Sansterre, WO Blair Hart, PO2 Eric McLaughlin, Sgt David Mitchell, Sgt Matthew Alan Ritco, Maj Daniel Dandurand, Sgt Scott Shannon, LCol Brian Frei, LCol (Ret’d) William H. Garrick, WO (Ret’d) Sean Der Bonneteau, CWO (Ret’d) Barry Watson

Col (Ret’d) Michel W. Drapeau Mr. Joshua Juneau

For/pour Mr. Shaun Fynes and Mrs. Sheila Fynes

HELD AT: TENUE À: 10th Floor 10e étage 270 Albert Street 270, rue Albert Ottawa, Ontario Ottawa (Ontario) 19 September 2012 19 septembre 2012 Volume 50


- ii -

TABLE OF CONTENTS/TABLE DES MATIÈRES

PAGE SWORN: KIRK LACKIE 2 EXAMINATION BY MR. FREIMAN 2 COL (RET'D) DRAPEAU 54 MS RICHARDS 60 SWORN: SGT SCOTT SHANNON 64 EXAMINATION BY MR. FREIMAN 64


- iii -

EXHIBITS / PIÈCES JUSTIFICATIVES NO. DESCRIPTION PAGE P-162 Section 124, elements of the offence negligent performance of a military duty 1 P-163 Section 129, elements of the offence conduct to the prejudice of good order and discipline 1 P-164 Dispatch 15 March 2008 2 P-165 Master Corporal Paiement's notes 2


