11-30 - 2010 Transcript of Proceedings at Polygamy Reference Case Day 6

1
Preliminary matters
1 November 30th, 2010

2 Vancouver, B.C.
3
4 (DAY 6)
5 (PROCEEDINGS COMMENCED AT 10:00 A.M.)
6
7 THE CLERK: Order in court. In the Supreme Court of
8 British Columbia at Vancouver on this 30th day of
9 November, 2010, recalling the matter concerning
10 the constitutionality of section 293 of the
11 Criminal Code, My Lord.
12 MR. JONES: Thank you, My Lord. With the leave of the
13 Court just a couple of housekeeping matters before
14 we get underway. First a changing of the guard.
15 I'm joined at my counsel table today by Ms. Leah
16 Greathead and Karen Horsman.
17 A couple matters I wanted to bring to
18 Your Lord's attention and get some direction.
19 With respect to the Quebec Status of Women
20 report that Your Lordship's has been made aware
21 of. It's a 150-page report. It's in French with
22 an English summary. Mr. Macintosh has requested
23 that, quite reasonably so, that a translation be
24 provided. We have found within our organization a
25 certified French/English translator and she has
26 begun work on it. It will take awhile. She's
27 doing it sort of off the corner of her desk so I
28 will keep the court apprised on that. We'll get
29 it done as soon as possible.
30 With respect to the library, we've arranged
31 for a room here and we're in the process of
32 copying the materials. We'll provide bookshelves
33 for the library. I would seek a direction from
34 Your Lordship that we post a sign in the library
35 saying that materials won't be removed from the
36 library and requests can be made of the parties if
37 they want copies that aren't available on the
38 internet.
39 THE COURT: Yes, thank you.
40 MR. JONES: Thank you, My Lord. And that's all from
41 me.
42 THE COURT: Well, yes.
43 MR. DELANEY: My Lord, just by way of introduction.
44 I'm here on behalf of Dan Burnett. My name is
45 Harvey Delaney on behalf of the media.
46 THE COURT: Thanks, Mr. Delaney. Now, I understand --
47 I had intended to give reasons on the AGBC's
2
Preliminary matters
1 application with respect to the publication ban

2 this morning, but I understand from an e-mail from
3 Mr. Jones that Ms. Lane apparently wishes to
4 address the court on the issue.
5 MR. JONES: That's right, My Lord.
6 THE COURT: Were you aware of that, Mr. Delaney?
7 MR. DELANEY: No, My Lord.
8 THE COURT: Have you any -- I'm of course inclined to
9 hear from her within reason. Any submissions?
10 MR. DELANEY: Because I don't know what she will be
11 submitting on, My Lord, it's certainly within your
12 discretion to hear her now.
13 THE COURT: So what is the story here, Mr. Jones?
14 MR. JONES: Well, I didn't discuss with her what she
15 would say. It was clear that she was concerned
16 with respect to the affidavit material regarding
17 the Dr. Phil interview. She wanted to explain why
18 she hadn't done any media since that interview and
19 the circumstances in which that interview arose,
20 which I understand was when she was still a part
21 of Mr. Blackmore's family. She now of course has
22 left him.
23 And she was also concerned I think that the
24 consequences of the internet publication to her
25 hadn't been made in the court. So those are the
26 only two things she mentioned in what was a very
27 brief telephone conversation and I said that I
28 would pass along her request.
29 THE COURT: Well, I take it -- where does she live?
30 MR. JONES: I'm sorry?
31 THE COURT: She lives in the United States.
32 MR. JONES: That's right, she does, My Lord.
33 THE COURT: I take it she doesn't want to travel here.
34 MR. JONES: No, My Lord. She would prefer to do it --
35 I think probably telephone would be preferable to
36 her. That would be my suspicion. But we could
37 arrange video if it were necessary.
38 THE COURT: Well, I think we can probably hear her by
39 telephone but can you get back to her and find out
40 when she wants to do that?
41 MR. JONES: Absolutely, My Lord.
42 THE COURT: So, Mr. Delaney, we'll be delayed but
43 there's no order in place for the time being.
44 MR. JONES: And I should say, My Lord, with respect to
45 Mr. Delaney, I apologize. We sent the e-mail to
46 Mr. Burnett and I just imagined that it wasn't
47 forwarded this morning.
3
Preliminary matters
1 THE COURT: So you will get back to us on that and keep

2 your friends advised?
3 MR. JONES: Yes, My Lord.
4 THE COURT: Thank you very much. So I will postpone
5 that ruling in light of the situation. Thanks,
6 Mr. Delaney.
7 MR. DELANEY: If I may be excused.
8 THE COURT: Absolutely. Mr. Macintosh.
9 MR. MACINTOSH: My Lord, the first witness is Professor
10 Angela Campbell and I would ask that Ms. Campbell
11 come to the witness stand and while she is doing
12 that, My Lord, just let me advise that the
13 attorneys general and Stop Polygamy in Canada have
14 advised that they take issue with Professor
15 Campbell's qualifications to give her evidence.
16 And in the result of that I will need to lead from
17 Professor Campbell her background in greater
18 detail than I ordinarily might.
19 THE COURT: So we'll start with a voir dire then on the
20 qualifications of the witness?
21 MR. MACINTOSH: That's right. And what I would submit
22 might be appropriate, My Lord, would be what is
23 close to the normal process. I would lead
24 Professor Campbell's qualification evidence. My
25 friends who wish to cross-examine her on her
26 qualifications will do so and then we could have
27 the submissions if that suited Your Lordship.
28 THE COURT: Certainly.
29 MR. MACINTOSH: Thank you. Professor Campbell advised
30 she would wish to be sworn.
31
32 ANGELA CAMPBELL, a
33 witness, called by the
34 Amicus, sworn.
35
36 THE CLERK: My Lord, we are entering a voir dire.
37 THE COURT: I'm declaring a voir dire with respect to
38 the qualifications of the witness.
39 THE CLERK: Please state your full name and spell your
40 last name for the record.
41 THE WITNESS: Angela Robin Campbell. C-a-m-p-b-e-l-l.
42 THE COURT: Please have a seat, Professor Campbell.
43 MR. MACINTOSH: My Lord, thank you. If you care to
44 access it, My Lord, there are two relevant
45 documents, one of which you have, one of which you
46 do not. The first is one you do have which is
47 Professor Campbell's first affidavit. That for
4
Angela Campbell (for the Amicus)
In chief on qualifications by Mr. Macintosh (voir dire)
1 you would be I believe volume 1, tab 1 in the

2 materials -- in the amicus ^ sp materials -- thank
3 you, My Lord -- and that has been marked by my
4 record as Exhibit G for identification.
5 THE COURT: Yes.
6 MR. MACINTOSH: And the reserved exhibit number is
7 Exhibit 59.
8 THE COURT: Correct.
9 MR. MACINTOSH: And there is another document, My Lord,
10 on Ms. Campbell's qualifications which I'm going
11 to hand to Your Lordship and I've handed to
12 Ms. Campbell. And what this is, and you will see
13 soon enough anyway, it's a letter our firm wrote
14 to the attorneys general because they wrote to us
15 to ask about Ms. Campbell's qualifications and we
16 wrote back and told them what they were in the
17 hope that this application might be avoided, but
18 that did not come to pass.
19 However, what's in here is germane to her
20 qualifications and I'll be leading evidence from
21 her in that regard.
22 And before I turn there, My Lord, I will be
23 dealing initially with the introductory portion of
24 Professor Campbell's first affidavit, and I trust
25 Your Lordship has that handy.
26 THE COURT: I do.
27
28 EXAMINATION IN CHIEF BY MR. MACINTOSH:
29 Q Professor Campbell, you're a professor of law at
30 McGill University?
31 A I am.
32 Q And you're the director at the McGill Law School
33 of the Institute of Comparative Law?
34 A I am.
35 Q And the Institute of Comparative Law, if you can
36 just in a sentence or two tell His Lordship what
37 that is about.
38 A Sure. The Institute of Comparative Law is one of
39 the two graduate entities at the faculty of law
40 through which graduate students who pursue masters
41 and doctoral studies can pursue their graduate
42 degrees. So there are two institutes and also a
43 general faculty program. The Institute of
44 Comparative Law or the ICL is one and the second
45 is the Institute of Air and Space Law or the IASL.
46 Q Thank you. And the Institute of Comparative Law,
47 does it have a social science aspect?
5
1 A The Institute of Comparative Law's vocation

2 primarily is to encourage the study of comparative
3 law broadly understood among faculty members and
4 students and comparative law is understood as law
5 that compares across jurisdictions, across legal
6 traditions and across disciplines.
7 Q Now, your work in addition to teaching and in
8 addition to being a director of that institute
9 includes the conduct of academic research?
10 A It does.
11 Q And particularly in the area of women in
12 polygamist marriage?
13 A It includes that.
14 Q And you've sworn two affidavits in this
15 proceeding?
16 A Yes.
17 Q And for the record perhaps only, My Lord, one is
18 dated June 4th and the other is dated
19 October 14th.
20 Now, do you have handy, Professor, your first
21 affidavit, the one which was sworn on June 4th?
22 A Yes, I do.
23 Q And if you can turn in that affidavit to tab A
24 what you should have there is your curriculum
25 vitae?
26 A Yes.
27 Q And at least up to the time that you swore this
28 affidavit, that is June of 2010, everything that
29 is stated in that CV is correct?
30 A Yes.
31 Q I don't intend to take you through all of that.
32 I'll come to it from time to time. You obtained
33 your combined BCL, LLB from McGill law school in
34 1999?
35 A Yes.
36 Q And did so with what is noted in your record as
37 great distinction and being on the dean's honour
38 list?
39 A Yes.
40 Q And in 2000 you obtained your master of law from
41 Harvard law school?
42 A Yes.
43 Q And you clerked after that in the Supreme Court of
44 Canada?
45 A Yes.
46 Q And you clerked there with Justice Iacobucci?
47 A Yes.
6
1 Q And that was in 2000/2001?

2 A That's correct.
3 Q And then you worked as an associate lawyer with
4 the Oslers firm in Toronto?
5 A M'mm-hmm.
6 Q In 2002?
7 A Yes.
8 Q You became an assistant professor at the
9 University of Ottawa in 2003?
10 A 2002/2003.
11 Q Very well. And then you moved to McGill and
12 became a professor in, I believe, 2003?
13 A Yes.
14 Q And have as we have heard remained there since?
15 A That's right.
16 Q And broadly speaking your fields of interest in
17 legal research and teaching are family law and
18 criminal law and health law?
19 A That's right.
20 MR. MACINTOSH: Now, My Lord, just to interject if I
21 may, my friends are asserting that Professor
22 Campbell is not qualified to be giving the
23 evidence she is giving and thus I will embark on a
24 line of inquiry now that I submit is germane to
25 that.
26 Q And Professor Campbell, what I wish to do is to
27 acquaint His Lordship with your work leading to
28 your work in interviewing women in Bountiful, and
29 I want to begin in 2005 with a paper you wrote at
30 that time for the Status of Women Canada?
31 A Yes.
32 Q And the Status of Women Canada, which is not
33 functioning now because of federal funding, but at
34 the time it was an agency funded by the federal
35 government?
36 A That's right.
37 Q And you wrote a paper on social, economic and
38 health implications of women living in polygamy?
39 A Yes.
40 Q And when you did that you were writing one of the
41 four reports that were published under the
42 auspices of the SWC?
43 A That's right.
44 Q And the publication of the SWC was Polygamy in
45 Canada: Legal and Social Implications for Women
46 and Children. And if I can cross reference that
47 with your resume.
7
1 A M'mm-hmm.
2 Q If we look in your resume or your CV and if we
3 turn in it to page 4 we see some of the articles
4 that you've published, and under item E "Policy
5 Reports and Publications" we see the first one,
6 "How Have Policy Approaches to Polygamy Responded
7 to Women's Experiences and Rights."
8 A Right.
9 Q And as I understand it that references the paper
10 you wrote for the Status of Women Canada at that
11 time?
12 A That's the one.
13 Q And insofar as it leads to what work you later did
14 at Bountiful what were you saying in that paper in
15 part with respect to the need for information?
16 A In that paper I came to the conclusion -- based on
17 a review of secondary sources primarily pertaining
18 to women in polygamy, I came to the conclusion
19 that there was insufficient primary material with
20 respect to polygamy as it's experienced by women
21 in the North American context, but especially in
22 the Canadian context. There was no -- very
23 little, very few in the way of primary sources on
24 that particular topic. And my conclusion with
25 respect to the report that was prepared for Status
26 of Women was that before law reform was considered
27 in connection with section 293 of the Criminal
28 Code that it was critical to pursue additional
29 research that would assess on the ground the way
30 in which polygamy is experienced by women in
31 plural marriage communities.
32 Q Thank you. And when you -- in essence you advised
33 the Status of Women Canada of your view in that
34 regard?
35 A I did.
36 Q And when you were doing the research for the SWC
37 paper were you, in fact, contacted by women from
38 Bountiful?
39 A Yes, I was contacted by about three or four women
40 from the community.
41 Q And at that time did you consider it realistic to
42 incorporate the input you had received from them
43 at that stage?
44 A When they contacted me I was actually quite
45 surprised that they would have contacted someone
46 from outside of their group. They were aware of
47 who I was because of the names of the commissioned
8
1 researchers on Status of Women's website. So they

2 looked up who was being commissioned to prepare
3 research for Status of Women and saw my name there
4 and then contacted me by e-mail and by telephone
5 and invited me to interview them.
6 There was also a person who had left the
7 community who did the same. And I thought that
8 their argument or their claim was quite
9 compelling. I felt like if -- their argument
10 specifically was that it was important for them to
11 be communicated with in connection with this study
12 given that their sense was that whatever
13 conclusions were reached, that they would be the
14 primary -- primary persons affected by those
15 conclusions. And I found that that was actually
16 quite a compelling argument. However there were
17 three months in which to complete the research for
18 Status of Women and also there was a particular
19 budget that was allocated for this research, and
20 time and budget together did not allow for
21 conducting the kind of research that they had
22 invited specifically because before pursuing that
23 kind of work ethics review would have had to have
24 been conducted and there just wasn't enough to do
25 that kind of work well.
26 Q Very well. And if we turn in the body of your
27 first affidavit to page number 3 and we go to
28 paragraph number 10.
29 A Yes.
30 Q And as I have read that paragraph, that was a
31 summary of where you had come to, so to speak, at
32 the end of this first SWC paper referencing a lack
33 of academic literature on the implications of
34 polygamy for woman in Canada, the need in your
35 mind for additional research before section 293 of
36 the code was further examined, and quoting from
37 your report at the bottom of page 3 that as a key
38 part of the methodology direct communication with
39 women in polygamy was needed in your opinion?
40 A That's right.
41 Q Now, that of course for an academic, by that I
42 mean going into the field and actually talking to
43 people, requires funding and one of your next
44 steps was to seek funding to carry out the further
45 study?
46 A That's right.
47 Q And in that regard which federal agency did you
9
1 approach?
2 A I approached the SSHRC, or the Social Sciences and
3 Humanities Research Council of Canada.
4 Q And it is a federal institution?
5 A It is.
6 Q And you sought funding from SSHRC in 2006?
7 A Yes.
8 Q And that was a request to undertake empirical
9 qualitative research, and the word "qualitative"
10 as I understand is a term of art which we will
11 come to, but to undertake empirical qualitative
12 research to examine the lived experiences of women
13 living in polygamy?
14 A Yes.
15 Q And you were granted funding by the SSHRC after
16 you put in your grant proposal?
17 A Yes, I was funded.
18 Q And that funding was intended to enable you to
19 pursue what I'm calling field research between
20 2006 and 2009?
21 A Yes.
22 Q And I want to stress a little bit of the review
23 methodology that SSHRC employs.
24 Does it bring in peer review?
25 A It does. So your proposal is submitted to a
26 number of peer reviewers through a process that is
27 anonymized on my end, so I don't know who the
28 reviewers are but the reviewers typically know who
29 I am, and they are considered to be experts in the
30 field and they're chosen by SSHRC, although there
31 is a process in the application process where you
32 can nominate reviewers but SSHRC is not bound to
33 select those individuals.
34 And so the number of reviewers, peer
35 reviewers, who are experts in your field can range
36 from two to four. And pursuant to that they
37 submit reports and then there is an administrative
38 committee within SSHRC that then looks at the
39 reviews that have been submitted by the peers and
40 assesses and weights based on evaluation of both
41 the substance of the proposed research as well as
42 the academic's own publication and pedagogical
43 record
44 Q Thank you. And in your application to the SSHRC
45 for funding you set out your experience with
46 respect to conducting field research and linked
47 that to a request for funding to include
10
1 assistance from a person trained in sociological

2 field research, if I can call it that?
3 A That's right.
4 Q And we'll come to that, but in essence for now the
5 SSHRC reviewed that request, saw your own
6 background, saw your request to have this
7 sociologically trained person included in the
8 group?
9 A M'mm-hmm.
10 MR. MACINTOSH: Now, there's a letter that I've
11 referenced for His Lordship and handed up to him
12 and I have distributed it in the room. You have
13 received it as well, and for tracking it, My Lord,
14 I would ask that it be marked. I don't care if
15 it's a letter or a number.
16 THE COURT: Sorry, is it this --
17 MR. MACINTOSH: It's the letter of November 18th with
18 the attachments to that letter.
19 THE COURT: I think you should exhibit that.
20 MR. MACINTOSH: Very well.
21 THE CLERK: On the voir dire, My Lord?
22 THE COURT: Yes.
23 THE CLERK: Exhibit 1 on voir dire.
24 MR. MACINTOSH: Thank you.
25
26 EXHIBIT 1 on voir dire: 1 clear-covered cerlox
27 brief; 11 page letter dated November 18, 2010 to
28 Craig E. Jones and Deborah J. Strachan from
29 Ludmila B. Herbst; Tabs A - G; p/c
30
31 MR. MACINTOSH:
32 Q Do you have that letter in front of you?
33 A I do.
34 Q And you can advise, Professor, that the
35 information which is in there, although it's
36 penned by my colleague Ms. Herbst you obviously
37 give her the contents of this letter?
38 A I did.
39 Q And as you know this letter was responsive to a
40 request by the government for information about
41 you leading up to you giving evidence?
42 A M'mm-hmm, yes.
43 Q And one of the aspects of information they sought
44 is under heading A, "Information Transcripts," if
45 possible detailing any formal education that you
46 have received, sociological method or ethnographic
47 or anthropological study training. And as the
11
1 letter points out in undergraduate you did not

2 have formal courses in that regard; is that right?
3 A That's right.
4 Q As an undergraduate at McGill, an honours student,
5 although your major was history you took several
6 courses in anthropology and ethnohistory?
7 A Yes.
8 Q And in the undergraduate studies you were
9 obviously studying scholarship, that is doctrinal
10 material, written material, which drew on various
11 types of empirical and social science research
12 methods?
13 A Yes.
14 Q Now, turning to what you actually learned in a
15 more practical way in this regard at McGill, when
16 you were in law at McGill you worked as a research
17 assistant for a professor, Professor Van Praagh;
18 is that correct?
19 A Yes.
20 Q And she's obviously or she is now a colleague of
21 yours on the faculty?
22 A Yes.
23 Q And at that time when you were a student you
24 collaborated with her on a project that she was
25 leading, and that was studying the way in which
26 Hasidic Jewish women in Montreal understood and
27 evaluated the rules and norms that shaped their
28 lives?
29 A That's right.
30 Q And as I understand this research was based at
31 least in part on qualitative interviews?
32 A It was.
33 Q And I understand that in field work in
34 sociological research there are broadly defined
35 quantitative interviews on the one hand and
36 qualitative on the other, and what is the basic
37 difference?
38 A Between qualitative and quantitative?
39 Q That's right.
40 A So quantitative research aims to acquire large
41 sums of aggregated data and to draw conclusions
42 from these that are generalizable across a broad
43 population, whereas qualitative research aims to
44 acquire more an in-depth knowledge about the
45 experiences of a group of individuals that is
46 typically considerably smaller than the group in
47 question in a quantitative study.
12
1 And the primary goal of a qualitative study is

2 to gain a textured, deeper appreciation of those
3 experiences or of a particular phenomenon
4 Q All right. And when you were working under the
5 direction of Professor Van Praagh as a student of
6 McGill in this work with Hasidic Jewish women in
7 Montreal you conducted some of the interviews of
8 these women?
9 A Yes.
10 Q And sometimes you were with Professor Van Praagh
11 in that work and sometimes you were enabled to
12 conduct these interviews on your own?
13 A Yes.
14 Q And just by way of example, tell His Lordship the
15 kinds of issues you were visiting, so to speak,
16 with these women in the qualitative interviews.
17 A Okay. So this is a small religious community in
18 Montreal that this professor I was working with
19 was interested in and specifically her work aimed
20 to understand the way in which formal legal rules
21 were understood by women within the religious
22 community and the way in which they saw those
23 rules as affecting their choices with respect to
24 family life, marriage, the number of children they
25 had and other questions in this similar area.
26 Q When you applied in connection with interviewing
27 the women in Bountiful, when you applied for
28 funding from the SSHRC I presume, and we have your
29 application here, but I presume that you pointed
30 out to them the work you had done in that regard
31 with Professor Van Praagh?
32 A I did. There is a section in the application
33 process where you're invited to explain whether or
34 not you'll pursue your research as part of a team
35 or individually and I explained that I would do
36 this work individually, and in explaining the
37 rationale for choosing to do this without a
38 team -- to do this work without a team I explained
39 that I had had experience interviewing on a
40 qualitative basis women in religious communities.
41 So there was a comparable line of inquiry that had
42 been pursued and that experience was noted both in
43 the application that I put to the SSHRC and to the
44 SSHRC's review of my application when it was
45 funded.
46 Q Very well. And still, as we shall see, you had
47 assistance from a student in sociology at McGill
13
1 when you did work in Bountiful?

2 A She had training in that area.
3 Q Now, I want to leave McGill as it were and go to
4 Harvard and when you were there you pursued
5 research under the supervision of Professor Martha
6 Minow, who is now the dean at Harvard; is that
7 right?
8 A That's right.
9 Q And in that work -- the work -- the research work
10 you were doing with her was primarily what is
11 called in academia primarily doctrinal; is that
12 right?
13 A Yes.
14 Q And doctrinal, forgive the simplification, but
15 that's essentially primarily based on written
16 materials?
17 A That's right.
18 Q But from your work you ascertained, or you and
19 Professor Minow, that there were information gaps?
20 A There were some.
21 Q And in the result did interviewing of real people
22 so to speak outside of university occur as part of
23 your research?
24 A Well, they were academics, so I interviewed three
25 people who had expertise in the area that I was
26 researching to assist with filling in some of the
27 gaps that I had identified in the research.
28 Q And their fields of discipline, as I understand,
29 were outside law. They were in other fields?
30 A In other field.
31 Q And they were in the fields of medicine and -- and
32 epidemiology and nutrition?
33 A That's right.
34 Q And also when you were at Harvard you conducted
35 empirical research for a seminar led by Professor
36 White as I understand?
37 A That's right.
38 Q And that empirical research that you did under
39 Professor White included the preparation and
40 distribution to parents in a certain context I
41 will come to of a questionnaire?
42 A That's right.
43 Q And as I understand it you designed that
44 questionnaire?
45 A I did.
46 Q And the survey that was done in that research, you
47 wrote the survey?
14
1 A Yes.
2 Q And just in a sentence or two tell His Lordship
3 what the focus group was, or at least what the
4 group was that you were seeking to learn more from
5 in that study?
6 A The group I was aiming to get information from
7 were parents with preschool-age children who were
8 attending preschools or day cares in Montreal --
9 in the city of Montreal.
10 Q Very well. And lastly by way of your own study,
11 Professor, or experience or both in what I call
12 field work, you have had -- worked with the
13 research ethics board at McGill -- excuse me, at
14 Montreal's Children's Hospital?
15 A Yes.
16 Q And there you -- on the board you have had two
17 hats, if you will, a legal representative and a
18 community representative?
19 A Yes. That's right.
20 Q And you did that work between 2004 and 2008?
21 A Yes.
22 Q And in that work you reviewed clinical research
23 protocols?
24 A Yes.
25 Q And those are information submitted to health care
26 professionals affiliated with the hospital?
27 A That's right.
28 Q And some of that research was qualitative in
29 nature as well?
30 A Yes.
31 Q And on the research ethics board at Montreal
32 Children's Hospital you gained exposure to various
33 types of research projects?
34 A I did.
35 Q And prior to that, that was '04 to '08, when you
36 were -- back when you were a law student from '95
37 to '99, you had been a research assistant in the
38 McGill Clinical Trials Research Group?
39 A Yes.
40 Q And that is under the auspices of the McGill
41 biomedical ethics unit?
42 A That's right.
43 Q And let me come back now to 2005 and the Status of
44 Women Canada.
45 A M'mm-hmm.
46 Q And we've heard from what you said that they
47 accepted your proposal for research occurring on
15
1 polygamy?
2 A M'mm-hmm.
3 Q And as we've heard your opinion was that more
4 knowledge was needed from the field?
5 A Yes.
6 Q Now, in this letter that I've put in front of
7 His Lordship, Exhibit 1 in this voir dire, if you
8 can now move, so we don't repeat, over to page 4.
9 A Okay.
10 Q And now I'm at the bottom of page 4 and it says
11 there, based on the Status of Women Canada
12 research, SWC research, and this is pre getting
13 the funding to review the women in Bountiful, you
14 had reached this view that someone with juridical
15 training and expertise in family law and criminal
16 law would be appropriately positioned.
17 And over on page 5 of this letter is a topic
18 which links into this. As I understand it among
19 legal scholars there has been a body of writing
20 developed on the need for carrying out empirical
21 research for meaningful legal study; is that fair?
22 A That's fair. There are some sources that are
23 cited here that send that message.
24 Q And they're -- not to be too mundane in the
25 expression of it, but they're starting to say that
26 before you start telling us what the law should be
27 go find out how it will affect the relevant
28 people?
29 A Yeah, I think it's fair to communicate it that
30 way, and another way of communicating it perhaps
31 is to say that there are many ways of doing legal
32 research that is solid and good legal research
33 that will make a contribution, and that speaking
34 to individuals who are affected by law is one
35 important way of doing appropriate legal research.
36 Q Very well. And in this letter, if you will go
37 over to page 6, there's a reference to the fact
38 that in addition to the experience and knowledge
39 you've earned in the various projects you've
40 described you've been guided by literature
41 developed by academics in law on deploying
42 different empirical and qualitative research
43 strategies?
44 A Yes.
45 Q And those are footnoted as footnote 6?
46 A Yes, these are examples.
47 Q Yes, yes. And when you applied to the SSHRC as
16
1 we've heard earlier your qualifications indicated

2 you did not have formal training as a sociologist
3 or qualitative researcher; correct?
4 A That's correct.
5 Q And as we've heard, as I've pointed out with you
6 earlier, you requested funding to hire a grad
7 sociology student who could assist in that
8 context?
9 A Yes.
10 Q And appendix B to this Exhibit 1, appendix B to
11 this letter, is a copy of your first application.
12 It's entitled "Wives' Tales: The Role and Meaning
13 of Law for Women in Polygamy." You see it's 16
14 pages. As I understand this was your first
15 application to the SSHRC in 2006 requesting
16 funding for the research you thought necessary in
17 the field with women in Bountiful?
18 A Yes, that's right.
19 Q And in there if you'll turn at this tab B to
20 page 7.
21 A Yes.
22 Q And we see in approximately the middle of the page
23 under the title "Justification of Methodology
24 Choice: Explanation of Specific Instruments or
25 Procedures," in the second paragraph under that
26 you've made points under headings first, second,
27 third, and I just want to reference what you call
28 second.
29
30 Second, given my own background as a legal
31 academic rather than a sociologist I feel
32 that with research assistance from a graduate
33 sociology student I would be able to carry
34 out an effective qualitative study. I am
35 less confident about my ability to undertake
36 quantitative research as it requires a
37 mastery of sampling statistical analysis.
38
39 And the work done in Bountiful, incidentally, is
40 qualitative work?
41 A I would characterize it as such.
42 Q Very well. And further in the same SSHRC grant,
43 if you'll go along to page 12 and there you're
44 describing for them the research plan, and under
45 the first heading A is a description of the
46 research team and you reference yourself. You
47 reference having a single investigator and that's
17
1 referencing yourself?
2 A Yes.
3 Q But then you go on in the first bullet to point
4 out your expertise is essentially legal and
5 particularly family, and then the second bullet
6 you say:
7
8 The field research proposed here is rooted in
9 a methodology that might be characterized
10 primarily as sociological.
11
12 So you seek research assistance from a grad
13 student in sociology to assist in the design of
14 the interview strategies techniques and
15 structures, and then you point out your own
16 qualitative research experience at McGill.
17 And going back into the body of your -- of the
18 letter that we're talking about here, back at
19 page 6 of the letter at Exhibit 1.
20 A M'mm-hmm.
21 Q We see that the SSHRC first research proposal that
22 was granted in '06, and once you had that part of
23 your task was to recruit the appropriate grad
24 student in sociology and anthropology?
25 A Yes.
26 Q And that work on your part is touched upon at the
27 bottom of page 6 and the top of page 7 --
28 A M'mm-hmm.
29 Q -- of the letter and colleagues in sociology and
30 anthropology replied that they did not have a
31 current grad student to recommend; however, two,
32 one in sociology and one in anthropology,
33 recommended, and the phrase in the letter is a
34 stellar undergraduate student who was just about
35 to complete her undergraduate degree and had both
36 the academic ability and practical fieldwork. I
37 take it that word didn't originate with you to
38 describe her, it originated with one or other of
39 the professors?
40 A With my colleagues, yes.
41 Q And they expressed the view to you that she as an
42 honours student, and I guess the person she was
43 obviously, and who had been trained formally in
44 qualitative methods was the appropriate person?
45 A Yes.
46 Q And you subsequently met that person, and
47 obviously, My Lord, I would be content to name her
18
1 except that in the dealings with McGill that's one