1

Ottawa, Ontario / Ottawa (Ontario) 1

--- Upon resuming on Wednesday, September 19, 2

2012, at 0939 / L'audience reprend le mercredi 3

19 septembre 2012 à 0939 4

THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. 5

Good morning. 6

Ms Coutlée. 7

MS COUTLÉE: Mr. Chairman, we will 8

enter the exhibits for this morning. 9

Section 124, elements of the 10

offence negligent performance of a military duty. 11

MS RAHAL: Exhibit P-162. 12

EXHIBIT NO. P-162: Section 13

124, elements of the offence 14

negligent performance of a 15

military duty 16

MS COUTLÉE: Section 129, elements 17

of the offence conduct to the prejudice of good 18

order and discipline. 19


EXHIBIT NO. P-163: Section 21

129, elements of the offence 22

conduct to the prejudice of 23

good order and discipline 24

MS COUTLÉE: Dispatch 25


2

15 March '08. 1


EXHIBIT P-164: Dispatch 15 3

March 2008 4

MS COUTLÉE: Master Corporal 5

Paiement's notes. 6


EXHIBIT P-165: Master 8

Corporal Paiement's notes 9

THE CHAIRPERSON: Mr. Freiman. 10

MR. FREIMAN: Yes. 11

Our first witness this morning is 12

Mr. Kirk Lackie. 13

SWORN: KIRK LACKIE 14

THE CHAIRPERSON: Good morning, 15

Mr. Lackie. Welcome. 16

There's a button at the bottom of 17

the microphone there. It's already on and if you 18

just move up everything will be great. 19

MR. LACKIE: Okay. 20


EXAMINATION BY 22

MR. FREIMAN: Good morning, Mr. 23

Lackie. 24

MR. LACKIE: Good morning. 25


3

MR. FREIMAN: Mr. Lackie, I 1

understand that for a period of time you were a 2

member of the Canadian Forces. Can you tell us 3

when you were a member of the Canadian Forces? 4

MR. LACKIE: I first signed my 5

paper in January of '01 and I left for my basic 6

training in January of '02 to Esquimalt, B.C. 7

MR. FREIMAN: Yes. 8

MR. LACKIE: And I was in the 9

military until I was released in September of 10

2010. 11

MR. FREIMAN: And can you just 12

tell us, during that period of time what Regiment 13

did you belong to and what jobs did you do? 14

MR. LACKIE: While I was in basic 15

training I -- initially I was under Infantry. and 16

then while I was still in basic training I 17

transferred over to Armoured Corps. And after I 18

graduated I was put into Lord Strathcona's Horse 19

Royal Canadians. 20

MR. FREIMAN: All right. And were 21

you in Lord Strathcona's Horse Royal Canadians up 22

to the time you released from the service? 23

MR. LACKIE: Yes, I was. 24

MR. FREIMAN: Now, Mr. Lackie, 25


4

you're here today without counsel, so I have an 1

obligation to inform you about some ground rules 2

so that you understand what's happening and why. 3

You've come forward today, as I 4

understand, to testify about events that you 5

believe are relevant to the subject matter of this 6

public interest hearing; is that correct? 7

MR. LACKIE: Yes, sir. 8

MR. FREIMAN: In order to allow 9

the Chair to assess your credibility and what 10

weight to give to your evidence I'm going to ask 11

you some questions about your background and about 12

some issues that you've experienced. If you don't 13

answer or don't answer truthfully, then I will 14

enter some documents that are proof of the matters 15

that I'm going to ask you about. 16

Do you understand what we're about 17

to do then? 18

MR. LACKIE: Yes. 19

MR. FREIMAN: All right. 20

Now, Mr. Lackie, I understand that 21

you've had some brushes with the law. 22

MR. LACKIE: Yes. 23

MR. FREIMAN: And those brushes 24

with the law have resulted in a number of arrests 25


5

and convictions? 1

MR. LACKIE: Yes. 2

MR. FREIMAN: And as part of that 3

series of events you've spent some time 4

incarcerated? 5

MR. LACKIE: Yes. 6

MR. FREIMAN: I would like to go 7

over the background of your criminal record then. 8

As I understand it, you were 9

charged on the 13th of December 2008 with a number 10

of offences that arose from a situation where you 11

had been involved in a domestic dispute with your 12

wife late at night. Your wife and your child fled 13

the home. There was an assault on your wife. 14

When the police came you 15

barricaded yourself inside your house. While you 16

were there, you were wearing body armour, you were 17

carrying a handgun and an automatic -- or you had 18

a handgun and an automatic rifle within the 19

residence and you also had ammunition, smoke 20

grenades and C1A1 Thunderflash pyrotechnics. When 21

the police came you told them that they would have 22

to take you out with a headshot. 23

Ultimately, you surrendered 24

without incident and you were incarcerated -- or, 25


6

sorry, you were charged. Eventually when you came 1

to trial you pled guilty to a number of counts. 2

You pled guilty to a count of 3

possession of explosives; is that correct? 4

MR. LACKIE: Yes. 5

MR. FREIMAN: You pled guilty to a 6

charge of careless use or storage of a firearm for 7

the handgun and careless use and storage of a 8

firearm with respect to the shotgun; is that 9

correct? 10

MR. LACKIE: Yes. 11

MR. FREIMAN: You also pled guilty 12

to the charge of careless use and storage of 13

ammunition and on -- sorry, I made a mistake. 14

There were a number of other 15

charges. They were withdrawn. In fact, there was 16

only the first three charges -- first two charges 17

that you pled guilty to, possession of explosives 18

and careless use of a firearm with respect to the 19

handgun. 20

In any event, for those guilty 21

pleas you were sentenced to a total of 120 days 22

and you were given credit for time served. 23

So you served no further time 24

other than the time that you served awaiting 25


7

trial; is that correct? 1

MR. LACKIE: Yes. 2

MR. FREIMAN: Now, I also 3

understand that in connection with these offences 4

you were charged on two occasions with breach of 5

recognizance, and breach of recognizance, as I 6

understand it, means that you violated certain 7

conditions that were imposed on you as a condition 8

of your bail, your being at large while you were 9

awaiting trial on the first charges; is that 10

correct? 11

MR. LACKIE: Yes. 12

MR. FREIMAN: And the first of 13

these arose as a result of your having left your 14

residence without permission, contrary to the 15

terms of your recognizance; is that correct? 16

MR. LACKIE: Yes. 17

MR. FREIMAN: And that occurred on 18

February 7, 2012 (sic). 19

Then on February the 15th of two 20

thousand -- sorry, of 2009. 21

On February 15th of 2009 there was 22

another incident and the facts of that incident 23

are that you were arrested by the Edmonton Police 24

Service in circumstances where you had been highly 25


8

intoxicated in a taxi cab, you demanded that the 1

driver take you somewhere to obtain drugs, you 2

indicated you had a gun, and when the taxi driver 3

did not comply you fled his vehicle. 4

The police found you, there were 5

no weapons on your person, you were transported to 6

the remand centre, and at the remand centre you 7

were reported to be trying to strangle yourself 8

with your T-shirt. 9

At that point you were transported 10

to the Alberta Hospital at Edmonton for a mental 11

health assessment. While you were in the hospital 12

there was an incident with a police officer, the 13

end of which had you spitting on the police 14

officer and yelling that the officer should just 15

kill you. 16

Are those basically the correct 17

facts? 18

MR. LACKIE: Yes. 19

MR. FREIMAN: As a result of these 20

two -- of the first charge -- sorry, the first 21

breach was withdrawn. However, you were charged 22

with uttering threats and you pled guilty to that 23

charge; is that correct? 24

MR. LACKIE: Yes. 25


9

MR. FREIMAN: You were also 1

charged with assaulting a police officer. You 2

pled guilty to that charge; is that correct? 3

MR. LACKIE: Yes. 4

MR. FREIMAN: And you pled guilty 5

to two charges of being at large in breach of 6

recognizance; is that correct? 7

MR. LACKIE: Yes. 8

MR. FREIMAN: As a result of those 9

guilty pleas you were sentenced to 120 days 10

consecutive to the first 120 days, for a total of 11

240 days, and you were given credit in the usual 12

calculus of these things for time -- for an amount 13

of time served awaiting trial so that in the end 14

you served no additional time other than the time 15

that you were awaiting trial; is that correct? 16

MR. LACKIE: Yes. 17

THE CHAIRPERSON: Mr. Freiman, 18

just to clarify that. If that was consecutive, 19

was that concurrent with the other 120 days that 20

was consecutive -- 21

MR. FREIMAN: It was 120 days 22

consecutive to the first group of 120 days. The 23

charges in the first -- the pleas in the first 24

series of charges were 120 days with each of them 25


10

consecutive and the second 120 days for a total of 1

240 days. 2

Now, I understand that there was 3

also an incident following this and it involved a 4

charge of breach of probation. 5

And the facts are that on June the 6

9th of 2009 you were found by police in an 7

intoxicated state in the junior ranks bar at the 8

base. When you were -- it was found that in that 9

intoxicated state you had broken a number of 10

glasses in the bar and you had opened the draft 11

taps. 12

When you were taken into custody, 13

as you were being transferred to the Edmonton 14

Police Station to be charged you kicked out the 15

rear window of the Military Police patrol car. 16

And as a result of those incidents 17

you were charged with mischief under $5,000 and 12 18

counts of breaching probation; is that basically 19

correct? 20

MR. LACKIE: Yes. 21

MR. FREIMAN: On July the 15th I 22

understand that you appeared at trial and you 23

entered a plea of guilty to the charge of mischief 24

and to three charges of breach of probation, and 25


11

as a result you were sentenced to time served 1

while you were awaiting trial, which was a total 2

of 42 days; is that correct? 3

MR. LACKIE: Yes. 4

MR. FREIMAN: And finally, in July 5

of 2010 I understand that you were stopped driving 6

a car at a high rate of speed by the Halifax 7

Police. You were arrested for impaired driving. 8

When you were arrested the police conducted a 9

check and discovered you were in breach of your 10

probation order. You were also charged with 11

resisting arrest. 12

Are those facts basically correct? 13

MR. LACKIE: Yes. 14

MR. FREIMAN: And on the 10th of 15

January 2012 you came to trial, you pled guilty to 16

a charge of operating a motor vehicle while 17

impaired, you pled not guilty to a charge of 18

obstruction of police but were found guilty after 19

trial, and you pled guilty to a charge of breach 20

of probation. 21

Are those facts correct? 22

MR. LACKIE: Yes. 23

MR. FREIMAN: And the penalty 24

imposed on you for the impaired operation was a 25


12

$1,300 fine, a probation order for two years and a 1

licence prohibition for 18 months; for the 2

obstruct police charge you were fined $250 and 3

given a probation order for two years; and on the 4

charge of breach of probation you were fined $250 5

and given a probation order for two years. 6

Are all those facts correct? 7

MR. LACKIE: Yes. 8

MR. FREIMAN: Thank you, sir. 9

I think I may have neglected to 10

mention that in the first set of charges arising 11

from the armed standoff there was also a charge of 12

assault and you pled guilty to that? 13

MR. LACKIE: Yes. 14

MR. FREIMAN: Thank you. 15

Now, Mr. Langridge, I want -- 16

sorry, Mr. Lackie, I want to take you back to the 17

period of time -- to near the beginning of your 18

service in the military. 19

I understand that at some point 20

you became acquainted with Stuart Langridge; is 21

that correct? 22

MR. LACKIE: Yes. 23

MR. FREIMAN: Can you tell me the 24

circumstances, about when was it and how was it 25


13

that you got to know Stuart? 1

MR. LACKIE: I'd say it was around 2

'04 that me and Stu started working together. The 3

first time I met him was out on a field exercise 4

and just on our downtime we'd just kind of, you 5

know, sit around the smoking area, joking around 6

and, you know, telling stories and whatnot just to 7

get to know each other. 8

And that's when I first got to 9

know him. And we hit it off, so we, you know, 10

hung around more and more during our downtimes 11

during our exercises. 12

MR. FREIMAN: What was it -- was 13

there anything special that made for a bond 14

between the two of you? 15

MR. LACKIE: Well, I'd say that, 16

you know, his interests and my interests were 17

similar. You know, like we liked to do fun 18

things, you know, exhilarating things. 19

Stu liked his car and souped up 20

his car and stuff like that and I liked my fast 21

cars as well. And he put a lot of work into it 22

and there's times where I would help him out in 23

the back parking lot fixing up his car and -- 24

MR. FREIMAN: During the period of 25


14

time that you knew Stu, did you get to know his 1

circle of friends? 2

MR. LACKIE: Yeah. Well, we -- we 3

all started -- like because my group of people 4

that came into the Regiment, there was about 32 of 5

us that all came into the Regiment at the same 6

time and, I don't know, I guess you could compare 7

it to going to a new school. 8

You know, like 32 people come in 9

and there's just certain cliques that people fall 10

into that -- you know, you associate with certain 11

people because they've got similar interests or 12

they're similar to yourself or whatever. 13

And so it was like myself and 14

probably another dozen guys that, you know, 15

started to hang out with Stu and Stu's friends 16

that he's had for a long time. 17

MR. FREIMAN: Do you recall the 18

names of some of the mutual friends that you had 19

or friends that were close to Stuart? 20

MR. LACKIE: Well, one of the big 21

ones was Corporal Hillier. He was very close with 22

Stu. He graduated in my class as well. 23

And Stu had his own friends, you 24

know, like outside the military too, 'cause he 25


15

lived up there for a while. 1

MR. FREIMAN: M'hmm. 2

MR. LACKIE: And I wasn't too 3

familiar with those people as much as army people 4

'cause army guys just kind of hang out with each 5

other sort of thing more or less. 6


Now, I understand that you 8

didn't -- you weren't deployed during the time 9

that you served; is that correct? 10

MR. LACKIE: That's correct. I 11

did five workup trainings to go overseas but I was 12

never deployed. 13

MR. FREIMAN: But Stuart was 14

deployed on two occasions. Did Stuart ever 15

discuss with you his experiences on his Bosnian 16

deployment and on his Afghan deployment? 17

MR. LACKIE: Yeah. He talked to 18

me about both of them. 19

MR. FREIMAN: Can you tell me what 20

he told you about his Bosnian deployment? 21

MR. LACKIE: Well, for the Bosnia 22

tour he said that, you know, there was a -- there 23

was a lot of downtime that you didn't know whether 24

it's just a ghost town sort of thing because so 25


16

many buildings were bombed out and stuff like that 1

or was it just, you know, a setup where, you know, 2

something could happen, like a trap or something 3

like that or a sniper be around or whatever. 4

But his biggest thing was that he 5

seen the -- the effects on the people, like how 6

everybody became homeless and how, you know, 7

atrocities were happening to the women and whatnot 8

in the area. 9

But usually, you know, can't go in 10

and stop that even though it's fellow soldiers, 11

not necessarily our military. It was -- there was 12

other military members from different countries 13

there at that time. But you can't step into those 14

things because you don't know what's going to 15

happen to you. 16

And just seeing them and 17

witnessing them, that he just felt disgusted about 18

things like that. 19

MR. FREIMAN: What about Afghan? 20

Did he tell you anything about his tour in 21

Afghanistan? 22

MR. LACKIE: Afghanistan, he 23

was -- he was more like -- like before he went, he 24

was more settled into, say, a family role or 25


17

something like that, that he was being more of a 1

family man, trying to settle down and stuff like 2

that. And when he went over to Afghanistan, he 3

had to -- he had a couple of places that suspected 4

enemy were going to blow up some buildings and 5

stuff like that. 6

And there ended up being a bunch 7

of women and children that evacuated the place 8

that they were blowing up and he didn't react too 9

well to it because, you know, like he expected to 10

be a dad and stuff like that and, you know, to see 11

children get their houses blown up or possibly 12

even siblings might have gotten hurt. 13

He didn't know for sure because he 14

couldn't go in and investigate because he was in 15

an armoured tank or an armoured vehicle at the 16

time. And the only people that could go in there 17

and check things out were the infantry, and they 18

don't report to us or he never asked about it 19

after that. 20

MR. FREIMAN: Did you notice any 21

change in Stuart between the time that he left for 22

Afghanistan and when he came back from 23

Afghanistan? 24

MR. LACKIE: Yeah. He -- it 25


18

seemed like he had hope, like, and dreams of what 1

he wanted to do in the future, like to settle 2

down, have a house, have a family, have his nice 3

vehicles or whatever. And before he left, this is 4

what he was like. 5

And then when he came home, he was 6

just -- he was just kind of numb. He was -- he 7

didn't have any interests like that any more. 8

He -- he was just -- I don't know, kind of dead in 9

his eyes sometimes that he would just stare off. 10

MR. FREIMAN: Now, during the time 11

that -- when you first met Stuart, were you clean 12

and sober? 13

MR. LACKIE: Yes, I was. 14

MR. FREIMAN: Were you clean and 15

sober during the entire time that you knew Stuart? 16

MR. LACKIE: No, I wasn't. 17

MR. FREIMAN: All right. And were 18

you aware whether Stuart was clean and sober from 19

the time that he came back from Afghanistan? 20

MR. LACKIE: No, he wasn't. 21

MR. FREIMAN: All right. Can you 22

tell me about that? 23

MR. LACKIE: What had happened was 24

Stuart, I guess, for one reason or another heard 25


19

about this place called Edgewood. It's a 1

rehabilitation centre. And back in '02, I believe 2

it was, I asked for help for myself for drinking, 3

and I had a bad drinking problem. And I'm an 4

alcoholic. 5

And so Stu asked me about 6

Edgewood. 7

MR. FREIMAN: Yes. 8

MR. LACKIE: And -- place I 9

attended. And I started telling him about it, you 10

know, like it's a good place. You know, it's -- 11

you get away. You get to be able to focus on, you 12

know, what's important in life and how to figure 13

out what problems you have in order to, you know, 14

get yourself on the right path to living and 15

having a happy life again. 16

And I said, "Why are you asking?" 17

He said, "Well, the -- it was mentioned to me 18

that, you know, maybe I might go there or 19

something". 20

I said, "It's a great thing, you 21

know". And when you finish it, you can -- you 22

come back and you do what's called an after care 23

program where once a week you go to a group. It's 24

like internal AA group or NA or -- it's an 25


20

internal group that discuss addictions. 1

And I attended them on a regular 2

basis as well as AA. And I said, "Well, you know, 3

I can take you to some of those meetings with me". 4

MR. FREIMAN: And did you take him 5

to any meetings? 6

MR. LACKIE: Yes, I did. 7

MR. FREIMAN: How did he react to 8

those meetings? 9

MR. LACKIE: Well, when we got on 10

a smoke break -- like we didn't finish quite the 11

whole meeting. We went on a smoke break halfway 12

through the meeting and he had mentioned to me, he 13

was like, "This is unbelievable. It's like 14

there's 12 people in here and they're telling -- 15

they're all telling my story". 16

And I was like, "That's what it's 17

like when you're an addict, you know. We're no 18

different than anyone else". 19

I mean, I won't mention any names, 20

but I mean, there's people that were Generals 21

there and there's people that are Privates there. 22

And when you go there, you're Bob 23

or you're Jim. There's no difference. There's no 24

rank structure. We all have a problem and we all 25


21

want to solve it. 1

MR. FREIMAN: So did Stuart get 2

the help that he needed through Edgewood or 3

through going to treatment groups with you? 4

MR. LACKIE: Stuart didn't -- 5

didn't attend enough meetings or go to enough 6

group meetings to get what he needed out of it, 7

you know. Like he didn't -- it seemed like he did 8

better work one on one 'cause like when we were at 9

work, he would always find me like out in the 10

smoking section or whatever. And we'd sit there 11

for the half hour or however long we had off 12

during that break time and we'd talk about, you 13

know, what was bugging him or what -- what could 14

he do differently to, you know, change things 15

around or whatever. 16

I could only offer my -- what I 17

had personally gone through, but I always 18

suggested that, you know, he come back to the 19

meetings, you know. It's better to hear from a 20

bunch and, you know, different opinions than just 21

one. 22

MR. FREIMAN: So we know that 23

Stuart went to Edgewood and that he left shortly 24

thereafter. 25


22

Did he speak to you about his 1

experiences at Edgewood? 2

MR. LACKIE: He said that -- that 3

environment was not his cup of tea because like he 4

hadn't really been -- introduced to groups of 5

people that are like heroin addicts and meth 6

addicts and stuff like that and he seen it as, you 7

know, I'm not that bad, so he -- you know, why am 8

I here. 9

But I mean, a disease is a 10

disease. It's just that I guess that kind of 11

overwhelmed him a bit, it seemed, such harsh 12

drugs. 13

MR. FREIMAN: So let me ask you, 14

during this period of time, what was Stuart's 15

behaviour -- well, first of all, did you know what 16

he was doing by way of alcohol? Was he drinking? 17

MR. LACKIE: Yes. 18

MR. FREIMAN: Do you know how 19

much? Did you see him struggling with this? 20

MR. LACKIE: Yeah, I seen him 21

drinking. 22

He was -- he's -- you know, when 23

he went to party, he was hard core, you know, 24

doing shots and drinking and, you know, and 25


23

that -- hand in hand, that goes with, you know, 1

trying to pick up women and stuff like that. 2

But I mean, that's how it was with 3

everybody that was drinking at the time. It was 4

like, you know, just a game to all the people. 5

MR. FREIMAN: All right. So do I 6

understand that he didn't think himself to be 7

addicted? 8

MR. LACKIE: Well, it's pretty 9

hard for you to think you're addicted when you're 10

already drunk. 11

MR. FREIMAN: What about use of 12

drugs? Do you know whether he used drugs and, if 13

he did, what drugs he used? 14

MR. LACKIE: Well, I -- I'll say 15

that I personally didn't witness the drugs going 16

up his nose, but I know that Stu did coke because 17

I was in the bathroom with him when he broke it up 18

and snorted it. But he had his back turned to me. 19

You know, I can't say that I seen it, but I know 20

from my own personal experience that's -- that's 21

what it was. 22

MR. FREIMAN: Were you able to see 23

a change in his behaviour when he used cocaine? 24

MR. LACKIE: Yeah. He became much 25


24

more hyper and it seemed like the drinking would 1

flow a little easier because of -- you know, 2

because his heightened energy because of the coke. 3

So he would drink more and shoot more alcohol 4

shots and stuff like that. 5

MR. FREIMAN: During this period 6

of time, we've heard that Stuart had a girlfriend 7

with whom he eventually entered into a declaration 8

of common-law. 9

Now, did you know anything about 10

that relationship? 11

MR. LACKIE: He didn't talk about 12

that with me. He -- that was like a -- it was 13

just one of those subjects that he didn't want to 14

talk to me about. He just wanted to talk about 15

the good fun times and stuff like that. 16

And when it came to his 17

relationship, it was, I would say, more of a 18

personal level that he didn't care to share that 19

with just anybody. 20

MR. FREIMAN: How widespread was 21

the knowledge of Stuart's struggles with alcohol 22

and drugs? 23

MR. LACKIE: It was pretty well 24

known to most soldiers that were around him. 25


25

MR. FREIMAN: And was there an 1

attitude that went with that knowledge? 2

MR. LACKIE: There was different 3

attitudes that -- towards Stu and his use, you 4

know. 5

On one side, it was, you know, 6

people wanted to party with him because he was, 7

you know, a good partier and stuff like that. And 8

then you had the other side of the coin where 9

people just thought that Stu was a waste of 10

oxygen, was their words. And he's a loser and 11

stuff like that. 12

And being Stu's friends, I took 13

offence to that and I've straightened a couple of 14

people out for saying things like that. 15

MR. FREIMAN: Another topic that 16

we've heard about during the course of these 17

hearings is the topic of suicide. 18

Was suicide ever a discussion that 19

you had with Stuart Langridge? 20

MR. LACKIE: Yeah. He mostly 21

wanted to hear what had happened to me or what had 22

gone on with me. And I've had suicide attempts in 23

my past because drugs and alcohol have brought me 24

down so far that I didn't feel that there was much 25


26

to live for because I've let people down so much 1

that I didn't know if I could right my wrongs. 2

And then Stu turned around and, 3

you know, he agreed with me and he said, "Yeah, I 4

know what you mean". 5

And then he -- he never got into 6

particulars about himself in that aspect. 7

MR. FREIMAN: I forgot to ask you 8

just a little detail when we were talking about 9

the AA meetings. 10

Do you remember who ran those 11

meetings on the base? 12

MR. LACKIE: There was the Drug 13

and Alcohol Dependency people who were on the 14

after care meetings that were held on base and the 15

AA meetings that were held off base was just 16

outside the main gates of Edmonton garrison at the 17

chapel there. 18

And it was around about like who 19

would open up and serve that week. It would be a 20

different person each time. 21

MR. FREIMAN: And what about on 22

base? Who ran the program? 23

MR. LACKIE: There was a couple of 24

counsellors when I started just by first name, 25


27

they were Doug and Don. 1

MR. FREIMAN: Okay. You say that 2

Stuart never opened up to you about his own 3

suicide attempts. 4

Was there any discussion more 5

widely in the Regiment about suicide attempts? 6

MR. LACKIE: Yeah. Like I heard 7

from other people like what -- what they thought 8

that might have been the truth was that Stu tried 9

to kill himself and that he failed. 10

And I said, "You know, a failed 11

suicide attempt is just basically a cry for help". 12

And then that's when it -- things started really 13

getting bad around the Regiment saying that he was 14

nothing but a piece of dirt and he was a waste of 15

oxygen. 16

And Stu being my friend, I 17

defended him when I heard this kind of talk about 18

him. I told them, "Don't speak that way or you're 19

going to have some altercations with me". 20

MR. FREIMAN: M'hmm. So around 21

this period of time -- and I want to talk about 22

from the winter of 2008 through to Stuart's death. 23

Were you in a position to see how 24

he was doing in terms of drugs and alcohol? 25


28

MR. LACKIE: I hadn't personally 1

witnessed his amount of consumption or whatever. 2

I knew the consumption was going on because of his 3

personal attitude, you know, had changed. He had 4

become more on the edge. 5

Like if there was something that 6

he didn't like, he would sort of like snap at a 7

response towards it. He wouldn't discuss it. 8

He'd either say, "Oh, that's bull" whatever, you 9

know, or "That's not right" or stuff like that. 10

And usually, before, he would talk 11

about things, you know. He was more intellectual 12

sort of thing. Like he would discuss things with 13

you. And he wasn't that type of person any more. 14

MR. FREIMAN: Can we talk a little 15

bit about Stuart's view of the army at this point? 16

What was his view of the army when 17

you first met him? 18

MR. LACKIE: He -- when I first 19

met him, he thought the army was great, you know. 20

He was like this is going to give me the 21

opportunity that, you know, I can take some 22

schooling and some courses and get qualified in 23

some trades and, you know, if I keep on making 24

this kind of money and then, you know, I can 25


29

afford to get a house down the road or a real nice 1

car and get it souped up and stuff like that. 2

And he seen that there was great 3

potential for him. 4

MR. FREIMAN: By the winter of 5

2008, what was his attitude towards the army? 6

MR. LACKIE: He hated the army. 7

He -- he -- he just like other people and -- he 8

just felt -- there's a saying, the army uses you 9

like a tissue paper. As soon as they're finished 10

with you like a tissue paper, they just throw you 11

away. 12

And Stu was, to them, a really 13

dirty tissue paper. They threw him away, but they 14

just didn't want to throw him away. They just 15

wanted to scoop him under the carpet, sort of 16

thing 'cause there was this stigma against him, 17

you know, with the drinking and the using of drugs 18

and stuff that they didn't want a soldier of 19

theirs to be labelled in that form, so they slowly 20

tried to, you know, find jobs to kind of put you 21

out of the picture. Sort of like see no evil, 22

hear no evil sort of thing. 23

MR. FREIMAN: What kind of jobs 24

were they? 25


30

MR. LACKIE: Like he'd work for 1

Regimental Headquarters, which is the duty centre, 2

along with whatever jobs that were assigned to the 3

Regiment to do. So he would do duty a lot, you 4

know, like answering phones or doing menial tasks 5

like delivering paperwork around the Regiment or 6

going up and copying manuals and stuff like that, 7

you know. Nothing of any major importance, but 8

nevertheless, kind of keep him busy and just kind 9

of occupied around the Regiment where people could 10

keep an eye on him, sort of thing. 11

MR. FREIMAN: Did Stuart tell you 12

what his attitude was towards those kinds of jobs? 13

MR. LACKIE: He was sick of them. 14

He was like "I served, you know, two tours. I've 15

been in the military for this amount of time and 16

then they're stuffing me away here. And you know, 17

I could be like teaching things. I mean, I've got 18

skills. I've got lots of experience that I could 19

be teaching young soldiers and stuff like that or 20

showing them, you know, weapons training or 21

something like that". 22

And he was. He was in line for 23

like Master Corporal. He should have been up 24

there. Like he should have -- he should have been 25


31

on this Master Corporals course. And you know, to 1

get ready for that, you take people aside and you 2

start teaching weapons training and you start 3

teaching basic soldier skills and stuff like that. 4

And these things weren't made 5

available to him, so it seemed like they were 6

passing him by for Master Corporal. 7

MR. FREIMAN: Were you aware that 8

he'd gone on a course and that he'd been returned 9

to his unit following a positive drug test? 10


MR. FREIMAN: Did Stuart ever 12

share with you his own view of the medical 13

treatment that he was getting from the military? 14

MR. LACKIE: Yes. Stu -- like at 15

a certain point -- like when he was -- just before 16

he was talking to me about Edgewood and stuff like 17

that, he said he had to go to the doctors or EMS 18

there and see about getting something for his 19

nerves because he was feeling jumpy or whatever. 20

I think that went hand in hand with maybe the fact 21

that he was not using, that he was straight at 22

work and stuff like that, so he wanted something 23

to, you know, mellow him out sort of thing. 24

So he went to UMS to see about 25


32

that and then one doctor prescribed him something. 1

I'm not sure what it was. Then he said to me, 2

"These aren't working" or whatever. 3

Then he would go back to the UMS. 4

Then it's never usually the same doctor that you 5

would see the same guy twice sort of thing because 6

they're just the doctors that are in the military 7

and they just kind of come and serve like once or 8

twice a week or do a rotation through there. 9

So he went through, you know, 10

maybe a dozen different doctors and none of them 11

really helped him out because no one knew exactly 12

what his problem was because no one stayed with 13

it. 14

MR. FREIMAN: And my colleague 15

tells me that I gave you that information so I'm 16

going to correct myself. Stuart went on his PLQ 17

course and was returned to the unit for chest 18

pains. 19

The drug test that rendered him 20

not deployable occurred after that. Were you 21

aware of any of that? 22



We have talked a little bit about 25


33

suicide. One of the concepts we've heard in the 1

course of these hearings is the concept of the 2

suicide watch. Was that a meaningful concept to 3

you first of all in terms of what the army did in 4

general? 5

MR. LACKIE: Could you -- 6

MR. FREIMAN: Were you familiar 7

with the idea of a suicide watch? Had you had any 8

experience with people being put on a suicide 9

watch before anything that happened with Stuart? 10

MR. LACKIE: Yes. 11

MR. FREIMAN: Tell me about that. 12

MR. LACKIE: I'm not sure exactly 13

how long it was before Stuart but there was 14

another guy that had heard one of -- his spouse or 15

his child or something like that and he'd seen one 16

of the doctors or something like that and said 17

that he might be possibly harmful to himself. So 18

he was put on what they call suicide watch. 19

At that time what it meant was 20

that he was going to be doing duty for, I think it 21

was a period of nine days or something like that, 22

because when you're doing duty you're always with 23

somebody. You're constantly with somebody because 24

if you're the duty driver you've got to drive the 25


34

duty corporal around. Or if you're not there then 1

you're sent at the duty centre waiting to do a 2

test or something. 3

And then when it's down time after 4

supper then it's a little more relaxed. But you 5

live in the duty centre at the regiment like there 6

is beds in back and you sleep there and you stay 7

there. There's showers and everything in the 8

regiment. So basically you live there. 9

MR. FREIMAN: Are you aware of any 10

suicide watches with respect to Stuart? 11

MR. LACKIE: Well, I don't know. 12

I'm not positive they named it a suicide watch but 13

there was a stretch of, like, at least a week 14

where he did duties like every day. 15


MR. LACKIE: And he stayed in the 17

regiment the whole time. 18

MR. FREIMAN: Let me just be 19

clear. What's the timing of this? Is this just 20

before his eventual death or was it sometime 21

earlier? 22

MR. LACKIE: Yes. It was before 23

he was put in the shacks. 24

MR. FREIMAN: Okay. 25


35

MR. LACKIE: And then after he did 1

that he was like kind of let out on his, I don't 2

know, his own recognizance sort of thing. 3

Then shortly after that he was put 4

in the shacks in order to keep an eye on him at 5

that time. It was called the suicide watch at 6

that time for sure. 7

MR. FREIMAN: Okay. So tell me 8

about when that is in relation to Stuart's 9

eventual death. 10

MR. LACKIE: The shack part? 11

MR. FREIMAN: Yeah. 12

MR. LACKIE: That was like within 13

you know days of his death. 14

MR. FREIMAN: So was he living in 15

the shacks or was he living in the duty centre? 16

MR. LACKIE: He was in the shacks. 17

MR. FREIMAN: Okay. How do you 18

know that? 19

MR. LACKIE: Because I've seen him 20

there when I was there. 21

MR. FREIMAN: All right. Tell me 22

a little about what you know about what he was 23

doing during this period. 24

Well, first of all you say it was 25


36

a suicide watch. Why do you say that? 1

MR. LACKIE: Well, he told me the 2

limitations he had on him, like he usually had a 3

partner from the duty centre that would accompany 4

him to breakfast, lunch or dinner -- 5

MR. FREIMAN: Yes. 6

MR. LACKIE: -- if he was to go. 7

He was to call in and report to the duty staff 8

that: I have this, this, this appointment. It's 9

going to take that long. My transportation time 10

is this. 11

Then usually the duty personnel 12

would pick him up from his appointments and take 13

him back to the shacks or take him back to the 14

regiment if it was still work time. 15

MR. FREIMAN: Where was he during 16

work time? 17

MR. LACKIE: He was working in the 18

Regimental Headquarters at the last -- 19

MR. FREIMAN: Is that the same as 20

the Duty Centre? 21

MR. LACKIE: Well, that's part of 22

Regimental Headquarters is the Duty Centre, but 23

they also take care of other things like they have 24

vehicles and they have equipment and everything 25


37

that they have to take care of as well as weapons 1

and everything else. 2

So it's a normal work environment 3

in the aspect that you have to do your soldier 4

duties like cleaning and maintaining equipment and 5

stuff like that. 6

MR. FREIMAN: Now, we know that 7

shortly before his death Stuart was in the -- was 8

in hospital for one reason or another. And he was 9

released just 10 days before his death 10

approximately. 11

Did Stuart talk to you about those 12

hospitalizations? 13

MR. LACKIE: He said he had to get 14

a psychiatric analysis done. 15


MR. LACKIE: And I told him that I 17

had one done as well down in the Forensic Unit in 18

Edmonton. 19


MR. LACKIE: And I believe it was 21

the same location he was at, at that time. And 22

it's a different environment to go in there and 23

get analysed by doctors or whatever because you're 24

in there and then you're no longer in the military 25


38

environment. You're in there with people that 1

have genuine you know handicaps or people that are 2

there because of using hard core drugs. 3

We're not used to that in our 4

environment, like being military people. So it 5

can get you quite agitated to be in that 6

environment. He just voiced his displeasure with 7

what was going on at that time. 8


In that last 10-day period of his 10

life did you have a chance to spend time with 11

Stuart? 12

MR. LACKIE: Yes. 13

MR. FREIMAN: So can you tell me 14

what he was doing while he was -- during that 15

period of time? What were his -- what was his 16

army duty? 17

MR. LACKIE: Well, he was -- he 18

had his times where he just -- he just didn't want 19

to wear green anymore. He just was getting sick 20

of it. 21

He had his times where, you know, 22

he just got fed up and he just wanted to take a 23

break and like get away and not be part of the 24

green machine anymore. 25


39

He didn't have an opportunity 1

because he was under the microscope. So he had to 2

keep up doing his normal job, sort of thing, and 3

they force you to get your boots on, get your 4

shoes shined. 5

You know there's no taking your 6

time off with the military because if you want to 7

take time off you're going to jail because there 8

is no like report in sick or whatever. I mean Joe 9

Blow can call in sick from his job at the Quickie 10

Mart or whatever. With us, you don't show up for 11

work you go to jail. 12

MR. FREIMAN: Well, can't you just 13

go to the clinic and go on sick parade and explain 14

what's going on with you? 15

MR. LACKIE: Yeah. As soon as 16

they look at your history and depending on who you 17

might have seen or might not have seen then 18

they're just going to say light duties and nothing 19

strenuous or stuff like that. The odd time you 20

may run across somebody that hadn't served you 21

before so, yeah, maybe he might say "You can have 22

the day off". It just depends. 23

I mean, I don't know exactly how 24

many doctors that Stu has seen but I've been 25


40

through the system before too and my record is 47 1

doctors I've seen. 2

MR. FREIMAN: Okay. Well, I'd 3

just like to maybe get a little bit of clarity 4

between your own experiences and what Stuart told 5

you about his experiences. 6

Did he tell you anything about his 7

experiences with the military medical community? 8

MR. LACKIE: Yeah. He said that 9

there is no -- there is a word for it -- no 10

consistency; that you're not able to follow up all 11

the time because you can't see the same person in 12

order to be looked at constantly and then 13

progressively, you know, say, "Well, this is your 14

problem" or "This may be your problem so let's try 15

this avenue". 16

And if it doesn't work you can't 17

usually come back to that same doctor and then try 18

something else because usually they are on another 19

rotation at the hospital or somewhere else. 20

MR. FREIMAN: What about his 21

conditions? Did Stuart talk to you about the 22

conditions under which he was functioning during 23

this last 10 days? 24

MR. LACKIE: Well, he was very 25


41

depressed. He was, you know, worried about his 1

family. He felt that, you know, that he had been 2

just a big let-down to everybody, that he didn't 3

really have anything to offer anybody anymore 4

because he thought he screwed up too many times to 5

make things right anymore. 6

MR. FREIMAN: Did he speak to you 7

about the specific terms that he was under, the 8

living conditions where he was living? 9

You talked about being on duty all 10

the time. Did he talk about any of those things 11

to you? 12

MR. LACKIE: Well, just like about 13

the shacks and having people to escort him places. 14

MR. FREIMAN: Well, how did he 15

feel about that? 16

MR. LACKIE: Well, he felt like a 17

child. He felt, like, you know absolutely nobody 18

trusted him. Hence, you know, that goes hand in 19

hand with his you know overall feeling of "I can't 20

make it right because, you know, how can I make it 21

right if they're treating me like a child and 22

that? I can't show people that I'm going to try 23

to grow or try to improve myself." 24

So it's like he gave up in his 25


42

mind that -- you know what's the point if they're 1

going to constantly keep me, you know, locked down 2

like this? 3

MR. FREIMAN: Now, I understand 4

that the last time you say you saw Stuart alive 5

was the day before his death. Can you tell me 6

about that day and what happened between you and 7

Stuart? 8

MR. LACKIE: I had just run across 9

Stu, like he was coming back from dinner and I had 10

stopped by. I went and stopped by the shacks. I 11

seen him walking over towards the shacks. 12

I stopped by and I said, "Do you 13

want to come with me to the AA meeting tonight?" 14

You know because the AA meetings are just on the 15

other side of the fence, like the regiment there, 16

of the garrison. 17

And he says, "No, I don't feel up 18

to it tonight. I'm pretty tired". And I said, 19

"Okay, then I'll catch up with you tomorrow". 20

So I went to my meeting and that 21

was the last I seen of him. 22

MR. FREIMAN: So let's talk for a 23

moment about the actual day of the death. What 24

were you doing on that day and did you have any 25


43

plans with respect to Stuart? 1

Take your time. 2

MR. LACKIE: I asked my sergeant 3

the day before Stu's death. There was a drinking 4

function that was going on. It was like there was 5

a regimental parade and then everybody gets 6

shitfaced basically and everybody gets drunk. 7

And I asked my sergeant. I said 8

could I not go to this function because I don't 9

feel comfortable. I don't feel comfortable around 10

this drinking environment and I said, "You know, 11

my time might be better spent doing something. 12

You know, I can go sit with Stu or whatever." 13

MR. FREIMAN: So let me just -- I 14

asked you what happened the day of his death. Is 15

this what happened on the day of his death or the 16

day before his death? 17

MR. LACKIE: I asked my sergeant 18

the day before. 19


MR. LACKIE: And then this -- 21

MR. FREIMAN: The parade was the 22

next day? 23

MR. LACKIE: Yes. 24



44

MR. LACKIE: So my sergeant said 1

no, it's a must attend. And then I had to go to 2

the parade. 3

So what happened the day of his 4

death is usually when there is a parade function 5

or whatever the boys usually get together in the 6

shacks and they have a few drinks or whatever to 7

fill up their flasks and put them in their pockets 8

or whatever because they know it's going to be 9

like, you know, lazy man's day, get a little buzz 10

on, figure out what's going on later and go party. 11

So we passed through -- well, I 12

passed through the shacks that day and everybody 13

was in the hall and they were doing their thing. 14

You know there was some girls over there or 15

whatever. 16

I went and knocked on Stu's door 17

and there was no answer. I asked the kid that 18

lived down the hall from him -- I don't know his 19

name. He was the newer fellow -- I said, "Did you 20

see him today?" He said, "I seen him at 21

breakfast. I haven't seen him since". 22

And then I just kept walking down 23

the hall. 24

Then I had left there and then I 25


45

drove over to the regiment. I went over the 1

regiment. I reported to my superiors and let them 2

know I was there. 3

After waiting around for a little 4

while we polished our boots up and our cap badge 5

and stuff and we formed up. We marched into the 6

hangar, did the ceremony thing. I don't even know 7

what it was about, honouring some big whig for a 8

donation or something stupid like that. 9

MR. FREIMAN: Well, can I just 10

pause for a minute? 11

My information is that on the day 12

of Stuart's death there was a funeral for Trooper 13

Hayakaze who had been killed in Afghanistan. Is 14

that not your recollection? 15

MR. LACKIE: No. That was just a 16

blur that day. There was -- his name was 17

mentioned but there was something else after that 18

as well, because I remember the officers getting 19

together and I don't know what that was about. 20

The officers got together after announcements were 21

made and stuff like that. 22

So the RSM came out and then the 23

RSM dismissed the soldiers, the non-commissioned 24

soldiers and everybody, you know, went over to 25


46

have a bite to eat or whatever and started to 1

drink. 2

And then I asked my sergeant -- I 3

was like, "So how long do we have to be here?" He 4

was like, "Well, you've got to stay for at least, 5

you know, two hours or so or maybe even a little 6

longer" he said. "Come and ask me in about an 7

hour and I'll have a better idea of when you can 8

go". 9

So after he told me that then I 10

walked out of the hangar and right around the 11

corner from the hangar is the Duty Centre. I went 12

and hanged out there because, you know, it didn't 13

look like they were drinking. Nobody was drinking 14

around there at that time. 15

So I hung around talking to people 16

at the Duty Centre and as I was, you know, 17

chatting up with them guys I was just like leaning 18

against the table like this. And up on the 19

right-hand corner of the table, the desk that I 20

was leaning against, was a sign-in book for Stu's 21

suicide watch, because according to them every 22

half-hour to 45 minutes that someone had to go 23

over and check on him and then come back and come 24

fill in that sheet or in the booklet they had to 25


47

sign in. 1

And when I looked at the booklet, 2

it had been three and a half hours since the last 3

person who checked on him had signed in on that 4

sheet. And I said to the duty driver, I said, 5

it's been three -- 6

MR. FREIMAN: Do you remember who 7

the duty driver was? 8

MR. LACKIE: Roger. And I said to 9

him, I said, it's been three and a half hours 10

since someone checked on Stu. I said, why don't 11

you fly the f--- over there and check on him, I 12

said, you know, you're doing nothing, you're 13

sitting around here joking and whatever. I said, 14

this is bullshit. 15

So he got up after MCpl Torney, 16

you know, like nodded, agreed with me, and then he 17

was like, "Yeah, go check on him". So after 18

Torney told him to, then he got up and he got in 19

the van and he went over. 20

MR. FREIMAN: Let me just stop you 21

for a minute. Would it surprise you if I told you 22

that MCpl Torney was not on duty at the duty 23

centre that day, it was someone else entirely? 24

MR. LACKIE: He was there. 25


48

MR. FREEMAN: Okay. 1

MR. LACKIE: Whether he was on 2

duty or not, he was there. And people come and go 3

all the time to fill in for each other, going for 4

a smoke or going for a pee, or whatever. 5

MR. FREIMAN: Alright. After the 6

driver was sent, what happened? 7

MR. LACKIE: The driver was sent 8

over and then I still stood there -- no, I went 9

back in, just popped my head in to the event and 10

just said, "What are you doing?" the same thing, 11

drinking and puttering around. So I came back 12

out. 13

And then that's when I heard like 14

all the sirens going off, like fire trucks and 15

ambulances and police, and I was like wondering 16

what that's for. And then there was a phone call 17

that came in and -- 18

MR. FREIMAN: Where were you when 19

you said there was a phone call that came in? 20

MR. LACKIE: I was standing by the 21

doorway to the office, to the duty centre. And 22

then -- do you want me to repeat what I heard? 23

MR. FREIMAN: Yes, please. 24

MR. LACKIE: Okay. So it just went 25


49

down like, "Holy fuck, I can't believe that. No 1

way!" and then I just put two and two together, 2

with the ambulances and fire trucks and everything 3

else. I just left and I ran across the fields to 4

the shacks, and by the time I got there, there's, 5

you know, several EMs, firemen and military police 6

there. 7

And then I tried to go down the 8

hallway to Stu's room and the military police 9

officers stopped me. He goes, "You can't go down 10

there right now". I was like, "I'm just going 11

down and check on my friend". And he goes, "You 12

can't go down there right now". And I said, 13

"Well, can you tell me what's going on?" and he 14

was like, "No, I can't tell you". And I said, 15

"Well, can you tell me if it's my friend?" I 16

said, "His name is Stu Langridge". He says, "I 17

can't you anything right now." He says, "You're 18

going to have to go outside and wait until 19

everything gets cleared up". 20

So at that time I went out the 21

back door where the smoking section is and I hung 22

around there and -- then some people came down a 23

little later, and I guess they heard some chatter 24

of some people upstairs saying that Stu hung 25


50

himself. And I just put my smoke out and went 1

home. 2

MR. FREIMAN: Did it surprise you 3

that Stuart hung himself? 4

MR. LACKIE: Yeah. I thought he 5

would try something where he could come back from, 6

like take pills or cut his wrist or something, you 7

know that old saying, like I said, the one where 8

you can cry for help and you can come back from 9

it, but you can't come back from this, so -- 10

MR. FREIMAN: Did you try to tell 11

this story to anyone? 12

MR. LACKIE: Pardon me? 13

MR. FREIMAN: Did you try to tell 14

the story you just told us to anyone after 15

Stuart's death? 16

MR. LACKIE: Yeah. I told my 17

regimental padre, and when I got incarcerated I 18

told my regimental padre again about the 19

investigation, and then I told -- 20

MR. FREIMAN: What investigation? 21

MR. LACKIE: That there is an 22

investigation supposedly into the people who knew 23

things about what had happened that day. 24



51

MR. LACKIE: I said nobody asked 1

me any questions yet, and I said, are they going 2

to ask me questions? And he goes, "I don't know. 3

I'll look into it for you and if I find anything 4

out, I'll tell you." And then my troop leader had 5

come in to visit me and I asked him as well about 6

it, about Stu's death, and had anything come about 7

or had anything been said, do they know what's 8

going on. 9


Did you contact the military 11

directly or the military police directly to give a 12

statement? 13

MR. LACKIE: Later on after I was 14

released from incarceration, I taught a fitness 15

class one morning and after my fitness class was 16

done, as you walk into the garrison gates, the 17

military police headquarters is right there. I 18

walked in and I asked the gentleman that was 19

behind the glass partition if there was still 20

questions or an investigation going on into Stu's 21

death, and they said yeah, they're still 22

questioning people to get the whole story. And I 23

said to him, I said, "Well, I haven't been 24

questioned yet and, you know, I was part of those 25


52

people that should be investigated, I guess", and 1

he took down my name, my rank, my service number 2

and my extension for my duty centre at work. And 3

that was that. 4

MR. FREIMAN: Did anything come of 5

it? 6

MR. LACKIE: Nothing. 7

MR. FREIMAN: We've made inquiries 8

and we've asked for a search to be done of the 9

military policy records to see if there's any 10

record of your contacting the military police, and 11

I can tell you that the searches came back 12

negative and there's no record of you having been 13

in contact with the military police. 14

Do you have any explanation for 15

that? 16

MR. LACKIE: They're not doing 17

their job. 18

MR. FREIMAN: Just a second. 19

--- Pause 20

MR. FREIMAN: All of this 21

happened, if I understand your efforts that you 22

talked about, happened in 2009 after you were 23

released from your incarceration. 24

Did you try anything in 2008, 25


53

between the day of Stuart's death and the time you 1

had your run in with the law? Did you try to 2

contact anybody? 3

MR. LACKIE: I tried to contact 4

the regimental padre. I went through the family 5

resource centre in the regiment, to Cpl Davis. 6

He's the one who runs the family resource centre, 7

and I asked him where the padre was because I 8

needed to talk to him about that subject. 9


I understand tat your father 11

contacted the Military Police Complaints 12

Commission about two weeks ago or 10 days ago, and 13

you were interviewed last week. Is that correct? 14

MR. LACKIE: Yes. 15

MR. FREIMAN: Can you tell me, why 16

did you come forward at this time to tell your 17

story to this Commission? 18

MR. LACKIE: I've always tried to 19

contact somebody. I called up different military 20

police extensions and I've contacted Stu 21

Langridge's web site on Facebook. I tried to get 22

a hold of his mother through those means. I tried 23

to contact the individual who wrote the very first 24

article about the investigation being botched. I 25


54

tried to contact him. I sent him an e-mail with 1

my return e-mail address on it saying "Please have 2

Stu's family contact me". 3

I never let up whatsoever on this 4

subject. And the whole thing is that I want Stu's 5

mom and everybody to know the truth about what's 6

going on, because right from the get-go other 7

names have been named or whatever and the truth 8

has not been told. 9

MR. FREIMAN: Have you told us the 10

truth today? 11

MR. LACKIE: One hundred percent. 12


Those are my questions. 14


We've been about an hour and a 16

half so we'll take a break until 1115. 17

--- Upon recessing at 1102 / Suspension à 1102 18

--- Upon resuming at 1116 / Reprise à 1116 19


Colonel Drapeau. 21

COL (RET'D) DRAPEAU: Thank you, 22

Mr. Chair. 23

EXAMINATION BY 24

COL (RET'D) DRAPEAU: Good 25


55

morning, Mr. Lackie. 1

MR. LACKIE: Good morning. 2

COL (RET'D) DRAPEAU: Mr. Lackie, 3

are you represented by counsel now, as we speak? 4

MR. LACKIE: No. 5

COL (RET'D) DRAPEAU: Did you 6

consult counsel prior to contacting the 7

Commission? 8

MR. LACKIE: No. 9

COL (RET'D) DRAPEAU: At any time 10

from the time that you decided to contact the 11

Commission, did you have counsel with you? 12

MR. LACKIE: No. 13

COL (RET'D) DRAPEAU: Your dad 14

phoned the Commission originally. 15

MR. LACKIE: Yes. 16

COL (RET'D) DRAPEAU: Why is that, 17

as opposed to yourself? 18

MR. LACKIE: I called what numbers 19

I had and then my dad called what numbers he had. 20

My dad's got a lot more contacts, being in the 21

system a lot longer than me. 22

COL (RET'D) DRAPEAU: When you 23

contacted the Commission, did you inform them 24

right away of your criminal record? You phoned 25


56

the Commission; during the interview, did you 1

advise them that you had a criminal record? 2

MR. LACKIE: Once I spoke to them, 3

yes. 4

COL (RET'D) DRAPEAU: You put that 5

on the table, right from the get-go? 6

MR. LACKIE: Yes. 7


expect that if you came here there could be some 9

media coverage and your criminal records would 10

receive quite significant exposure? 11

MR. LACKIE: That my criminal 12

record would -- 13

COL (RET'D) DRAPEAU: Right, as we 14

saw here this morning during your questions, that 15

that would be exposed for all to hear and to read 16

about it. 17

MR. LACKIE: I guess so. 18

COL (RET'D) DRAPEAU: But that did 19

not stop you from contacting the Commission. 20

MR. LACKIE: No. 21

COL (RET'D) DRAPEAU: Why? 22

MR. LACKIE: Because the truth 23

needed to be told. 24

COL (RET'D) DRAPEAU: And that was 25


57

more powerful than the possible negative coverage 1

on your criminal record? 2

MR. LACKIE: Yes. 3

COL (RET'D) DRAPEAU: During your 4

testimony, questions were asked about the issue of 5

the suicide watch. Am I right to say that you 6

formed the belief that Stu in fact was under a 7

suicide watch? 8

MR. LACKIE: Formed the belief? 9


believe that he was under a suicide watch? 11

MR. LACKIE: He was. 12

COL (RET'D) DRAPEAU: He was? 13

MR. LACKIE: Yes. 14

COL (RET'D) DRAPEAU: Were you 15

alone in having this opinion about whether or not 16

he was under a suicide watch or not? 17

MR. LACKIE: No, it was general 18

knowledge through the regiment. 19

COL (RET'D) DRAPEAU: Could you 20

explain to me what you mean by "general 21

knowledge"? People would talk to you about this? 22

Some individuals of senior ranks who had referred 23

to it, or what? 24

MR. LACKIE: Everybody would talk 25


58

about it in the smoking section or while they're 1

at work or whatever, would say, "Yeah, did you 2

hear Stu's on suicide watch" or, you know, "They 3

have to look after him", stuff like that. 4

COL (RET'D) DRAPEAU: Would your 5

chain of command also refer to it as Stu being on 6

a suicide watch? 7

MR. LACKIE: Yes. 8

COL (RET'D) DRAPEAU: I'm looking 9

whether or not somebody higher up in ranks to 10

you -- master corporals, sergeants, officers -- 11

would be using these words. 12

MR. LACKIE: I know up to a 13

sergeant would, that I personally heard. 14

COL (RET'D) DRAPEAU: And what 15

would be the name of that sergeant? 16

MR. LACKIE: Sgt Clark. 17

COL (RET'D) DRAPEAU: Your 18

sergeant, your chain of command. 19

You said during your testimony 20

that in Stu's last days, he always had a partner 21

accompanying him, that was with him. 22

MR. LACKIE: Yes. For the most 23

part, yeah. 24

COL (RET'D) DRAPEAU: Would you 25


59

remember who that was? 1

MR. LACKIE: I wasn't with him all 2

the time. 3

COL (RET'D) DRAPEAU: And how do 4

you know? You saw them together? 5

MR. LACKIE: That's what Stu told 6

me, that there was always usually someone with him 7

or he had to report -- every two hours he had to 8

call in and say, "Well, I'm in the shacks" or -- 9

COL (RET'D) DRAPEAU: So if I get 10

your testimony right, in addition to having to 11

report every two hours or so, he always had 12

somebody with him during that intervening time? 13

MR. LACKIE: When he said he was 14

in the shacks, he wouldn't have somebody, like, in 15

his room with him, but other than that. 16

COL (RET'D) DRAPEAU: And did Stu 17

ever give you a name who that partner or person 18

would be? 19

MR. LACKIE: No. 20

COL (RET'D) DRAPEAU: You asked 21

your sergeant, you said, the day before Stu 22

committed suicide, that you be excused from 23

attending a regimental function. 24

MR. LACKIE: Yes. 25


60

COL (RET'D) DRAPEAU: What was the 1

name of that sergeant? 2

MR. LACKIE: Sgt Clark. 3

COL (RET'D) DRAPEAU: Clark. 4

Again, your leader. 5

MR. LACKIE: Yes. 6

COL (RET'D) DRAPEAU: That is all 7

of my questions. Thank you. 8

THE CHAIRPERSON: Ms Richards. 9

MS RICHARDS: Thank you. 10

EXAMINATION BY 11

MS RICHARDS: Good morning, Mr. 12

Lackie. I just have a few questions for you. 13

Are you aware that both Jay 14

Hillier and Jon Rohmer have testified in this 15

hearing? 16

MR. LACKIE: No. 17

MS RICHARDS: Would it surprise 18

you to hear that they never mentioned your name 19

during their testimony? 20

MR. LACKIE: No. 21

MS RICHARDS: When you referenced 22

the duty driver who was on duty that day and you 23

said Roger, were you referring to Roger Hurlburt? 24

MR. LACKIE: I'd have to see a 25


61

picture of him. 1

MS RICHARDS: Okay. 2

Are you aware that there's a Roger 3

Hurlburt that's both given statements to the 4

military police and testified before this 5

Commission that he was the duty driver on that 6

day? 7

MR. LACKIE: I'll take your word 8

for it but, like I said, in order to know his last 9

name I'd have to see his picture. 10

MS RICHARDS: And would it 11

surprise you that that person has never mentioned 12

your name or never stated that you provided any 13

information to him or talk to him on the day of 14

Stuart's death? 15

MR. LACKIE: That's because he's 16

still in the military. 17

MS RICHARDS: And when you 18

referred to the regimental padre, is that Padre 19

Hubbard? 20

MR. LACKIE: Is he in Gagetown? 21

MS RICHARDS: No, this would be in 22

Edmonton. 23

MR. LACKIE: The padre that I was 24

speaking about got transferred to Gagetown. 25


62

MS RICHARDS: And you don't know 1

his name? 2

MR. LACKIE: No. 3

MS RICHARDS: Okay. And what was -- 4

THE CHAIRPERSON: Sorry. You did 5

say transferred to -- 6

MS RICHARDS: To Gagetown. 7

THE CHAIRPERSON: Transferred to 8

Gagetown? 9

MR. LACKIE: Yes. 10

MS RICHARDS: When you talked 11

about the fact that you went to the MP 12

Headquarters after your release from 13

incarceration -- 14

MR. LACKIE: Yes. 15

MS RICHARDS: If I'm correct, that 16

was around April 2009? 17

MR. LACKIE: I don't know. It was 18

after I -- shortly after I got out, when I started 19

back to my duties of teaching PT. 20

MS RICHARDS: Okay. So as I 21

understand your testimony earlier from Mr. 22

Freiman, you were first arrested in December 2008. 23

That's correct? 24

MR. LACKIE: Yes. 25


63

MS RICHARDS: And then you were 1

released in February 2009. 2

MR. LACKIE: I'm not positive of 3

the dates. 4

MS RICHARDS: Okay. So is it fair 5

to say that it would have been somewhere between 6

January and April 2009? Is that a fair 7

assessment? 8

MR. LACKIE: No, no. It was after 9

I was released from my whole stint. 10

MS RICHARDS: And so, based on the 11

records we have, I understand that that was in and 12

around April 2009. Is that about accurate? 13

MR. LACKIE: Yeah. 14

MS RICHARDS: Would it surprise 15

you to hear that there was no ongoing military 16

police investigation into Stuart Langridge's death 17

at that time? 18

MR. LACKIE: I just went to 19

inquire. 20

MS RICHARDS: Okay. 21

Thank you. Those are all my 22

questions. 23

THE CHAIRPERSON: Any re-exam? 24

MR. FREIMAN: (Shakes head in 25


64

negative.) 1

THE CHAIRPERSON: Mr. Lackie, I 2

want to thank you for, number one, taking the time 3

to contact the Commission and, number two, for 4

being here with us today to provide your 5

information for purposes of the evidence. So 6

thank you very much. 7

MR. LACKIE: You're welcome. 8

THE CHAIRPERSON: It's 11125. 9

If the next witness is here now, 10

it might be worthwhile to start it and go until 11

1230 and then we can break for lunch at that time. 12

We'll just take 5-10 minutes to 13

switch witnesses and have the room ready. 14

Thank you. 15



SWORN: SGT SCOTT SHANNON 18

THE CHAIRPERSON: Welcome, 19

Sergeant. 20

SGT SHANNON: Good morning. 21

EXAMINATION BY 22

MR. FREIMAN: Good morning, 23

Sergeant. 24

SGT SHANNON: Good morning, sir. 25


65

MR. FREIMAN: I always make a 1

point of telling every new witness not to take an 2

adverse inference from the fact that I've got a 3

cup of coffee with me. 4

Sergeant, I would begin by asking 5

you about your career in the military, your 6

training, especially your training with respect to 7

policing duties. So if you could take us from 8

your enlistment down to today. 9

SGT SHANNON: Yes, sir. Good 10

morning, Mr. Chair. 11

My name is Sergeant Scott Shannon. 12

I hail from the Town of Canmore in the Province of 13

Alberta and I joined the Canadian Forces in July 14

of 1999. 15

And following my basic training in 16

Quebec I proceeded to the Military Police Academy 17

in Ontario where I completed my QL3 level 18

training. 19

Following that training I was 20

posted to 17 Wing Detachment Dundurn in 21

Saskatchewan -- 22


SGT SHANNON: -- where I served 24

for the next four and a half years, which also 25


66

included my first international deployment to the 1

Persian Gulf where I did general patrol duties. 2

In 2005 I was selected to be 3

posted to the National Investigation Service in 4

Halifax and I transferred from Saskatchewan to 5

Nova Scotia. Then for the next six years I served 6

with the National Investigation Service and 7

conducted a number of investigations towards their 8

mandate. 9

With regards to my training, in 10

2001 I became a Scenes of Crimes Officer from a 11

training course with the Royal Canadian Mounted 12

Police and that course relates to crime scene 13

examination and the identification and collection 14

of forensic evidence. 15

In 2004 I attended the Military 16

Police Investigation course at the Military Police 17

Academy where we focused on conducting more 18

serious investigations. 19

I also have training in 20

cybercrime, electronic crime scene examination, 21

sexual assault investigator from the Ontario 22

Police College, and I also have a diploma in Law 23

Enforcement, an Honour's degree in Criminal 24

Justice and I'm currently studying for my Master's 25


67

degree in Public Administration. 1

MR. FREIMAN: I noticed, sir, that 2

in that list of courses one course that wasn't 3

there that we've seen a number of other members of 4

the Military Police have taken is the forensic 5

interviewing techniques. 6

SGT SHANNON: Yes, sir. I do not 7

have that course. 8

MR. FREIMAN: All right. Does 9

that have any implications for the sorts of 10

activities on an investigation that you can and 11

can't do? 12

SGT SHANNON: No, sir. 13

MR. FREIMAN: All right. So 14

there's no obstacle for you to conduct an 15

interview? 16


MR. FREIMAN: And as near as I can 18

tell, you've had a fairly lengthy career in the -- 19

or you've had a good number of years of 20

investigations with the NIS. 21

Can you give us an idea of the 22

range of cases that you've been called on to 23

investigate? 24

SGT SHANNON: Yes, sir. So 25


68

throughout my career I've conducted 109 criminal 1

investigations as the primary lead investigator. 2

Of those 109, that includes 13 3

sudden death investigations in Afghanistan, and 4

also I have conducted four additional death 5

investigations, one in The Bahamas and the other 6

three in Canada. 7

I have also conducted a very 8

complex, lengthy historical investigation into a 9

serial pedophile which occurred in the 1980s, and 10

that investigation resulted in the identification 11

of eight victims and a number of charges against 12

the suspect. 13

I've also conducted a number of 14

lengthy, complex investigations into serial sex 15

offenders, fraud investigations, conduct related 16

to the National Defence Act offences, specifically 17

negligent performance of a military duty. 18

And I've also conducted a number 19

of investigations into child pornography and 20

fraud. 21

MR. FREIMAN: With respect to the 22

negligent discharge of a military duty, can you 23

give us an idea before you were called upon to 24

help out on this case -- first of all, had you 25


69

done any of those investigations before you worked 1

on the case that brings us here together today? 2

SGT SHANNON: Yes, sirs 3

MR. FREIMAN: Can you give us -- 4

obviously respecting confidentiality as 5

necessary -- an idea of what the nature of that 6

charge was? 7

SGT SHANNON: The one 8

investigation that I was involved with was -- 9

occurred in Afghanistan and related to the conduct 10

of a Commander which resulted in the death of an 11

Afghan citizen. 12

The second one was related to 13

allegations of misappropriation of funds in an 14

international setting, in the Persian Gulf. 15

And the third time related to the 16

conduct of a Senior Non-Commissioned Member 17

regarding his completion of training courses. 18

MR. FREIMAN: Can you tell me from 19

your experience whether there is any difference in 20

conducting an investigation for the negligent 21

discharge of a military duty from conducting, say, 22

an investigation into sexual assault or one of the 23

other serious crimes that you have investigated? 24

SGT SHANNON: Yes, sir. The 25


70

primary difference is the identification or the 1

status of the -- of what we would call victim. So 2

in a sexual assault investigation you have a clear 3

victim or a number of victims, a person victim. 4

We call it a person crime. 5

MR. FREIMAN: Yes. 6

SGT SHANNON: In an investigation 7

of negligent performance of duty there is no 8

person victim per se. So the victim in those 9

types of cases becomes the Crown. 10

MR. FREIMAN: All right. Are 11

there any other differences that spring to mind? 12



In terms of the identification of 15

the accused person, have you ever -- aside from 16

the case that bring us here today and we'll 17

discuss whether this applies -- but have you ever 18

been involved in an investigation where it may not 19

be clear at the onset of the investigation who 20

precisely is being complained against? 21

SGT SHANNON: Yes, sir. 22

MR. FREIMAN: Can you tell us 23

about that? 24

SGT SHANNON: In the previous case 25


71

that I mentioned where I conducted the 1

investigation into the serial sex offender, so at 2

the onset of the case, the presentation of the 3

evidence by the initial victim, the suspect was 4

unknown to both the victim and law enforcement. 5

And as a result of our 6

investigative activities we were able to, number 7

one, identify the prime suspect and also link him 8

to three other victims over a period of time and 9

we were able to obtain a full confession from him 10

for all his actions. 11

MR. FREIMAN: Okay. Now, we're 12

going to break this down in a little more detail 13

in a few minutes but I might as well just ask you 14

now. 15

In terms of identification of the 16

accused or the potential accused in the current 17

case when you were looking at negligent 18

performance of a military duty, did you have a 19

clear idea at any time as to who the potential 20

suspects were? 21

SGT SHANNON: For the 2009 next of 22

kin allegation -- 23


SGT SHANNON: -- file, the 25


72

potential suspects were identified by the 1

third-party complainant, the Ombudsman's Office, 2

and the primary complainant, Mr. and Mrs. Fynes. 3

In the second investigation, the 4

2010 investigation related to criminal negligence, 5

the alleged offenders were not identified by the 6

complainant. 7


Now, just to round out this 9

discussion, when you are handed an investigation, 10

is it your view that you are investigating an 11

incident or an occurrence on the one hand or are 12

you investigating a specific offence with respect 13

to either known or unknown perpetrators? 14

SGT SHANNON: Within the field of 15

law enforcement there has been a change in the 16

direction in which police investigations are 17

conducted. 18


SGT SHANNON: So I would put it 20

around 2005 there was a change in direction from 21

the first model that you presented to a more 22

scientific approach to conducting investigations. 23

So today within the National 24