2 of the things that -- she is not supposed to be
3 named so I am not going to name the student. And
4 you met her and hired her?
5 A I did.
6 Q And in this material we see at tab C, appendix C
7 examples of the memoranda that she prepared for
8 you outlining the theoretical framework for
9 Bountiful research, if we go to tab C?
10 A M'mm-hmm.
11 Q And her disciplines caused her to give you these
12 recommendations and we see reference in paragraph
13 number 1 it reflects a model and then other
14 indicators reflecting her background?
15 A Yeah.
16 Q And obviously you took such memoranda into account
17 in your own preparation?
18 A Yeah. She had done research also to prepare these
19 memoranda, so it was based on her own breadth of
20 knowledge but also she did extensive research to
21 prepare these memos.
22 Q Very well. And you were at the time reviewing
23 literature independently which was addressing the
24 most effective strategies for carrying out the
25 empirical -- the field research?
26 A That's right.
27 Q And the student whom you hired, as we see at the
28 bottom of page 7, was conferring in this context
29 with a Professor Shaffir who is a professor of
30 sociology at McMaster. She was working with
31 Professor Shaffir in this context as well?
32 A Yes, she consulted with him.
33 Q Very well. And over at page 8 of the letter I
34 will just go down to the middle of the page, and
35 we see there that from all of your own work in
36 this issue of preparing to do the field -- the
37 field interviews, from reviewing the literature
38 and from your own experience you prepared an
39 article, "Wives' Tales: Reflecting on research in
40 Bountiful," which was published as we see
41 referenced here, and the article itself is at --
42 is at tab D of this -- of this -- with this letter
43 Exhibit 1; is that right?
44 A Yes.
45 Q And this article at tab D, by you, we see at the
46 bottom of the first page where it was published.
47 It was published in the Canadian Journal of Law
19
1 and Society?
2 A Yes.
3 Q And this was published before your first field
4 trip to Bountiful?
5 A It was.
6 Q And this article which was entitled in part, as I
7 say, reflecting on research in Bountiful, was also
8 peer reviewed?
9 A It was peer reviewed.
10 Q And the abstract for this piece is found, not at
11 the beginning but the end, at page 141, is a
12 distillation of what this article is saying and in
13 a sentence or two what is it saying?
14 A So this article studies the way in which a legal
15 scholar can and should carry out empirical
16 research in a religious community with women in
17 that community, particularly of a religious
18 community that has come under public scrutiny and
19 that's viewed as being -- commonly viewed as being
20 hostile to the outside world.
21 In the article I think about and review
22 different types of challenges that a researcher
23 doing this kind of work would face, categorizing
24 these challenges as practical challenges or
25 conceptual challenges and identify what these
26 particular challenges would look like on the
27 ground in this community, but ultimately conclude
28 that even though there are some important
29 challenges to be reckoned with that the research
30 as a whole merits pursuit.
31 Q And your first trip, Professor Campbell, was in
32 2008?
33 A Yes.
34 Q And how did you arrange contact with the women
35 whom you eventually interviewed?
36 A Okay. So there were different methods. I began
37 by speaking with the women who had contacted me
38 when I initially did research for Status of Women
39 Canada and went back to those women and had
40 indicated that I now had the funding and
41 possibility to return to the community to do this
42 type of work. However, I did not want to just
43 rely on those individuals so I worked with
44 research assistant and thereby contacted women
45 whose identifying information was known through
46 things like internet sites and even Canada 411,
47 contacted women who had spoken out about the
20
1 community but also women who made their

2 experiences known, so had an opportunity then to
3 have some initial discussions with women this way.
4 But also when in the community spoke to
5 participants who had agreed to be interviewed and
6 asked them if they had an idea as to others who
7 may be interested in being part of the work, and
8 apart from that sort of chain link or snowballing
9 type of acquisition of participants I also had an
10 opportunity to speak informally with many people
11 onsite while I was there and in so doing many
12 people had questions about the research and wanted
13 to know exactly who I was, how to distinguish me
14 from someone who was either a reporter or a
15 journalist versus someone who was a law
16 enforcement person, given I'm a law professor, and
17 in those conversations was able to speak to some
18 participants who had contacted through that
19 conversation an interest in being interviewed for
20 this work.
21 Q And in all the various steps you took did you ever
22 work or seek to work through anyone who could be
23 thought of as a community leader, male or female,
24 in any manner?
25 A No, I did not. So the literature actually warns
26 about that kind of a research step which is
27 commonly used. Often called the gatekeeper model.
28 And the thought there is that it's possible if
29 you're dealing sometimes with an ethnographic
30 study that requires you to enter a community that
31 is perceived as being closed or isolated, my
32 worry -- I knew that that would have been a
33 possibility because there had been a prior study
34 done, you know, 15 years before my own research
35 that had used that model, but I opted against it
36 given that I felt that it was inconsistent with
37 the feminist objective of my paper and research,
38 which was to talk directly with the women. I also
39 worried a lot about the fact that the gatekeeper
40 would have some potential ability to control who I
41 spoke with and to shape potentially some of the
42 comments that I heard, and all of this was based
43 on my perception based entirely on media reports
44 and literature although limited on the community
45 before actually stepping foot in there. And the
46 other problem with the gatekeeper model is that
47 for me it looked as though it would reinforce the
21
1 patriarchal structure that I felt wasn't to be

2 taken for granted as existing, as maybe this
3 didn't exist. And so I didn't want to reinforce
4 that by accosting some figurehead first for
5 permission to enter.
6 Q Yes. And in the first trip to Bountiful for you
7 in 2008 you were there, as I understand, for five
8 days?
9 A I was.
10 Q And in that first visit you recorded interviews
11 with 17 people, 17 women?
12 A Yes.
13 Q And you had prepared questions for the women to be
14 asked and to answer?
15 A I did.
16 Q And in this document, Exhibit 1, we have at tab G
17 the question -- interview questions which you
18 designed?
19 A Yes.
20 Q For the interviews that you conducted 2008?
21 A M'mm-hmm.
22 Q And the third and fourth pages at that tab are the
23 interview questions for the trip in 2009?
24 A Yes.
25 Q And in 2009 you were there for how long?
26 A For seven days.
27 Q And you interviewed, as I understand, five further
28 people?
29 A Yes.
30 Q And so you had in the end 22 transcribed
31 interviews with women in Bountiful?
32 A Yeah, 22 participants and 22 interviews with --
33 including some that were joint and three focus
34 groups.
35 Q Very well. Two of the women you interviewed had
36 left what you characterize as unhappy polygamist
37 marriages?
38 A Yes.
39 Q All right. And I want to just leave the letter
40 for now. And -- though I may want to touch on one
41 point. Just let me see if I do.
42 Yes, the funding you received, Professor
43 Campbell, it was primarily from the SSHRC?
44 A Yes.
45 Q And this was funding for the Bountiful work?
46 A It was.
47 Q And you also received funding from Borden Ladner
22
1 Gervais with a research fellowship of $10,000?

2 A I did.
3 Q Very well. And now, I want to just touch upon
4 some publications of yours before I stop asking
5 you questions.
6 MR. MACINTOSH: And the -- My Lord, I just wish to
7 reference briefly, please, Ms. Campbell's second
8 affidavit if it's -- that's in the evidence
9 volume 1 at tab 2. It might be with that. Oh,
10 it's the October evidence, My Lord. Sorry. Her
11 second affidavit is volume 1 of tab 2 if that's
12 accessible in the amicus material.
13 And in there -- yeah, it should be tab 2. In
14 the October filings. Volume 1, tab 2. Sorry,
15 My Lord, to spring that on you.
16 And that second affidavit, My Lord, that's
17 marked as Exhibit H for identification.
18 THE COURT: Right.
19 MR. MACINTOSH: And the reserved exhibit is 64.
20 Q And do you have that affidavit,
21 Professor Campbell?
22 A I do.
23 Q And in that affidavit if you'll turn to page 44,
24 and at page 44 paragraph 145 --
25 A Yes.
26 Q -- you reference further research and you say:
27
28 Well, most of my research on polygamy is
29 focussed on empirical work at Bountiful. I
30 also conducted research in 2004, 2005 as part
31 of my commissioned work for the Status of
32 Women Canada on the circumstances of polygamy
33 in different cultural and geographic
34 settings, and this work studied the social,
35 economic and health implications of polygamy
36 for women.
37
38 And that obviously is a correct statement?
39 A Yes.
40 Q And at page 80 of that same affidavit are -- is
41 the beginning of the list of material that are
42 some of the materials that you have studied, the
43 books, the papers, the treatises, the monographs
44 and the other writings?
45 A Yes.
46 Q At pages 80 through 85?
47 A Yes.
23
1 Q All right. And in your publications I think I

2 just need one more document to reference, My Lord
3 and then I'm concluded on this part of her ^ cw
4 case.
5 If you can go again, please, Professor, to
6 your first affidavit and to your resume, to your
7 CV.
8 A Okay.
9 Q Thank you, My Lord. This is the last of the --
10 THE COURT: That's fine.
11 MR. MACINTOSH: -- gymnastics.
12 Q And do you have your CV in front of you,
13 Professor?
14 A Yes.
15 Q And there are there a list of publications that
16 you have made and I want to find the part, and I
17 don't have it at my fingertips -- yes, I do. At
18 bottom of page 2 of the CV are a list of various
19 publications and what should be added there as the
20 newest one, so the first one because they're
21 listed in reverse chronological order, is an
22 article in 2011 in the Canadian Journal of women
23 and the Law and that is -- and I don't know the
24 title of it, but that is addressing the merits of
25 doing field research?
26 A The pedagogical merits, yeah.
27 Q Yes. And that -- and there are three other
28 publications that I want to reference as having
29 relevance and I may need you to assist me in
30 picking them out.
31 A Sure.
32 Q One is on we touched on earlier, "Wives' Tales:
33 Reflecting on Research in Bountiful" which we have
34 in evidence.
35 A Yes.
36 Q And is that listed here?
37 A That's at page 3. The second from the top.
38 Q Very well. And as we noted earlier that was
39 before you had gone to Bountiful to do the first
40 research?
41 A Yes.
42 Q That was published in the Canadian Journal of Law
43 and Society. And then there's a publication just
44 above that on page 3 of your CV "Bountiful Voices"
45 (2009) 47, Osgoode Hall Law Journal and that again
46 reflected research in Bountiful?
47 A Yes.
24
1 Q And that again was a peer reviewed article?

2 A Yes.
3 Q And then is an article back at page 2 of the CV at
4 the bottom of the page, "Bountiful's Plural
5 Marriage" (2010), the International Journal of Law
6 in context?
7 A Yes.
8 Q And that again was a peer reviewed article?
9 A It was.
10 Q And finally, in your CV if you will go to page 8,
11 and just before I go to those pages, Professor
12 Campbell, what course do you teach at McGill
13 relevant to this topic?
14 A So currently at McGill I teach in the realm of
15 family law and I also teach the graduate legal
16 methodology course, which is a full year graduate
17 course on legal research methods. Part of that
18 course includes a segment on empirical research
19 methodology. In the two years prior this course
20 was instructed by another professor at McGill Law
21 Faculty. In 2008/2009 I was invited to give the
22 lecture on empirical research methods for the
23 graduate students in that course and I'm now the
24 instructor in the course.
25 Q And I should have had a CV reference. If you'll
26 go in your CV, please, to page 11?
27 A Yes.
28 Q And at the top of the page we see this is what
29 you're touching on here. In October of '09 you
30 were a guest lecturer in graduate legal
31 methodology at McGill and then in November of '08
32 a guest lecturer in graduate legal methodology,
33 but you now teach that as a full-year course?
34 A I do.
35 Q Very well. And I was at page 8 in your resume and
36 it goes in as I said in reverse chronological
37 order, so just let me to go page 8 first and I'll
38 go 8, 7 and 6. At page 8 -- and what this is a
39 list as we see at page 6, it's a list of
40 conferences and presentations and the legend for
41 it at page 6 has you as either invited or as a
42 plenary speaker. If you're invited that means
43 that you were asked to be a speaker on a panel?
44 A Yes.
45 Q And if you're plenary speaking it means you're a
46 primary speaker at podium?
47 A That's right.
25
1 Q And going to page 8 in October of 2005 about

2 two-thirds of the way down that page you were
3 speaking at the McGill Law Faculty Seminar Series
4 "The Diverse Experiences of Women in Polygamist
5 Marriages" and that was based on your research for
6 Status of Women Canada?
7 A Yes.
8 Q Up above on that page, in May of '06 you addressed
9 the Canadian Association of Law Teachers annual
10 meeting in Toronto on polygamy in Canada?
11 A Yes.
12 Q "Legal and Social Implications for Women and
13 Children." And at page 7, and I don't intend to
14 take you through all of them on the oral record
15 but I will just note those appearances which I
16 would submit are germane here, and, My Lord, if
17 I'd started at the bottom of that page I would
18 reference January of '07, a young scholar's
19 conference, "Sacrificing Wives for Culture or the
20 Reverse, Asking the Right Questions about
21 Polygamy." And then October of '07, the Canadian
22 Initiative on Law, Culture and Humanities second
23 biannual conference "Developing a Feminist Legal
24 Methodology with a Study of Polygamy." April of
25 '08, Vermont law school faculty seminars, "Wives'
26 Tales: The Promise and Challenges of Seeking the
27 Narratives of Women in Polygamy," October of '08.
28 November of '08. Further up, February of '09 and
29 March of '09.
30 And I should interrupt, Professor, when in '09
31 was your second visit to Bountiful?
32 A In June.
33 Q Very well. And then further up, My Lord, in March
34 of '09, "Being, Becoming and Belonging:
35 Multiculturalism, Diversity and Social Inclusion
36 in Modern CANADA," "Bountiful Voices." And
37 finally, My Lord, on page 6, lectures, October of
38 '09. One at Victoria, one at Vancouver, UBC. One
39 at Victoria. And then November of '09 McGill Law
40 Faculty Seminar Series.
41 And finally June of this year Canada Law
42 Society Association annual meeting, "Pedagogical
43 Relevance Empirical Research."
44 MR. MACINTOSH: That concludes, My Lord, my evidence to
45 lead to a submission I will be making later that
46 Professor Campbell is qualified to be giving
47 opinion evidence.
26
Cross-exam on qualifications by Mr. Samuels (voir dire)
1 And the opinion I will be seeking, My Lord, to

2 have her qualified as being able to give I would
3 express this way.
4 I would submit that Professor Campbell is
5 entitled to give opinion evidence as a legal
6 scholar and qualitative researcher addressing the
7 interface between the practice of polygamy and the
8 legal prohibition against polygamy with emphasis
9 on the polygamist communities in Bountiful.
10 THE COURT: Thank you.
11 MR. MACINTOSH: Thank you, My Lord.
12 THE COURT: And we'll break, but who is going to go
13 first? Mr. Jones, are you?
14 MR. SAMUELS: Mr. Samuels.
15 THE COURT: Mr. Samuels. Thank you. We will break for
16 15 minutes.
17 THE CLERK: Order in court. Court is adjourned for the
18 morning recess.
19
20 (MORNING RECESS)
21
22 THE CLERK: Order in court.
23 THE COURT: Mr. Samuels.
24 MR. SAMUELS: Thank you, My Lord.
25
26 CROSS-EXAMINATION ON QUALIFICATIONS BY MR. SAMUELS:
27 Q Professor Campbell, I'm the lawyer acting for Stop
28 Polygamy in Canada. My name is Brian Samuels.
29 You've been put forward by the amicus as an expert
30 to give opinion evidence as, and I'm quoting here,
31 "a legal scholar and qualitative researcher
32 addressing the interface between the practice of
33 polygamy and the legal prohibition against
34 polygamy with emphasis on the polygamist
35 communities in Bountiful."
36 A Yes.
37 Q Right? Is it correct that you're an assistant
38 professor of law at McGill?
39 A I am.
40 Q You're not a tenured professor?
41 A No.
42 Q You're not a sociologist?
43 A I am not.
44 Q And you don't claim to have any specific expertise
45 in sociology?
46 A I do not.
47 Q You're not an anthropologist?
27
1 A No.
2 Q And you don't claim to have any specific expertise
3 in anthropology?
4 A No.
5 Q And you're not a psychologist?
6 A I'm not a psychologist.
7 Q And you don't claim any specific expertise in that
8 field either?
9 A No.
10 Q And I take it you don't have any specific
11 expertise in religion or theology; is that
12 correct?
13 A That's correct.
14 Q Do you know what ethnography is?
15 A Yes.
16 THE COURT: Sorry, could you keep your voice up,
17 Mr. Samuels.
18 MR. SAMUELS: Sorry, My Lord.
19 Q You know what ethnography is?
20 A I do.
21 Q Are you trained as an ethnographer?
22 A I am not.
23 Q You don't claim to be an expert in ethnography?
24 A I do not.
25 Q Would you consider the field in which you did your
26 qualitative research to be in the field of
27 sociology or anthropology or psychology or in some
28 other area?
29 A I consider it to be in the field of law primarily,
30 bordering on sociology and anthropology.
31 Q When my friend Mr. Macintosh was asking you
32 questions you made reference to some work you did
33 for Professor Van Praagh?
34 A Yes.
35 Q How many interviews did you actually conduct
36 yourself?
37 A I don't remember exactly. Probably between five
38 and ten.
39 Q It's my understanding from the information that's
40 been provided that you've never taken any formal
41 courses in qualitative research methodology; is
42 that correct?
44 MR. SAMUELS: My Lord, I would like to refer to a
45 binder of materials which I am going to hand up
46 and which is in front of the witness and I will go
47 through what is in the binder. It's put together
28
1 for ease of reference so that we don't have to