Investigation Service and broader in the Military 25


73

Police we focus on the investigation of offences 1

and not on people or individual or a collection of 2

actions. 3

So upon the receipt of a 4

complaint, either in writing or verbal or by the 5

police discovering a crime, the first step in the 6

general investigation sequence is the 7

identification of potential offences that may meet 8

the circumstances of the situation at hand. 9

MR. FREIMAN: All right. Well, 10

let's hold that thought for a moment because I 11

would like to go through a little bit of 12

chronology but I would like to pick up with you 13

when we get back to it this newer idea and how it 14

worked itself out in the current investigation. 15

Before we do that though, I am 16

aware that you may have been involved in the 17

drafting of a Standard Operating Procedure with 18

respect to sudden deaths. 19

SGT SHANNON: That's correct, sir. 20

MR. FREIMAN: All right. Can you 21

tell us how you came to be involved in that and 22

what your role was? 23

SGT SHANNON: When I was still 24

posted to the National Investigation Service 25


74

office in Halifax, the Atlantic Region, I was 1

approached by my Officer Commanding, Captain 2

Black, and myself and my colleague Sgt Brian St. 3

John were provided with the task of reviewing an 4

initial draft of the SOP and to prepare -- I 5

believe it's listed as Annex E, which is the 6

Briefing Protocol for Family Members. 7

In addition to our work in 8

drafting Annex E, the Briefing Protocol for 9

Families, we also analyzed the initial draft of 10

the Sudden Death Investigation SOP and we provided 11

our input based on our own personal experiences 12

and training. 13

MR. FREIMAN: The record of your 14

accomplishments that you gave us is quite 15

impressive, but was there a specific reason, any 16

specific background training interest that 17

resulted in your being assigned to this particular 18

task? 19

SGT SHANNON: I believe I was 20

selected due to my experience in conducting 13 21

investigations in a combat environment into the 22

death of fallen heroes and into the entire process 23

of doing those types of investigations in a combat 24

environment and the challenges and the tasks 25


75

involved in conducting mortuary affairs, 1

processing in an international setting, and also 2

into meeting the standards of the Ontario 3

Coroner's Act, which applies to all fatalities of 4

Canadian Forces members outside the borders of 5

Canada -- 6

MR. FREIMAN: Yes. 7

SGT SHANNON: -- and in addition 8

my additional experience in being the lead 9

investigator in a joint investigation with the 10

Royal Bahamian Police into the death of a Canadian 11

service member in Bahamas and also assisting the 12

RCMP in a homicide investigation and two other 13

sudden death investigations which I was involved 14

in. 15

MR. FREIMAN: Were any of these 16

sudden death investigations -- did any of them 17

involve suicide? 18


MR. FREIMAN: Okay. So you had 20

some background and experience in the 21

investigation of sudden deaths that were found to 22

be suicides? 23


MR. FREIMAN: Now, in the 25


76

impressive array of books in front you there 1

should be a series of four volumes with tabs 2

called "Document Index for Subjects of the 3

Complaint." I think it's the ones with the green 4

cover. 5

And if you could find Volume 3 -- 6


MR. FREIMAN: -- and open it at 8

Tab 76. 9

Is this part of the work that you 10

helped to put together? 11

SGT SHANNON: The formal SOP, the 12

main body of the SOP was -- we were provided with 13

the initial draft and then we provided our review 14

and our comments and our suggestions for 15

improvements and inclusions. 16


SGT SHANNON: But my primary body 18

of work was for Annex E only. 19

MR. FREIMAN: Only for Annex E. 20

So in fact you didn't participate in this part of 21

the exercise? 22

SGT SHANNON: For the actual main 23

body of the SOP? 24



77

SGT SHANNON: Myself and Sergeant 1

St. John, we did provide our comments and our 2

recommendations for improvements and inclusions to 3

the main body of the SOP. Whether those 4

recommendations were accepted and included I can't 5

say. 6


Well, I wonder if you could just 8

turn up paragraph 21, which is on page 7 of 7 at 9

the bottom. 10


MR. FREIMAN: Now, sorry, you said 12

you participated in the Annexes. So Annex E, I 13

think, is at the end of this; is that right? 14

SGT SHANNON: Yes. The Annex that 15

I worked on with Sergeant St. John in drafting 16

from the start is Annex E, the Sudden Death Next 17

of Kin Briefing Aid. 18


So with the benefit of Annex E and 20

looking at paragraph 21 as necessary, can you tell 21

me what your understanding is of the current 22

protocol with respect to suicide notes, what to 23

tell the family, when to tell the family, what to 24

give the family, when to give it to them? 25


78

SGT SHANNON: With regards to the 1

topic of suicide notes there -- there was no 2

discussions or inclusion in the work that I did 3

with Sergeant St. John in preparing Annex E -- 4


SGT SHANNON: -- because our main 6

focus is on the briefing at the end of the 7

investigative process to provide closure to the 8

family. 9

So Annex E identifies an initial 10

briefing process and -- but its main focus is on 11

the end briefing that you would provide to members 12

of a family. 13

So I can't speak to the topic of 14

suicide notes in this regard. 15


SGT SHANNON: However, in my own 17

experience, which is limited to the requirements 18

of the Ontario Coroner's Act and the Halifax 19

Coroner's Act, from my experience the activities 20

and the actions for seizing evidence and personal 21

property and belongings at the scene of a sudden 22

death is the responsibility of the Coroner and not 23

the police. 24

MR. FREIMAN: Okay. So let's talk 25


79

a little bit then about your area of expertise, 1

which is briefings. 2


MR. FREIMAN: And you said that 4

the main focus was on the final briefing of the 5

family? 6


MR. FREIMAN: Can you tell me what 8

is the recommendation or what is the Standard 9

Operating Procedure for briefing the families? 10

What is expected of investigators to tell the 11

families at the end of the investigation? 12

SGT SHANNON: So the first point, 13

sir, is that the briefing, the final briefing -- 14

both the initial briefing and the final briefing 15

should not ever be conducted by the lead 16

investigator or the investigators involved in the 17

investigation. 18

MR. FREIMAN: Tell me why that is. 19

SGT SHANNON: So the rationale 20

behind that is because the lead investigators -- 21

the lead investigator and the secondary 22

investigators need to be given the time, the 23

flexibility and the ability to focus on 24

investigating the incident at hand, and any 25


80

potential secondary duty such as meeting with the 1

families could potentially delay the investigative 2

process, which could also potentially hamper the 3

identification and collection of relevant 4

evidence. 5

And if it was not a 6

suicide-related file but a file where there was a 7

suspect involved in the causation of death, then 8

that could potentially also further delay the 9

ultimate goal of an investigation in that 10

particular case, which would be to apprehend the 11

offender and process him through the criminal 12

justice system. 13

So the policy and the guidelines 14

that we created specify that all briefings to 15

family should be conducted by the two senior 16

members of the Investigation Detachment. 17

So in the case of the National 18

Investigation Service, among each Detachment 19

spread across the country there is an Officer 20

Commanding and a Master Warrant Officer Senior 21

Investigator that is assigned to command each 22

Detachment. So our directives or our policies 23

that we developed specify that all briefings 24

should be conducted by those two individuals after 25


81

consulting with the lead investigator. 1


So in our own case that would have 3

been Warrant Bonneteau and Major Dandurand or am I 4

getting it wrong? 5

SGT SHANNON: The briefing, I 6

believe, for the initial occasion -- 7

MR. FREIMAN: I'm not asking who 8

did it. I'm asking under your Standard Operating 9

Procedure the expectation would be that those 10

would be the two individuals who would be handling 11

the briefings? 12

SGT SHANNON: It should have been 13

the Officer Commanding and the Master Warrant 14

Officer. If the Master Warrant Officer is not 15

available, then the Warrant Officer would step in. 16

And if the OC was unavailable, the two more senior 17

members of the Detachment that would be available 18

at the time should conduct that briefing. 19

MR. FREIMAN: Okay. So let's talk 20

about the initial briefing and then let's talk 21

about the final briefing. 22

SGT SHANNON: M'hmm. 23

MR. FREIMAN: In terms of the 24

recommendations you made and the standard 25


82

operating principles that you thought were 1

appropriate, what should go into an initial 2

briefing? 3

SGT SHANNON: The initial briefing 4

should be very brief. It should be -- it should 5

be conducted relatively quickly following the 6

tragic event that brings the two parties together 7

and it includes the involvement of the Assisting 8

Officer that has been assigned by the Canadian 9

Forces to assist the family in question. 10

And the purpose of the initial 11

briefing is just to simply identify the fact that 12

there is a police investigation that is going to 13

take place, provide a general context as to the 14

substance and the purpose of that police 15

investigation, and to provide some general 16

information as to the way ahead. 17

And at the end of the process a 18

final briefing will occur which will provide as 19

much information as possible to satisfy the 20

questions of the family. 21

MR. FREIMAN: And what about the 22

final briefing? 23

SGT SHANNON: That is the -- 24

MR. FREIMAN: That's -- 25


83

SGT SHANNON: Oh, and then at the 1

final briefing -- 2

MR. FREIMAN: Yes. 3

SGT SHANNON: -- the final 4

briefing should be conducted by the same two 5

individuals that did the initial because obviously 6

a bond has been established. 7

And then at the final briefing it 8

is an opportunity for the police to provide the 9

family with the findings of the investigation that 10

relate to issues such as the cause of death, 11

anything that has been developed -- anything that 12

has been discovered. 13

It's a very sensitive moment, it's 14

a very sensitive time, and the briefing team would 15

then respond to questions from the family in that 16

setting and be able to provide them as much 17

information as possible within applicable policies 18

to meet the needs of the family. 19

So the ultimate purpose of the 20

family briefing at the end of a sudden death 21

investigation is to provide closure and to satisfy 22

their need for information about the cause of 23

death of their loved one. 24

MR. FREIMAN: Okay. I have to 25


84

confess my own sins, I was thinking a little 1

forward in time. The names that I gave you as 2

potential briefers is probably wrong given the 3

timeframe of the sudden death investigation, but 4

you have -- 5

SGT SHANNON: Like research, if 6

you were to go back in time, so the initial 7

investigation into the passing of Corporal 8

Langridge, I do not believe that this policy was 9

in place -- 10

MR. FREIMAN: No. 11

SGT SHANNON: -- and so I can't 12

speak to how the issue of talking to the members 13

of the families involved was dealt with by the 14

chain of command at that time, and I also was not 15

a member of the Edmonton office at that time as 16

well. 17

MR. FREIMAN: Yeah. 18

SGT SHANNON: And then for this -- 19

the briefing issues for the second two files, the 20

briefers were going to be Major Dandurand and 21

Warrant Officer Bonneteau. 22

MR. FREIMAN: Right. So I was 23

going to ask you, is there a difference between 24

the protocol when briefing families with respect 25


85

to a sudden death investigation and briefing 1

families with respect to the kinds of 2

investigations -- the 2009 and 2010 investigation 3

that you were involved in? 4

SGT SHANNON: The policy that we 5

have here that we are reviewing would not apply to 6

the second two investigations, the 2009 and 2010. 7

The category of offences that are in those two 8

investigative files do not fall under the purview 9

of the briefing protocols that we have been 10

discussing. 11

MR. FREIMAN: So are there any 12

expectations? 13

SGT SHANNON: From my experience, 14

for these types of offences, I was quite surprised 15

that they were proposing to do a briefing to the 16

family. 17

MR. FREIMAN: Okay. And any was 18

that? 19

SGT SHANNON: Because these types 20

of offences do not fall into the category that 21

typically we consider when we prepared this 22

briefing protocol. 23

MR. FREIMAN: All right. Do I 24

understand, then, that you didn't consider the 25


86

issue of briefings in circumstances where rather 1

than simply investigating a sudden death you are 2

investigating a complaint, a third party 3

complaint? 4



With respect to the briefing 7

policy that does apply to sudden deaths, what's 8

your understanding of what was in place before the 9

elaboration of this policy? Was this policy brand 10

new or was it based on existing best practices? 11

SGT SHANNON: I believe, sir, that 12

it's brand new. 13

The issue of death investigations 14

within the National Investigation Service and the 15

overall body of the Military Police is a 16

relatively new topic so until the statutory 17

amendments to the National Defence Act occurred in 18

2004-2005, the Military Police, except for in 19

international settings, had no jurisdiction to 20

investigate sudden deaths in Canada. So prior to 21

the amendments to the National Defence Act in 22

2004-2005 the responsibility for all death 23

investigations inside the borders of Canada rested 24

with the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and that 25


87

included even on military property on bases. 1

So our involvement in these types 2

of investigation is relatively new since that 3

amendment, so there has been a large learning 4

curve and a large requirement to develop 5

responsibilities and knowledge and training within 6

the National Investigation Service and the overall 7

Military Police in response to those legislative 8

changes. 9

So by 2008, because of a number of 10

high profile cases that had occurred, there became 11

a realization within not only the higher chain of 12

command of the Military Police, but also within 13

the body of investigators per se, if you want to 14

call us that group, so we were becoming aware that 15

there were shortcomings in our training and our 16

abilities and we were making recommendations to 17

our chain of command that these types of processes 18

needed to be developed. 19

So in 2008 I believe is when the 20

first directive was generated from the National 21

Headquarters of the NIS -- 22

MR. FREIMAN: Do you remember when 23

in 2008? 24

SGT SHANNON: I can't be specific, 25


88

sir, but my brain says the summer months. 1


SGT SHANNON: And then we worked 3

over the fall I believe to prepare this document. 4

MR. FREIMAN: So was the directive 5

a directive addressed to you to prepare the 6

document or was there an information directive to 7

all NIS members about what was happening? 8

SGT SHANNON: No, sir. So I 9

was -- myself and my co-author, Sergeant St. John, 10

we were briefed by the Officer Commanding, Captain 11

Black, of the requirement and that we had been 12

selected to be the people that would draft this 13

policy and then we put our minds together and... 14

We did have some prior document. 15

We have an Electronic Toolbox it's called, and 16

within that toolbox it's an electronic 17

website-based toolbox and it provides a whole 18

bunch of reference materials in the various 19

divisions of types of offences that are within the 20

mandate of the Nation Investigation Service. So 21

within that national toolbox there was a policy 22

book, I believe it's entitled "Homicide 23

Investigators Checklist", and it was -- it's a 24

draft by the Attorney General for the Province of 25


89

British Columbia. And that was our tool and our 1

guidebook for conducting homicide and sudden death 2

investigations. So we drew from our own personal 3

experiences and from the available academic record 4

that was available to us and we generated the 5

draft policies. 6

MR. FREIMAN: I think I 7

understand. 8

In general terms, then, was there 9

any expectation at all, prior to your publication 10

of this SOP, that in the case of sudden death 11

investigations there would be any briefing 12

whatsoever -- 13


MR. FREIMAN: -- to families? 15

SGT SHANNON: No, sir. It's 16

something that developed over time due to 17

circumstantial circumstances and the recognition 18

by our superiors that such a policy needed to be 19

in place. 20

MR. FREIMAN: Just it occurs to me 21

that I forgot to ask you a couple of general 22

questions about your experience before we leave 23

here. 24

Prior to this investigation had 25


90

you had any experience investigating a charge of 1

criminal negligence causing death? 2

SGT SHANNON: Criminal -- not that 3

particular offence, sir. 4

MR. FREIMAN: Any criminal 5

negligence at all? 6



At the time that you were involved 9

in the investigation, was there any policy -- did 10

you have any practice of considering service 11

offences as an alternative to Criminal Code 12

offences when you were investigating a complaint? 13



SGT SHANNON: So within the 16

provisions of the National Defence Act there is a 17

broaching charge that is available within the 18

National Defence Act -- so it's section 130 of the 19

National Defence Act -- and that section allows 20

for the incorporation of a charge under any other 21

federal statute published by the Government of 22

Canada and it allows for the inclusion of all 23

those federal statutes and brings it into the 24

umbrella of the National Defence Act and the Code 25


91

of Service Discipline. 1

So when we are doing the first few 2

steps of the general investigative sequence of any 3

complaint and any charge our first task is to 4

analyze the complaint, to validate the complaint 5

that has been presented and do a comprehensive 6

evaluation of not only the Code of Service 7

Discipline offences, but of other federal statutes 8

that maybe applicable so, for instance, the 9

Criminal Code of Canada, the various bodies of law 10

involving drugs, there is also a federal statute 11

involving the protection of information, so we do 12

conduct that overall broad analysis and keep a 13

very open mind at the onset and identify every 14

potential offence that may describe the events 15

that have been presented in the allegation. 16

MR. FREIMAN: Okay. But what I 17

would like to talk to you about is probably the 18

opposite of what you've described. 19

Had you had any experience at all 20

in situations where the initial complaint was 21

under the Criminal Code and, even though there was 22

no Criminal Code offence that your investigation 23

revealed, possibly because of lack of proper 24

mental element, that the charge you originally 25


92

talked about, negligent performance of duty, might 1

be an included offence? 2


And at the same time when we do 4

that analysis and that evaluation. 5

So the Military Police and the 6

National Investigation Service investigators, we 7

have the unique responsibility within the criminal 8

justice system in Canada where we enforce both 9

criminal statute law that applies to every citizen 10

of our nation and we also have to be able to 11

understand and focus our knowledge on military law 12

and its unique requirements and its unique 13

procedures. So we do have legislative authority 14

to proceed in laying charges under either the 15

civilian criminal justice system in civilian 16

courts or within the military justice system 17

before a court martial. 18

So as a peace officer and a police 19

officer and peace officer within Canada I have the 20

additional burden of having to understand both 21

systems of justice that exist within Canada. I 22

have to have a very good understanding of the 23

criminal processes available within the civilian 24

justice system and also the military system. I 25


93

have the discretion when it comes to charge 1

laying, if the evidence supports the laying of a 2

charge, to making a decision whether I'm going to 3

lay the charge in the civilian justice system, 4

through the criminal courts, or if I'm going to 5

proceed by a charge through the military justice 6

system and that all comes into play right at the 7

very onset when we are evaluating potential 8

offences, so we would consider both. 9

If I begin with a Criminal Code 10

allegation -- say in the allegation of sexual 11

assault, if I use that as an example -- and my 12

investigation begins by examining the elements of 13

the offence of sexual assault pursuant to the 14

Criminal Code, throughout the course of my 15

investigation I determine that I am not able to 16

meet the elements of the offence of sexual 17

assault, but I may be able to meet the elements of 18

the offence of abuse of subordinate under the 19

National Defence Act, so as the investigation 20

proceeds my investigative file would note the 21

change in direction due to the evidence that's 22

available and then the investigation would proceed 23

accordingly from a criminal matter in the civilian 24

courts to a purely military matter within the 25


94

military justice system. 1

MR. FREIMAN: When this sort of 2

analysis takes place, is there some notation that 3

is put into the file to demonstrate what was 4

thought about and what the process was? 5

SGT SHANNON: Yes, sir. That 6

would be -- like if the change -- say an example 7

that I suggested, so a change of that nature would 8

be annotated and identified in the investigation 9

plan. 10

MR. FREIMAN: Now, one of the 11

things that we have learned through the course of 12

these hearings is that the records that are 13

maintained by the Military Police allow for an 14

amendment of material in the file. 15


MR. FREIMAN: And while they tell 17

us the date the amendment took place, they don't 18

tell us what the nature of that amendment is. 19

SGT SHANNON: No. That is a flaw 20

in the system, sir. 21

MR. FREIMAN: Yes. So is there 22

any way, looking at the file, that we could tell 23

the natural history of the investigation, how the 24

investigative plan evolves over time? 25


95

SGT SHANNON: Yes, sir. If you 1

were to look at the investigation plan for the 2

2009 investigation that I prepared -- I believe 3

it's on 284 of the volume for 2009 -- 4

MR. FREIMAN: Yes. 5

SGT SHANNON: So that 6

investigation plan begins with the initial 7

assessment that I did based on my understanding of 8

the allegations that I was tasked to investigate 9

and then based on my subsequent review of the 10

available information over time I determined that 11

there had to be a change in direction or a 12

refocusing of my investigative efforts and the 13

investigation plan was updated accordingly and the 14

new direction and the new substance or the new 15

tasks that I was going to be completing is clearly 16

identified in my investigation plan. 17

MR. FREIMAN: All right. I think 18

I have just lost my train of thought. I was going 19

to ask you about the investigation plan and it's 20

flown out of my mind. Perhaps it will come back. 21

There's a lot of empty space for it to go back and 22

forth. 23

Can we go, then, to the start of 24

the investigation. We know that the 25


96

investigation -- we will talk about 2009 first 1


MR. FREIMAN: We know that the 3

investigation was initiated with Master Seaman 4

McLaughlin -- 5

SGT SHANNON: And Major Dandurand. 6

MR. FREIMAN: -- and Major 7

Dandurand and that Master Seaman McLaughlin then 8

passed the baton, as it were, to Major Dandurand. 9

SGT SHANNON: I believe, sir -- 10

MR. FREIMAN: Sorry, to Sergeant 11

Mitchell. It must have been Master Corporal 12

Mitchell at the time. 13

SGT SHANNON: At the time, yes, 14

sir. 15

MR. FREIMAN: And then over the 16

summer of 2009 I think it was -- 17

SGT SHANNON: Two thousand ten, 18

sir. 19

MR. FREIMAN: Ten. You're way 20

ahead of me. 21

Over the summer of 2010 Master 22

Corporal McLaughlin -- Mitchell was assigned to 23

educational -- put on an educational assignment 24

and left the file. 25


97

SGT SHANNON: That's correct. 1

MR. FREIMAN: Can you tell me how 2

the hand-off was accomplished? The hand-off was 3

to you. 4


So due to operational realities of 6

the National Investigation Service, by the time 7

then Master Corporal Mitchell now Sergeant 8

Mitchell departed to attend his PLQ course I was 9

not available to speak to him directly because I 10

was deployed on another file. So when I arrived 11

in Edmonton after settling my affairs and moving 12

into my new home I began work in August of 2010 13

and at that time within the Western Region office 14

we had 55 ongoing files within the office and I 15

was assigned the duties of team leader and I was 16

assigned four subordinates, investigators, that 17

would comprise my team. And two of my 18

investigators were interns brand new to the 19

National Investigation Service and I had two 20

experienced investigators. So of the 55 ongoing 21

files that were on the books when I arrived in 22

August of 2010, 24 of those files were transferred 23

to my team for investigation. 24

So my initial task was to gain a 25


98

general understanding of all 24 major 1

investigations and assign the work accordingly to 2

the members of my team. And when Sergeant 3

Mitchell departed there was no time to do an 4

actual face-to-face meeting so my first steps 5

were, upon being assigned the investigation, I 6

believe which is the 7th of September, I printed 7

off the entire file as it existed in SAMPIS at 8

that time and I took it home over the weekend and 9

read every page that was currently on the file. 10

And that was the first steps that I took. 11

MR. FREIMAN: Did you have 12

occasion to sit down with Major Dandurand, who 13

was -- 14


MR. FREIMAN: You did not? 16


MR. FREIMAN: During the course of 18

the time from the time that you picked up the file 19

until you stopped your investigative activities, 20

did you have any meetings or briefings with Major 21

Dandurand? 22

SGT SHANNON: The first briefing I 23

had with Major Dandurand occurred in November of 24

2010 and it was with Major Dandurand, Warrant 25


99

Officer Bonneteau, MWO Eisenmenger and Warrant 1

Officer Hart, and that was the first occasion 2

where I presented my findings of the work that I 3

had been conducting over the previous two months. 4

At the end of that briefing I was directed to 5

conduct two follow-up interviews, which were done, 6

and then the next opportunity that I had to brief 7

Major Dandurand was in February of 2011. 8

MR. FREIMAN: Okay. So let me 9

just go back for a minute. 10

You say that the first briefing 11

you had with Major Dandurand and others was in 12

what month? 13

SGT SHANNON: November of 2010. 14

MR. FREIMAN: And as a result of 15

that meeting you conducted additional interviews? 16

SGT SHANNON: Correct, sir. 17

MR. FREIMAN: Were those the 18

interviews with Sergeant Pelletier and 19

Lieutenant-Commander -- 20

SGT SHANNON: Gendron. 21

MR. FREIMAN: Gendron? 22



Do I understand correctly, then, 25


100

that there was basically one meeting with Major 1

Dandurand while you were doing active 2

investigation and then one meeting with Major 3

Dandurand where you briefed him, in effect, on the 4

results of the investigation? 5

SGT SHANNON: The first briefing 6

that I provided to Major Dandurand in November of 7

2010 provided the conclusions that I had reached 8

regarding my investigative activities. In my 9

opinion at that time in November of 2010 I had 10

already concluded my investigative activities and 11

as far as I was concerned no further investigation 12

was required. 13

MR. FREIMAN: But you were 14

directed to conduct additional interviews? 15


MR. FREIMAN: Okay. I was going 17

to -- well, let me ask you -- and this is getting 18

to the end rather than the beginning, but every 19

investigation there's a tipping point, isn't 20

there, where the "Ah-ha" moment where you come to 21

at least a provisional conclusion either this is 22

going to lead to charges or this isn't going 23

anywhere. 24

Is that your experience? 25


101

SGT SHANNON: The decision 1

regarding charges or whether there will be 2

charges, again it's very situational. Sometimes 3

you know right away, you catch the offender in the 4

act, you know. 5

Depending on the type of 6

investigation we are dealing with, so within 7

Military Police policy we have guidelines on the 8

direction and the actions that will be taken 9

dependent on the category of offences. So if you 10

were to refer to Chapter 5 of the MPPTPs, the 11

investigation policy, there is a division of 12

offences into three separate categories and 13

dependent on the category of offences determines 14

the process that will be taken regarding the issue 15

of charge laying and officer discretion. 16

So for instance most NIS files 17

fall under the division of Category 1 offences, 18

which are your indictable offences under the 19

Criminal Code where we have very, very little 20

discretion whether we are going to be presenting a 21

charge -- 22

MR. FREIMAN: I appreciate the 23

assistance you're giving us and we may get further 24

into it, but for the moment I'm not really looking 25


102

at the actual nuts and bolts of laying a charge or 1

not a charge, I was just wondering whether in your 2

experience there is that "Ah-ha" moment, a point 3

in your investigation where I mean you can -- 4

things can always change, obviously, and there are 5

some hoops that have to be jumped through in order 6

to conclude the investigation, but you form an 7

impression that this is a file that will lead to a 8

charge or this is a file that will not lead to a 9

charge. 10

SGT SHANNON: From my experience, 11

sir, that tipping point, as you refer to it, would 12

be when the investigator conducts the element of 13

the offence analysis. 14


SGT SHANNON: So that is a formal 16

process that is detailed in the PowerPoint 17

presentation that is included in the investigation 18

file. So we take every element to the offence 19

that is identified by the statute that we are 20

investigating and we apply an examination of every 21

piece of evidence and we conclude whether we can 22

or cannot establish the elements of the offence. 23

That is the time when a decision is made whether 24

there will be a charge or there will not be a 25


103

charge. 1

MR. FREIMAN: All right. Now, you 2

told us that by the time you were briefing Major 3

Dandurand you had already in your own mind come to 4

a conclusion, first of all, that you had done 5

enough investigating and, secondly, that there was 6

no grounds to lay a charge. 7

SGT SHANNON: That's not 8

necessarily -- the issue of laying a charge was 9

not relevant. 10

MR. FREIMAN: Right. 11

SGT SHANNON: At that time my 12

decisions and my conclusions based on the 13

evaluation of evidence was that the elements of 14

the offence -- 15

MR. FREIMAN: Had not been -- 16

SGT SHANNON: -- had not been 17

established. Therefore, the allegations were 18

unfounded. 19

MR. FREIMAN: All right. And you 20

had done that prior to the two interviews that you 21

conducted. 22

So do I understand correctly that 23

you had formed that opinion based primarily on 24

your file review and, as we will see after lunch, 25


104

on a policy review that you had conducted? 1


MR. FREIMAN: Okay. Now, before 3

we look at 2009 I would like just briefly to ask 4

you some questions about 2010. 5


MR. FREIMAN: Were you the lead 7

investigator for 2010? 8


MR. FREIMAN: Did you have any 10

role with respect to -- well, who was the lead 11

investigator for 2010? 12

SGT SHANNON: The lead 13

investigator of the 2000 file was Sergeant 14

Mitchell. 15

MR. FREIMAN: That never changed, 16

did it? 17


MR. FREIMAN: So did you have any 19

responsibilities vis-à-vis the 2010 file? 20

SGT SHANNON: Yes, sir. In 21

February of 2011 I was tasked by Warrant Officer 22

Bonneteau to review the 2010 file and incorporate 23

that file into my briefing to the OC of NIS 24

(Western Region), the PowerPoint presentation that 25


105

is in the file. 1


SGT SHANNON: So upon receiving 3

that task I read the file, the limited information 4

that was available. 5

I took the letter of allegation 6

that was presented to the NIS by Mr. Fynes. I 7

conducted an independent and thorough review of 8

the allegations that he presented. 9

I conducted an evaluation of the 10

three Criminal Code sections that he identified in 11

his letter. 12

I conducted an extensive case law 13

review for the specific allegation of criminal 14

negligence causing death. 15

And I determined through my own 16

independent analysis of the Criminal Code and 17

available case law that those applicable offences 18

did not apply in this situation and, therefore, 19

the task of offence validation which is part of a 20

general investigation sequence was not successful 21

and therefore there was no need to conduct any 22

type of investigation into that matter. 23

MR. FREIMAN: And just before we 24

break for lunch let me ask you the question that 25


106

naturally occurs given our previous discussion. 1

Did you consider whether there was 2

any reason to look at the elements of the offence 3

of negligent performance of a military duty in 4

relation to the allegations that were made in the 5

2010 investigation? 6


MR. FREIMAN: And I know that it 8

doesn't appear in your PowerPoint but did you come 9

to a conclusion about that potential charge or 10

that potential offence? 11

SGT SHANNON: There is a 12

correlation, you could say, between the standard 13

of meeting the element of the offence under 14

criminal negligence of a marked departure from the 15

normal standard of action and the definitive 16

statement of the term negligent under the National 17

Defence Act. 18

And I believe if you were to 19

review the history of the precedent within the 20

court martial system where they have developed 21

their definition of the term "negligence" and the 22

term negligence under the Criminal Code 23

provisions, I would believe you would find that 24

the court martial has relied heavily on the body 25


107

of case law precedent under the Criminal Code in 1

defining their definition of the term negligence 2

under the National Defence Act. 3

So when I was considering the 4

offence and the case law applicable to criminal 5

negligence causing death, I was not able to find 6

one reference in the entire body of case law 7

precedent in any jurisdiction in Canada where that 8

particular offence or that particular idea of 9

negligence had been applied by the courts to be an 10

issue of suicide. 11

So when I was conducting my 12

evaluation and I made those determinations and I 13

was unsuccessful in finding any precedent in the 14

Canadian legal system linking negligence to 15

suicide, I was able to at the same time rule out 16

the need to investigate negligent performance in a 17

military duty. 18

MR. FREIMAN: And just so that I 19

understand, are you saying that your research and 20

your understanding was that the definition of 21

negligence for purposes of negligent performance 22

of military duty was the same as the definition of 23

negligence for purposes of criminal negligence, 24

namely the mental element was a reckless or wanton 25


108

disregard? 1

SGT SHANNON: Yes, in the two 2

bodies of law. So the body of law under the 3

Criminal Code and the various jurisdictions across 4

Canada and the body of law that's available in the 5

court martial system, they rely heavily on drawing 6

from decisions made by courts, the Supreme Court 7

and the other courts across Canada so they can 8

incorporate the Canadian body of law into the 9

military law system. 10

So that the same standard is 11

applied when making judgments and rulings against 12

suspects in the military justice system, so that 13

members of the Canadian Forces have to face the 14

same standard and the same required code of 15

conduct as any other citizen in our nation. 16

When you look at the two 17

definitive terms they are almost identical. 18

MR. FREIMAN: Okay. I think this 19

is probably an opportune time for us to take our 20

lunch break. 21

THE CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you. 22

We will break until 1:30. 23




109

MR. FREIMAN: Good afternoon, 1

Sergeant. 2

THE CHAIRPERSON: Just before we 3

start I thought I would just talk about how long 4

we might go. We have the sergeant here tomorrow 5

as well? 6

MR. FREIMAN: Yes. 7

THE CHAIRPERSON: If we don't 8

finish today and he is the only witness tomorrow. 9

So depending on timing and 10

depending where everybody is, we'll probably do a 11

normal day of four o'clock-ish unless there is 12

some reason to go earlier or later. 13

MS RICHARDS: I just know that 14

counsel has an issue tomorrow and can't go late 15

tomorrow. 16

THE CHAIRPERSON: Oh, okay. 17

COL (RET'D) DRAPEAU: Today, I'm 18

fine or earlier. That's okay. 19

THE CHAIRPERSON: Well, you have 20

an issue tomorrow just in case, is that it? 21

Okay. So we'll go as far as we 22

can today and then we'll play it by ear. 23

MS RICHARDS: You know, I leave it 24

and Commission counsel -- 25


110

THE CHAIRPERSON: Yeah. 1

MS RICHARDS: -- I will make no 2

joke about estimating time but I'll leave it to 3

Commission counsel if he can give us an indication 4

maybe in the afternoon where he -- 5

MR. FREIMAN: So let me tell the 6

joke. 7

--- Laughter / Rires 8

MR. FREIMAN: I think that we're 9

probably going to be finished easily within the 10

two days that we have set aside. But as I have 11

said many times before, I'm not your best witness 12

on that, Mr. Chairman. 13

THE CHAIRPERSON: I just wanted to 14

kind of get a feeling so that we had a plan for 15

tomorrow. 16

MR. FREIMAN: I think by the time 17

we come to the afternoon break it should be a 18

little more clear as to whether -- 19

THE CHAIRPERSON: Where we're at? 20

MR. FREIMAN: -- whether we are 21

moving quickly or not so quickly. 22

THE CHAIRPERSON: Okay, thank you. 23

MR. FREIMAN: And just to reassure 24

everyone it's still coffee, just the container has 25


111

changed. 1

THE CHAIRPERSON: Sorry for the 2

interruption. Go ahead. 3

EXAMINATION (cont'd) BY 4

MR. FREIMAN: Sergeant Shannon, I 5

just thought I'd close off one issue. We're going 6

to come back to it when we talk about the 7

PowerPoint and other matters related to it. But 8

you've told us a little bit about your views as to 9

the mental element that is important by the 10

concept of either criminal negligence or negligent 11

performance of a military duty. 12

Can you tell us whether you also 13

have a view as to the mental element that's 14

important by conduct to the prejudice of good 15

order and discipline? 16

SGT SHANNON: Yes, sir. The issue 17

of mens rea or guilt, a guilty mind, on the part 18

of an alleged offender is critical to many 19

offences that exist within our various justice 20

systems. 21

MR. FREIMAN: Isn't it critical to 22

every offence? 23

SGT SHANNON: There are some 24

offences that the issue of mens rea is not a 25


112

component of. Most likely in provincial 1

legislation such as speeding tickets those types 2

of offences where mens rea is not an element of 3

those offences. Once it's been established that 4

you have violated the statute it's deemed that 5

there is no defence. 6

MR. FREIMAN: I take issue with 7

that, but it's not relevant for today's 8

proceedings. 9

SGT SHANNON: In most federal 10

statutes the Criminal Code and the various 11

offences under the National Offence Act, the issue 12

of mens rea is it has to be specified in the 13

wording of the statute. 14

So for these two investigations 15

that element is clearly identified in the written 16

statute for both 124: 17

"Negligent performance of a 18

military duty." 19

And section 129: 20

"Conduct or neglect to the 21

prejudice of good order and 22

discipline." 23

So because it becomes an element 24

of the offence it must be examined and evidence 25


113

must be obtained to establish the frame of mind of 1

the alleged offender. 2

MR. FREIMAN: But what is that 3

frame of mind? 4

SGT SHANNON: It is the requisite 5

guilty intent or the deliberate conduct of an 6

individual that's alleged to have committed either 7

one of those offences. 8

MR. FREIMAN: Let's get to it when 9

we talk about the PowerPoint. It probably makes 10

more sense at that point. 11

I noticed though, sir, that you 12

have considerable facility in terms of discussing 13

things of a legal nature. Do you have any legal 14

training? 15

SGT SHANNON: My training comes 16

from a combination of my formal education at the 17

college level, at the bachelor degree level, and 18

at the master degree level. And I also have 19

substantive training that's available to all 20

police officers in the examination and the 21

understanding of the law. 22

MR. FREIMAN: And setting aside 23

for a moment the 2010 investigation, am I to 24

conclude that your legal training both practical 25


114

and formal, you consider that to be sufficient for 1

you to be able to draw conclusions with respect to 2

the 2009 investigation without needing outside 3

assistance? 4



I'd like to talk a little bit 7

about your thought process with respect to the 8

investigation of the 2009 offence. 9

Can you tell me in layman's terms 10

what you understood the complaint to be that was 11

being lodged by Mr. and Mrs. Fynes in the 2009 12

investigation? 13

SGT SHANNON: So for the 2009 14

investigation there were two critical allegations 15

that were made; first, by the DND Ombudsman 16

investigator, Mr. Martel, as the third party 17

complainant who was forwarding the information 18

that he had received from Mr. and Mrs. Fynes. 19


SGT SHANNON: The second 21

complainant of that investigation was in fact Mr. 22

and Mrs. Fynes. 23

The two allegations that were of 24

substance and that were tasked to me to 25


115

investigate was the issue that the chain of 1

command of the Lord Strathcona's Horse were 2

negligent when they appointed Ms Hamilton-Tree, 3

now Mrs. Starr, as the next of kin to Corporal 4

Langridge without substantive documentation 5

supporting their decision. That was Allegation 6

No. 1. 7

Allegation No. 2 was that a member 8

of the Canadian Forces legal branch, specifically 9

Lieutenant-Colonel King, was negligent because he 10

used a repealed policy in publishing a legal 11

opinion that Corporal Langridge was in a 12

common-law relationship at the time of his death. 13

MR. FREIMAN: You were able, as I 14

understand it, to dismiss the relevance of the 15

second complaint relatively quickly, is that 16

correct? 17


MR. FREIMAN: Tell me how and why. 19

SGT SHANNON: Upon being assigned 20

the investigation I did my initial assessment and 21

I determined that I would focus on the allegation 22

against Lieutenant-Colonel King because it was 23

much smaller and easier to focus on at the 24

beginning. 25


116

So I was able to rapidly determine 1

that the allegation was unfounded because the 2

Canadian Forces Administrative Order referred to 3

by Lieutenant-Colonel King was indeed still in 4

force and effect when Lieutenant-Colonel King 5

wrote his decision. 6

Therefore, the allegation made 7

against him by both the third party complainant 8

and by Mr. and Mrs. Fynes was unfounded. 9

MR. FREIMAN: In fact, help me 10

because I'm not sure that I have ever understood 11

it. What did you understand the nature of the 12

complaint to be with respect to a letter that was 13

issued sometime in 2009? 14

SGT SHANNON: The allegation that 15

was made by Mr. Martel and by Mr. and Mrs. Fynes 16

was that in a specific legal opinion produced and 17

generated by Lieutenant-Colonel King regarding the 18

marital status of Corporal Langridge at the time 19

of his death, that Lieutenant-Colonel King 20

referred to the CFAO related to common-law 21

relationships in his opinion and he used that 22

administrative order to substantiate his legal 23

opinion. 24

So their argument was that because 25


117

the Lieutenant-Colonel used a policy that was no 1

longer in force and effect that he was negligent 2

because he was not performing his duties in an 3

appropriate manner. 4

MR. FREIMAN: Okay. I'd like to 5

turn to some reports of administrative activity 6

that you performed. It'll be in the 2009 GO file 7

starting at page 1,038. 8

THE CHAIRPERSON: What year? 9

MR. FREIMAN: 2009. 2010 doesn't 10

go anywhere near as high in pages. 11

--- Pause 12

MR. FREIMAN: The next couple of 13

entries starting at 1,038 record what you did upon 14

acceptance of a file. 15


MR. FREIMAN: So the first one 17

which is dated Friday, 24 September it states -- 18

oh, I'm sorry, it's a related date. 19

I'm not sure. What does a related 20

date mean? 21

SGT SHANNON: In normal 22

circumstances the date that says related is the 23

time that the activity in question that is the 24

subject of the text box has occurred. 25


118

MR. FREIMAN: Okay. It's not the 1

time that the text box is composed, is it? 2

SGT SHANNON: It is the time. 3

MR. FREIMAN: It is the time? 4

SGT SHANNON: Yes. 5

MR. FREIMAN: Well, because in it 6

you say: 7

"Between 1400 hours 07 8

September and 1500 hours 27 9

September '10, Sergeant 10

Shannon completed a 11

comprehensive review of all 12

material contained in his 13

file to date and accepted 14

investigative responsibility 15

for this file." 16


That would be a typo in that. So it should read 18

1500 hours on the 24th of September. 19

MR. FREIMAN: Right. Well, it 20

could also mean that it was altered afterwards, 21

modified to correspond to further activity that 22

you did. 23

SGT SHANNON: There would be a 24

reference in the software that if this text box 25


119

was changed after the fact. 1

MR. FREIMAN: We have had occasion 2

to try to understand that. 3

SGT SHANNON: And I would -- just 4

to clarify that? 5

MR. FREIMAN: Yes. 6

SGT SHANNON: So if you were to go 7

by -- the 24th is a Friday so the 27th would be a 8

Sunday which I would not be working. So that 9

should be -- 10

MR. FREIMAN: Well, if the 24th is 11

a Friday the 27th is a Monday. 12

SGT SHANNON: But when I wrote 13

this that should have read I finished that work on 14

the 24th. 15

MR. FREIMAN: All right, that's 16

fine. I don't think anything at all turns on the 17

date. 18

At the next page, 1,039, you 19

record on the 4th of October: 20

"0800 hours, October 4th, 21

Sergeant Shannon completed a 22

full review of the 23

information contained in the 24

unit summary investigation 25


120

report." 1


MR. FREIMAN: Now, was that in 3

addition to all the material contained in the 4

file? 5

SGT SHANNON: Yes, so this was a 6

two-stage activity. So based on former 7

recommendations of this Commission there is 8

existing standards for doing a file handover. 9


SGT SHANNON: So I'm required when 11

I take over a file, I have to review everything 12

that currently exists in that file. 13

So I have to review all material, 14

every text box, every attached item that's been 15

scanned and attached to the file, all available 16

interviews, audio-recordings, videotapes, all 17

material, every text box, every attached item 18

that's been scanned and attached to the file, all 19

available interviews, audio recordings, 20

videotapes. 21

So I'm required to review 22

everything. So due to the volume of the 23

information that was already on this file when I 24

took over in September of 2010. 25


121

So I would guess there was 1

approximately 1,000 pages of documentation already 2

on file, plus the audiotapes. So it took me that 3

much time to review everything that was already on 4

the file. 5

When I took over the file there 6

were components of the summary investigation 7

already attached as images that had been obtained 8

from an unknown source by Sergeant Mitchell and it 9

was already a component of the file. 10

The entire summary investigation 11

was not there. 12

So because a portion of the 13

summary investigation was already part of the 14

investigation file I took steps to obtain the 15

original version of the summary investigation from 16

Land Forces (Western Area) Headquarters. And upon 17

receipt of those four binders and hundreds of more 18

pages of documentation, so then it's in here, the 19

exact date that I received the Summary 20

Investigation Report. 21

And so it took me from the date of 22

receipt until the 4th of October to review that 23

material. 24



122

Just on the issue to date, you 1

said you reviewed -- in fact you were required to 2

review everything that was in the file -- 3


MR. FREIMAN: -- when you accepted 5

the file. 6

Now, with respect to the 7

interviews conducted with Mr. and Mrs. Fynes, did 8

you read the summary, the written summary of those 9

interviews, the interview report, or did you watch 10

the tapes or both? 11

SGT SHANNON: I read the summary 12

of the report and I read the officer notes of 13

Sergeant Mitchell. I did not review the 14

audio-recording of the tape. 15


So just before we look at some of 17

these materials there is a couple of other reports 18

of administrative activity that I'd like to 19

discuss with you. The first one is at page 1040 20

just over the page. It records on the 15th of 21

October, a Friday: 22

"At 0900 hours, 15 October 23

'10, Sergeant Shannon 24

completed a review of all 25


123

material obtained in the Unit 1

Summary Investigation Report 2

regarding actions of the LdSH 3

following the death of 4

Corporal Langridge." 5

From this review you identified a 6

number of relevant documents. 7

We may come back to that report in 8

due course, but I just want to understand the 9

difference between what you're recording here and 10

what you recorded about the full review of the 11

information contained in the Unit Summary 12

Investigation Report when, 10 days later or 11 13

days later, you're reporting that you completed a 14

review of all material contained in the Unit 15

Summary Investigation Report. 16

SGT SHANNON: So on the 4th of 17

October I completed reading everything as a 18

general overview of the content of the Summary 19

Investigation Report. And that review process was 20

academic-related reading, comprehending and 21

understanding. 22

So from the 4th until the 15th I 23

then began identifying and determining what 24

policies and what procedures defined the military 25


124

regulations, the orders and the customs of the 1

Canadian Forces that related to this subject 2

matter allegation so that I could begin the 3

process of determining if the element of the 4

offence of negligent performance of a military 5

duty was present. 6

MR. FREIMAN: All right. So I'm 7

probably going to take you through a similar 8

exercise and get a similar answer with respect to 9

a document about an investigative activity that 10

you'll find at page 224. 11

--- Pause 12

SGT SHANNON: So the document at 13

page 224 that is the investigation assessment that 14

I completed. 15

MR. FREIMAN: Yes. And for 16

present purposes I just want to look with you at 17

paragraphs 4 and 5 in order to understand what is 18

contained or what is meant in both instances. 19

Paragraph 4 you say: 20

"Between 17 September '10 and 21

15 October '10 Sergeant 22

Shannon conducted a formal 23

review of all relevant 24

Canadian Forces' policies, 25


125

regulations, documents that 1

pertain to the subject matter 2

of this investigation." 3

And you identify up to the 4

letter T -- 5


MR. FREIMAN: -- worth of forms 7

and documents. 8


MR. FREIMAN: Then at 5 you say: 10

"On 1 November '10 Sergeant 11

Shannon completed a review of 12

the CF orders and regulations 13

noted in paragraph 5 above. 14

Based on his review Sergeant 15

Shannon identified the 16

following pertinent 17

information that is relevant 18

to this investigation..." 19

Can you tell me the connection 20

between 4 and 5? 21

SGT SHANNON: So paragraph 4 22

outlines all the relevant information that I 23

identify as I reviewed the existing information in 24

the occurrence file for 2009 and the summary 25


126

investigation that was commenced by the unit and 1

my own personal research and examination of 2

existing Canadian Forces regulations and orders. 3

MR. FREIMAN: Yes. 4

SGT SHANNON: So this paragraph 4 5

condenses the thousands of pages of information 6

that's available for this topic and I condensed 7

what I determined to be the relevant material that 8

existed in the record at that time. 9

Then, in paragraph 5, I identified 10

which one of the issues or which of those 11

documents related to the second element of the 12

offence for negligent performance of a military 13

duty, which is that: 14

"An individual must have a 15

duty imposed by regulation, 16

order or custom of the 17

Canadian Forces." 18

So here in paragraph 5 I have 19

identified the regulations, orders and customs of 20

the Canadian Forces that impose a duty on a member 21

of the Canadian Forces as it relates to the 22

allegation of negligent performance of a military 23

duty. 24



127

Now, we'll come back to this 1

document and to the investigation plan in just a 2

minute. But if I understood your testimony this 3

morning correctly, you told us that on your review 4

of the investigation plan -- well, having first 5

read the file -- 6

SGT SHANNON: Yes. 7

MR. FREIMAN: -- you then reviewed 8

the investigation plan and came to a conclusion 9

that a different direction should be taken -- 10


MR. FREIMAN: -- from the one. 12

Now, if I understood Sergeant 13

Mitchell's investigation plan -- and we can look 14

at it at page 284, if you like -- it comes down to 15

identifying who may have committed the act 16

complained of, whether it involved any duty and 17

then whether the act complained of was a breach of 18

that duty. 19

SGT SHANNON: Correct. 20

MR. FREIMAN: What's wrong with 21

that as an investigation plan? 22

SGT SHANNON: That's his 23

investigation plan. 24

MR. FREIMAN: What's wrong with 25


128

that in terms of investigating the complaint 1

before us? 2

SGT SHANNON: There is nothing 3

wrong with the approach that was taken by Sergeant 4

Mitchell. 5


So what was it that you decided to 7

change? 8

SGT SHANNON: If you look at my 9

investigation plan, sir -- 10


SGT SHANNON: -- which is, I 12

believe, page 286. 13


SGT SHANNON: So you'll notice 15

there are many similarities between the 16

investigative plan prepared by Sergeant Mitchell 17

and the initial investigation plan prepared by 18

myself. 19

So the first phase of the -- the 20

first stage of the investigation plan is based on 21

my initial review of the investigation complaint 22

which is on the file and I created my initial 23

investigation plan at that time. 24

Following the creation of the 25


129

initial investigation plan, I proceeded to review 1

all the information that was on the file, all the 2

information that was contained in the unit summary 3

investigation and I conducted my own additional 4

research of existing military policies and 5

regulations. Then, at that time, I prepared the 6

investigation assessment which we just reviewed. 7

So the investigation assessment is 8

a tool that I have learned how to use over time 9

during my experience. It's not defined by policy 10

and it takes very complex matters and it condenses 11

and collates all the relevant information that I 12

deem is going to be important to move my 13

investigation forward. 14

That is the sole purpose of the 15

investigation assessment. It brings all the key 16

facts together into one key document and all the 17

peripheral information that I determined was not 18

relevant to my investigation moving forward is put 19

aside and I'm allowed to focus my work based on 20

the determination of the facts that I believe are 21

important and then I move forward. 22

So then when you look at the 23

second phase of my invest plan -- so at the very 24

top of page 288 there is a Revised Investigation 25


130

Plan. 1

MR. FREIMAN: Yes. 2

SGT SHANNON: And if you look at 3

the Revised Investigation Plan it is a correlation 4

to the Investigation Assessment, Final Stage, 5

where I have identified the issues that require 6

further investigation by the NIS. 7

So there is a causal link between 8

the investigation assessment and the investigation 9

plan. 10

MR. FREIMAN: Now, if I understand 11

correctly, though, where Sergeant Mitchell had 12

formed the conclusion that it was important to 13

interview a number of witnesses, people who had 14

taken part in the events that formed the backdrop 15

of the complaint, you decided you didn't need any 16

additional facts other than the ones that you 17

already were in possession of. 18


MR. FREIMAN: And do I understand 20

that those facts came from the SI? 21


MR. FREIMAN: Where do they come 23

from? 24

SGT SHANNON: They came from 25


131

Orders, Regulations and customs of the Canadian 1

Forces which play a key role in the determination 2

of this issue. 3

MR. FREIMAN: But the question 4

that I have is where did you get your information 5

about who did what and why? 6

SGT SHANNON: The information that 7

I used is a matter of public record because the 8

key factors that determine the outcome of this 9

investigation are based on documents and not what 10

people did. 11


There's a document, and you 13

identify it in your investigation plan, authored 14

by the Commanding Officer, Lieutenant -- or now 15

Colonel Demers -- 16


MR. FREIMAN: -- where he says, 18

based on the documentation it appears that Rebecca 19

is the next of kin and we have to do what she 20

tells us, something close to that or we have to 21

obey her wishes. Are you familiar with that 22

document? 23

SGT SHANNON: Yes, sir. That's an 24

email. 25


132

MR. FREIMAN: It's an email? 1


MR. FREIMAN: In your view, it 3

wasn't important to discover what led Colonel 4

Demers to that conclusion? 5

SGT SHANNON: His email was very 6

clear on how he reached that conclusion. His 7

email stated that a review of the applicable 8

documents on the personal file of Corporal 9

Langridge led him to the understanding that 10

Corporal Langridge was in a valid common-law 11

relationship with Miss Hamilton-Tree on the 15th 12

of March 2008. 13

MR. FREIMAN: What does that have 14

to do with whether she was next of kin? 15

SGT SHANNON: Based on the customs 16

of our society the spouse is the next of kin to 17

any individual who has passed away. 18

MR. FREIMAN: Can you show me 19

where I can find that reference? 20

SGT SHANNON: Based on my research 21

of all available bodies of law there is no 22

conclusive one-page document that the Government 23

of Canada or any province has come up with a bona 24

fide list or set of rules that defines next of 25


133

kin. 1

So the determination of next of 2

kin falls within the body of civil law and also 3

has some relation to the common law, but in the 4

majority of all situations -- 5

MR. FREIMAN: Wait a minute. 6

You're talking about civil law and common law. 7

When you talk about civil law, are you talking 8

about the law of Quebec? 9

SGT SHANNON: No, sir. The law 10

of -- the civil law -- 11

MR. FREIMAN: All right. Civilian 12

law as opposed to military law? 13

SGT SHANNON: No, no. Civil law 14

as in the civilian -- civil like small claims 15

court, the law of torts. 16

So civil law and there is some 17

references in common law, but in almost all 18

circumstances from the most of my research that I 19

was able to determine there is no definitive rule 20

or process in defining next of kin. 21

It relies heavily on the customs 22

of our society and our customs of our society is 23

that the spouse of an individual is the person 24

that should make any decisions or take 25


134

responsibility for people. 1

MR. FREIMAN: Okay. I'm going to 2

ask you a minor question and a major question. 3

The minor question is you 4

differentiated between civil law and common law; 5

can you explain what you mean by the difference of 6

those two? 7

SGT SHANNON: Common law is the -- 8

was the original form of law that existed in the 9

United Kingdom and became the foundation for most 10

bodies of law in Canada. 11

MR. FREIMAN: And civil law? 12

SGT SHANNON: Common law has a 13

relationship to both the civil law and the 14

criminal law. So the common law is basically the 15

law of precedent. It does have some interaction 16

in both bodies of law. 17

MR. FREIMAN: I was always under 18

the impression that the Criminal Code displaced 19

the common law of crimes. 20

SGT SHANNON: It did but it is the 21

foundation of our system. 22

MR. FREIMAN: All right. So let 23

me ask you the major premise. 24

You've given us a conclusory 25


135

statement about the custom of our society and the 1

role of the spouse in that custom of our society. 2

I've asked you and I'm going to 3

ask you again: Other than your own subjective 4

view on this, what's the basis for that statement? 5

SGT SHANNON: As I already stated, 6

I conducted a review and an analysis of the 7

available legal issues related to the 8

determination of next of kin and I was not able to 9

find any conclusive statement of law that says 10

this is how you will determine who next of kin is. 11

It relies heavily on the customs of our society. 12

MR. FREIMAN: Yeah, but where do 13

you find the customs of our society? What is the 14

source that you relied on for your understanding 15

of the custom of our society? 16

SGT SHANNON: I believe if I was 17

to speculate that is the reason why there is no 18

conclusive body of law that says this is how you 19

will determine who next of kin is, because the 20

customs of my society can vary from the customs of 21

a city in a different province. 22

So for the legislatures or the 23

Parliament of a nation to come out and say this is 24

how things will happen, it's not practical or 25


136

reasonable. So the Parliament and the 1

legislatures of provinces have not come up with a 2

conclusive manner for defining that. They rely on 3

the customs of society. 4

MR. FREIMAN: And where do I 5

find -- if I wanted to do my own research and to 6

know what is the custom of our society with 7

respect to who is next of kin, where would I look 8

other than asking myself, well, what do I think? 9

SGT SHANNON: I just stated that 10

based on my research, so my primary point -- 11

MR. FREIMAN: Just a second. The 12

research that you told us about, I think, was that 13

you were unable to find -- 14

SGT SHANNON: Yes. 15

MR. FREIMAN: -- a statement? 16


MR. FREIMAN: Okay. Well, that 18

tells us that there is no external source -- 19


MR. FREIMAN: -- that you were 21

able to find. 22


MR. FREIMAN: So what non-external 24

source did you rely on -- 25


137

SGT SHANNON: My own -- 1

MR. FREIMAN: -- to draw your 2

conclusions? 3

SGT SHANNON: My own understanding 4

of the customs of our society. The spouse is the 5

person that is the person that you would turn to 6

in situations where a member of somebody's family 7

is in difficulty or requires assistance. That is 8

just the way -- how our society works. 9

MR. FREIMAN: Okay. In your view, 10

is that an adequate basis upon which to found a 11

legal assessment? 12

SGT SHANNON: I believe so, yes, 13

sir. 14

MR. FREIMAN: Okay. So let's have 15

a look at just some nuts and bolts about the 16

complaint itself. 17

You're familiar with the fact -- 18

and I think you've referred to it -- that there 19

were a number of interviews that were conducted 20

between Major Dandurand and one interview Master 21

Seaman McLaughlin and two subsequent interviews 22

Sergeant, or Master Corporal as he then was, 23

Mitchell? 24



138

MR. FREIMAN: And you've told me 1

that you reviewed those documents? 2


MR. FREIMAN: Okay. Let me just 4

establish then a baseline. 5

In your view, what was the status 6

of statements made by Major Dandurand to the 7

complainants during the course of these 8

interviews? 9

SGT SHANNON: I don't understand 10

your question. 11

MR. FREIMAN: If Major Dandurand 12

made a statement about the intentions of the NIS 13

with respect to either the 2009 or the 2010 14

investigation, did you consider those statements 15

to be binding on you or was your investigation 16

independent of any assurances or representations? 17

SGT SHANNON: My investigation was 18

independent, sir. 19

MR. FREIMAN: All right. So it 20

isn't necessarily the case that if Major Dandurand 21

says something will happen that it was incumbent 22

upon you to see that it happened? 23

SGT SHANNON: I received no direct 24

instructions from Major Dandurand. 25


139

MR. FREIMAN: But you did read the 1

notes and I think you told me you didn't listen to 2

the tapes, right, you just read the notes? 3

SGT SHANNON: That's correct, sir, 4

and the summary of the interviews. 5


I would like to start with Tab 13. 7

And just give me one second. 8

--- Pause 9

SGT SHANNON: In Volume 2, sir? 10

MR. FREIMAN: I believe it is in 11

Volume 2. 12

First I have to do some 13

archaeology here. 14

--- Pause 15

MR. FREIMAN: Tab 13, if we can 16

turn up page 17. 17

--- Pause 18

MR. FREIMAN: And I have to 19

confess I'm not sure whether this part of the 20

interview made it into anyone's notes or wasn't 21

recorded in the notes. 22

But here's an interchange -- we'll 23

start at the bottom of page 16. Mrs. Fynes it 24

talking to Major Dandurand. 25


140

Mrs. Fynes says: 1

"Please understand I don't 2

understand the summary 3

investigation. I guess I'd 4

like to know what your 5

parameters of this, what are 6

you investigating. 7

MAJ DANDURAND: With the 8

primary next of kin? 9

MRS. FYNES: What's your 10

investigation? 11

MCPL MITCHELL: The specific 12

part? 13

MR. FYNES: The scope of it. 14

MAJ DANDURAND: The specific 15

scope is the primary next of 16

kin decision when -- okay, 17

but that's done, right? 18

MCPL MITCHELL: Hang on a 19

sec. Let me explain. What 20

I'm looking at right now is 21

when that decision was made, 22

who made that decision, who 23

was involved in that decision 24

and what was --" 25


141

Mrs. Fynes says: 1

"The ramifications of it 2

being --" 3

"No, no," Master Corporal 4

Mitchell says, "not the 5

ramifications because we 6

don't know what the 7

ramifications are. I already 8

know that, yeah. What 9

information was that decision 10

based on, okay?" 11

So here's a statement that was 12

made in May of 2010 about the scope of the 13

investigation. Does it correspond to your 14

understanding of the scope of the investigation 15

you were conducting? 16


MR. FREIMAN: All right. And so 18

when Master Corporal Mitchell says that "What I'm 19

looking at right now is when that decision was 20

made, who made that decision, who was involved in 21

that decision and what was --," what information 22

was that decision based on -- 23


MR. FREIMAN: -- you didn't 25


142

investigate any of those things? 1

SGT SHANNON: Yes, I did, sir. 2

MR. FREIMAN: You did. All right. 3

So who made the decision? 4

SGT SHANNON: Who made which 5

decision? 6

MR. FREIMAN: It says: "What I'm 7

looking at right now is when that decision was 8

made" -- and this is the next of kin decision. 9


MR. FREIMAN: We've established 11

that Major Dandurand is talking about the specific 12

scope of the primary next of kin decision. 13

In the first -- Master Corporal 14

Mitchell says: "What I'm looking at right now is 15

when that decision was made..." 16


MR. FREIMAN: Did you draw a 18

conclusion as to when the decision was made? 19


MR. FREIMAN: When was it made? 21

SGT SHANNON: The decision was 22

made the day Corporal Langridge entered into a 23

common-law relationship with Miss Hamilton-Tree. 24

MR. FREIMAN: Okay. I want to 25


143

understand that. I've seen that in a number of 1

other documents. 2

Are you saying that the military 3

had no role in putting Miss Hamilton-Tree into a 4

position where she could exercise the duties, the 5

privileges, the responsibilities associated with 6

next of kin? 7

SGT SHANNON: Corporal Langridge 8

did, sir, when he entered into a common-law 9

relationship with her. 10

MR. FREIMAN: That's not what -- 11

SGT SHANNON: So on the 17th of 12

March 2008 at the casualty coordination meeting 13

the people that attended that meeting conducted a 14

thorough review of the personal administration 15

file of Corporal Langridge, identified the 16

relevant documents, identified the fact that he 17

was indeed in a valid common-law relationship with 18

Miss Hamilton-Tree. 19

As I've already stated, based on 20

the customs of our society, that makes Miss 21

Hamilton-Tree the spouse of Corporal Langridge. 22

As the spouse she then becomes the person that any 23

individual would turn to for those types of 24

matters. 25


144

MR. FREIMAN: All right. I want 1

to repeat my question, and let me give you a 2

hypothetical which I know you don't accept, but 3

let us assume that the Fynes are right and 4

somewhere along the line a mistake was made and 5

Miss Hamilton-Tree was for some legal reason -- we 6

don't have to talk about it yet -- but for some 7

legal reason she was not the person who was 8

entitled to exercise the functions associated with 9

making decisions about the funeral and about the 10

disposition of the body and about burial. 11

Okay that far? 12


MR. FREIMAN: Okay. So in those 14

circumstances, would it not be appropriate to say 15

that at some point in time the military made a 16

decision that she was appropriate, that she was 17

the person to make these decisions? 18

SGT SHANNON: Again, based on my 19

understanding of our society, the customs of our 20

society, the relationships that people enter into 21

given how our society is structured, if I was to 22

be put into the same place I would turn to 23

someone's spouse for all of these issues. 24

MR. FREIMAN: I understand that 25


145

but I'm asking you to suspend your disbelief for a 1

minute and agree to a hypothetical in which that's 2

wrong. 3

For a reason that we don't need to 4

talk about now, just assume that it's wrong that 5

Miss Hamilton-Tree ought to have been making the 6

decisions that she was making. Wouldn't the 7

question be who put her into that position? 8

SGT SHANNON: Our society did, 9

sir. Who else would anybody have turned to in 10

this case -- 11

MR. FREIMAN: Well -- 12

SGT SHANNON: -- other than 13

someone's spouse? That's who -- that's who I 14

would naturally turn to. I'm sure if it was your 15

situation and you had, say, a family friend and 16

something happened to your friend the first person 17

you would turn to is his spouse. 18

MR. FREIMAN: I understand that 19

that's your conclusion and we will look at some of 20

the statutory and other material that has a 21

bearing on that conclusion. All I'm asking is for 22

you to suspend that belief. 23

SGT SHANNON: I just don't think 24

that's an appropriate thing to suspend given the 25


146

realities of our society. 1

MR. FREIMAN: All right. So from 2

your point of view it's meaningless to talk about 3

any given time or place where the military may 4