2 flip back and forth between various other binders
3 today.
4 THE COURT: It's euphemistically called a witness aid,
5 is it?
6 MR. SAMUELS: It is. So tab 1 is the first affidavit
7 of Professor Campbell and tab 2 is the second
8 affidavit of Professor Campbell. Tab 3 is her
9 curriculum vitae and tab 4 is the article that was
10 authored by Professor Campbell I believe for the
11 Status of Women in Canada. Tab 5 is the article
12 that was referred to earlier this morning by
13 Professor Campbell called "Wives' Tales." Tab 6
14 is a further article by Professor Campbell called
15 "Bountiful Voices." Tab 7 is another article by
16 Professor Campbell called "Bountiful's Plural
17 Marriages." Tab 8 is the letter that my friend
18 Mr. Macintosh referred to that had been written by
19 his office -- by his colleague on November 18th,
20 2010 with all of the attachments, and the pages
21 have been numbered also for ease of reference.
22 Tab 9 is an e-mail from my friend Mr. Dixon
23 which simply contains the very description of the
24 tendered area of expertise that I've read into the
25 record.
26 Tab 10 is the article by Professor Van Praagh
27 that I believe Professor Campbell helped work on.
28 THE WITNESS: Can I just step in there. This is an
29 article that was written before I began working as
30 a research assistant for Professor Van Praagh.
31 MR. SAMUELS: Thank you. And tab 11 I believe is an
32 exhibit to the affidavit of -- Exhibit B to the
33 first affidavit of Professor Van Praagh.
34 So if the court pleases we can mark this as
35 an exhibit. I don't know whether --
36 THE COURT: Exhibit. Any objection? Exhibit 2 on
37 the --
38 MR. MACINTOSH: I have no objection.
39 THE COURT: Exhibit 2 on the voir dire.
40 THE CLERK: Exhibit 2 on the voir dire, My Lord.
42
43 EXHIBIT 2: 1 white 3" binder titled "Cross
44 Examination of Angela Campbell", 1 page Index in
45 clear plastic sleeve, tabs 1 - 11, p/c
46
47 MR. SAMUELS:
29
1 Q I would like you to turn, Professor Campbell, to

2 tab 8 in Exhibit 2 at page 6, third paragraph.
3 A Yes.
4 THE COURT: Sorry, page.
5 MR. SAMUELS: Page 6.
6 Q It's actually the second full paragraph, the one
7 beginning with the words "when Professor Campbell
8 first requested funding?"
9 A Yes.
10 Q Do you see that?
11 A I do.
12 Q It states the first time you made application for
13 funding to the SSHRC you did not have any formal
14 training as a sociologist or a qualitative
15 researcher; that's correct?
17 Q And that's why you decided to find a graduate
18 student with some training in qualitative research
19 methodology?
20 A Yes.
21 Q I would like you to now turn to page 28 of this
22 same tab.
23 A Sorry, 28 of which tab?
24 Q Tab 8. This is part of your application?
25 A Oh, yes.
26 Q For funding?
27 A I'm there.
28 Q And you will see about halfway down the page
29 there's a paragraph with the word "second"
30 underlined?
31 A Yes.
32 Q That sentence says "second, given my own
33 background as a legal academic rather than a
34 sociologist I feel that with research assistance
35 from a graduate sociology student I would be able
36 to carry out an effective qualitative study."
37 Those are your words?
38 A They are.
39 Q It's fair to say that you required the assistance
40 of somebody with sociology background and formal
41 training in qualitative research methodology in
42 order to properly carry out the study because you
43 didn't believe that you had sufficient expertise
44 at that time to do it yourself?
45 A I think that's a fair comment.
46 Q And as my friend Mr. Macintosh pointed out, you
47 hired an undergraduate student to do this?
30
1 A At the end of her degree.

2 Q Yes. And this student produced several memos to
3 you on methodology of qualitative research;
4 correct?
5 A Correct.
6 Q And you relied on this student for the purpose of
7 determining the appropriate methodology for your
8 research?
9 A I think it's a bit stretched to say that I relied
10 on her for that purpose. She produced research
11 memos but I subsequently went to the literature
12 and devised the research plan accordingly.
13 Q Did the student help you formulate the questions
14 for the interview?
15 A I drafted the questions and my students who
16 travelled with me to Bountiful gave me feedback on
17 the questions.
18 Q Are you able to tell the Court whether qualitative
19 research methods are designed differently for a
20 sociological study as opposed to those for an
21 anthropological study?
22 A The qualitative literature that I have looked at
23 has spoken about the literature generally, so it's
24 not discipline specific.
25 Q Are you able to say whether there are any
26 differences recognized in the literature as to how
27 studies are to be carried out depending on whether
28 they are in fields of psychology or sociology or
29 ethnography?
30 A Yeah, again they are not discipline specific, but
31 the literature does indicate that there are
32 differences in the way that you would want to
33 approach your qualitative research depending on
34 what you're looking for. So if you're interested
35 in a case study, that's quite different than
36 ethnography, which is quite different than looking
37 at a phenomenon that you're interested in working
38 through a qualitative approach.
39 Q That's according to the literature that you looked
40 at?
42 Q What literature did you look at?
43 A Would you like a list of text names?
44 Q Yes.
45 A Well, some of them are listed in the memos from
46 the RA, so Creston, the SAGE manual of qualitative
47 research.
31
1 Q You say Cresin?

2 A Creston, sorry.
3 Q Creston?
4 A Can I just look at the actual interviews.
5 Q Are you referring to Creswell?
6 A Creswell, sorry yeah. And the SAGE Handbook of
7 Qualitative Research. A text by Mauthner et al.
8 on feminist research ethics. Those are the three
9 that come to mind. The SAGE Handbook of
10 Qualitative Research, though, is a very large
11 text. It's a bound volume of collected articles
12 and that's what I've been guided by to a large
13 extent as well as the Creswell text. A text on
14 interviews, it's -- the title is "Interviews"
15 generally which I've looked at more recently, and
16 then the final work on feminist research ethics by
17 Melanie Mauthner et al.
18 Q Can you explain for His Lordship, please, what the
19 difference between structured and unstructured
20 interviewing is.
21 A So structured and unstructured interviews as I
22 understand it is -- I think this is what you're
23 referring to, the way in which you approach the
24 questions that you put to your research
25 participants.
26 Unstructured questions refer to a series of
27 questions that are typically open-ended and I
28 would qualify my own research as semi-structured
29 in the sense that there were some structured
30 questions prepared for participants but left open
31 in the sense that the interview is not meant to be
32 scripted and that there's a belief that the
33 researcher should be open to following the line of
34 reasoning and questioning -- that line of
35 reasoning and answers that are put forward by the
36 research participant.
37 Q Are you able to tell the Court what experts in
38 qualitative research say about whether structured
39 or unstructured interviewing produces more
40 reliable or verifiable data?
41 A No.
42 Q You don't know?
43 A There's -- I haven't seen a particular opinion put
44 forward on that. In my view what I have read
45 indicates that unstructured or semi-structured
46 interviewing actually produces research that can
47 allow for more depth and can equalize the playing
32
1 field between the researcher and the participant.

2 But in terms of it verifiable or data -- or data
3 that can be generalized I have not seen a
4 conclusion reached as to which of these two
5 methods you're speaking of is preferable.
6 Q Do you know whether any of the experts in --
7 whether it's Creswell or others you have referred
8 to -- have any opinion on which produces --
9 whether one produces more reliable data than
10 another?
11 A No.
12 Q Do you agree that qualitative research should be
13 conducted through a carefully constructed
14 interview process?
15 A Yes.
16 Q Are there any advantages in terms of reliability
17 in having the interviewer following a carefully
18 constructed and formulated format of questions?
19 A In terms of advantages of having a standardized
20 list of questions that you put to all participants
21 it would allow for greater comparability of
22 results I would presume. On the other hand
23 there's a disadvantage if the researcher is
24 sticking to their questions at the cost of
25 allowing for the participant to tell his or her
26 narrative in the way that he or she sees fits
27 pursuant to a line of questions, and the
28 literature is pretty clear that the researcher
29 does well to leave some room for flexibility in
30 the research process.
31 Q You referred to peer review earlier when you
32 discussed the articles that you had written.
33 A Yes.
34 Q Are you aware of whether peer review is a standard
35 tool used by qualitative researchers in
36 formulating their questions for an interview?
37 A Whether the peer reviewer puts his or her
38 questions to a set of peers developed for a
39 verification first?
40 Q I think you may have misstated that. Whether the
41 interviewer --
42 MR. MACINTOSH: Make the question clearer.
43 MR. SAMUELS: The question was clear.
44 Q Are you aware of whether peer review is a standard
45 tool used by qualitative researchers in
46 formulating proposed questions?
47 A No.
33
1 Q When you say no are you saying it's not a standard

2 tool or --
3 A No, I'm not aware.
4 Q -- you don't know?
5 A I don't know.
6 Q You don't know. Okay. Do you know whether peer
7 review in that sense is considered important in a
8 sociological qualitative research process?
9 A Sorry, again peer review, are you speaking about
10 the publications that result or the process?
11 Q I'm talking about the process.
12 A The process -- the peer review that I am aware of
13 is an ethics peer review. Not the substance.
14 Q I'm referring to the peer review of the questions
15 that are being proposed, whether that's considered
16 important?
17 A Oh, there again I'm not aware, no.
18 Q Are you familiar with the expression
19 "investigative discourse analysis" as applied to
20 qualitative research?
21 A No.
22 Q Do you know whether that is a widely used and well
23 established technique among qualitative
24 researchers?
25 A No.
26 Q Do you know whether the authorities in qualitative
27 research methodology have methods that they
28 recommend for doing field work in a community or
29 culture where there's a reputation for secrecy?
30 A I have seen some literature on that, yes.
31 Q What about a reputation for deception?
32 A No.
33 Q When you say no --
34 A I have not seen that.
35 Q You're unaware of that?
36 A I'm unaware of that.
37 Q Do you know what the accepted practices are in the
38 field of qualitative research for dealing with a
39 culture of secrecy?
40 A No.
41 Q Prior to doing your field work in Bountiful had
42 you read or heard anything to indicate that
43 Bountiful or the FLDS culture had such a
44 reputation?
45 A I had heard that reputation.
46 Q For secrecy?
47 A For secrecy.
34
1 Q And what about for deception?

2 A I had heard that as well.
3 Q Where did you hear that?
4 A I heard that through the media primarily and I had
5 also heard it through -- or read it through to
6 reports that had been published. One was an
7 unpublished masters thesis and another one was a
8 report prepared by a group called the Committee on
9 Polygamous Issues.
10 Q You're referring to the masters thesis of one
11 Marla Peters?
13 Q And you read that report?
14 A I did.
15 Q And you understood that she was quite clear about
16 there being a culture of deception?
17 A Yes.
18 Q And that somebody going in to either do interviews
19 or speak to people there could expect there to be
20 play acting in order to tell a false story?
21 A Yeah, her argument was that there would be
22 performance by the individuals in the community.
23 Q You understood that her research was in Bountiful?
24 A I assumed as much but the community itself is not
25 named in her thesis.
26 Q You understood that Ms. Peters lived and worked as
27 a school teacher while she was doing her research
28 in the community?
29 A Yeah, I understand it was a librarian and a
30 janitor.
31 Q But she lived and worked in the community, you
32 understood that?
33 A I think so, yeah. She seemed to have been moving
34 in and out of the community somewhat.
35 Q It's fair to say that you didn't live and work in
36 Bountiful when you did your research?
37 A That's absolutely fair to say.
38 Q Do you know what qualitative research was called,
39 the type of research where the researchers joins
40 the community and lives and works with the
41 community for an extended and prolonged
42 engagement?
43 A I don't know if there's a particular name for
44 that.
45 Q But you would agree with me that the research that
46 you did in Bountiful was not as extended and
47 prolonged as that as understood by sociologists?
35
1 A Yes, I do. I think that's right.

2 Q You agree with me?
3 A I agree with you. Yeah. I actually had the sense
4 that there were particular issues with the length
5 of time that Ms. Peters stayed in the community
6 that were of concern in my own research.
7 Q Before a researchers embarks on field work in a
8 community where there have been reports such as
9 that of Ms. Peters do you know what steps are
10 recommended by the authorities in the literature
11 on qualitative research?
12 A Yeah, so there's a series of steps that are
13 recommended. One is to garner as much as possible
14 in the way of substantive knowledge on the
15 community in question and on the substantive issue
16 that's being examined, so on the phenomenon or the
17 particular issue. So a substantive review is
18 important. Then a research methodology needs to
19 be developed and subsequent to that the process
20 has to be -- in an institution that is academic
21 typically proceeds through ethics review, which is
22 a careful process, and then subsequent to that
23 there is -- the review process examines and
24 approves and that approval is necessary to the
25 execution of the research, the research proposal
26 and plan. And then there may be steps with
27 respect to accessing individuals within the
28 community and making plans to be in that area, if
29 it's something that requires a removal from one's
30 own home space. And then there's the steps of
31 actually carrying out the research within the
32 community under study.
33 Q Do you agree with me that it would be completely
34 inappropriate for a qualitative researcher who is
35 approaching field work for a project in a
36 community with that type of reputation to use the
37 assumption that everything told to them by the
38 people they interviewed was true and authentic?
39 A Okay, that was a long question, so let me reframe
40 it and you can tell me if I have it right. The
41 question is it completely inappropriate to assume
42 everything a researcher in my situation was the
43 truth?
44 Q Everything you were being told.
45 A Yes.
46 Q Was true and authentic.
47 A I disagree with that. I think it's acceptable for
36
1 the researcher to accept the veracity of the

2 statements that were told to her.
3 Q Even where there is a reputation or reports of
4 secrecy and deception?
5 A Even in that circumstance so long as there is
6 critical reflection both on the comments that were
7 revealed by research participants and others in
8 the community and reflection on the substantive
9 comments and on the research methods.
10 Q Are you aware of a journal called American
11 Behavioural Scientist?
12 A I am.
13 Q Do you subscribe to that?
14 A No. Do I have a subscription?
15 Q A subscription.
16 A Right. I don't -- yeah, I don't have a
17 subscription but I don't disagree with everything
18 in that journal.
19 Q Do you know whether there's anything in the
20 literature in the field of qualitative research
21 dealing with how to conduct field research in what
22 is referred to in that discipline as a cult?
23 A No.
24 Q Have you read any such literature?
25 A I have read some literature on research in cults.
26 Q Do you know whether qualitative researchers or
27 sociologists have an accepted definition of a
28 cult?
29 A I believe so. I believe that I have read that.
30 But what the definition is, I don't know whether I
31 have it right. Loosely framed it's individuals
32 who subscribe to the dogmatic views of one
33 particular leader and who revere that individual.
34 Usually the group itself is distrusting of
35 individuals also outside of the community or group
36 to which they belong.
37 Q When you were about to conduct your field research
38 in Bountiful was it your view at the time that
39 Bountiful and the FLDS fell within the definition
40 of a cult?
41 A I didn't know. I didn't know enough about the
42 group.
43 Q Now that you've been there, before you prepared
44 your affidavits was it your opinion that they fall
45 within that definition?
46 A No. Not based on the group and the individuals
47 with whom I spoke.
37
1 Q Do you know what methods are recommended by

2 sociologists for doing field research in a cult
3 environment?
4 A No.
5 Q Do you know what it means to triangulate data for
6 a qualitative research study?
7 A Yes.
8 Q What did you understand that to mean?
9 A It means that the methods being used need to be --
10 well, a particular problem or inquiry should be
11 used through a variety of methods, so more than
12 just qualitative interviews it's important also
13 for example to look at doctrine to validate data
14 with other observations, for example, in the
15 field. So rather than relying on one source for
16 information and for conclusions, to use various
17 methods and to compare results using different
18 methods examining the same set of questions.
19 Q You're familiar with the term "qualitative
20 validity" as it applies to qualitative research?
21 A I believe so.
22 Q Do you know what it means? Can you explain for
23 the court.
24 A As I understand qualitative validity means that
25 there's a process through which the information
26 obtained through qualitative research is validated
27 or checked against another source.
28 Q I would like you to turn to tab 8. You probably
29 are at tab 8?
30 A No, I am not actually.
31 Q And turn to page 44. You see that at the top
32 there is a sentence or a heading that says
33 "Studying the Phenomenon"?
34 A Yes.
35 Q And then it says "this research is essentially
36 phenomenological."
37 A M'mm-hmm.
38 Q Your student told you that the research project on
39 Bountiful that you were contemplating falls within
40 the definition of phenomenological research?
41 A Yes.
42 Q And you don't have any reason to disagree with
43 that?
44 A I actually agree with that as well. That was my
45 perception again based on Creswell's text, so that
46 was a conclusion that she and I -- I had reached
47 and she pursued research following that.
38
1 Q You've mentioned Creswell a number of times and

2 your student made reference to Creswell. You will
3 see on page 44 the last two bullet points refer to
4 Creswell?
5 A M'mm-hmm.
6 Q And then on the next page, page 45 at the end of
7 the first paragraph it says "there are three
8 things that Creswell says" and then the whole next
9 page and a half deals with Creswell's
10 recommendations?
11 A M'mm-hmm.
12 Q Then if you look on page 47 the first bullet point
13 again refers to Creswell?
14 A Okay.
15 Q And on page 48 there's another reference in the
16 middle of the page to Creswell?
17 A Yes.
18 Q Your student considered Creswell to be an
19 authority on qualitative research?
20 A As did I.
21 Q Is it your understanding that he is a leading
22 authority on qualitative research?
23 A For the purposes of my research it was very
24 relevant so I consider him extremely relevant, but
25 where he stands in his own field I'm not aware.
26 Q I would like to show you a book by Professor
27 Creswell. I'm going to show you his Research
28 Design: Qualitative, Quantitative and Mixed
29 Method Approaches. And I'm going to provide a
30 copy of the extract to the court and my friend.
31 Could you put this before the witness, please. If
32 you could turn, please, to page 13. Do you have
33 that?
34 A I do.
35 Q You see there's a -- the second to last bullet
36 point is called "phenomenological research"?
37 A Yes.
38 Q Which you said this was your type of study here?
39 A M'mm-hmm.
40 Q And if you go about halfway through this paragraph
41 the fourth line down after the word "method"?
42 A Yes.
43 Q It says:
44
45 And the procedure involves studying a small
46 number of subjects through extensive and
47 prolonged engagement to develop patterns and
39
1 relationships of meaning.
2
3 Do you see that?
4 A I do.
5 Q And you've agreed with me that you did not have
6 extensive and prolonged engagement.
7 A I do agree that it was less than Peters.
8 Q But you agreed with me earlier that it was not
9 extensive and pronged?
10 MR. MACINTOSH: Well, I don't think that was defined at
11 all, My Lord.
12 THE COURT: Why don't you ask the question more
13 directly then, rather than suggesting she said it
14 previously.
15 MR. SAMUELS: I will be happy to go back in the
16 transcript and find it.
17 MR. MACINTOSH: My Lord, I don't know what this
18 professor means by it and it wasn't put in that
19 context, that's all.
20 MR. SAMUELS: I'll rely on the transcript, thank you,
21 My Lord.
23 MR. SAMUELS:
24 Q Is it now your evidence that you had extensive and
25 prolonged engagement in Bountiful?
26 A My statement as to the effect that the research
27 that I had in Bountiful was perhaps less than that
28 conducted by Peters, who spent over a year in her
29 community. However, if you're asking me with
30 respect to this barometer of extensive and
31 prolonged engagement I would actually indicate
32 that I have had extensive and prolonged engagement
33 with the community as I understand this term, not
34 necessarily being only onsite but by ongoing
35 research that is not yet finished.
36 Q You were there for five days conducting 17
37 interviews the first time?
38 A Yes.
39 Q And for I think 10 days the second time?
40 A Seven.
41 Q Seven days?
42 A M'mm-hmm, the second time. And I just received
43 SSHRC funding to return to do further research in
44 the coming year.
45 Q Right. Do you know why -- do you understand why
46 Professor Creswell says "extended and prolonged
47 engagement is needed for a phenomenological
40
1 study"?
2 A I do, and he distinguishes that from the
3 ethnography which is the first to list which he
4 describes as living onsite, which is more akin to
5 Peters' work. And from my understanding of
6 Creswell he's suggesting that this is important in
7 order to gain the depth of the narrative that he
8 sees as important for the -- he indicates the
9 small number of subjects through extensive and
10 prolonged engagement, so getting that -- the
11 in-depth understanding of how these participants
12 would appreciate the phenomenon in question is --
13 it is to obtain that is essential to have the
14 extensive and prolonged contact as he describes
15 it.
16 Q You can put that book aside for the moment,
17 please?
18 A Okay.
19 Q Thank you.
20 THE COURT: Did you want to mark the extract?
21 MR. SAMUELS: Yes, thank you, My Lord.
22 THE CLERK: My Lord, might be there a court copy.
23 THE COURT: Would you give another copy to Madam
24 Registrar? Any objections?
25 THE CLERK: Exhibit 3 on voir dire My Lord.
27
28 EXHIBIT 3: 4 page p/c document; first page titled
29 Research Design..., Third Edition by John W.
30 Creswell
31
32 MR. SAMUELS:
33 Q Professor Campbell, you would agree with me that
34 you don't claim to have and do not have any
35 expertise in quantitative analysis?
36 A That's right.
37 Q You don't have any expertise in statistical
38 analysis?
39 A No, I don't.
40 Q For example, you wouldn't be able to tell the
41 Court how large a sample size needs to be based on
42 a given total population in order to determine
43 either confidence levels or standard deviations or
44 any of that?
45 A That's right.
46 Q And you didn't do any of that type of analysis?
47 A No, I didn't.
41
1 Q Are you familiar with the name Denzin?

2 A I am.
3 Q Have you read any of his books?
4 A I have. I read some of the work of Denzin.
5 THE COURT: Would you spell the name, please.
6 MR. SAMUELS: It's D-e-n-z-i-n.
7 Q And if you look at page 46 of tab 8 which I think
8 is open in front of you.
9 A Yes.
10 Q You see under the heading "Designing Qualitative
11 Research"?
12 A M'mm-hmm.
13 Q In the first bullet point it says "Denzin and
14 Lincoln are consistently referred to in literature
15 on qualitative methodology."
16 A Yes.
17 Q So it's your understanding that their book is a
18 leading authority?
19 A Yeah.
20 Q Did you read their book before you did your work
21 in Bountiful?
22 A I would have read some of it, yes.
23 Q If a researcher wants to be able to draw general
24 conclusions to the greater population that you're
25 studying based on interviews is it necessary to do
26 quantitative research?
27 A Can you repeat the question.
28 Q Certainly. If a researcher wants to be able to
29 draw general conclusions about the greater
30 population that they're studying --
31 A Yes.
32 Q -- based on interviews.
33 A M'mm-hmm.
34 Q Is it necessary to do quantitative research?
35 A I think so. If you're looking to generalize
36 across a population, yes.
37 Q And it's fair to say that without doing any
38 quantitative research it wouldn't be possible to
39 determine whether the sample population that you
40 interviewed was representative of the opinions or
41 experiences of the population as a whole?
42 A Yeah, that's fair to say.
43 Q Or even a segment of the population, such as the
44 Blackmore segment?
45 A Again, it wouldn't be fair to say that that's
46 generalizable across half of the group, no.
47 Q So any comments you obtain from the sample of
42
1 women that you interviewed you could not

2 extrapolate that into any larger group, it's only
3 applicable to the specific women you interviewed?
4 A I think that's right.
5 Q Do you use any computer software for qualitative
6 data analysis?
7 A I don't.
8 Q Are you familiar with the type of products
9 available for such analysis?
10 A I am.
11 Q Can you name some of the products that are
12 typically used?
13 A Invivo primarily. There's another one but I can't
14 remember what it's called.
15 Q Do you know what functions the software performs?
16 A Typically coding functions to organize by theme
17 the research data that a person has gathered.
18 Q Are you trained in using that software?
19 A I am not.
20 Q Do you know whether software -- this type of
21 software for data analysis is commonly used by
22 people who do qualitative research?
23 A Many do use it, yes.
24 Q You referred to the students who helped you with
25 this research project. Did they also help you
26 carry out the interviews?
27 A They were present for the interviews.
28 Q Did they help you in writing the papers that you
29 published?
30 A I wrote the papers. Very often my student
31 research assistants give me comments on the draft
32 once it's complete. As do my colleagues often.
33 Q Did you acknowledge your students' help in your
34 paper?
35 A I do. They are acknowledged in the outset of my
36 papers.
37 Q Now, we talked about triangulation of data a few
38 moments ago.
39 A We did.
40 Q You would agree with me that one way to
41 triangulate data would be to use documents to
42 corroborate witness statements?
43 A I am not aware of that.
44 Q So for example if an interview subject tells a
45 researcher that women in the community no longer
46 marry under the age of 16 you would agree with me
47 I presume that in order to verify the data and
43
1 triangulate it you could go to the vital

2 statistics for the community?
3 A I think that's fair, yeah.
4 Q And that's a typical way in which triangulation is
5 done?
6 A It's one of the ways, sure.
7 Q You didn't do that, did you?
8 A No, I did not.
9 Q Are you familiar with the concept in the field of
10 qualitative research of what is called post hoc
11 evaluation for reliability and validity?
12 A No.
13 Q Are you able to tell the Court whether there's any
14 debate in the field of sociological qualitative
15 research regarding whether it's better to test for
16 reliability and validity during the design and
17 implementation of the study rather than after the
18 study is complete?
19 A M'mm-hmm. I have seen some writing on that
20 particular issue and my appreciation is that the
21 latter is what is preferred according to the
22 sources I have seen.
23 Q That it's better to test after?
24 A After.
25 Q Are you familiar with the International Institute
26 for Qualitative Methodology?
27 A No.
28 Q It's a Canadian organization. You've never heard
29 of it?
30 A No.
31 Q Then I think it's fair to say you're not a member
32 of it?
33 A That's fair.
34 Q Do you subscribe to the International Journal of
35 Qualitative Methods?
36 A No.
37 Q There's an article written on post hoc evaluation
38 for reliability from that journal. I take it you
39 haven't seen --
40 A I have not.
41 Q -- the study?
42 A No.
43 Q And you haven't disagree with me if I told you
44 they conclude that evaluating it after the fact is
45 not an acceptable way to do it?
46 A I haven't seen the study so ...
47 Q If I showed you the study would you be able to
44
1 comment on what they say about it?

2 A If I had to chance to read it.
3 Q Well, okay. I guess probably not a good use of
4 the court's time right now.
5 Is it your understanding that one of the
6 threats to the validity of data may be due to the
7 investigator working deductively from previously
8 held assumptions?
9 A That's a possible way of proceeding.
10 Q Can you tell the Court if you made the statement
11 in your article "Bountiful Voices" that your
12 research does not claim to be representative?
13 A That's right.
14 Q And what I'm referring to specifically you will
15 find at tab 6 and it's at page -- page 191. It's
16 about seven lines up from the bottom of the -- the
17 bottom of the text, not the footnotes.
18 A Yes.
19 Q Where it says "this research is therefore not
20 quantitative nor does it necessarily claim to be
21 representative"; correct?
22 A Yes. M'mm-hmm.
23 Q And you elaborate on that in Appendix A which you
24 will find on page 230 in this -- in this same tab.
25 I'll take you to the bottom paragraph on page 230.
26 A Okay.
27 Q And it says, and I'm quoting:
28
29 As indicated in the article narratives
30 revealed here are not presented as
31 necessarily representative of the experiences
32 of all polygamist wives or even as authentic.
33 There is no clear way to ascertain whether or
34 not some women in Bountiful felt apprehensive
35 about participating due to fear or coercion
36 and thus opted not to be interviewed.
37 Further, no criteria were deployed to screen
38 women who did participate.
39
40 A M'mm-hmm.
41 Q
42 They were not subject to inquiries about
43 whether they had come to be interviewed of
44 their own volition or whether they promised
45 to tell "the truth" about polygamy.
46 A Yes.
47 Q That's correct?
45
1 A That's all correct.

2 Q And in your affidavit which is at tab 2 in
3 paragraph 11 you make the same statement?
4 A Yes.
5 Q And I think you would agree with me based on what
6 you have written and what you have said this
7 morning that no qualified researcher, no matter
8 how experienced, would be able to properly
9 generalize from the narratives and quotes of the
10 women you interviewed about what is actually
11 taking place in Bountiful or about the attitudes
12 of women there?
13 A Based on what I have presented on the 22
14 interviews.
15 Q Yes.
16 A I think that's correct, yes.
17 Q I would like to take you to your affidavit
18 number 1, paragraph 22. And the first sentence,
19 My Lord. It's at tab 11. It's at tab 1 of
20 Exhibit 2, My Lord. The white binder.
21 THE COURT: Okay. Thank you.
22 MR. SAMUELS: And it's paragraph 22.
23 THE COURT: Yes.
24 MR. SAMUELS:
25 Q You say:
26
27 I believe that my participant pool offers a
28 sound representation of the experiences of
29 women in Bountiful, at least within the
30 Blackmore faction of the community.
31
32 A Yes.
33 Q Would you agree with me that is not a correct
34 statement?
35 A No.
36 Q Would you agree that that's not consistent with
37 what you just said a moment ago, that you couldn't
38 generalize to the experiences?
39 A Right, but in this paragraph 22 I'm not indicating
40 that they're generalizable statements. That what
41 I have -- what I have in terms of a participant
42 pool in my view offers a sound representation of
43 the fact that -- this particular faction of the
44 community. But I'd never suggest in this
45 paragraph that there is generalizability from
46 their narratives.
47 Q But you say that they offer a sound representation
46
1 of the experiences within the Blackmore faction at

2 least?
3 A Yes, that they represent the experiences within
4 that group, but I did not mean to indicate that we
5 should be generalizing from those to extrapolate
6 across that faction or the entirety of Bountiful
7 or polygamy in general.
8 Q I would like you to go back to tab 8, please. To
9 page 39. This is the memo from your student?
10 A Yes.
11 Q And she says "based on my readings of feminist
12 ethics and qualitative methodology and my
13 discussions with Professor Shaffir the following
14 are recommendations for conducting research in
15 Bountiful." Right?
16 A Yes.
17 Q So these were her recommendations?
18 A Yes.
19 Q And she went on to discuss the importance of
20 building up a strong rapport with the
21 participants?
22 A Yes.
23 Q And that -- to allow the women some degree of
24 control regarding the direction of the interview?
25 A Yes.
26 Q You will see on page 49 right at the top it says
27 "be explicit and truthful."
28 A Yes.
29 Q In other words a researcher using this methodology
30 is not supposed to use any kind of deception;
31 correct?
32 A Correct.
33 Q And it's fair to say that you followed that?
34 A I did.
35 Q Now, further down on this same page in the second
36 to last bullet point it says:
37
38 Interview is not a vehicle for interviewer's
39 agenda. It is an exploration of the
40 participant's experience.
41
42 Is that a technique that you subscribed to?
43 A I think it's more of a philosophy than a
44 technique.
45 Q All right. As a philosophy do you adopt it?
46 A Yes.
47 Q And then if you'll turn over to page 50. In the
47
1 second bullet it says "avoid reinforcing responses