have made a decision -- 5

SGT SHANNON: The military didn't 6

make a decision, sir. The military supported the 7

wishes of Corporal Langridge and that his last 8

wishes were that he was in a common-law 9

relationship with Miss Hamilton-Tree. 10


SGT SHANNON: Those are his 12

publicly stated wishes that is on the 13

administrative file with the Canadian Forces. 14

There is no other formal written document to 15

contest his wishes. 16

MR. FREIMAN: Again, I understand 17

that you have come to those conclusions and you 18

hold them very strongly and cannot imagine a 19

circumstance under which that would not be an 20

appropriate decision. 21

What I'm suggesting to you though, 22

sir, is that there are certain actions that the 23

Canadian Forces engaged in. 24

First of all, is it not the case 25


147

that there was some question within the chain of 1

command as to who should be given the right to 2

make decisions as between the parents listed on 3

the PEN form -- and I know you're going to tell me 4

that the PEN form has no legal bearing but people 5

had -- 6

SGT SHANNON: Yes. 7

MR. FREIMAN: -- had this idea 8

that -- 9

SGT SHANNON: And that is a major 10

unfortunate portion of this case because there 11

were certain individuals within the chain of 12

command of the Canadian Forces and including 13

within my own chain of command within the National 14

Investigation Service, specifically Sergeant 15

Mitchell and Major Dandurand and Warrant Officer 16

Bonneteau, they also had the same misperception of 17

the purpose of the PEN form. 18

So people did not have a clear 19

understanding of the purpose of the PEN form and 20

they based their decisions and their actions based 21

on that misunderstanding. 22

MR. FREIMAN: Okay. So let's just 23

look at what's happening in light of that 24

misunderstanding. 25


148

It is the case that at some point 1

somebody had to make a decision. Whether it was 2

the right decision or the wrong decision or it was 3

the only logical decision or it was not a logical 4

decision, they had to make decision in the contest 5

between the parents and Miss Hamilton-Tree as to 6

who should be given the authority to take the 7

decisions about the funeral and the disposition of 8

the body? 9

SGT SHANNON: Yes. So there's two 10

people involved. There's only two people 11

involved. Between 15 March 2008 and the date of 12

his funeral -- 13


SGT SHANNON: -- there's only two 15

people involved that have any legal ramifications 16

or legal say in the matter of the steps that were 17

taken between those two dates. 18

MR. FREIMAN: And who are they? 19

SGT SHANNON: So the first person 20

is the spouse, Miss Hamilton-Tree. The second 21

person is Mr. Wight, the executor of the estate. 22

MR. FREIMAN: All right. So let's 23

assume that there was a decision to be made about 24

Mr. Wight, although his name didn't appear at any 25


149

point, isn't it accurate to say -- 1

SGT SHANNON: His name does appear 2

as the executor of the estate on the valid will on 3

the file of Corporal Langridge. 4

MR. FREIMAN: Okay. But just bear 5

with me in my non-comprehension for a moment. 6

Isn't it a decision point when 7

someone tells Captain Lubiniecki, as he then was, 8

to contact Major Parkinson and to tell Major 9

Parkinson the parents are not going to have the 10

right to direct the funeral? 11

SGT SHANNON: I don't believe the 12

document states that that's what was the message 13

that was passed here. The document says: Please 14

inform Mr. and Mrs. Fynes that Miss Hamilton-Tree 15

is the next of kin. It doesn't say anything about 16

them giving direction to Major Parkinson about 17

what Mr. and Mrs. Fynes can and cannot do. 18

MR. FREIMAN: Okay. That they're 19

the primary next of kin. 20

All right. In your review of the 21

customs of our society, did you find any 22

definition of primary next of kin that is -- 23

SGT SHANNON: There is no such 24

thing in any other body of law as primary next of 25


150

kin and secondary next of kin except in the 1

Canadian Forces Administrative Order related to 2

the PEN form. 3

Unfortunately, when that PEN form 4

was first drafted and introduced into the Orders 5

of the Canadian Forces they elected to use those 6

two terms, but as we know, the purpose of that 7

form is for notification purposes only. 8

I was not able to identify in any 9

other legal reference the term "primary next of 10

kin" and "secondary next of kin." 11

MR. FREIMAN: Okay. Well, would 12

you not agree with me that no matter how you 13

define next of kin that next of kin is more than 14

just one person, it includes an array of people? 15

SGT SHANNON: It depends on how 16

you define family. 17

So going back to my argument about 18

it's defined by the customs of our society, so if 19

your society is primarily Anglo-Saxon Catholic and 20

Christian it's very well defined. You have your 21

spouse, your parents, brothers, sisters, 22

stepsisters, stepbrothers, et cetera, et cetera. 23

In-laws extend your family. 24

In some other cultures that exist 25


151

in our nation now, they might have a different 1

relationship or a different idea of defining 2

family structure and next of kin. For instance, 3

in some societies that exist in Canada a next of 4

kin can only be a male. A female cannot be next 5

of kin. 6

So it depends on how the community 7

of a specific individual identifies the issues of 8

family and heirs. 9


Regardless of whether you are talking about a 11

white Anglo-Saxon Catholic Christian community or 12

some other community, are we agreed that next of 13

kin comprises more than one individual? 14

SGT SHANNON: It can, sir, yes. I 15

agree with that. 16

MR. FREIMAN: All right. And 17

isn't it the case that when one talks about 18

primary next of kin what one is trying to do is to 19

decide who amongst this large number -- or this 20

variety of relations and family members has 21

precedence. 22

SGT SHANNON: And my answer to 23

that, sir, in all cases in 99 percent of societies 24

within Canada the answer to that question would be 25


152

the spouse. 1

MR. FREIMAN: All right. I don't 2

think I'm going to get much further with this, but 3

I'm going to take one last shot at it. 4

At some point Ms Hamilton-Tree was 5

sent to the funeral home -- 6

SGT SHANNON: Yes. 7

MR. FREIMAN: -- to make 8

arrangements for Stuart's burial. 9


MR. FREIMAN: She went because the 11

Canadian Forces sent her. 12

SGT SHANNON: That's incorrect, 13

sir. She went because it was her responsibility 14

as the spouse. 15

MR. FREIMAN: Who informed her of 16

that responsibility if not the Canadian Forces? 17

SGT SHANNON: I couldn't answer 18

that question, sir, but there is no record that 19

she was sent there by the Canadian Forces. 20

MR. FREIMAN: Well, we have 21

heard -- 22

SGT SHANNON: But it would be a 23

natural inference on anybody dealing with that 24

type of situation that "I have to plan somebody's 25


153

funeral so the first place I'm going to go is to 1

the funeral home." 2

MR. FREIMAN: Well, we have 3

heard -- 4

SGT SHANNON: But I do not believe 5

you will ever find a conclusive record that says 6

somebody in the Canadian Forces instructed her to 7

go there. I am sure that in communications with 8

her Assisting Officer that topic did come up, 9

inquiries were made and decisions were made that 10

"I need to go there". 11

MR. FREIMAN: You're sure of this, 12

but you never verified it by actually asking the 13

people who could answer the question. 14

SGT SHANNON: It's not relevant to 15

my investigation, sir. 16

MR. FREIMAN: Okay. So I want 17

again just to be sure, in fairness, that I 18

understand what you're saying. 19

What you're saying is, in your 20

view it was not relevant whether anyone sent Ms 21

Hamilton-Tree to the funeral parlour? 22


MR. FREIMAN: And is it also not 24

relevant whether any member of the Canadian Forces 25


154

made representations about Ms Hamilton-Tree's 1

status? 2

SGT SHANNON: At the funeral home? 3

MR. FREIMAN: At the funeral home. 4


MR. FREIMAN: And why is that not 6

relevant? 7

SGT SHANNON: Regarding the issue 8

of what occurred at the funeral home I will make a 9

number of points that may be of assistance to you. 10

MR. FREIMAN: Please. 11

SGT SHANNON: So number one, I 12

have no jurisdiction to investigate Ms 13

Hamilton-Tree. She is a civilian, she is not 14

subject to the Code of Service Discipline, and I 15

also do not have territorial jurisdiction to look 16

into the matter that occurred at the funeral home 17

because it occurred in the primary policing 18

jurisdiction of the Edmonton Police Serve. 19

Number two, by the time the 20

allegation was presented to the Military Police by 21

Major Parkinson the statute of limitations of the 22

provincial law regarding that matter had already 23

expired, therefore no police investigation could 24

take place in that matter. 25


155

MR. FREIMAN: But your -- 1

SGT SHANNON: Second -- thirdly -- 2

MR. FREIMAN: Go ahead. 3

SGT SHANNON: -- the actions of 4

the two individuals of the Canadian Forces also 5

would not constitute an offence under the National 6

Defence Act because there is no direct 7

relationship between their actions there and the 8

operational effectiveness of the Canadian Forces. 9

To lay a charge under the National 10

Defence Act there has to be a direct causal 11

relationship between the actions of a member of 12

the Canadian Forces and the effective operations 13

of the Canadian Forces. 14

MR. FREIMAN: All right. You are 15

about 12 light years ahead of me. 16

What I wanted to talk about was 17

whether if it were the case that the military sent 18

Ms Hamilton-Tree to the funeral parlour, if it 19

were the case that the military made certain 20

representations about Ms Hamilton-Tree's status -- 21

and again, I know that you can't fathom this 22

idea -- and if it were for some reason to be 23

determined that those were wrong -- forget about 24

charging Ms Hamilton-Tree, which you said you 25


156

can't do, forget about charging Captain -- sorry, 1

at the time Second Lieutenant Brown or Corporal 2

Rohmer, which you have told us you can't do -- 3

wouldn't that constitute a decision on the part of 4

the Canadian Forces about Ms Hamilton-Tree's 5

status, which if that decision were wrong, would 6

locate where that decision happened? 7

SGT SHANNON: Hindsight is 8

hindsight and 20:20 all those common sayings, sir, 9

but if you assess the information that was 10

available to the chain of command of the Lord 11

Strathcona Horse at the time between 15 March and 12

the date of burial of Corporal Langridge, they did 13

not have any information that would lead any 14

rational, reasonable person to believe Corporal 15

Langridge had made the decision to enter into a 16

common-law relationship with Ms Hamilton-Tree. 17

Those are the facts. 18


SGT SHANNON: That is the 20

information they had available to them at the 21

time. That information is what was the foundation 22

of every decision they made. 23

MR. FREIMAN: How do you know 24

that? 25


157

SGT SHANNON: Because it's clear 1

in the records. 2

MR. FREIMAN: Okay. So I don't 3

think I'm going to get you to agree with me that 4

there was ever a decision made by anyone other 5

than Corporal Langridge? 6

SGT SHANNON: The members of the 7

chain of command, Captain Lubiniecki now, Major 8

Lubiniecki, the DCO of the Regiment and the CO of 9

the Regiment, convened a casualty co-ordination 10

meeting on the 17th of March 2008 -- 11


SGT SHANNON: -- and during that 13

meeting they brought in the experts within their 14

chain of command that they had available. They 15

brought in the Chief Clerk who brought in the 16

relevant documents; they had the presence of mind 17

to invite their Unit Legal Advisor to that meeting 18

and the RSM I believe was also in attendance. So 19

they had the conscious of mind to have a open, 20

frank discussion, a comprehensive review of the 21

personal file of Corporal Langridge. They did not 22

make any decisions until they were sure that the 23

relevant documents existed and were valid. There 24

was no rash decision-making, there was no 25


158

decisions made in isolation, it was an accurate 1

process and within the guidelines of the 2

regulations and rules that guide casualty 3

co-ordination within the Canadian Forces. 4

MR. FREIMAN: If I understand 5

correctly, you decided not to interview Major 6

Reichert? 7


MR. FREIMAN: In fact, you decided 9

not to interview anybody who was at the casualty 10

co-ordination meeting. 11


MR. FREIMAN: So your statements 13

about what happened there are based on...? 14

SGT SHANNON: The written record, 15

sir. 16

MR. FREIMAN: What written record 17

is that? 18

SGT SHANNON: There is the 19

e-mail -- all the e-mail communications that are 20

available between the various levels of the chain 21

of command, plus the public messages, the SIRs 22

that were drafted in Edmonton and forwarded to the 23

Command Headquarters in Ottawa. The document 24

outlining how decisions were made, what documents 25


159

were referenced is very clear. And due to the 1

passage of time the records are much more accurate 2

and telling than what someone might say four years 3

later because their memory has faded. 4

MR. FREIMAN: Okay. So I 5

understand I think why you decided not to pursue 6

any of these interviews. 7

Before I move on, though, I was 8

going to ask you what the scope of the allegations 9

was, but I think you have told me that you 10

dismissed any allegation that would have related 11

to Ms Hamilton-Tree's conduct to be -- 12

SGT SHANNON: I didn't dismiss it, 13

sir. I examined it and -- 14

MR. FREIMAN: Yes. Well, you 15

dismissed its relevance. 16

SGT SHANNON: I dismissed it as an 17

allegation for the reasons I have stated and if 18

you look at the information that was provided by 19

Ms Hamilton-Tree at that date, she's the only one 20

who provided the information that appeared on the 21

Death Certificate and the information that she 22

provided was not inaccurate in her mind. 23

MR. FREIMAN: Okay. But again, 24

you say with some confidence that she was the only 25


160

person who provided information. You didn't 1

interview Ms Hamilton-Tree, did you? 2

SGT SHANNON: No, I did not, sir. 3

MR. FREIMAN: So you don't know 4

what she would say if asked who provided the 5

information? 6

SGT SHANNON: No, sir, but I 7

examined the Death Certificate -- the original 8

copy of the Death Certificate -- and if you were 9

to put yourself in the shoes of Ms Hamilton-tree 10

and you have just suffered through a horrible 11

ordeal and you are now put into place where you're 12

planning the final remembrance of your loved one 13

and you are asked some spontaneous questions by an 14

individual that you have just met, you are going 15

to provide the instinctive answers that you know 16

to be true in your heart. 17

MR. FREIMAN: Okay. Now, I 18

understand what you're telling me, but these are 19

conclusions that you come to without actually 20

talking to anybody involved; right? 21

SGT SHANNON: Because the 22

documents speak for themselves, sir. 23

MR. FREIMAN: Well, would it 24

surprise you that in evidence before this 25


161

Commission Ms Hamilton-Tree said that it was 1

Second Lieutenant Brown who provided much of the 2

information based on records that he had brought 3

with him? 4

SGT SHANNON: Yes. The records of 5

Corporal Langridge from his file. 6

MR. FREIMAN: Yes. 7

SGT SHANNON: So Corporal 8

Langridge had not had the opportunity to update 9

his address so you have to go to the issue of 10

intent. 11

MR. FREIMAN: Yes. But you -- 12

SGT SHANNON: So nobody -- 13

MR. FREIMAN: -- are way ahead of 14

me, way, way ahead of me because you're at the end 15

of the race, I'm still in the starting blocks 16

waiting for the starter's gun to say the race is 17

on. 18

MS RICHARDS: Well, with respect, 19

could the witness be given the opportunity to 20

provide his fulsome answer? 21


SGT SHANNON: So if you look at 23

the information that was obtained by Lieutenant 24

Brown, he obtained the personal file of Corporal 25


162

Langridge. This is the information that was 1

presented to the Canadian Forces by Corporal 2

Langridge, not by anybody else. This is my 3

address, this is my marital status, this is my 4

next of kin, et cetera, et cetera. So Second 5

Lieutenant Brown only had access to the 6

information that was presented to the Canadian 7

Forces by Corporal Langridge. 8

MR. FREIMAN: Yes. 9

SGT SHANNON: So if you combine 10

the information that was provided by Corporal -- 11

I'm sorry, Second Lieutenant Brown and Ms 12

Hamilton-Tree was it 100 percent updated accurate; 13

maybe not? Was their address outdated by two or 14

three weeks; maybe so. But at one time the 15

information that was provided was accurate and 16

conclusive information based on the available 17

records -- 18


SGT SHANNON: -- to the Canadian 20

Forces. 21

MR. FREIMAN: Again, I think 22

you're coming to the conclusions that you formed 23

about the substantive merit of the complaint. 24

All I'm going at -- this is why I 25


163

said we're still in the starting block waiting for 1

the starter's gun -- is you said that Ms 2

Hamilton-Tree was the only person who provided 3

information and I simply brought to your attention 4

the fact that her evidence was that somebody else 5

provided information. It could be that the 6

information they provided has no inculpatory 7

consequence, I'm just looking at that basic 8

building block. 9



really I don't know that we need to go much 12

further because you have told us that with respect 13

to the allegations under the Vital Statistics Act 14

that were brought by the Fynes you thought you had 15

no jurisdiction and that a limitation period had 16

passed in any event. 17

SGT SHANNON: Yes. Mr. and Mrs. 18

Fynes should have been advised as soon as that 19

information was brought forward and I believe the 20

first person to make the allegation to the 21

Military Police was Major Parkinson, not Mr. And 22

Mrs. Fynes. 23


SGT SHANNON: However, when that 25


164

allegation was first brought to the attention of 1

the Military Police they should have been given 2

advice that that matter should have been reported 3

to the Edmonton Police Service, which would have 4

been the police service of primary jurisdiction. 5

MR. FREIMAN: Okay. So are you 6

saying that there is something that should have 7

been done that wasn't done in response to Major 8

Parkinson's communications? 9


MR. FREIMAN: And that is to pass 11

it on as a complaint? 12

SGT SHANNON: No, no, not to pass 13

it on. Major Parkinson should have been advised 14

that it was his duty if he had evidence of an 15

offence to report it to the police service of 16

primary jurisdiction, which should have been the 17

Edmonton Police Service. 18

MR. FREIMAN: Okay. And it's the 19

Military Police who should have told him that or 20

it's the chain of command who should have told him 21

that? 22

SGT SHANNON: If it had been me 23

hearing that allegation -- I can't comment on the 24

conduct of other individuals when I wasn't there. 25


165

If it had been me, I would have told Major 1

Parkinson just that, "I can't deal with that 2

matter because I have no jurisdiction. If you 3

wish to pursue the matter you need to contact the 4

Edmonton Police Service. 5

MR. FREIMAN: Okay. And you have 6

also told us that insofar as the conduct of either 7

Second Lieutenant Brown or the conduct of Corporal 8

Rohmer at the funeral home is concerned you 9

believe that was outside of the scope of your 10

jurisdiction because it didn't have a direct 11

impact on the operations of the Canadian Forces? 12

SGT SHANNON: Correct. So if the 13

matter had been reported in a timely matter to the 14

Edmonton Police Service, they would have been able 15

to potentially investigate the matter as they see 16

it. As far as a Code of Service Discipline 17

offence, their conduct not on DND property would 18

not be able to be enveloped into the military 19

justice system. There is a clear distinction that 20

not all conduct by members of the Canadian Forces 21

constitutes a military offence. 22


SGT SHANNON: Every member of the 24

Canadian Forces is subject to every other law of 25


166

the realm just like every other citizen. 1

MR. FREIMAN: All right. All I'm 2

trying to do is to clear our table of some 3

unnecessary pots and pans. 4


MR. FREIMAN: And if I understood 6

your evidence correctly the allegations regarding 7

the Vital Statistics Act, Ms Hamilton-Tree's 8

behaviour at the funeral home, Corporal Rohmer's 9

behaviour at the funeral home, Second Lieutenant 10

Brown's behaviour at the funeral home were all 11

outside of the proper scope of your investigation? 12

SGT SHANNON: And outside the 13

mandate of the National Investigations Service. 14

MR. FREIMAN: Yes. All right. 15

Now, in addition to the 16

interview -- 17

THE CHAIRPERSON: If you're moving 18

to a new topic -- 19


THE CHAIRPERSON: -- I wonder if 21

this might be a good time, if that works. 22

MR. FREIMAN: Absolutely. 23

THE CHAIRPERSON: Just until five 24

to 3:00, that's all. 25


167

MR. FREIMAN: Perfect. 1



MR. FREIMAN: Sergeant Shannon, I 4

may want to come back and talk a little more about 5

the interviews that Major Dandurand had with the 6

Fynes, but for the moment I want to pass to a 7

second source of information that you were able to 8

mine in your review of the file, and that's the 9

summary investigation. 10


MR. FREIMAN: Now, in terms of the 12

assistance that you got from the summary 13

investigation, of what use was it to you? 14

SGT SHANNON: The primary 15

purpose -- the primary benefit from reviewing the 16

summary investigation was to gain situational 17

awareness of the larger picture of all the 18

interlocking events that related to the passing of 19

Corporal Langridge. 20

MR. FREIMAN: Now, did you notice 21

that the terms of reference of the summary 22

investigation expressed that it was done in 23

contemplation of litigation? 24



168

MR. FREIMAN: What does that mean 1

to you? 2

SGT SHANNON: That means to me 3

that is the direction that is provided by the 4

Commander to the individual who is assigned to 5

conduct that investigation, much is the same as I 6

receive my direction from Warrant Officer 7

Bonneteau. 8

So within the scope of the 9

Canadian Forces there are three bona fide 10

legislated processes for conducting 11

investigations. The first two are administrative 12

related, so Boards of Inquiry and Summary 13

Investigations. Then there is a third style of 14

legislated style of investigation which are 15

disciplinary investigations, which can either be 16

conducted by the unit or by the Military Police. 17

MR. FREIMAN: Yes. What I really 18

wanted to know, though, is what does the terms "in 19

contemplation of litigation" mean to you as to the 20

perspective and the use to which the material 21

compiled will be -- may have? 22

SGT SHANNON: To my understanding, 23

that means that every -- the findings of the 24

summary investigation could be made available to 25


169

the parties of civil litigation through the 1

discovery process. 2

MR. FREIMAN: Okay. Now, correct 3

me if I'm wrong, because I thought that a summary 4

investigation in contemplation of litigation was 5

an investigation that was intended to provide 6

information that would be used by the government 7

in its defence in litigation. 8

SGT SHANNON: I don't take it as 9

meaning that, sir. 10

MR. FREIMAN: Okay. So your 11

understanding is that this was an inquiry whose 12

purpose -- of one of whose purposes was to 13

generate information that would be made available 14

through the discovery process to both sides? 15

SGT SHANNON: If necessary, sir, 16

but the primary purpose of the summary 17

investigation was to answer the stated questions 18

of the terms of reference. 19

MR. FREIMAN: All right. And did 20

you notice, sir, that one of the terms of 21

reference was that there was no requirement to 22

find who should have been designated as the next 23

of kin or notified? 24

SGT SHANNON: No, sir, because 25


170

that's beyond the scope of the Canadian Forces. 1

It's not their job, it's not their responsibility, 2

it's not their role. 3

MR. FREIMAN: Okay. I'm not 4

asking whether it was a good idea or it was a bad 5

idea, I'm just asking whether you noticed that 6

that was not included in the terms of reference, 7

it was not included, it was excluded from the 8

terms of reference specifically? 9

SGT SHANNON: Because it's not -- 10

it has no bearing on the actions of the Canadian 11

Forces. 12

MR. FREIMAN: All right. Now, 13

given that it was excluded, of what use do you 14

think the investigation could be in -- well, I 15

guess you didn't -- correct me if I'm wrong -- you 16

didn't think it was necessary in fact to establish 17

the question of who should have been designated, 18

the answer was self-evident, it was the common-law 19

spouse. 20

SGT SHANNON: Yes, because that is 21

the decision made by Corporal Langridge. 22

MR. FREIMAN: Okay. And at the 23

time that you were reading the summary 24

investigation report, you had already come to that 25


171

conclusion? 1


MR. FREIMAN: No. When did you 3

come to that conclusion? 4

SGT SHANNON: At the end. 5

MR. FREIMAN: Well, when did you 6

come to the conclusion that Corporal Langridge had 7

appointed Ms Hamilton-Tree by means of their 8

declaration of common-law to carry out the task of 9

making decisions related to his funeral? 10

SGT SHANNON: So, when I completed 11

the review of the summary investigation, the 12

summary investigation had a number of documents 13

that were used to further their investigative 14

process. 15


SGT SHANNON: Every single 17

document contained in the SI that I made reference 18

to was also already contained in the 2009 GO file 19

through the work of Major Dandurand, Petty Officer 20

McLaughlin and Sergeant Mitchell. 21

So, I confirmed that the documents 22

that available in the SI were already the same 23

documents that were present in the 2009 file. As 24

I've noted in my investigative report, I completed 25


172

the review of the summary investigation and then I 1

spent another 10 days analyzing documents and 2

policy and then I prepared that second text entry 3

listing everything that I had identified that I 4

believed was relevant to this investigation. 5

MR. FREIMAN: And was that the 6

point where you came to the conclusion that 7

Corporal Langridge had appointed the person who 8

was to make decisions about his funeral? 9

SGT SHANNON: Corporal Langridge 10

made two decisions related to issues of dealing 11

with his affairs after his passing. 12

So, the first document that has 13

any relevance to that is his will. So, in his 14

initial will that was on his personnel file, he 15

identified two executors of his estate and he 16

identified the beneficiary of his estate. So, he 17

made the conscious decision in 2002 that his first 18

choice as executor was Mr. Wight and he identified 19

his secondary executor in the case that the 20

primary could not perform his duties, and he 21

decided that his mother, Mrs. Fynes, was to be the 22

beneficiary of his estate. 23

Moving forward in time, he entered 24

into a relationship with Ms Hamilton-Tree and 25


173

after the prerequisite period of time, he attended 1

the offices of his Commanding Officer and entered 2

into a statutory declaration with Ms Hamilton-Tree 3

in presence and he made the arrangements with his 4

Commanding Officer to enter into that formal/legal 5

marriage relationship. 6

MR. FREIMAN: I don't think, sir, 7

that was the question I asked. I asked you when 8

you came to the conclusion that Corporal Langridge 9

had determined who was to take charge of his 10

funeral arrangements? 11

SGT SHANNON: I answered that 12

question, sir, I said it was a Tuesday to the 13

question. So, he made partial decisions in 14

2002 -- 15

MR. FREIMAN: I asked you when you 16

came to the conclusion? 17

SGT SHANNON: The date I submitted 18

that second text box. 19


SGT SHANNON: So I believe it's 21

the 15th of October. 22

MR. FREIMAN: Okay. So, by the 23

15th of October you had come to this conclusion? 24



174

MR. FREIMAN: And you came to it 1

on the basis of a -- well, a review of the 2

material that you set out in your assessment -- 3

your investigative assessment and, as I understood 4

it, that included the contents of the '09 file as 5

it came down to you. 6


MR. FREIMAN: Plus an expanded 8

reading of the summary investigation, just to be 9

sure there was nothing that had escaped your 10

attention? 11

SGT SHANNON: And more so. No. 1 12

reason for reviewing the summary investigation was 13

components of the summary investigation report 14

were already in the 2009 file, but not the entire 15

report. 16


SGT SHANNON: So, based on the 18

rulings of the Commission and the acceptance of 19

those rulings by the Provost Marshal, I'm required 20

to review in totality everything, which is what I 21

did. 22

MR. FREIMAN: Okay. And by the 23

15th had you completed your review of the relevant 24

statutory, regulatory and other relevant material? 25


175

SGT SHANNON: Yes. So, at the 1

conclusion of my evaluation of the hundreds of 2

pages of documents that were available for my 3

review, I identified 51 relevant pages of 4

documents and policy that are attached to my 5

investigation assessment and those 51 pages are 6

the foundation of all the decisions I made in 7

concluding this investigation. 8

MR. FREIMAN: Okay. And you're 9

confident that those 51 documents were sufficient 10

for you to come to the decision you did? 11

SGT SHANNON: I could not locate 12

in my review and my analysis any other regulations 13

orders to identify the primary investigation that 14

I was conducting which was the next of kin issue 15

and the legal actions of Lieutenant Colonel King. 16

However, I will add that the 17

November press conference by Mrs. Fynes she made a 18

public allegation that the Canadian Forces allowed 19

other members to plan her son's funeral 20

Upon hearing that public 21

allegation, I expanded the scope of my 22

investigation and I incorporated that new 23

allegation into my investigation. So then I did 24

conduct further research of the policies, rules 25


176

and regulations and customs of the Canadian Forces 1

that relate directly to funerals. 2

MR. FREIMAN: Okay. So -- 3

SGT SHANNON: So, at that time, so 4

after November I was investigating three 5

allegations, not two. 6

MR. FREIMAN: Can you help me to 7

understand how the third allegation was different 8

from the one that you were originally 9

investigating, not the Lieutenant Colonel King 10

allegation, the first allegation -- 11

SGT SHANNON: The first allegation 12

was related to the next of kin and the allegation 13

was very specific that members of the Canadian 14

Forces chain of command of the Lord Strathcona 15

Horse appointed Ms Hamilton-Tree as the common-law 16

spouse without any documents to support that 17

decision. That was allegation No. 1. 18

Allegation No. 2 was referencing 19

Lieutenant Colonel King. 20

I determined based on my 21

witnessing and listening to the statement of Mrs. 22

Fynes on national television, it was a clear and 23

distinct separate allegation, so I expanded the 24

scope of my investigation and did my work 25


177

accordingly. 1

MR. FREIMAN: Let me just 2

understand. You said that you understood the 3

first allegation as the Fynes claiming that the 4

Canadian Forces appointed Ms Hamilton-Tree as the 5

common-law spouse. 6

SGT SHANNON: Without 7

documentation supporting that. 8

MR. FREIMAN: Can you show me 9

anywhere in which the Fynes say that the Canadian 10

Forces appointed Ms Hamilton-Tree as common-law 11

spouse? 12

SGT SHANNON: The allegation -- 13

the specific allegation is that Captain Lubiniecki 14

made that decision without supporting 15

documentation. I apologize for -- 16

MR. FREIMAN: No, no, I appreciate 17

the precision and it's the precision that I'd like 18

to test with you. 19

Can you show me where the 20

allegation is that whoever, Captain Lubiniecki or 21

Santa Claus, doesn't matter, appointed Ms 22

Hamilton-Tree as common-law spouse without 23

documentation? 24

And if you'd like to take a 25


178

minute, if you know where you can find it. 1

SGT SHANNON: I believe it's in 2

the statements of Mr. Martel when he made his 3

initial presentation to the NIS. And also I 4

believe that's the wording of the initial 5

complaint for this file. 6

MR. FREIMAN: Well, maybe we can 7

find the initial complaint for the file and we can 8

check. 9

I give leave to those who 10

understands these things when I don't. 11

SGT SHANNON: No, if I could refer 12

you, sir, to page 29 -- 13


SGT SHANNON: -- of the 2009 file, 15

Book No. 1, paragraph No. 1 of the case summary. 16

MR. FREIMAN: This? 17

SGT SHANNON: 18

"On 28 November, 2009, Mr. 19

and Mrs. Fynes --" 20

THE CHAIRPERSON: Have you got the 21

page? 22

SGT SHANNON: Oh, sorry, sir. 23

THE CHAIRMAN: Page number? 24

SGT SHANNON: Page 29, sir. 25


179

Paragraph 1 reads: 1

"On 28 November, 2009, Mr. 2

and Mrs. Fynes alleged that 3

the Lord Strathcona Horse, 4

Royal Canadian Adjutant 5

(later identified as Major 6

Lubinieki) was negligent in 7

that he appointed Ms 8

Hamilton-Tree as the next of 9

kin of Corporal Langridge 10

even though there was no 11

documentation to support that 12

she was ever formally 13

appointed as such by Corporal 14

Langridge." (As read) 15

MR. FREIMAN: Okay. And I just 16

point out to you that the term used there is not 17

common-law spouse, it's next of kin. 18


MR. FREIMAN: And do you see 20

there's any difference between the two 21

allegations? 22


MR. FREIMAN: Okay. Just 24

returning for a moment to the topic of the summary 25


180

investigation, I understand that included in the 1

package of materials relevant to the summary 2

investigation that was provided to you were 3

letters that were sent by the reviewing authority 4

and the approval authority. 5


MR. FREIMAN: All right. I'd like 7

to look at those with you for a moment. 8

Can we look at Tab 105. This is a 9

letter dated 25 March, 2010 and it is from 10

Brigadier General Corbould to a distribution list 11

of people who have a valid interest in receiving 12

it. 13


MR. FREIMAN: And paragraph 5 15

says: 16

"In closing, I believe this 17

topic has been dwelled into 18

enough and do not believe 19

there to be any benefit of 20

disclosing any of the SI to 21

Corporal Langridge's family. 22

It simply would not provide 23

or console them in any 24

matter. Unless there is any 25


181

new information which comes 1

to light, I consider this 2

matter to be closed and the 3

above follow-up actions and 4

direction will transpire in a 5

prompt manner to bring this 6

case to a close." (As read) 7

MR. FREIMAN: Did you draw any 8

conclusions from the fact that Brigadier General 9

Corbould thought that the matter had been 10

investigated and conclusively resolved, such 11

that -- 12

SGT SHANNON: Investigated in, 13

they only investigated administrative matters, 14

sir. As I explained to you earlier, there is 15

three avenues of statutory investigation within 16

the Canadian Forces. Each of them styles of 17

investigation have a separate and distinct 18

purpose. 19

So, in the issues of an 20

administrative matter are for the sole purpose of: 21

let's learn lessons from issues so that the 22

Canadian Forces can modernize policy, make 23

corrective action so that the organization as an 24

institution can modernize in step with changes in 25


182

society. That is the purpose of an administrative 1

review. 2

A criminal investigation is a 3