2 with affirmatives m'mm-hmm, okay and yeah"?
3 A Yeah.
4 Q You see that?
5 A I do.
6 Q Is it your view that an expert in qualitative
7 research would conduct interviews without
8 reinforcing responses?
9 A She would probably try.
10 Q On page 47 if you go back just a couple of pages.
11 It says in the third bullet point "we ask
12 open-ended questions." Do you see that?
13 A Yes.
14 Q Is it your opinion that a qualitative researcher
15 should try to stick to open-ended questions?
16 A Generally, yes, I think so, unless there's a
17 particular clarification point that the researcher
18 is aiming to ascertain in which case a more direct
19 or pointed question would be necessary.
20 Q Would you agree with me that it's important to
21 doing these types of interviews to avoid leading
22 questions?
23 A Generally, but again it would depend on what the
24 researcher is looking for.
25 Q You understand what leading questions are?
26 A I do.
27 Q You don't want to suggest an answer when you're
28 asking a question; right?
29 A That's right.
30 Q And back to page 50 for a moment. In the fourth
31 bullet point it says "Say enough about self" and
32 then it's in quotes:
33
34 To be alive and responsive but little enough
35 to preserve the autonomy of the participant's
36 words and to keep the focus of attention on
37 his or her experience rather than on the
38 interviewer's.
39
40 A Yes.
41 Q So you would agree with me that somebody who is an
42 expert in qualitative methods would be able to
43 conduct interviews without putting the focus on
44 the interviewer's experience or agenda?
45 A Generally again, but similar to the prior question
46 or prior two questions, this is from one source.
47 And there are other sources that actually suggest
48
1 that it's important for the researcher to disclose

2 information about herself to the participants when
3 asked or even when it's un-elicited again with a
4 view to balancing the level of information shared
5 between the two parties to the interview.
6 Q Isn't there a difference between giving
7 information about yourself and suggesting answers?
8 A Well, that's definitely different.
9 Q You understand the danger of asking leading
10 questions in an interview?
11 A Generally.
12 Q And what do you understand that danger to be?
13 A Typically that you would aim to solicit a
14 particular answer that a person is looking for.
15 Q And the danger of giving reinforcing responses?
16 A The danger of this would be that the participant
17 feels that she's gaining potentially the
18 researcher's approval or telling a story that the
19 researcher wants to hear.
20 Q And the danger of letting women who are being
21 interviewed know what your own views are on the
22 questions being asked, is that the same danger?
23 A Possibly. But again there I subscribe to
24 literature that suggests that it's -- there's a
25 sense of -- an obligation of transparency on the
26 researcher's part.
27 Q Now, I don't propose to take you through the
28 transcripts of your interviews. Ms. Greathead
29 will do that following me.
30 A Sure.
31 Q When you were conducting interviews at Bountiful
32 did you follow the interview techniques that were
33 recommended to you and that you considered
34 appropriate?
35 A Yes, I attempted to do so.
36 Q Were there occasions when you made reinforcing
37 responses?
38 A In looking at the transcripts, and I've looked at
39 them many times, words like "m'mm-hmm" or "I
40 understand" or "yes" were articulated in ordinary
41 dialogue.
42 Q Were there occasions when you told the women who
43 you were interviewing what your own views were on
44 the criminalization of polygamy?
45 A I explained to the women that the
46 constitutionality of the provision was tenuous and
47 I explained to them also that the justification
49
1 for the provision on polygamy was unclear as I

2 understood it at that time.
3 Q I believe you said earlier that you considered it
4 acceptable to assume the authenticity and truth of
5 what the women were telling you.
6 A I did.
7 Q You didn't filter it out in any way?
8 A I wouldn't have known how.
9 Q So without going back and verifying the accuracy
10 of their statements would you agree with me that
11 there's no way to know whether what they told you
12 in these interviews was any more reliable than if
13 they had told the same thing to a person on the
14 street?
15 A As a researcher again the triangulation model that
16 we have spoken of is one way to test, and there's
17 a sense of an ability to assess the validity of
18 statements or veracity of statements by
19 contrasting those statements against observations
20 and also against other information derived through
21 the research study. Ensuring for consistency.
22 Q Ensuring for consistency wouldn't necessarily help
23 you, would it, because they may have collaborated
24 before you got there?
25 A That's a possibility.
26 Q In your article called "Wives' Tales" you refer to
27 the power structures in Bountiful. When you nod
28 it doesn't show up on the transcript.
29 A I'm sorry. I should explain that again "Wives'
30 Tales" was written before setting foot into the
31 community so the perceived power structures as
32 they had been reported in existent secondary
33 sources and media sources at that time.
34 Q Did you have any understanding of the power
35 structure in Bountiful before you conducted your
36 field research there?
37 A I thought I understood it, again based on those
38 sources I've just named.
39 Q What did you understand it to be?
40 A I understood it to be a religious community led by
41 a religious leader who had been primarily
42 centralized in the United States with followers
43 and two figureheads in the community who were male
44 leaders, patriarchal authorities, and before
45 entering the group to do research I was not aware
46 of the divide that existed that had been explained
47 to me when I was present that exists within the
50
1 community.
2 Q You understood the society to be very patriarchal?
3 A I did.
4 Q And with a high degree of control exercised by the
5 church leaders?
6 A I wasn't sure of the level of control that was
7 exercised, given that the women from the group had
8 contacted me in 2004/2005. So that to me
9 suggested that there may be less control than that
10 which had been presented by media portrayals of
11 the group.
12 Q Do you know if there would be any way for a
13 qualitative researcher to know whether the women
14 who volunteered to talk to you, to be interviewed,
15 might have been asked to do so by their religious
16 leaders?
17 A How could the researcher have done that? Is that
18 what you're asking?
19 Q Well, first of all, did you consider that
20 possibility?
21 A I considered that possibility.
22 Q Did you take any steps to find out if that was the
23 case?
24 A No.
25 Q You didn't even ask the women that question?
26 A I didn't.
27 Q Why not?
28 A Because I felt like that would be insulting to
29 them.
30 Q Are you aware of what qualitative researchers
31 identify as limitations of focus group
32 interviewing?
33 A Yes.
34 Q Can you tell His Lordship, please, what those
35 limitations are?
36 A The limitations that I have seen identified in the
37 literature relate to the fact that when
38 interviewed in a group there's a risk that the
39 most vocal or prominent members of the group will
40 take over the discussion and there will be a
41 reticence on the part of shyer perhaps less
42 powerful group members to speak out in a way that
43 exhibits disagreement with the more vocal members
44 of the focus group. And that there may be a risk
45 furthermore that information that a person holds
46 as confidential won't be disclosed in a group
47 setting given that others beyond the researcher
51
1 will hear that information.

2 Q Do you know whether qualitative researchers
3 generally hold the view that controversial issues
4 are or are not appropriate for focus group
5 interviews?
6 A I don't know.
7 Q Do you know whether the socioeconomic status of
8 woman in a focus group affects their
9 responsiveness?
10 A No.
11 Q I would like to take you to an extract from this
12 textbook by Denzin and Lincoln that was referred
13 to.
14 A M'mm-hmm.
15 Q And it's on the first page of that -- sorry, it's
16 page 381. There's a yellow sticky there.
17 A Okay.
18 Q At the top of page 381 it says:
19
20 One problem with the use of group interviews
21 is that some lower socioeconomic status women
22 have been socialized to reserve their
23 opinions.
24 A M'mm-hmm.
25 Q That's news to you?
26 MR. MACINTOSH: That's what she just said.
27 THE WITNESS: Yeah, no, that's not news to me. Again,
28 if there's a less powerful member of the group
29 then that individual may refrain from speaking out
30 in a manner that is inconsistent with what the
31 more vocal apparently more socially powerful group
32 members would have had to say.
33 MR. SAMUELS: Okay.
34 THE COURT: Perhaps we should mark that.
36 THE CLERK: A copy? Exhibit 4 on voir dire, My Lord.
37
38 EXHIBIT 4: 8 page p/c document, first page titled
39 Collecting and Interpreting Qualitative Materials,
40 Second Edition, by Norman K. Denzin and Yvonna S.
41 Lincoln
42
43 MR. SAMUELS:
44 Q Were you aware of this information on focus group
45 interviewing before you did these interviews?
46 A I was aware of that risk, yes.
47 Q I would like you to turn to tab 8, page 44,
52
1 please. On page 44 under the heading "Positioning

2 the Researcher" in the second sentence it says:
3
4 This is based on the realization that
5 qualitative research can never be an
6 objective science and as the researcher
7 controls the research and interprets the data
8 their philosophical assumptions will
9 inevitably --
10
11 And then there should be the word "affect" in
12 there, shouldn't there?
13 A Yes, that word is missing.
14 Q "Affect the research." Did you come into the
15 project with philosophical assumptions and
16 perspectives about polygamy and the law?
17 A I came into the research with philosophical
18 assumptions about women and the law. With respect
19 to polygamy though my position was that which was
20 set out earlier this morning from the Status of
21 Women report, namely that before a conversation
22 about law reform on section 293 occurred that more
23 research was needed on the particular topic.
24 Q Did you have any view on whether the status quo
25 was acceptable as it was?
26 A You mean the criminalization of polygamy?
27 Q Yes.
28 A No.
29 Q You didn't have any views?
30 A My view was that -- at the outset of the research
31 my view was that it was an open question, that
32 section 293 could or could not be justified
33 depending on what the research yielded.
34 Q So you had no views on whether the situation as it
35 currently stood was acceptable?
36 A I didn't have firm views, no.
37 Q Okay. I would like you to turn to tab 8, page 7
38 bottom of the second paragraph. This is where you
39 stress to your student the importance for
40 researchers of not be guided or led by a preformed
41 agenda or theory; correct?
42 A Yes.
43 Q Now I would like you to turn to page 26 of this
44 same tab. This is part of your application?
45 A To the SSHRC for funding.
46 Q Right. And if you look about halfway down the
47 page a little less than halfway down the page
53
1 there's a paragraph that begins with the word

2 "like the debates."
3 A Yes.
4 Q It says:
5
6 Like the debates about possible parallels
7 between same sex and polygamist marriages,
8 justifications for current legal approaches
9 to polygamy in Canada have yet to be
10 developed. There's been very little research
11 to indicate whether these legal approaches,
12 which include the criminalization of polygamy
13 and the refusal to recognize it as a valid
14 marital arrangement, are effective and
15 appropriate. Instead our law seems to be
16 based on polygamy's incompatibility with
17 classical Judeo-Christian understandings of
18 marriage and speculation as to polygamy's
19 inherent immorality and harm.
20
21 Do you see that?
22 A I do.
23 Q And you would agree with me that the current legal
24 approach then and now was prohibition?
25 A Prohibition and the refusal to recognize
26 polygamous relationships for the purposes of
27 things like family law support.
28 Q It was your understanding that the criminalization
29 was based on and incompatible with
30 Judeo-Christian -- classical Judeo-Christian
31 understanding of marriage and speculation about
32 polygamy's immorality and harm?
33 A Actually what I mean to say here is that the
34 current state of affairs is unsatisfactory and
35 that the justifications for Canadian current legal
36 treatment to polygamy have not been spelled out.
37 Q I'm sorry, I was being --
38 A Should I say that again?
39 THE COURT: Yes, say it again.
40 THE WITNESS: Okay. So what I meant to say in this
41 application in the SSHRC application or the SSHRC
42 application is that I'm indicating that the
43 current state of affairs that is unsatisfactory is
44 not the law itself but that the absence of
45 compelling justifications that have been spelled
46 out for the law. That's the current state of
47 affairs that I find unsatisfactory and that pushes
54
1 me to ask for this funding to do this research.

2 MR. SAMUELS: My Lord, I see that it's after the lunch
3 break.
5 MR. MACINTOSH: My Lord, if I may speak to schedule.
6 My friends are well aware that for various
7 important reasons Professor Campbell was allotted
8 two days and has two days, and I ask my friends to
9 endeavour to keep that in mind either in this
10 continued attack on having her be able to testify
11 or in cross-examination if she is allowed to
12 testify after chief. Time may get short.
13 THE COURT: Yes, I was going to ask about that. I
14 assume you have taken that into account.
15 MR. SAMUELS: We certainly have. We have tried to
16 avoid any duplication.
17 THE COURT: Thank you. And I assume though that the
18 two days is still satisfactory if indeed she gives
19 evidence?
20 MR. SAMUELS: I believe so.
21 MR. MACINTOSH: Very good.
22 THE COURT: Thank you. Court is adjourned until 2 p.m.
23
24 (NOON RECESS)
25
27 MR. SAMUELS: My Lord and Professor Campbell, I have no
28 further questions on the voir dire.
29 THE COURT: Thank you, Mr. Samuels. Ms. Greathead.
30 MS. GREATHEAD: My Lord, before I begin, one
31 housekeeping matter and that is I do intend to put
32 to Professor Campbell a copy of the transcripts
33 that she has provided with us and these
34 transcripts are subject to the consent order that
35 was before Your Lordship last week I believe. And
36 under that order the transcripts are required to
37 be sealed. I do have a copy of the order if Your
38 Lordship would like a copy of it.
40 MS. GREATHEAD: It's paragraph 6, Chief Justice.
41 THE COURT: Yes. Thank you. So that will be received
42 on the basis of that order.
43 MS. GREATHEAD: Thank you, Chief Justice.
44 MR. MACINTOSH: My Lord, while my friend is just
45 getting prepared I should say that, so Your
46 Lordship can follow, the attorneys general admit
47 the transcripts into evidence and they don't
55
Cross-exam on qualifications by Ms. Greathead (voir dire)
1 object to Ms. Campbell's transcripts being made

2 part of the evidence regardless of this motion.
3 THE COURT: Okay. I was going to ask at the end and
4 perhaps I should do it now because I'll forget.
5 If in the event that Professor Campbell testifies
6 will all the parties agree that the evidence on
7 the voir dire is in evidence in the trial proper?
8 MR. MACINTOSH: I will.
9 MS. GREATHEAD: Yes.
10 THE COURT: And same with the exhibits?
11 MR. MACINTOSH: Yes, My Lord.
12 THE COURT: So the extent they are relevant to any
13 other issues.
14 MR. MACINTOSH: Yes.
16
17 CROSS-EXAMINATION ON QUALIFICATIONS BY MS. GREATHEAD:
18 Q Professor Campbell, my name is Leah Greathead and
19 I'm lawyer with the Ministry of Attorney General
20 and I'm going be the one asking you a few
21 questions about your qualifications?
22 A Good afternoon.
23 Q Now, you may find it helpful to turn to tab 8
24 of -- not of the transcripts but of the Exhibit 2
25 the voir dire binder and that was the letter from
26 Mr. Macintosh's firm Farris and Company about your
27 qualifications.
28 THE COURT: I am going to get a room here. So what I
29 want from in front of me is the transcripts, the
30 Exhibit 2 which was Mr. --
31 MS. GREATHEAD: And that's all, Chief Justice.
32 THE COURT: That's all I need?
34 THE COURT: All right.
35 MS. GREATHEAD:
36 Q So Professor Campbell, you may recall this morning
37 that you were asked a series of questions about
38 this letter and your qualifications as a
39 qualitative researcher in particular?
40 A Yes.
41 Q And you admitted that you didn't have any formal
42 education in qualitative research?
43 A That's right.
44 Q And then you set out four examples of the
45 experience, related experience you had with
46 respect to qualitative research?
47 A Right. Just could you remind me of the four
56
1 examples.
2 Q Yes. So one was working with Professor Van
3 Praagh?
4 A M'mm-hmm.
5 Q As a graduate student at McGill, when you were at
6 McGill?
7 A Right.
8 Q The second was speaking with three experts in the
9 domain of public health law?
10 A Yes.
11 Q They weren't lawyers but they were a nutritionist,
12 epidemiologist and --
13 A Physician.
14 Q And a physician.
15 A M'mm-hmm.
16 Q And in the context of rounding out your masters
17 thesis?
18 A Yes.
19 Q The third was doing the seminar with Professor
20 White and the questionnaire you did for the day
21 care parents?
22 A Yes.
23 Q And finally it was your experience on the research
24 and ethics board at Montreal Children's Hospital?
25 A Yes.
26 Q And I notice that in the letter there that was
27 referred to board's plural. Have you been on more
28 than one board or was it just the board of the
29 Montreal Children's Hospital?
30 A I was on the board at the Montreal Children's
31 Hospital and I also served as a member of the
32 research ethics board at the MUHC which is the
33 McGill University Health Centre, so basically with
34 the faculty of medicine and that's not listed here
35 but I serve in that capacity for I believe a year
36 possibly a little bit more but as an alternative
37 member. So I wasn't a consistent member but I sat
38 in to review protocols when the ordinary legal
39 representative wasn't present.
40 Q And you once again were there to be the legal
41 representative?
42 A Yes.
43 Q So -- and that was before your work at Bountiful?
44 A Yes.
45 Q That was all of your experience related to
46 qualitative --
47 A Prior to.
57
1 Q -- research?
2 A M'mm-hmm.
3 Q Your work with Professor Van Praagh, and, I take
4 it, Professor Van Praagh is a lawyer?
5 A She's a legal scholar.
6 Q She's a law professor --
7 A Yes.
8 Q -- at McGill University as well?
9 A Yes.
10 Q And so she doesn't have any training in sociology
11 or anthropology or?
12 A I'm not aware.
13 Q And do you know whether she had any particular
14 training in doing qualitative research?
15 A No, I don't know.
16 Q And when you did your work -- you were an
17 undergraduate law student at that time when you
18 were working with Professor Van Praagh?
19 A I was.
20 Q And you were taking direction from Professor Van
21 Praagh, I take it, as far as the research goes?
22 A Yes.
23 Q And you didn't speak with a sociologist or
24 anthropologist or other expert in the social
25 sciences?
26 A No, no.
27 Q You said that you -- did you conduct between five
28 and ten interviews or was that in combination with
29 Professor Van Praagh as well?
30 A Between five and ten were -- that's the global
31 number of interviews I would have participated in
32 either alone or with my professor.
33 Q And do you have any sense out of the five to ten
34 how many you did alone?
35 A I think I did -- I can remember two possibly three
36 alone.
37 Q And how much time did you spend in the Hasidic
38 Jewish community in Montreal, the community you
39 were studying?
40 A Well, you see that's a little bit hard to answer
41 because it's not really a defined community with
42 geographic borders, so there's neighbourhoods
43 where there are many Hasidic Jewish individuals
44 but in terms of being in a community proper it's
45 very hard to locate, so there was no kind of set
46 time where I went to live anywhere. There were
47 various neighbourhoods in question where these
58
1 interviews took place.