completely separate matter. I have already 4

identified the only information that I drew from 5

the summary investigation are the documents that I 6

identified in my investigative assessment and I 7

identified those documents and was unable to rely 8

on the use of those documents without violating 9

any of the principles of evidence that apply to 10

police investigations in Canada. 11


SGT SHANNON: So, no other 13

information in the summary investigation other 14

than what I have identified in my investigative 15

assessment was used as part of my decision-making 16

process. 17

MR. FREIMAN: And is the reason 18

why no other document was used, that the 19

statements in the summary investigation were given 20

under compulsion? 21

SGT SHANNON: The statements that 22

are provided in the summary investigation are not 23

relevant to my work because they would be not 24

admissible in a criminal proceeding. The legal 25


183

theory, fruit of a poison tree would apply. 1

MR. FREIMAN: Now, that's what I 2

said. It's a poison tree because the testimony 3

isn't voluntary. 4

SGT SHANNON: And there is 5

statutory rules that says, anything provided 6

cannot be used in a disciplinary or criminal 7

proceeding. 8

MR. FREIMAN: In criminal 9

proceedings? 10

SGT SHANNON: Within the Canadian 11

Forces. So, anything that's contained I cannot 12

use because it would violate fruit of the poison 13

tree. 14

MR. FREIMAN: You're not 15

suggesting that the military can promulgate 16

regulations that would bind the criminal law 17

process of Canada; are you? 18

SGT SHANNON: They can for the 19

purposes of the military justice system, yes. But 20

even in a criminal proceeding, I would warrant 21

that the fruit of the poison tree would apply. 22

MR. FREIMAN: Yes, okay. That's 23

just what I wanted to discuss with you. 24

Is that the same reason that you 25


184

were unable to -- or were you able to rely on the 1

Board of Inquiry for any purpose? 2

SGT SHANNON: I did not. I read 3

the Board of Inquiry because it's part of the GO 4

file, however, I placed no relevance or weight on 5

the Board of Inquiry as I was not interested in 6

the issues surrounding the initial investigation 7

into the passing of Corporal Langridge. 8

MR. FREIMAN: Did you in fact read 9

the testimony in the summary investigation? 10

SGT SHANNON: I did, sir. 11

MR. FREIMAN: And did you not 12

consider that that might violate the fruit of the 13

poison tree principle? 14

SGT SHANNON: No, sir. Because, 15

as I stated, I did not use any of the information 16

provided in witness statements in making my 17

decisions. 18

MR. FREIMAN: Okay. Well, we 19

don't have to test that in any criminal 20

proceedings. So, I'm not going to play barracks 21

lawyer on that. 22

I'd like then to turn with you -- 23

assuming I can find it, which may be an improper 24

assumption -- to your investigative assessment. 25


185

SGT SHANNON: That's located on 1

page 224, sir. 2

MR. FREIMAN: Great. Now, I have 3

to trouble Ms Alexander. 4

Why don't we start with the time 5

line. 6


MR. FREIMAN: As you were 8

compiling the time line of significant events -- 9


MR. FREIMAN: -- what was going 11

through your mind, what was the purpose of this 12

time line? 13

SGT SHANNON: The purpose, as I 14

stated earlier, sir, this investigative assessment 15

is an investigation tool that I have developed 16

over time through my experience with the National 17

Investigation Service. 18

It is useful in investigations 19

that are complex in nature, have a huge volume of 20

documentation, or in situations where there are a 21

significant number of allegations that need to be 22

followed. 23

So, the purpose of the 24

investigation assessment in this form is to take 25


186

my assessment and my understanding of the previous 1

thousand pages that existed in SAMPIS when I took 2

over this file and to condense and identify and 3

clarify all the relevant allegations and all the 4

relevant information, and then as you proceed 5

through the investigation assessment, it 6

identifies everything that I'm going to use to 7

analyze and conduct the elements of the offence 8

analysis at the end speak, and then it concludes 9

by identifying what items or what issues that 10

still require further investigation by the NIS. 11

So, it's a document prepared as a 12

one-stop shopping, not only for myself, but for my 13

supervisors and also if anybody is tasked to 14

assist me as a secondary investigator, they have 15

one document where they can go through and gain in 16

a short period of time a clear understanding of 17

the issues and of what needs to be further 18

investigated in the future. 19


SGT SHANNON: And then as we've 21

also seen, so paragraph 6 became the amendment to 22

the investigation plan. 23

MR. FREIMAN: And was this the 24

amendment that was made necessary by virtue of 25


187

what you understood to be a new allegation when 1

you listened to the interview on the 1st of 2

November? 3

SGT SHANNON: No. 4


SGT SHANNON: This occurred in -- 6

1st of November I believe the press conference by 7

Mrs. Fynes, was either shortly after, I can't 8

recall. 9

MR. FREIMAN: All right. I'm not 10

going to take you through each and every point in 11

your line. I do notice, however, that there's no 12

reference made to the discovery of new documents. 13

SGT SHANNON: Yes. I did 14

determine that that was not relevant, sir. 15


SGT SHANNON: If I could clarify 17

that. So, in every offence under Statute Law in 18

Canada there are four common elements of every 19

offence: so, date, time, location and identity of 20

the accused. So, when I'm going through my plan 21

I'm doing a step-by-step process where I'm 22

identifying the elements of the offence and I'm 23

collating information and evidence to establishing 24

or disproving specific elements of an offence. 25


188

So, the first task I had to do was 1

identify date, time and location. So, for the 2

purposes of allegation No. 1, the next of kin 3

allegation, I determined that the relevant time 4

frame at issue was between the 15th of March, 2008 5

and the 18th of March, 2008. 6

Those were the dates, that is the 7

time frame when all the decisions that are a 8

component of the allegation made by Mrs. Fynes 9

occurred. 10

MR. FREIMAN: Okay. Now you're 11

talking about decisions. So, you'll agree with me 12

the word 'decisions' you had to look at? 13

SGT SHANNON: That is the 14

allegation of Mr. Fynes. So all actions that are 15

relevant to that allegation occurred between the 16

15th and the 18th of March. So, that was the 17

window of time I focused my investigation on. 18

MR. FREIMAN: All right. So, why 19

was it not relevant that a new series of documents 20

was discovered before the funeral? 21

SGT SHANNON: No. 1, for myself, 22

so, the documents were not signed, they were not 23

completed. No. 2, there was no new document 24

related to common-law status. So there was no -- 25


189

I believe it's annex B to the CFAO -- so there was 1

no annex B statutory declaration that would have 2

ended the common-law relationship as required by 3

policy. 4

So, in my mind, Corporal Langridge 5

was not contemplating ending his statutory 6

relationship with Ms Hamilton-Tree. 7

MR. FREIMAN: Okay. We'll get to 8

it in a minute, but you've already told us that 9

the will forms part of a matrix of decisions that 10

Corporal Langridge made -- 11


MR. FREIMAN: -- about what would 13

happen after his death? 14


MR. FREIMAN: Was the fact that a 16

new will was discovered not relevant from that 17

point? 18

SGT SHANNON: The will that was 19

discovered I believe was initially deemed to be 20

not valid because it was not signed, it was not 21

dated and it was not witnessed and the only 22

conclusive change from the first will, the valid 23

will that was on his file and the second will that 24

was discovered, was a change in executor. The 25


190

beneficiary stayed the same. 1

So, Corporal Langridge's wishes 2

and intent at all times was that Mrs. Fynes was to 3

be the beneficiary of his estate. That did not 4

change. 5

There was no new document that 6

would lead me to believe that Corporal Langridge 7

was contemplating changing his common-law status. 8

MR. FREIMAN: Well, you're focused 9

on common-law status. For purposes of your 10

investigation then, I take it that it was 11

irrelevant who Corporal Langridge had appointed as 12

his executor? 13

SGT SHANNON: It was very 14

relevant, sir. 15

MR. FREIMAN: Why was it relevant? 16

SGT SHANNON: The executor is the 17

person that you trust and respect that is going to 18

look after your legal affairs after your passing. 19

MR. FREIMAN: Where does this 20

information come from? You've told us about the 21

role of an executor. 22

SGT SHANNON: The role of the 23

executor is very clearly defined. It varies from 24

province to province because it's a determination 25


191

by provincial statute. So I can't give you a 1

uniform -- in some provinces it's called personal 2

representative. In some provinces it's called 3

executor of the estate. 4

So the role of executor is defined 5

by provincial law because that is a constitutional 6

responsibility of the provinces, not the federal 7

government. 8

So the role of executor in this 9

case is defined by the law of the Province of 10

Alberta. 11

MR. FREIMAN: Okay. And you said 12

it's very relevant. What's the relevance? 13

SGT SHANNON: Because that's the 14

person that Corporal Langridge trusted to look 15

after his affairs, his legal affairs and his 16

financial affairs after his passing. 17

MR. FREIMAN: And what about to 18

ensure that -- what about with relation to the 19

funeral? Does the executor have any 20

responsibility in connection with the funeral? 21


MR. FREIMAN: What is that? 23

SGT SHANNON: His responsibility 24

is defined by the laws of the Province of Alberta. 25


192

So it's his alternate responsibility because he is 1

the legal representative of Corporal Langridge 2

following his passing. 3

So from the 15th of March until 4

the day of his funeral Mr. Wight acted in the 5

interests, the legal interests of Corporal 6

Langridge. 7

MR. FREIMAN: All right. So is it 8

not relevant that Ms Hamilton-Tree was appointed 9

to make funeral arrangements rather than Mr. 10

Wight? 11

SGT SHANNON: As far as I 12

understand that would be an issue outside the 13

purview of the Canadian Forces. That's between 14

Mr. Wight and Ms Hamilton-Tree. 15

MR. FREIMAN: All right. Well, I 16

know that you don't think that any decision was 17

made but, again, come with me while I ride my 18

hobby horse. 19

If in fact the Canadian Forces did 20

make a decision and said, "Ms Hamilton-Tree, 21

you're the person to whom we are going to turn to 22

make these decisions"? 23

SGT SHANNON: Yes, and that's in 24

total agreement with the rules and regulations of 25


193

the funeral regulations within the Canadian 1

Forces. The funeral is the responsibility of the 2

family, not the Canadian Forces. 3

If you look at the regulation it's 4

in the GO file -- I don't have the exact page 5

number but the order governing military funerals 6

clearly states that the Canadian Forces, the 7

commanding officer of a unit can respond to the 8

wishes of the family. 9

And in this case the record is 10

clear. The Canadian Forces responded to the 11

wishes of Ms Hamilton-Tree and Mr. and Mrs. Fynes 12

in the manner in which their funeral was planned 13

and conducted. 14

MR. FREIMAN: You've just finished 15

telling me that it's the role of the executor to 16

ensure that matters are done properly. 17

SGT SHANNON: Yes, and my research 18

and my understanding of that situation is that the 19

executor would consult a member's family and 20

obtain the wishes of the family. 21

But at the end of the day, the 22

executor can override the family. 23

MR. FREIMAN: Can. 24



194

MR. FREIMAN: Right. And in this 1

case was the executor ever consulted? 2

SGT SHANNON: I have no idea, sir, 3

because that's not the purview of the Canadian 4

Forces. That's an issue between Mrs. 5

Hamilton-Tree and Mrs. Fynes and Mr. Wight. 6

MR. FREIMAN: But wait a minute. 7

If the Canadian Forces are going to turn to 8

someone don't they have -- 9

SGT SHANNON: No, they responded 10

to the requests of the family. They did not 11

provide direction to the family on how the funeral 12

will be conducted. 13

They waited to hear the requests 14

from Ms Hamilton-Tree and Mr. and Mrs. Fynes. The 15

wishes of the two family members were communicated 16

by the assisting officers to the Adjutant of the 17

Regiment. 18

The Adjutant of the Regiment 19

responded to the wishes of the family and 20

determined that the military in accordance with 21

regulation could support those wishes and the 22

planning proceeded. 23

MR. FREIMAN: So you gathered all 24

of that information that you have just conveyed to 25


195

us without benefit of any interviews based on the 1

documents. 2

SGT SHANNON: Because the document 3

record is very clear that that process transpired. 4

MR. FREIMAN: Isn't the document 5

record clear that the Canadian Forces early on 6

determined that the person whose wishes needed to 7

be followed was Rebecca Hamilton-Tree? 8

SGT SHANNON: Because they had 9

determined that she was the common-law spouse. 10

MR. FREIMAN: And didn't you just 11

tell me that the person who can override that is 12

the executor? 13

SGT SHANNON: And Mr. Wight chose 14

not to do so. 15


that? 17

SGT SHANNON: Because he didn't. 18

MR. FREIMAN: Do you have any 19

information that somebody contacted Mr. Wight? 20

SGT SHANNON: That is beyond the 21

purview of the military. 22

MR. FREIMAN: So the military has 23

no obligation to determine whether it is dealing 24

with the right person when it says we have to obey 25


196

your wishes? 1

SGT SHANNON: Yes, the process is 2

very clear and the sequence of events that 3

occurred, I believe if you look at the 4

investigation assessment and/or -- I can't 5

recall -- but on 15 March when Mrs. Fynes was 6

first attended by the Notification Officer, she 7

had already provided her Notification Officer with 8

her initial wishes for the funeral and agreed that 9

the Assisting Officer would communicate those 10

wishes to the Assisting Officer of Ms 11

Hamilton-Tree. 12

And at that meeting she also 13

informed her Notification Officer that she would 14

be phoning Mrs. Hamilton-Tree that night to 15

further discuss funeral planning. 16

It wasn't until the next day where 17

she was informed that the Regiment had 18

acknowledged that Ms Hamilton-Tree was the next of 19

kin. So she had already made statements that she 20

was going to be co-planning the funeral with Ms 21

Hamilton-Tree. 22

MR. FREIMAN: Yeah, well -- but 23

again I don't think -- 24

SGT SHANNON: So that had a lot of 25


197

weight in my decisions. 1

MR. FREIMAN: No harm, no foul? 2

SGT SHANNON: The record is clear. 3

She made those statements before she learned that 4

the Regiment had recognized that Ms Hamilton-Tree 5

was the common-law spouse and the next of kin. 6

MR. FREIMAN: Yes. And some of 7

those decisions, you'll agree with me, had to be 8

revisited in order to accommodate Ms 9

Hamilton-Tree's preferences. 10

SGT SHANNON: Yes, there is a very 11

concise clear record over a number of days of 12

negotiations and communications between Mrs. Fynes 13

and Ms Hamilton-Tree where they both stated their 14

wishes. They both came to a compromised agreement 15

on the final decisions on how the funeral would 16

transpire. 17

MR. FREIMAN: But bear with me for 18

a moment. That's the outcome. I'm talking about 19

the decision made by the Canadian Forces. 20


MR. FREIMAN: We've seen the 22

Canadian Forces decided early on that they would 23

turn to Ms Hamilton-Tree for instructions. 24

SGT SHANNON: And Mrs. Fynes made 25


198

that same decision the first day she was aware 1

that her son had passed. 2

MR. FREIMAN: Well -- 3

SGT SHANNON: Again, that goes 4

back to the logic, the customs of our society. 5

MR. FREIMAN: Yeah, but -- 6

SGT SHANNON: So the customs of 7

our society say the spouse is the person you would 8

turn to. Nobody is going to turn to anybody else 9

but someone's spouse. 10

MR. FREIMAN: Well, didn't you 11

tell me that legally it should be the executor who 12

is turned to? 13

SGT SHANNON: From a legal 14

perspective the executor has the final say. 15


SGT SHANNON: And based on my 17

understanding of research and I believe it's also 18

contained in the Assisting Guide to Commanding 19

Officers and to Assisting Officers that the role 20

of the executor is detailed. 21

It also states in that document, I 22

believe, which would be the information the 23

Commanding Officer would have available to him 24

that the executor should consult with the members 25


199

of the family and make every effort to respect the 1

wishes of the family. 2

Again, the Canadian Forces has 3

absolutely no role in that process. 4

MR. FREIMAN: But it has a role in 5

deciding whom it's going to go to for instructions 6

as to what to do with the body. 7

SGT SHANNON: No; no, sir. The 8

Canadian Forces had absolutely no dealings with 9

the processing of the remains of Corporal 10

Langridge. That is purely a provincial matter 11

conducted by the medical examiner and the coroner. 12

The Canadian Forces had absolutely no role. 13

As soon as the police 14

investigation at the crime scene was concluded and 15

the body was removed by the body removal service 16

the custody and care and control of Corporal 17

Langridge transferred to provincial authorities. 18

MR. FREIMAN: I think I'm missing 19

something. Isn't the funeral and the arrangements 20

for burial an aspect of disposition of the body? 21

SGT SHANNON: No, sir, because -- 22

well, it is but the military has no bearing. 23

So when a member of the Canadian 24

Forces passes away the only time the military is 25


200

responsible for transportation is when it's an 1

international fatality. 2

If it's an international fatality 3

the Ontario Coroners Act applies for all deceased 4

Canadian Forces members. So when we attend the 5

scene there is a negotiation that is done between 6

the Ontario coroner and the coroner of the 7

particular nation where the person passed. 8

So for instance, the investigation 9

that I did in the Bahamas there was a 10

communication and an agreement because the Ontario 11

coroner recognized the training and qualifications 12

of the coroner in the Bahamas. So the autopsy was 13

performed in the Bahamas and the cause of death 14

was established. All the applicable documentation 15

was completed by that coroner. 16

In the instances of Afghanistan 17

the coroner does not recognize the skills and 18

experiences in that nation. Therefore, we 19

transport all evidence and all items back to 20

Canada where the Ontario coroner does his duties 21

here. 22

MR. FREIMAN: All right. But 23

we're not talking about issues of investigation of 24

the sudden death. 25


201


MR. FREIMAN: At the moment we're 2

talking about the military saying it will accept 3

instructions from someone -- 4

SGT SHANNON: Yes. 5

MR. FREIMAN: -- as to what to 6

do -- 7

SGT SHANNON: If you look at the 8

regulation that's related to that, sir -- 9


SGT SHANNON: -- it says the 11

Commanding Officer will receive the requests from 12

a family. The family is the one that decides the 13

funeral. 14

We have had a number of situations 15

where the family of a fallen hero has absolutely 16

declined any involvement in the military in the 17

final remembrance of their family member and the 18

military is not involved in any way, shape or 19

form -- 20


SGT SHANNON: -- because that is 22

the wish of the family. 23

So in this case the family which 24

is Ms Hamilton-Tree, because she was the spouse, 25


202

had received communications from Mrs. Fynes, had 1

reached a consensus agreement with Mrs. Fynes on 2

how the family was -- how the funeral service was 3

to transpire. 4

Mrs. Fynes is the one that 5

recommended that the final in church should be in 6

Victoria. 7

A compromise between the family 8

was reached. That compromise was communicated to 9

the military through the Assisting Officer and the 10

wishes of the family were carried out. 11

MR. FREIMAN: You've used the word 12

family a couple of times in your last explanation. 13

Do I understand that you believe that where the 14

word family is used in the various regulations 15

that means the spouse? 16

SGT SHANNON: There is no 17

reference to family in the regulations, sir. 18

MR. FREIMAN: Or in the guides? 19

SGT SHANNON: In the guide that 20

goes back to your initial question, the role of 21

the executor. So in the guide that's available to 22

members of the Canadian Forces it says in an ideal 23

circumstance the executor will consult with the 24

family and respect the wishes of the family. 25


203

MR. FREIMAN: All right. Well, 1

let's just break that down. 2

Can you turn up the passage and 3

show me where it says in an ideal circumstance? 4

SGT SHANNON: I believe -- I can't 5

be certain but I believe it's in the Officers 6

Guide, the Assisting Officers Guide; the 7

Commanding Officers Guide. 8

MR. FREIMAN: Let's just find 9

that. 10

--- Pause 11

MR. FREIMAN: Is the Assisting 12

Officers Guide listed in the relevant documents? 13

SGT SHANNON: The ones that I 14

identified, sir? 15



MR. FREIMAN: Okay. So why are we 18

looking at that if it's not relevant? 19

SGT SHANNON: Because if you look 20

at the investigation assessment, sir. 21


SGT SHANNON: Under paragraph 6, 23

subparagraph (g): 24

"Did the Assisting Officer 25


204

Guide, the Commanding Officer 1

Guide and the Death and 2

Disability Benefits programs 3

and services, publications 4

exist in March 2008?" 5

MR. FREIMAN: Okay. So where do 6

we find the answer to that question? 7

SGT SHANNON: So in my interview 8

or in not my interview but the interview that was 9

conducted with Lieutenant-Commander Gendron that 10

was the reason for interviewing him because he is 11

the creator of those guides. That is why we went 12

and spoke to him. 13

MR. FREIMAN: He is the creator of 14

those guides? 15

SGT SHANNON: He is the one that 16

put them together, like created. They did not 17

exist prior to 2004. 18

MR. FREIMAN: Do we find this 19

somewhere in this interview? I must have missed 20

it. 21

SGT SHANNON: I believe that he is 22

the one that states -- he states in his interview 23

that his department, and he is the head of his 24

department, they created these guides in response 25


205

to the large number of casualties that resulted 1

from the Afghan conflict. 2


SGT SHANNON: And prior to the 4

first publication of these guides they did not 5

exist and they were created in response to 6

requests from the chain in command for such a 7

reference. 8

MR. FREIMAN: Okay. So where do 9

we find the answer to number (g) in your -- I know 10

you say that it's based on an interview. Do we 11

find the answer somewhere in this GO file? 12


MR. FREIMAN: Where? 14

SGT SHANNON: In the interview 15

with Lieutenant-Colonel Gendron. He stated that 16

these guides existed in 2008. 17

And that goes to the state of mind 18

of the individuals in question which directly 19

links to the elements of the offence for negligent 20

performance of a military duty. 21

MR. FREIMAN: And you think if we 22

look at the Assisting Officer Guide -- 23

SGT SHANNON: I'm just speaking 24

off the top of my head, sir. I believe when I 25


206

read these guides and, of course, it's been four 1

years or not four years but it's been two years, I 2

believe that reference is made when it speaks to 3

the role and duty of executor. 4

I would have to read them again to 5

confirm but it does stick in my brain as being 6

there. 7

MR. FREIMAN: And you think that 8

it contains the word "in an ideal situation"? 9

SGT SHANNON: Yes, because in any 10

situation the executor of the estate can override 11

the family any time he chooses. But in a real 12

world situation if I appoint -- like in my 13

personal circumstances if I was to appoint a law 14

firm to be my executor because I'm single, I would 15

expect that my wishes that I had expressed to my 16

executor and that my executor would consult with 17

my surviving family prior to making any decisions. 18

And again, it has no bearing on 19

the role of the Canadian Forces. The issue of 20

burial is strictly a family matter. 21

MR. FREIMAN: And I guess we're 22

just going around in circles but you still don't 23

accept that the Canadian Forces had any role 24

whatsoever in determining who would have the final 25


207

say on those matters? 1

SGT SHANNON: Our society 2

determines who the family representative would be, 3

which is the spouse based on our customs. 4

If you go and speak to a married 5

person they have a spouse. If you have issues 6

with that family and something happens to the 7

husband you're not going to go and try to find his 8

parents. The spouse is right there. 9

And if you look at the 10

circumstances of this case, Mrs. Hamilton-Tree was 11

in Edmonton doing all the work that was required 12

to plan the final remembrance of Corporal 13

Langridge. Mrs. Fynes -- 14

MR. FREIMAN: Let me just be clear 15

with you. I'm not interested at the moment and 16

I'm making no judgment and no comment on whether 17

this was a good idea whether she was the best 18

person to make the decisions, whether she 19

understood Stuart better than anyone else. 20

SGT SHANNON: She is the only 21

person to make the decisions, sir. She was the 22

spouse, nobody else. 23

MR. FREIMAN: But haven't we 24

agreed the only person who makes the decision 25


208

ultimately is the executor? 1

SGT SHANNON: Yes, and the 2

executor was appointed and he did not change the 3

direction that was given. 4

MR. FREIMAN: Okay. And in your 5

view it is entirely irrelevant that the Canadian 6

Forces did not ask the executor or there is no 7

record of the Canadian Forces ever contacting the 8

executor at the funeral? 9

SGT SHANNON: It's not their duty, 10

sir. They received guidance and a request from Ms 11

Hamilton-Tree, the spouse of Corporal Langridge. 12

This is the wishes of the family on "What we would 13

like to do for the funeral". 14

And the military responded in 15

accordance with the available orders and 16

regulation that define funerals. 17

THE CHAIRPERSON: If everybody 18

could just stay in their place for a minute, could 19

I ask Michael to -- Colonel Drapeau has been gone 20

for an unusually long time and I'm a little 21

concerned. 22

MR. FREIMAN: He's not coming 23

back. 24

MS RICHARDS: He had to leave. 25


209

THE CHAIRPERSON: Oh, thank you. 1

I was a little worried because if he was going 2

somewhere else then -- thank you. 3

MR. JUNEAU: Sorry, Mr. Chair. He 4

had a previous engagement. 5

MR. FREIMAN: I apologize, sir. 6

Colonel Drapeau told me he wasn't going to be here 7

and I -- 8

THE CHAIRPERSON: I was sending 9

somebody to check. Okay, I apologize for 10

interrupting but -- 11

MS RICHARDS: It's nice to know 12

you are looking out for us. 13


MR. FREIMAN: Okay. And I think 15

I've asked you this again and I apologize if I 16

have, but if I haven't I'll stay awake all night 17

because I didn't. 18

In your view, family as it is used 19

in various documents by the Canadian Forces, has 20

the same meaning as next of kin which is 21

practically the spouse? 22

SGT SHANNON: I believe if you -- 23

there are a number of policy references to 24

providing some guidance on the topic of the 25


210

selection of next of kin. 1

So for instance if you were to 2

refer to the CFAO that guides the purpose of the 3

PEN form -- and I believe it's actually on the 4

back of the PEN form as well -- there is some 5

recommendation, some suggestions on the manner in 6

which next of kin should be selected for the 7

purpose of that form. 8

In the Commanding Officer's Guide 9

and the Assisting Officer's Guide there is similar 10

suggestions or examples on who could be considered 11

next of kin. There is -- again, I have not been 12

able to identify any definitive clear-cut, this is 13

how you do it; this is who it will be, because 14

it's a family issue. It is too flexible. It is 15

too fluid. Circumstances change. 16

As we have seen, Corporal 17

Langridge signed his will in 2002 and some period 18

of time had passed without any changes. 19

There are many circumstances where 20

people pass away and their documents are not up to 21

date overtime. And that creates confusion and 22

conflict and issues and that's why we have the 23

probate system for dealing with those types of 24

situations because it's recognized that when 25


211

people pass away they may not have had their 1

affairs in order. 2

Corporal Langridge had his affairs 3

in order as much as he deemed to be necessary. He 4

had a valid will. He was in a common-law 5

relationship. He had decided who the beneficiary 6

of his death benefit was to be. He had decided 7

who the beneficiary of his estate was to be. He 8

had decided who his executor was to be. 9

All those facts are clear, on the 10

record, undisputable. 11

MR. FREIMAN: Wait a minute. 12

Aren't they disputable? 13

There are a number of documents 14

that were discovered after the death but before 15

the funeral that may be open to interpretation, 16

but one interpretation is that at some point in 17

2008 there was a sea change in Corporal 18

Langridge's views and he went about, perhaps not 19

all that elegantly and not all that well, but he 20

went about giving some indication that he changed 21

his mind. 22

SGT SHANNON: But as we've already 23

discussed, I determined that the relevant time for 24

the element of the offence for the initial 25


212

investigation for next of kin was 15 March to the 1

18th of March. Those are the three days where 2

members of the Canadian Forces had demonstrated 3

conduct that could apply to the offence of 4

negligent performance of a military duty. 5

And again, the decisions they made 6

and the actions they took in those three days were 7

based on the information they had available to 8

them at that time. 9

I cannot go and second-guess the 10

future, so I have to be able to focus my 11

investigative efforts to a specific clear window 12

of time and assess the conduct and the behaviour 13

and the actions of those individuals and assess 14

them in a logical, impassionate, impartial way 15

against the elements of the offence. 16

MR. FREIMAN: Okay. Well, let me 17

just suggest something to you. 18

If -- and I'm not saying that they 19

do but I just want to test your assumption about 20

the relevant timeline. If there was something that 21

was faulty in the behaviour that you've 22

characterized as being capable of constituting an 23

element of the offence of negligent performance 24

that you locate between the 15th and the 18th of 25


213

March, if subsequent to the 18th of March new 1

information emerged that demonstrated that any of 2

those actions may have been in error, would it not 3

also be capable of constituting an offence if one 4

failed to correct that error while there was still 5

time? 6

SGT SHANNON: That assumption is 7

possible and that would require investigation. 8

However, based on my understanding of all the 9

information available and that was available to 10

me, that is not the case in this matter. The 11

documents that were found had absolutely no 12

bearing on the fact that Corporal Langridge was in 13

a common-law relationship at the time of his 14

passing. 15

MR. FREIMAN: But they did have a 16

bearing on who his executor was. 17


MR. FREIMAN: And therefore, even 19

on your -- 20

SGT SHANNON: But I would caution 21

you there, sir, because the initial executor of 22

the estate, Mr. Wight, was the executor or record 23

on the day Corporal Langridge was laid to rest. 24

He accepted his role as the executor of the 25


214

estate. 1


that? 3

SGT SHANNON: Because it's on the 4

record, sir. 5

MR. FREIMAN: Where is it on the 6

record that Mr. Wight accepted his role as 7

executor of the estate? 8

SGT SHANNON: It was evidence 9

before this Commission, sir. 10

MR. FREIMAN: Where? 11

SGT SHANNON: I believe the man 12

from the casualty coordination office in Ottawa 13

testified to that fact. 14

MR. FREIMAN: Okay. I'll examine 15

the record. I think I was here that day and I 16

don't remember that testimony, but don't go by 17

that because there's lots of things that happened 18

this morning that I don't remember. 19

SGT SHANNON: I believe there's 20

signed documentation by Mr. Wight that he accepted 21

his role as executor of the estate. 22

MR. FREIMAN: Whose role is it to 23

pass on the validity of a will? 24

SGT SHANNON: Whose role is it to 25


215

make that decision? 1

MR. FREIMAN: Yes. 2

SGT SHANNON: That would be the 3

role of the court, sir. 4

MR. FREIMAN: Is it the role of 5

the military to determine the validity of a will? 6

SGT SHANNON: No, sir, and they 7

did not in this case. 8

MR. FREIMAN: Are you sure about 9

that? 10

SGT SHANNON: At the time of 11

passing the protocols are, within the casualty 12

administration rules and regulations, that all 13

documentation is forwarded to the branch of the 14

federal government in Ottawa that manages and 15

deals with affairs of a fallen soldier and it is 16

that office that coordinates all subsequent 17

actions related to the estate of the member. 18

MR. FREIMAN: That's an office 19

that is part of the military? 20

SGT SHANNON: I'm not sure. It's 21

a civilian office. They're civilian employees, 22

sir. So they could be part of the Department of 23

National Defence, that's correct. 24

MR. FREIMAN: The evidence that we 25


216

heard was the Director by statute had to be a 1

member of the Judge Advocate General. 2

SGT SHANNON: I'm not questioning 3

that, sir, but again, when you take -- that has no 4

bearing on the decisions made by the command team 5

between the 15th and the 18th. 6

MR. FREIMAN: I'm just asking 7

whether the military has a role in deciding the 8

validity of a will. 9

SGT SHANNON: You would have to 10

talk to those people, sir. 11

MR. FREIMAN: Okay. So that's not 12

part of your sphere of competence? 13


MR. FREIMAN: And I'm not 15

suggesting that it should be. 16

All right. Shall we then look at 17

the documents that you thought were relevant to 18

your assessment, and I think we can find this -- 19

is it better that we look at the investigative 20

assessment or the investigative plan? 21

SGT SHANNON: Well, if you want to 22

look at the documents themselves or do you want to 23

look at the summary? 24

MR. FREIMAN: Well, we'll start 25


217

with the summary and maybe look at the documents. 1

SGT SHANNON: So if you look at 2

the investigation assessment that would be the 3

clearest identification of the information you 4

want. 5

MR. FREIMAN: And that's at page 6

224 and following? 7


MR. FREIMAN: Yeah. And the 9

actual documents that you list here -- 10

SGT SHANNON: So -- 11


SGT SHANNON: So paragraph 3 -- or 13

paragraph 4, I'm sorry -- 14


SGT SHANNON: -- that -- those 16

from A to T, that is the information that I drew 17

from the Summary Investigation Report. Those are 18

the only documents that I took from that 19

comprehensive investigation file. 20


SGT SHANNON: And then paragraph 5 22

further identifies my independent evaluation of 23

rules, regulations, policies of the Canadian 24

Forces -- 25


218


SGT SHANNON: -- as they relate to 2

the documents I identified. 3

MR. FREIMAN: So before we look at 4

them in any detail, can you tell me what the 5

question was that you asked yourself to which 6

these documents, especially the statutory 7

instruments or the regulatory instruments or the 8