2 Q How much time did you spend doing the interviews?
3 A How long was each interview?
4 Q Or your total experience?
5 A So this is going back to 1998, 1999 so I'm going
6 to try to remember. Based on my memory I would
7 guess that it's about -- doing this work and the
8 research in conjunction with it I would say
9 probably about 20 hours per week over the summer
10 of 1999 in particular.
11 Q As a law student?
12 A Well, that was when -- yeah, I finished my formal
13 legal education at that point.
14 Q Now, we haven't been able to find any paper
15 published by Professor -- other than --
16 A Yes.
17 Q You mentioned an earlier one which you said that
18 lead to your research?
19 A M'mm-hmm.
20 Q Did Professor Van Praagh publish a paper after the
21 interviews had taken place?
22 A She's published several papers. I don't know
23 whether she draws on the research interviews or
24 not, but she publishes in the area and she's given
25 presentations in the area.
26 Q You don't know whether she actually drew on the
27 interview research that you did?
28 A I'm not aware if she draws on them directly.
29 Q Now, the second one then, speaking with the three
30 experts in the public health law?
31 A Yes.
32 Q To round out your masters. So this didn't involve
33 speaking directly -- it was speaking with
34 academics essentially?
36 Q And you didn't mention this one in your
37 application for funding with SSHRC?
38 A No, I didn't.
39 Q The only one you mentioned was, and that's the
40 SSHRC application, the only one you mentioned was
41 the first one?
42 A Yes. That's true.
43 Q With Van Praagh?
44 A The CV mentions the experience on the research
45 ethics board, so I would have to submit a form
46 requirement that's set out by the SSHRC for a
47 specific form of CV, and it would have indicated
59
1 the experience on the ethics board.

2 Q Right.
3 A So that would have been mentioned too.
4 Q Right. But you didn't see it as a separate --
5 A Category.
6 Q -- category of qualitative research to put on your
7 application?
8 A In defining the research team I didn't indicate it
9 there, no.
10 Q And the -- so the questioning that you did of the
11 academics with respect to rounding out your
12 masters thesis wasn't qualitative research in any
13 sense?
14 A It was interview-based research with a view to
15 getting a sense of how they would identify gaps in
16 the existent literature, so whether or not you
17 would qualify that as qualitative research that
18 fits a defined category in the literature I'm not
19 sure.
20 Q Did you talk to them over the phone?
21 A Yes.
22 Q And I take it that the interviews were relatively
23 quick? You weren't taking up much of their time?
24 A They probably would have lasted about an hour
25 each. 35 minutes to an hour.
26 Q And the questionnaire that you filled out, the
27 third item.
28 A M'mm.
29 Q That talks about your experience this -- you would
30 agree that this wasn't a phenomenological research
31 study?
32 A No, I don't think it qualifies as such.
33 Q And it didn't involve the back and forth of asking
34 questions in an interview style?
35 A No, it didn't. It was an anonymous questionnaire
36 so I didn't even know who the people were who gave
37 those -- who gave them or who submitted them.
38 Q And you'd agree I guess it's not the type of
39 qualitative research that you were doing at
40 Bountiful?
41 A It's distinct. I would agree.
42 Q And the -- your role on the ethics board you said
43 was you were a legal advisor?
44 A So the research ethics board rules are such that
45 you need to have a representative from the legal
46 community and a community member and I was both
47 essentially, so there were other legal
60
1 representatives as well. So my role there --

2 sorry, I guess I'm not sure exactly if that's
3 answering your question.
4 Q Well, I guess the board wasn't relying on you with
5 respect to any kind of expertise to test the
6 rigour of the empirical medical research?
7 A No, the primary purpose of the research ethics
8 board is to assess the ethics of the research
9 protocols put before the board.
10 Q And once again this wasn't set out -- it was set
11 out just as part of your CV with respect to the
12 funding application?
13 A Yes.
14 Q Now, you agreed with Mr. Samuels that your
15 research was not intended to be representative of
16 a broader sample? This is your research at
17 Bountiful?
18 A Yes, not generalizable.
19 Q And so not generalizable generally and not even
20 generalizable with respect to the Blackmore side
21 of the community?
22 A Yes, I would be careful before making such
23 generalizations even within that faction of the
24 group.
25 Q And you understand that in about 2002 there was a
26 split in the community in Bountiful?
27 A I was told.
28 Q And that about half of the group aligned
29 themselves with Mr. Blackmore and the other half
30 with Warren Jeffs and Mr. Oler?
31 A That's my understanding.
32 Q And so when we're talking about the Blackmore side
33 we're talking about after the split the people who
34 aligned themselves with Mr. Blackmore?
35 A Primarily, yes.
36 Q Now -- so in other words, about the
37 generalization, your research speaks to the
38 experiences of 22 people in Bountiful but not
39 anyone else?
40 A 22 people that I interviewed were primarily in
41 Bountiful but two were people who had left the
42 community.
43 Q Did you do formal interviews of two people who
44 left the community?
45 A Yes.
46 Q Now -- and they were all women; correct?
47 A They were all women.
61
1 Q Let me refer you to paragraph 32 of your affidavit

2 number 2. It's in -- as the second tab in this
3 binder.
4 A Okay. Paragraph 132, please. You will see at
5 paragraph 132 you say:
6
7 It is possible that women in Bountiful have
8 traditionally chosen not to seek out such
9 domestic support.
10
11 And so when you say "women in Bountiful" there,
12 what you're really meaning is it's possible that
13 the 22 women that I interviewed in Bountiful. Do
14 you agree?
15 A Actually what I wanted to convey there was it's
16 possible based on what I was told that I'm not
17 indicating that all women in Bountiful would have
18 been reluctant to seek outside support or
19 counselling services, but that it's a possibility
20 based on what I was told that women in Bountiful
21 would have traditionally chosen not to seek out
22 support services or counselling services given the
23 stories and narratives that were explained to me.
24 Q So it's not limited? But you can't generalize
25 past the 22 women that you questioned?
26 A Right. So in order to just avoid seeing the
27 contradiction there what I would clarify is that
28 the language here is that it's possible that,
29 right, so that it's not -- I'm not indicating that
30 it's necessarily the case that women have chosen
31 not to seek out these particular services on
32 account of various reasons that are set out here,
33 but there's a possibility that. And so in the
34 research that I've done I've been quite careful to
35 ensure that there's no claim to generalizability
36 but there is a possibility of stories being
37 possibly recurrent.
38 Q So would you agree you are making a generalization
39 there in the first few words, "it's possible that
40 the women in Bountiful." You're generalizing to
41 the women in Bountiful?
42 A Well, I'm saying that it's possible for them, yes.
43 Q But that's not based upon the qualitative research
44 study you did because you can't generalize past
45 the 22 women you looked at?
46 A Well, it is based on those studies, yes.
47 Q Right. So it's limited to the 22 women that you
62
1 interviewed?
2 A So my direct conclusion, what I can say I was told
3 for sure, is limited to the 22, but in terms of
4 possibilities beyond that, right, I'm not saying
5 that necessarily it happens, but there's a
6 possibility that what is set out here is
7 occurring.
8 Q And what are you basing that possibility on?
9 MR. MACINTOSH: The first three or four times it was
10 based on her interviews of the 22 women. I think
11 that's been covered.
12 THE COURT: I think I have that point.
13 MS. GREATHEAD:
14 Q Now, you didn't interview any children either?
15 A I didn't.
16 Q No. And you attended the community for five days
17 in 2008?
18 A Yes.
19 Q And seven days in 2009?
20 A Yes.
21 Q So did the five days include travel time from
22 Montreal to --
23 A Yes.
24 Q -- Cranbrook or Creston?
25 A So on my travel days we also visited the
26 community.
27 Q So it would have been about a half day on your
28 travel days?
29 A Fair enough, yeah.
30 Q And you had a travel day on either side?
31 A Yeah. To go home, yeah.
32 Q So it was four full days in 2008?
33 A Yeah, if you want we could knock off maybe the
34 morning of the Monday, because the first trip was
35 Monday to Friday, so it's possible to knock off
36 the morning of Monday and the afternoon of Friday.
37 Q And the same for 2009?
38 A Yes.
39 Q The seven days included travel days?
40 A They did.
41 Q And you could knock off a half day on either end
42 there?
43 A Sure.
44 Q And I take it that you had arranged beforehand
45 that you were going to be travelling there so the
46 times of the interviews were prearranged? The
47 women knew you were coming, in other words?
63
1 A Sometimes they were prearranged but not all.

2 Q They knew you were coming in June?
3 A Yes.
4 Q During that timeframe?
5 A Yes, yes.
6 Q And in 2009 it was also June, they knew you were
7 coming during that timeframe?
8 A They did, yes.
9 Q You said you didn't live in Bountiful, so you
10 stayed in a hotel in Creston?
11 A That's right.
12 Q And what about your meals, were you eating them
13 outside of the community?
14 A In the first trip, yes. We didn't eat in the
15 community. There's no restaurants there. But in
16 terms of people's houses, trip one I didn't eat in
17 anyone's home. Trip two I did have -- I was
18 invited to have some meals in the community.
19 Q Did you walk around by yourself in the community
20 or were you with someone all the time?
21 A Often by myself and sometimes with two members of
22 my research team.
23 Q And the two members of your research team, was it
24 the under grad sociologist student that you hired
25 with the funding? Was one of them that student?
26 A I'm under the impression that there's a
27 confidentiality protection that's meant to be --
28 for the students who travelled with me.
29 Q I'm not asking her name. I just want to know if
30 it was the one to whom you -- for whom you sought
31 funding under -- or the one you hired after you --
32 was it the same student that had expertise or an
33 under grad in sociology?
34 A Yes.
35 Q Now, I take it that you understand the
36 importance -- that the importance of having a
37 prolonged and extensive engagement in the
38 community for the purpose of qualitative research
39 is to be able to view people at different times
40 and different settings and to get as accurate as
41 possible an impression of what is happening. You
42 would agree with that?
43 A I would, yeah.
44 Q And so one of the examples you gave is that you
45 mentioned you saw women wearing the
46 non-traditional dress but not -- not wearing the
47 traditional dress but wearing jeans?
64
1 A Yes.
2 Q And that you would agree with me though if you're
3 in Bountiful for four or so days in 2008 the rest
4 of the 360 days in the year you're not there and
5 you don't know what they're wearing?
6 A That's true.
7 Q Now, you have been asked by Mr. Macintosh a number
8 of questions about the publications you've
9 written --
10 A Yes.
11 Q In relation to polygamy, and there was a list of
12 those publications?
13 A Yes.
14 Q And all of these publications stem from your two
15 visits in 2008 and 2009 to Bountiful?
16 A So they draw on that but they also draw on other
17 research as well.
18 Q Right.
19 A M'mm-hmm.
20 Q They're related to the time you spent in
21 Bountiful?
22 A Yeah, they're related to secondary sources
23 primarily that I would have read as background for
24 this type of project.
25 Q Now, you have provided us with transcripts of the
26 interviews that you did both in 2008 and 2009?
27 A Yes.
28 Q And you have a copy of those?
29 A I think so.
30 MS. GREATHEAD: So, My Lord Chief Justice, perhaps I
31 can have this marked as the next exhibit on the
32 voir dire and it will be sealed.
33 THE COURT: Exhibit 5.
34 THE CLERK: Exhibit 5 on voir dire, My Lord.
35 THE COURT: Yes.
36
37 EXHIBIT 5: 1 white 4" binder untitled containing
38 transcripts; 1 page Index; Tabs 1 - 26; p/c
39 Sealed pursuant to Consent Order of Chief Justice
40 Bauman dated Nov 23, 2010
41
42 MS. GREATHEAD:
43 Q And Professor Campbell, did you do the redactions
44 on the transcripts?
45 A I did the redactions. My employer also had a look
46 at the redactions and did some of that as well, in
47 addition to the redactions I had provided.
65
1 Q And they've been redacted to remove identifying

2 information from the participants?
3 A Yes, yes.
4 Q Now -- and these are all the transcripts of all
5 the interviews that you conducted?
6 A Yes.
7 Q And they directly record the experience of the
8 women that you were interviewing?
9 A They record the interviews, yes.
10 Q And in your affidavit -- you filed two affidavits
11 here, you've summarized what you were told into
12 themes?
13 A Yes.
14 Q So for example if we go back to paragraph 132 of
15 your affidavit number 2 you say:
16
17 It is possible that women in Bountiful have
18 traditionally chosen not to seek out such
19 domestic support or counselling service
20 because this is seen as inconsistent with
21 community norms, yet it is also possible such
22 services are not accessed on account of a
23 fear that abuse allegations would trigger
24 criminal investigations and prosecutions
25 related to polygamy.
26
27 So you're dealing here with whether women are --
28 the women you interviewed are willing to access
29 services?
30 A Yes.
31 Q And now -- so you take the empirical information
32 that you gathered here and draw a generalizations
33 from it? Is that what you've done?
34 A No, I don't -- if you're asking whether I've
35 generalized from the information, I attempted to
36 distill the information in the transcripts as
37 opposed to generalize; right? Based on the
38 exchange we had earlier.
39 Q So -- well, is paragraph 132 representative of
40 what you say your expertise is here?
41 A Paragraph 132 doesn't representative my expertise.
42 It actually represents my understanding of what
43 was communicated to me from various individuals I
44 met in this community.
45 Q So you're putting down here your understanding of
46 what the transcripts say essentially?
47 A Yes.
66
1 Q Not filtering it through any expertise?