orders and policy documents, to what question do 9

they respond? 10

SGT SHANNON: For the 11

investigation assessment or the overall 12

investigation? 13

MR. FREIMAN: Well, is there a 14

difference? 15


MR. FREIMAN: Okay. So tell me 17

for each. 18

SGT SHANNON: So for the overall 19

investigation there was -- as I've stated, I'm not 20

at this -- by the time I concluded there was three 21

allegations that I was looking into. 22

This particular document only 23

focuses on the next of kin issue, because by the 24

time I had done this I had already determined that 25


219

the allegation against Lieutenant-Colonel King was 1

unfounded. 2


SGT SHANNON: So this is solely 4

focused on the next of kin issue. 5

MR. FREIMAN: Next of kin but two 6

versions of it, one next of kin in its simple form 7

and the other, authority to plan the funeral? 8


MR. FREIMAN: No? What's -- 10

SGT SHANNON: This is solely 11

related to the issue -- the allegation that Major 12

Lubiniecki appointed Miss Hamilton-Tree as the 13

common-law spouse without documentation stating 14

so. 15

MR. FREIMAN: Okay. Well, again, 16

and so the funeral allegations come later? 17



again, for your purposes, an allegation that 20

Captain Lubiniecki as he then was wrongfully 21

appointed Miss Hamilton-Tree as common-law spouse 22

is the same thing as an allegation that he 23

wrongfully appointed her as next of kin? 24

SGT SHANNON: They're the same 25


220

thing, sir. Next of kin equals spouse in this 1

case. There is no defining them -- there's no 2

separating them. Next of kin equals spouse. 3

MR. FREIMAN: And you've told us 4

all the bases upon which you relied for that 5

assessment? 6


MR. FREIMAN: Let me just ask you 8

then before I turn briefly to the allegations 9

against Lieutenant-Colonel King. 10

You told us that next of kin 11

changes in accordance with the context; is that 12

right? 13

SGT SHANNON: The customs of our 14

society. 15

MR. FREIMAN: Customs of society. 16


MR. FREIMAN: So which customs 18

does the Canadian Forces look to? 19

SGT SHANNON: They don't. They 20

rely on each individual member of the Canadian 21

Forces to provide administrative documentation to 22

the care and control of the Canadian Forces on 23

their personal file. 24

Each member identifies, according 25


221

to regulation, their personal and unique 1

situation: whether they are married, whether they 2

are common-law, whether they have dependent 3

children. 4

And you have to realize as well 5

that these regulations when it comes to a 6

common-law spouse only apply to the rules and 7

regulations and financial benefits available to 8

the Canadian Forces and to a member of the 9

Canadian Forces. 10


SGT SHANNON: They exist to be 12

able -- to enable a member of the Canadian Forces 13

to support and gain access to financial tools to 14

be able to support their family. So they do not 15

have any bearing or apply outside the realm of the 16

Canadian Forces. 17

MR. FREIMAN: All right. But the 18

question that I was going to ask you is based on 19

your assessment that next of kin equals common-law 20

spouse. 21

SGT SHANNON: No, no. It was the 22

other way around, sir. 23


Common-law spouse -- 25


222

SGT SHANNON: Common-law spouse 1

equals spouse equals next of kin. 2

MR. FREIMAN: And does it work 3

backwards if next of kin equals spouse? 4

SGT SHANNON: If the person is 5

married, yes, sir. 6


SGT SHANNON: If the person is in 8

a legally binding state of marriage, whether it be 9

a traditional marriage or a common-law marriage -- 10

MR. FREIMAN: Or same-sex 11

marriage. 12

SGT SHANNON: -- or same-sex 13

marriage, so spouse equals next of kin. 14

In my situation I am single. So 15

by the customs of our society my father is my next 16

of kin. Next in line is my mother. There is no 17

doubting that. Nobody in the Canadian Forces -- 18

or if something happened to me nobody is going to 19

call anybody except my father because in our 20

customs that is who my next of kin is. 21

MR. FREIMAN: And the question 22

that I had is what is the relevant definition of 23

the society whose customs are looked at when we 24

say our customs, our traditions? 25


223

SGT SHANNON: Yes. 1

MR. FREIMAN: What is that? 2

SGT SHANNON: It's undefinable, 3

sir. There's no -- I can't take this piece of 4

paper and say this is it because it doesn't exist. 5

MR. FREIMAN: Well, let me put the 6

situation to you in its starkest. 7

There is considerable controversy, 8

which you will agree, within society as to the 9

role and the legitimacy of certain relationships 10

in terms of their qualification for family status? 11

SGT SHANNON: I agree with that, 12

sir, but again, that has no bearing or role on the 13

actions of the Canadian Forces. 14

MR. FREIMAN: Well, bear with me 15

for a moment. 16

And among those relationships, 17

about which there is considerable controversy, is, 18

one, same-sex marriage -- 19


MR. FREIMAN: -- and, two, 21

irregular marriages, that is marriages that are 22

not sanctified by religious rites or are not 23

recorded in the normal form for marriage -- 24

SGT SHANNON: Yeah. 25


224

MR. FREIMAN: -- that is, 1

registration with municipal authorities, and there 2

are different views as to whether those sorts of 3

relationships -- and we'll just deal with 4

common-law relationships -- are in fact true 5

family relationships. 6

SGT SHANNON: The courts have held 7

that they are, so I don't see the point of this 8

line of questioning. 9

MR. FREIMAN: Well, bear with me 10

for a moment. 11

You've told us that -- 12

THE CHAIRPERSON: One sec. 13

Just to be clear, somebody else 14

will determine whether or not -- 15


THE CHAIRPERSON: -- if you don't 17

mind. Thank you. 18


MR. FREIMAN: I'm used to being 20

told that I'm irrelevant. 21

You've told us that there is no 22

place that you can go to that's going to give you 23

a definitive definition of next of kin? 24



225

MR. FREIMAN: And you've told us 1

that in your view the traditions of our culture, 2

of our society -- I think you used both terms -- 3

govern the question of what constitutes next of 4

kin? 5


MR. FREIMAN: And from your 7

reading of those traditions you have deduced that 8

it must be the spouse? 9

SGT SHANNON: That is the logic of 10

our society, sir. 11

MR. FREIMAN: Okay. And you have 12

included in that definition of spouse common-law 13

spouse? 14

SGT SHANNON: They are one and the 15

same. There is no -- in my mind, sir, there is no 16

difference and in the Canadian Forces there is no 17

difference. If I am married before the church and 18

I deliver a marriage certificate from the Province 19

of Alberta to the Canadian Forces I am eligible to 20

access the same financial benefits for my spouse 21

as I would if I went into a statutory declaration 22

that I was common-law. 23

MR. FREIMAN: I understand that. 24

SGT SHANNON: So I -- as far as 25


226

the Canadian Forces is concerned, they do not 1

differentiate between marriage by church or by a 2

justice of the peace or by a common-law statutory 3

declaration by the Commanding Officer. 4

MR. FREIMAN: Correct. 5

SGT SHANNON: So the person 6

receives the same benefits. So in my mind there 7

is no difference if I'm going to be calling my 8

friend's wife his spouse whether they were married 9

in a church or they were declared common-law by 10

their Commanding Officer. As far as I'm 11

concerned, she is his spouse. I'm not going to 12

say, how is your common-law spouse today? 13

MR. FREIMAN: Yeah, I understand 14

what you're saying but bear with me again for a 15

moment. 16

You've said that the equation next 17

of kin equals spouse -- 18

SGT SHANNON: If a spouse exists 19

in the family relationship. 20

MR. FREIMAN: If a spouse 21

exists -- 22


MR. FREIMAN: -- next of kin 24

equals spouse is based on our tradition? 25


227

SGT SHANNON: Yes, and I can 1

foresee no circumstance where anybody -- any other 2

family member would take precedence over your 3

spouse. 4

MR. FREIMAN: Well, is it not the 5

case that in the Province of Alberta any other 6

member of Stuart Langridge's family would have 7

taken precedence over Rebecca Hamilton-Tree 8

regardless of what her status was for purposes of 9

benefits afforded by the Canadian Forces? 10

SGT SHANNON: That may be true, 11

sir, but I have no jurisdiction or no interest in 12

provincial law and it has no bearing on the 13

actions or conduct of members of the Canadian 14

Forces. 15

MR. FREIMAN: Are you saying then 16

that in the way that the Canadian Forces deals 17

with members' estates, whether military estate or 18

civil estate, and deals with issues of funerals 19

and how they are to be conducted, burials and how 20

they are to be conducted, that provincial law is 21

of no relevance? 22

SGT SHANNON: No relevance to this 23

investigation. 24

MR. FREIMAN: How did you 25


228

determine that? 1

SGT SHANNON: There is no ability 2

for a provincial statute to guide the actions of 3

the Canadian Forces. So if you take -- yeah, 4

especially as it relates to this investigation. 5

So if you take the conduct and the actions that 6

were taken in that three-day period of time, 7

provincial law has no bearing on the 8

decision-making that was done. 9

So as we've stated already, they 10

made an evaluation of the available administrative 11

documents on the file of Corporal Langridge, the 12

information that was provided solely by Corporal 13

Langridge. That document review determined that 14

Corporal Langridge wished to enter into a 15

common-law marriage with Miss Hamilton-Tree. He 16

took no steps to end that relationship prior to 17

his passing. 18

Subsequent to recognizing and 19

supporting the wishes of Stuart Langridge that he 20

was indeed common-law with Miss Hamilton-Tree, the 21

members of the Canadian Forces within the Lord 22

Strathcona Horse received and supported the 23

requests of the family on how the family wished 24

the funeral to be conducted. 25


229

The military did not suggest or 1

dictate or provide any recommendations on how the 2

funeral was to be conducted. Those decisions were 3

made entirely by the members of Stuart Langridge's 4

family, nobody else. 5

MR. FREIMAN: All right. I was 6

going to do this later but I think we'll save an 7

awful lot of time. 8

Can you please open up Tab 31 of 9

the Book of Documents? 10

--- Pause 11

MR. FREIMAN: I wasn't going to 12

deal with this at the moment because this isn't a 13

policy or a document that you identified at any 14

point in your investigation. 15


MR. FREIMAN: Are you familiar 17

with this particular document? 18



Can you turn to page 2 of 9? 21

All right, let's take this number 22

1 of the first page, not the second page. I've 23

gotten us too far into it. The chapter is 24

entitled "Responsibilities for Service, Estates 25


230

and Personal Belongings," and it's DAOD 7011-1. 1

And just for us civilians, what do 2

you understand DAOD to stand for? 3

SGT SHANNON: DAOD stands for 4

Defence Administrative Order and Directive. 5

So the DAODs are -- we're in the 6

process of policy renewal within the Canadian 7

Forces. So the Canadian Forces Administrative 8

Orders, also referred to as CFAOs, were the 9

original body of administrative orders and 10

regulations that guided the Canadian Forces for 11

the past 30 years. 12

So within the Canadian Forces 13

there is a transformation process where CFAOs are 14

being replaced by DAODs. So that is why we had 15

some confusion between the two policy regulations 16

on common-law relationships, which I'm sure we'll 17

be discussing. 18

So as a CFAO is replaced, it is 19

cancelled and the DAOD becomes the new regulations 20

that guide the Canadian Forces for administrative 21

purposes. 22

The difference between a CFAO and 23

a DAOD -- 24



231

SGT SHANNON: -- is a CFAO only 1

applied to members of the Canadian Forces that 2

were subject to the Code of Service Discipline -- 3

MR. FREIMAN: Yes. 4

SGT SHANNON: -- whereas a DAOD 5

applies to both military members and civilian 6

employees of the Department of National Defence. 7

MR. FREIMAN: All right. But 8

there's no dispute between us, is there, that this 9

is a binding policy document? 10

SGT SHANNON: As it's noted here, 11

sir, it became effective on November 21st, 2007. 12

MR. FREIMAN: So it would have 13

been in effect and valid at the date of Stuart 14

Langridge's death? 15



So let me read under the heading 18

"Responsibilities on the Death of a CF Member - 19

Commanding Officer." 20


MR. FREIMAN: 22

"When a CF member dies the 23

Commanding Officer (CO) 24

shall:" 25


232

And the first bullet point is: 1

"take immediate action as 2

required to ensure that all 3

personal or movable property 4

forming part of the service 5

estate that is found on the 6

deceased person or in 7

quarters or otherwise in the 8

care or custody of the CF is 9

collected and safeguarded;" 10


MR. FREIMAN: That's easy enough. 12

Two: 13

"not take the action in 14

respect of any personal or 15

movable property located in 16

family living accommodation 17

or already in the care and 18

custody of the next of kin, 19

executor or liquidator of the 20

succession unless in the 21

opinion of the Director of 22

Estates National Defence 23

Headquarters the 24

circumstances make such 25


233

action necessary for its 1

safekeeping;" 2

That's also pretty easy. 3


MR. FREIMAN: We don't have a 5

definition here of "next of kin," do we? 6

SGT SHANNON: No, sir. As I've 7

explained, I was not able to find any conclusive 8

definition of "next of kin." 9

MR. FREIMAN: Next: 10

"appoint a Committee of 11

Adjustment (COA) within 48 12

hours of the death;" 13

Also not problematic. 14

Next: 15

"ensure the Record Support 16

Unit (URS) promptly forwards 17

to the Director of Estates 18

any will or will certificate 19

held in custody for the 20

deceased or if no will or 21

will certificate is held a 22

statement to that effect;" 23

Also not an issue. 24

Next: 25


234

"advise the Director of 1

Estates of the name and 2

telephone number of the 3

Assisting Officer designated 4

to assist the next of kin, 5

executor or liquidator of 6

succession;" 7

Again, not problematic but we 8

still don't know what "next of kin" means. 9

SGT SHANNON: Correct, sir. 10

MR. FREIMAN: Next: 11

"report any deviation from 12

this DAOD promptly to the 13

Director of Estates;" 14

Also nothing. 15

Next: 16

"The executor or liquidator 17

of the succession..." 18

And as I understand it "liquidator 19

of the succession" is a civil law term that is 20

specific to the Province of Quebec, so we don't 21

have to worry about that. 22


MR. FREIMAN: Take that out -- 24

still don't know what next of kin means. 25


235

MS RICHARDS: Sorry. I'm sorry to 1

interrupt, but the way you are reading those, Mr. 2

Freiman, you started with the direction that this 3

is what the Commanding Officer shall do. 4

MR. FREIMAN: Yes. 5

MS RICHARDS: The portion that you 6

are moving on to is not part of that paragraph. 7

MR. FREIMAN: Fine. 8

MS RICHARDS: And I just wanted to 9

be clear the way you read -- left that. 10

MR. FREIMAN: Yes. There's a new 11

paragraph now, it's still -- 12

THE CHAIRPERSON: After the bullet 13

points. 14

MR. FREIMAN: After the bullet 15

points. 16

MS RICHARDS: That's correct. 17

Just when you said "next" I just wanted to be 18

clear. 19

MR. FREIMAN: It's still under the 20

Chapter heading Commanding Officer, for better or 21

for worse. 22

A separate paragraph with no 23

bullet points: 24

"The executor..." 25


236

I'm going to take out "liquidator 1

of the succession". 2

"The executor ... named in a 3

will is, subject to 4

provincial law, entitled to 5

the custody of the remains. 6

The executor or liquidator of 7

the succession is not 8

necessarily the deceased's 9

next of kin. For meaning of 10

'next of kin' see the context 11

block of DAOD 7011-0 'Service 12

Estates and Personal 13

Belongings'." (As read) 14

And I want to review with you a 15

couple of things in this particular paragraph. 16

My reading of this paragraph, sir, 17

is that where there is a reference to executor 18

of -- sorry, that "subject to provincial law" -- 19


MR. FREIMAN: -- this particular 21

notation states that it is the executor who is 22

entitled to the custody of the remains. 23

SGT SHANNON: That's correct, sir, 24

and we have already agreed to that before. 25


237

MR. FREIMAN: And the executor, as 1

being entitled to the custody of remains -- 2

SGT SHANNON: Subject to 3

provincial law, yes. 4

MR. FREIMAN: -- is subject to 5

provincial law. 6


MR. FREIMAN: And is it the 8

executor, the identity of the executor that is 9

subject to provincial law or is it the entitlement 10

to custody of the remains is subject to -- 11

SGT SHANNON: The duties of the 12

executor are defined by provincial law, one of 13

which is the disposition of the person based on 14

their wishes, which could be identified in the 15

Will, say cremation versus full burial. 16

MR. FREIMAN: Yes. And in this 17

case a decision was made about cremation versus 18

full burial and we have heard that there was some 19

discussion as to which of the two. 20

SGT SHANNON: Yes. There was 21

negotiation between Mrs. Fynes and Ms 22

Hamilton-Tree. 23

MR. FREIMAN: And, whatever else, 24

it wasn't made by the executor? 25


238


MR. FREIMAN: And is it correct 2

also that provincial law here is put into a 3

context that is relevant to what -- 4

SGT SHANNON: But it has no -- 5

MR. FREIMAN: -- to what the 6

Canadian Forces -- 7

SGT SHANNON: But again, it has no 8

bearing, sir, on the substance of my 9

investigation. I wasn't investigating this 10

matter. I was investigating next of kin -- 11

MR. FREIMAN: Weren't -- 12

SGT SHANNON: -- and nothing else. 13

MR. FREIMAN: Well, at the 14

beginning you were investigating next of kin and 15

nothing else, which you interpreted as common-law, 16

but by November the 1st you were investigating, 17

were you not, who was entitled to make decisions 18

about the funeral or about the burial? 19

SGT SHANNON: No, sir. The 20

invest -- the allegation that was made by Mrs. 21

Fynes on national television was that the military 22

let somebody else plan her son's funeral which, if 23

proven to be true, could constitute an offence of 24

negligent performance of military duty. That was 25


239

the third allegation that I added, that the 1

military let somebody else but her plan her son's 2

funeral. 3

MR. FREIMAN: Well, isn't the 4

funeral an aspect of custody of the remains? 5

SGT SHANNON: That would be 6

something for somebody with knowledge of those 7

laws to address. 8

MR. FREIMAN: But if it is an 9

aspect of custody of the remains, doesn't this 10

particular section make it clear that it is 11

provincial law that governs this entire issue? 12

SGT SHANNON: Yes, sir. And 13

again, if you look at this regulation it places 14

the responsibility on the Director of Estates, not 15

the Commanding Officer of the Lord Strathcona 16

Horse. 17

The Commanding Officer of the Lord 18

Strathcona Horse has a huge amount of 19

responsibility, this this is not part of his 20

responsibility. The order transfers the 21

responsibility to the Director of Estates and I 22

believe that's how everything was dealt with 23

regarding the service estate for this matter. 24

All the forms were sent to Ottawa, 25


240

the Will was sent to Ottawa, Ottawa took over the 1

admin -- the casualty administration. The duties 2

of -- the duties that fall on the hands of the 3

Commanding Officer are clearly defined by 4

regulation. This regulation would not apply 5

because it specifically transfers responsibility 6

to the Director of Estates. 7

So the duties of the Commanding 8

Officer ends at the end of the bullet. That next 9

paragraph, the Commanding Officer is no longer 10

responsible. His duties are clearly defined by 11

the orders for casualty notification. So when 12

I -- 13

MR. FREIMAN: Are you saying that 14

it's the Director of Estates who should have been 15

responsible for ensuring that the proper person 16

was making the decisions? 17

SGT SHANNON: No, it's the person 18

whose responsibility it is to make sure that he 19

makes the proper decisions. I can't tell you or 20

guide you in how you make decisions. 21

MR. FREIMAN: No. 22

SGT SHANNON: If you become aware 23

of a decision that you have, it's your 24

responsibility to execute those responsibilities. 25


241

If you fail to execute your responsibilities the 1

next person capable of doing it obviously has to 2

step in. If Mr. Wight was not there, was not 3

interacting with the family between the 15th of 4

March and the day of the funeral, that is nobody's 5

responsibility within the Canadian Forces, that is 6

a family issue. 7

MR. FREIMAN: Is your answer still 8

the same in light of the fact no one appears to 9

have asked Mr. Wight to discharge any 10

responsibilities vis-à-vis the funeral, but they 11

did inform Ms Hamilton-Tree that she had some 12

authority, or you don't agree with that? 13

MS RICHARDS: I just want to be 14

clear on the record and I don't want to give 15

evidence, but perhaps your -- just to rephrase 16

your question, I believe your question would be 17

nobody within the Canadian Forces -- 18


MS RICHARDS: -- asked, because 20

there is evidence regarding other individuals 21

before this Commission. 22

THE CHAIRPERSON: Mr. Freiman...? 23

SGT SHANNON: My response to that, 24

sir, would be that nobody in the -- no member of 25


242

the Canadian Forces that was the subject of my 1

investigation, I would not ever even hypothesize 2

that it would be their responsibility to ensure 3

that the executor was doing his job appropriately. 4

Again, as we have had a number of conversations, 5

my logical assumption, my first initiative, my 6

first thought in my mind if I had to deal with a 7

friend that had had a problem, my first instinct 8

would be to talk to the spouse and nobody else. 9

MR. FREIMAN: Can we look, then, 10

just briefly -- and then I think we may conclude 11

with this, depending on how long it takes us -- 12

can we look at Tab 95. This is another DAOD and 13

it's the one that was referred to in 7011-1. 14

Now, sir, am I correct that this 15

is also not a document that you turned up in your 16

investigation? 17

SGT SHANNON: I do not -- I 18

believe I do not -- don't think I touched this 19

one. 20


I'm going to ask you if you have 22

any idea as to how you missed this directive and 23

DOAD 7011-1 in terms -- do you think that 7011-1 24

is at all relevant to any of the matters? 25


243


MR. FREIMAN: None. 2

SGT SHANNON: No. 3


So let me ask you if you think 5

this is relevant. It's entitled "Service Estates 6

and Personal Belongings". The third section under 7

the heading "Policy Direction" is entitled 8

"Context". This is the dialogue box that is 9

referred to in 7011-1. 10


MR. FREIMAN: And it says: 12

"The term 'next of kin' (NOK) 13

normally means a person's 14

spouse, common-law partner, 15

child or parent." (As read) 16

Do you see that? 17

SGT SHANNON: Yes, sir 18

MR. FREIMAN: Isn't this a 19

definition -- 20


MR. FREIMAN: -- of "next of kin"? 22

SGT SHANNON: I do not believe 23

that you could refer or including the word 24

"normally" in any academic context of definition. 25


244

This is an opinion. This is just 1

like we have been talking. "Normally" means it's 2

not conclusive, it's not contextual so I could not 3

say that you could use that as a definition. 4

In all my academic study I have 5

never taken a definition and found the word 6

"normally". A definition is black and white. So 7

I would -- 8

MR. FREIMAN: Doesn't the word 9

"normally" mean unless there is some circumstance 10

to the contrary or some exception? 11

SGT SHANNON: But this is exactly 12

what we have been talking about all afternoon, 13

sir. "Normally", based on the customs of our 14

society, the next of kin is the spouse. If a 15

spouse doesn't exist by marriage under law it's a 16

common-law partner because there is a statutory 17

relationship. If no spouse exists, then a child, 18

if a child exists in that person's world. If not, 19

then the parent. 20

In my case, my next of kin, as we 21

have stated, is my father. That is based on the 22

customs of our society and that is reflected in 23

that first sentence. 24

MR. FREIMAN: Well, I see a 25


245

listing of a number of names, I don't see that 1

this is in order of priority, do you? 2

SGT SHANNON: And I have been 3

telling you that all afternoon, that I have not 4

been able to find any document that says this is 5

the order that you follow. Under the provincial 6

law in the Province of Alberta it does have some 7

idea, it says executor, spouse, but that is for 8

specific issues. That is for the issues that that 9

law follows, but there are a whole bunch of laws 10

that that doesn't apply to. 11

So again, there is no substantive 12

definition or process and that is why ultimately 13

it's the decision of a judge to determine who 14

is -- if there is conflict or if somebody is 15

contesting next of kin. That is why it is up to a 16

judge and nobody else. Nobody else can make that 17

legal determination. 18

MR. FREIMAN: And I may just be 19

missing the obvious, but does that mean that in 20

the current case to the extent that there were 21

differences of opinion -- and maybe we are Monday 22

morning quarterback -- 23

SGT SHANNON: If I may be there 24

correct, sir. 25


246

MR. FREIMAN: Yes. 1

SGT SHANNON: So as I have 2

outlined my window of time is 15 to 18 of March 3

for the purpose of the next of kin allegation. I 4

am not able to find any reference in a document 5

that says there was any contesting of the fact 6

that Ms Hamilton-Tree was the common-law spouse 7

between the 15th and the 18th. In fact, I was 8

unable to identify any record that there was any 9

issue with a determination of Ms Hamilton-Tree 10

being the common-law spouse up until the very -- I 11

believe the 1st of April is the first reference 12

made by Major Parkinson that Mr. And Mrs. Fynes 13

are considering legal action to contest the 14

marital status. That is the first reference that 15

I know of, 1 April. 16

MR. FREIMAN: So does that mean 17

that because no one at the time contested the 18

decision it is accepted as being accurate and 19

correct. 20

SGT SHANNON: No, I'm not saying 21

that, sir, but when I am assessing the mental 22

state, the mens rea component of the individuals 23

in question, I cannot have -- find any information 24

that would provide me with conclusive evidence 25


247

that they had the requisite guilty mind to commit 1

the offence. 2

MR. FREIMAN: Okay. Well, we are 3

way down the road there because you're already 4

now -- 5

SGT SHANNON: There is a direct 6

relationship, sir. It's not way down the road, 7

it's you're always considering the issue of mens 8

rea at every stage of the investigation. 9

MR. FREIMAN: Now, my 10

understanding is that at least in terms of conduct 11

to the prejudice of discipline and good order -- 12

I'm not sure I have the name right -- 13


MR. FREIMAN: -- that the mens rea 15

is awareness of the military duty and a failure to 16

follow it. 17

SGT SHANNON: Not for that 18

particular offence, sir. You are still referring 19

to section 124, not 129. 20

MR. FREIMAN: So what is the mens 21

rea for 129? 22

SGT SHANNON: So if you were to 23

turn to the investigation plan -- so that's on 24

page 286, sir, 25


248

MR. FREIMAN: Yes. Yes, I'm with 1

you. 2

SGT SHANNON: I'm in the wrong 3

book, sir. Hang on for a moment. 4

--- Pause 5

SGT SHANNON: So paragraph 3 6

identifies the elements of the offence and we have 7

a reference book that's available to us within the 8

National Investigation Service that is an Aide 9

Memoire provided or prepared by the Regional 10

Military Prosecution Service for the Canadian 11

Forces. So it's similar to Gibson's for Criminal 12

Code determination of elements of the offence and 13

I believe we have provided the relevant sections 14

of that Aide Memoire for the two offences under 15

consideration. So if you have concerns on 16

where -- how the elements were identified, it came 17

from that document. 18


SGT SHANNON: So the Director of 20

Military Prosecution Service has prepared this 21

document for us and it breaks down the statutory 22

elements of every offence. 23

MR. FREIMAN: Let's look then, at 24

number 4, "Neglect to the prejudice of good order 25


249

and discipline". 1

SGT SHANNON: Right. So the final 2

one with the mens rea component comes in is 3

paragraph (e) which is a blameworthy state of mind 4

of the accused. 5

MR. FREIMAN: And what is that -- 6

SGT SHANNON: That is the mens rea 7

component. 8

MR. FREIMAN: Well, what is 9

blameworthy? 10

SGT SHANNON: That they intended 11

to commit the behaviour or the conduct that is 12

subject -- that did prejudice good order and 13

discipline. 14


I just want to be clear, it's not 16

that they intended to prejudice good order and 17

discipline in the Canadian Forces, it is they 18

intended to do whatever it is that is alleged to 19

have prejudiced good order, discipline in the 20

Forces. 21

MR. FREIMAN: Yes. And then, in 22

addition -- so you have to also establish: Was 23

discipline actually prejudiced. So that's 24

subparagraph (d). So you have to -- as a 25


250

component of your investigation you have to have 1

factual information that discipline was negatively 2

impacted based on that person's conduct. 3

SGT SHANNON: And what is the 4

meaning of good order? 5

SGT SHANNON: That is up to the 6

trier of fact. 7

MR. FREIMAN: All right. So it's 8

not just discipline, it's what the trier of fact 9

things is good order. 10

SGT SHANNON: Yes, sir. And 11

that's this -- traditionally this offence 129 is a 12

summary conviction only offence tried by a 13

Commanding Officer at the summary trial level. So 14

its intent is to enforce discipline. So 15

traditionally this would be the charge if I had 16

shown up today and my uniform had been wrinkled or 17

I didn't have an appropriate haircut or my boots 18

weren't shiny or I was five minutes late for work. 19

That is discipline and my conduct has again 20

affected the operations of the Canadian Forces. 21

MR. FREIMAN: Can I suggest that 22

perhaps the meaning of "good order" is conduct 23

that is to the prejudice of good order, is conduct 24

that might bring the military or some portion of 25


251

it into disrepute? 1

SGT SHANNON: There is a separate 2

offence for that, sir. Off the top of my head the 3

only phrase where that is used I believe is for 4

the offence of drunkenness, which is section 97(2) 5

where -- no, I'm sorry, 1(b) where it actually 6

does make it an offence to bring -- to discredit 7

Her Majesty The Queen. 8


Just to wind up with you today, if 10

you look at the DOAD at Tab 95 -- you have already 11

told us that the earlier DOAD at Tab 31 was 12

irrelevant to the matters you are considering. 13


MR. FREIMAN: If you had been 15

aware of it, would the DOAD at Tab 95 have been 16

relevant? 17

SGT SHANNON: It would, sir, but I 18

believe that the information that's there is 19

pretty much exactly what's included in the 20

Assisting Officer's Guide to the Commanding 21

Officer. So there's the Commanding Officer's 22

Guide, the Assisting Officer's Guide, so I believe 23

I spoke about that a bit previously. And the 24

purpose of those guides is to bring together all 25


252

the various policies and publications and rules 1

and put it into a quick reference book for laymen 2

like myself to be able to go to assist a family in 3

their time of need. 4

So I have one book, it's all 5

tabbed. I don't know if you have the actual books 6

as exhibits. 7

MR. FREIMAN: I'm sure we have it 8

somewhere. 9

SGT SHANNON: But I believe if you 10

go through there, that same phase is included in 11

that reference guide which I did have access to 12

and which I did consider. 13


So just as a final point for 15

today, can we at least come to an agreement that 16

although you say next of kin means spouse, this 17

policy direction doesn't follow that definition? 18

SGT SHANNON: It does follow that 19

definition. It says, next of kin is normally the 20

spouse, the common-law spouse, in the absence of a 21

common-law spouse a child and in the -- or a 22

parent. 23

MR. FREIMAN: Where does it say 24

"in the absence of"? 25


253

SGT SHANNON: I'm just 1

paraphrasing. 2

MR. FREIMAN: Oh no, you're 3

interpolating. I don't think that's the same as 4

paraphrasing. 5

SGT SHANNON: Well, okay. So if 6

you take out that phrase, but what you're 7

referring to says next of kin equals spouse, 8

equals in -- if it's not a legal spouse in the 9

church it's a common-law, if there is no 10

common-law child or parent. 11

MR. FREIMAN: Again, where does it 12

say if there is no common-law? Where does it say 13

if there is no common-law -- 14

SGT SHANNON: It doesn't say -- 15

those words are not joined by the phrase "and". 16

It says spouse comma, common-law comma, child or 17

parent. 18

MR. FREIMAN: And is that not -- 19

SGT SHANNON: So it's telling you 20

one or the other. The pure evaluation of the 21

English language. "Or" means one or the other, 22

not both. You can't have two. It's using the 23

word "or", not "and". 24

MR. FREIMAN: Well, if I say that 25


254

a parent is a mother or a father, does that mean 1

that a parent is a mother and in the absence of a 2

mother it's a father? 3

SGT SHANNON: But that's not the 4

context of how that's written. If you read how 5

that's written it says one or the other. 6

MR. FREIMAN: If I say a family 7

member is a mother, a father or a child, does that 8

mean that if it's a mother -- 9

SGT SHANNON: Well, that's 10

different. 11

MR. FREIMAN: -- if there's no 12

mother it's the father and if there's no father 13

it's the child? 14

SGT SHANNON: But we're not 15

talking -- you're talking eggs and chickens. 16

MR. FREIMAN: I'm talking the 17

English language, sir. 18

SGT SHANNON: But you're talking 19

about eggs and chickens. In the family situation 20

the spouse has priority based on the customs of 21

our society. 22

MR. FREIMAN: Okay. Well, we are 23

back to that, so that's fine. 24

THE CHAIRPERSON: That's your 25


255

opinion so we will -- 1

SGT SHANNON: It is my opinion 2

yes, sir. 3

THE CHAIRPERSON: Yes, okay. 4

MR. FREIMAN: Okay. I think this 5

is a convenient place to break. 6


We are adjourned until 9:30 8

tomorrow morning and I think we will be fine for 9

tomorrow. 10

MR. FREIMAN: I'm still fine for 11

tomorrow. 12

THE CHAIRPERSON: I assume that, 13

so I suppose I should note that. 14

MR. FREIMAN: No. I think we have 15

eliminated a number of issues that were of 16

interest to me. 17

THE CHAIRPERSON: Okay. Thank 18

you. 19

--- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1637 20

to resume Thursday, September 20, 2012 21

at 0930 / L'audience est ajournée à 1637, 22

pour reprendre le mercredi 20 septembre 2012 23

à 0930 24

25


256

We hereby certify: 1

That the foregoing is a true 2

and correct transcript of the 3

reporting notes and 4

recordings so taken. 5

We further certify that none 6

of the reporting staff is 7

related to or an employee of 8

any attorney or of any of the 9

parties, nor financially 10

interested in the action. 11

We declare that the foregoing 12

is true and correct. 13

14

15

16

17

___________________ 18

Lynda Johansson 19

20

___________________ ______________________ 21

Monique Mahoney Susan Villeneuve 22

23

___________________ ______________________ 24

Karen Paré Beverley Dillabough 25

Military Police Commission d'examen des Complaints...

Documents

Transcript of Military Police Commission d'examen des Complaints...