2 A No, no. And also not -- transcripts and other
3 discussions had more informal settings with
4 participants.
5 Q So if I could take you now -- first I'll ask, so
6 if that's the case if it's not being filtered
7 through any expertise and it's your comments on
8 what the transcripts say what relevant expertise
9 do you have that the Court would not have which
10 permits you draw generalizations from a
11 transcript?
12 THE COURT: Mr. Dickson?
13 MR. DICKSON: This sounds like argument to me and there
14 will be a moment eventually it seems to argue on
15 that point, My Lord.
16 THE COURT: I tend to agree with that, although I have
17 heard an awful lot of argument.
18 MR. DICKSON: Indeed, My Lord.
19 MR. MACINTOSH: Wait till argument.
20 THE COURT: But I think you can make that point quite
21 easily in your submissions.
22 MS. GREATHEAD: Yes, Chief Justice.
23 Q If I can have you, Professor Campbell, I would
24 like you to refer to tab 2 of the transcripts,
25 page 71?
26 MR. DICKSON: We don't see page numbers.
27 MR. MACINTOSH: Do you have one with pages on it?
28 MS. GREATHEAD: No.
29 MR. DICKSON: We would like to see one, thanks. It's
30 our witness.
31 MS. GREATHEAD: I can tell you where it is maybe.
32 Q Professor Campbell, before I get to this though
33 would you agree that the -- that the goal in the
34 interview was -- interviews and your study was to
35 give voice to the 22 women that you interviewed?
36 You wanted to hear their voice?
38 Q And you would agree that one -- and my friend
39 Mr. Samuels asked you some questions about leading
40 questions and that kind of thing?
41 A Yes.
42 Q But regardless of what you call it --
43 A Yes.
44 Q -- the purpose in the interviews was to allow the
45 interviewee to speak and to give their
46 impressions, their feelings, their -- what their
47 life was like to you?
67
1 A Sure, yes.
2 Q And the notion was that you wanted to avoid you
3 putting words into their mouth?
4 A Generally, yes.
5 Q Now -- so tab 2, page 71, the A in the transcript
6 refers to you?
7 A To me, yes.
8 Q So you asked the question:
9
10 What about giving birth? I've read stories
11 about when a woman gives birth that says she
12 often goes to the hospital. Does she go with
13 her husband?
14
15 PH: yes.
16
17 And there would be no worry about that?
18
19 PE: What do you mean?
20
21 Like because I've read that if you have a
22 baby --
23
24 And this is you here, Angela Campbell?
25 A Yes.
26 Q
27 Like I've read that if you've had a baby you
28 may not want to go with your husband, like,
29 he's already registered with another woman
30 and there would be a kind of reputation of
31 polygamy in the marriage.
32
33 And then "unclear."
34
35 Well, it used to be like that.
36
37 A Yes.
38 Q Was the answer.
39 A Yes.
40 Q If I could have you refer to tab 9. At page 233.
41 And Professor Campbell, could you read out the
42 questions starting with "that actually"?
43 A So this is following from the prior start of the
44 question. So do you want me to start with the
45 preceding AC where it actually begins? It might
46 not make sense otherwise.
47 Q Sure.
68
1 A Okay. So it says:
2
3 It's really interesting though because we
4 were talking with some women today about, you
5 know, the need for something or the community
6 like --
7
8 Ane then it's unclear as to whether the word is
9 "clinics." And then the participant says:
10
11 Yes, yeah.
12
13 That actually --
14
15 This is me again.
16
17 -- can address like the reason in the
18 community [inaudible], because one of the
19 things that came up last year was that if
20 you're from a place like Bountiful that's
21 very misunderstood and kind of laden with a
22 bunch of assumptions cast on it by people
23 from the outside that going to find a
24 resource like someone having a drug problem
25 or somebody having a crisis like all
26 teenagers go through it to some extent, but a
27 real struggle with identity and belonging,
28 trying to see a counsellor or social worker
29 or psychologist from the outside can be
30 really difficult because the challenge that;
31 you're facing gets linked back to the fact
32 that you're from [redacted] and not that
33 there's something that really needs to be
34 addressed apart from where you grew up.
35
36 Q Answer, "yeah."
37 A Answer, yeah.
38 Q And then you go on:
39
40 So, if on the outside you're, you know, for
41 example redacted why would a couple go to
42 marriage counselling if she's in a polygamous
43 marriage. The counsel would just say well,
44 you're not a polygamous marriage. Get rid of
45 that and you'll get rid of your problem.
46
47 A Right.
69
1 Q Answer, yeah. And so I take it you agree with me

2 that these aren't the type of questions that you
3 would normally want to see if you're looking to
4 get the voice of the interviewee?
5 A These questions are picking up on words that were
6 put to me by another participant and I was putting
7 the participant's words to this participant to see
8 how they would compare.
9 Q And all you got back was "yeah"?
10 A Yeah.
11 Q Tab 11, page 256. And at the top there you ask:
12
13 So is the solution then to imagine a
14 situation in the community where a number of
15 couples realize that they need some sort of
16 services in order to keep their marriage
17 strong but you realize that going into
18 Creston or wherever sort of services are
19 available isn't going to work because of the
20 response that you anticipate?
21
22 Answer: M'mm-hmm.
23
24 And AC:
25
26 Probably true m'mm-hmm. And so the response
27 is then the way I see it is there are two
28 options, right, you can either say this is a
29 service that our community needs much like
30 nurses, midwifes and teachers, so let's train
31 some people in this because it's something
32 that we need to keep our community vibrant or
33 sensing -- you can kind of sensitize the
34 people in Creston. Laugh. Yeah. To
35 reiterate -- to the realities of polygamist
36 life so that people doing the service in the
37 area have to go to some kind of sensitivity
38 training to become aware of the challenges of
39 polygamy so maybe they have and come spend
40 more time here with you; right?
41
42 Answer: Yeah.
43
44 So again these are what in our profession would be
45 called leading questions?
46 A M'mm-hmm. This is what I understood to be an
47 explanation or elaboration of the kind of services
70
1 or options for services that would be available to

2 the community.
3 MR. DICKSON: My Lord, I think questions of these kinds
4 are entirely appropriate but I'm not sure that
5 they're appropriate at this stage. It seems --
6 THE COURT: Well, I detected that equally in
7 Mr. Samuels' cross-examination but I assume it's
8 going to shorten any eventual cross.
9 MR. DICKSON: Indeed.
10 THE COURT: If it takes place.
11 MS. GREATHEAD: And Chief Justice, if I may, Professor
12 Campbell has said essentially that she's gained
13 her qualitative research experience in the context
14 of her work in Bountiful and these questions are
15 designed to show -- to deal with that assertion.
16 THE COURT: Well, I understand that. They also go to
17 the weight you have attached to the opinion, which
18 is Mr. Dickson's point. But I am sure it will
19 shorten the eventual cross if that takes place.
20 MR. DICKSON: I'm sure as well, thank you.
21 MS. GREATHEAD: Professor Campbell, tab 18, page 248.
22 THE COURT: Tab 18 page 248?
23 MS. GREATHEAD: Sorry, page 428. Actually it starts
24 over the page on page 427. It's the first --
25 after tab 18, first page.
26 Q So we have "I," is that for "interviewer"?
27 A I'm sorry. Where -- on.
28 Q 154. That's just the time.
29 A Yes. That's the time in the transcript.
30 Q Okay.
31
32 And so I mostly, you know, with a few of the
33 other members just thought we should do this
34 just to protect ourselves as well as to help
35 us through the transition, so we contacted a
36 doctor in town and sent [redacted] sent
37 [redacted] and talked to a child and we just
38 had like different people that we felt like
39 with and, like, the public health nurse,
40 different people that we felt could help us
41 with the transition and also to help protect
42 us from what was happening, the more
43 communications. So it's actually very
44 helpful because we could talk about our
45 worries and they could talk about their
46 worries and we started -- we started from
47 different [?]
71
1
2 So they're talking about the services they could
3 access there?
4 A This is the participant speaking.
5 Q The participant speaking, yes, yeah.
6 A Well, it's a different context altogether than the
7 one from the prior comments.
8 Q They're talking about contacting a doctor in town?
9 A Yeah, the other participant was talking about
10 counselling services.
11 Q No, but those are both services outside of the
12 community?
13 A Sure.
14 Q Yeah. And at same tab, page 432. And this is the
15 participant speaking here again about their
16 doctor. There's a large section redacted at 1052?
17 A Yes.
18 Q And then it says:
19
20 Even from my own personal experience I mean,
21 my doctor has just been wonderful for me.
22 I -- laugh -- she has helped me, pulled me
23 through my tough times. And you know, today
24 if I had a need or any I just call her and
25 she's there and I find that everybody finds
26 that their person that, you know, and --
27
28 And then you ask "is she the person who" and it's
29 redacted. Answer: "[Redacted] I actually had
30 [redacted] deliver my baby but I still went to her
31 because, I don't know, she's a neutral zone for
32 me. Sure."
33
34 Answer: "I could go to her and tell her
35 exactly how I felt about whatever and that was
36 okay.
37
38 MR. DICKSON: Is there a question?
39 MS. GREATHEAD:
40 Q And so that was the answer given by the
41 participant there and recorded?
42 A Yes.
43 Q And at tab 19 page 464.
44 So Professor Campbell, halfway down the page
45 they see you and you're asking this question:
46
47 Yeah, well, what about, like, do you ever get
72
1 the feeling that people from the outside, you

2 know, it just seems like there's a seamless
3 back and forth with the outside which is so
4 interesting because the outside is presented
5 popularly through the press as like this
6 hostile place for Bountiful, you know, that
7 it's not very helpful to allowing you to live
8 a peaceful life in some ways because of the
9 fact that the focus is always pretty
10 negative, so I'm just wondering whether that
11 ever affects the openness of women to either
12 receive -- even though the intention is
13 really good, to receive people, like,
14 services like from the outside, or whether
15 you think unclear affected by this.
16 M'mm-hmm.
17
18 And the answer is:
19
20 Well, um, it -- we have to learn to trust.
21 We have to learn, um, we do trust the nurses
22 that come out here. They're, um, they're
23 always kind to me anyway and I've had to
24 learn not to believe that the media presents
25 outside -- believe that the media presents
26 about the outside world because I don't want
27 everyone to -- I don't want everyone to
28 believe about Bountiful.
29
30 So this participant here is expressing trust with
31 respect to outside services?
32 A The ones that are being spoken to here, yes.
33 M'mm-hmm.
34 Q Now, I just have a few more to draw your attention
35 to. At tab 22. This is participant 15. At page
36 497, eight pages in. And your question -- the
37 second question you ask:
38
39 When you were growing up or even from your
40 observations now of women in plural marriages
41 was there ever a time you noticed or felt
42 like, because of being in a plural community
43 that it wasn't possible for your family or
44 for you to access resources outside of the
45 community or to seek services or things,
46 either government-based or private resources
47 outside of the community, because of a worry
73
1 about being stigmatised or some other fear

2 outside of the community.
3
4 And the answer is, "I don't think so." And
5 there's more to their answer. And you go on and
6 you ask "because they'd know you were from
7 Bountiful?" And the participant answers "yes,
8 because of the way we dressed, wore long hair and
9 braids and things like that, and [redacted]."
10
11 I'll draw your attention down even further to
12 the sentence beginning with the word "but":
13
14 But I never felt like that I was afraid to
15 leave the community or I feel like that we
16 always have access to services. I know
17 people who sought counselling for the
18 children and who are part of a social
19 services and our community has always been
20 involved in, maybe not in the entire sense,
21 but I don't think like anyone really have a
22 fear of going outside of the community to
23 seek services. There has always been
24 [inaudible -- the word might be criticism]
25 but not everyone is that way. There you get
26 someone who treats you badly because of who
27 you are but there's also people that would be
28 nice and even if they're rude they're
29 probably still going to give you the those
30 services. So I really do feel like people
31 have the access to the services. I think
32 it's a myth that they haven't. So that's
33 what the group of psychologists got money to
34 offer their services in Bountiful.
35
36 So once again this participant is expressing the
37 fact that services are accessible essentially?
38 A Yes.
39 Q And if I could have you turn to tab 24. This is
40 participant 17 and at page 525. Page 8. Here the
41 questioner is identified as I. Do you see that?
42 A Yes.
43 Q And what does that mean?
44 A For "interviewer."
45 Q Would that be you?
46 A Yes.
47 Q Oh, that would be you as well?
74
1 A It was.
2 Q Did you conduct all of the interviews?
3 A I did.
4 Q And you will see at participant 17 about halfway
5 down the page the participant here is talking
6 about services starting with the word "and": She
7 says:
8
9 And the people there have always been so good
10 to us, like, there's a couple of -- a couple
11 that have little issues but pretty much in
12 general people have been so good to us and
13 being fair and treating us like people rather
14 than criminals, so I never once felt like I
15 couldn't go somewhere and get help or go to a
16 doctor, you know.
17
18 So again this participant is expressing the
19 ease of which to get services outside Bountiful?
20 A Specifically to go to the doctor, yes.
21 Q And page 526. At P 17 they're talking about:
22
23 Up until [inaudible] church depression was
24 not considered an illness, it was considered
25 the devil is in you, snap out of it, you
26 know. [Throat clear]. So it was really hard
27 to address because you can't get medication
28 for devil being in you, you know, it's like
29 go back and pray, you know. So I think in
30 the past it's been really hard and I think
31 it's hard today because it's hard in five
32 years to really change how you feel about an
33 illness and you don't think it's an illness.
34 But I do think more women have gotten help
35 recently and I think we're also considering
36 that having ten kids is really hard. It's
37 hard mentally, it's hard physically.
38
39 So again it's the same participant talking about
40 services?
41 MR. DICKSON: Is that a question?
42 MS. GREATHEAD:
43 Q Is that right?
44 A Yes.
45 Q And at tab 26, page 560. Sorry, starting at 559.
46 You're the interviewer. And very last question on
47 the bottom there:
75
1
2 Is there ever a moment or has there ever been
3 a moment where you felt apprehensive about
4 leaving the community to go into the city?
5 Answer, no. To access resources? Never
6 never. I go to [inaudible] a day.
7
8 So again this person is expressing the view
9 that --
10 A They come and go.
11 Q Yeah. And so with the exception of the first two
12 examples I took you to, where there was leading
13 questions, you'll agree all of the other examples
14 the people indicated that they could access
15 services without a problem essentially?
16 A Yeah. So these are people who indicated that they
17 could access resources and services generally
18 speaking in the Creston or outside communities.
19 MR. DICKSON: By examples you mean the examples that
20 you put to the witness?
22 MR. DICKSON: Thank you.
23 MS. GREATHEAD:
24 Q And so if we go back to paragraph 132 in your
25 affidavit number 2. And sorry -- Professor
26 Campbell, do you have that?
27 A I do, yes.
28 Q You state:
29
30 It is possible that the women in Bountiful
31 have traditionally chosen not to seek out
32 such domestic support or counselling services
33 because this is seen as inconsistent with
34 community norms. Yet it is also possible
35 that such services are not accessed on
36 account of a fear that abuse allegations
37 would trigger criminal investigations and
38 prosecutions related to polygamy.
39
40 Now, would you agree with me, Professor
41 Campbell, that from these transcript excerpts that
42 we just went through we can discern that there
43 would be a number of women that you interviewed
44 that wouldn't agree with the generalization you
45 put at paragraph 132?
46 A I just want to clarify that the types of services
47 spoken to in the excerpts that we were going
76
1 through are general services and resources, so

2 things like even go going to the grocery store.
3 Those types of things clearly are not problematic.
4 Things even going to the physician. Paragraph 132
5 refers specifically to domestic support or
6 counselling services.
7 Q So you're limiting that paragraph to domestic
8 support and counselling?
9 A Specifically psychological support especially,
10 yeah.
11 MR. MACINTOSH: That's what it says.
12 MS. GREATHEAD:
13 Q Now, you've indicated already that it's important
14 to ask open-ended questions. I wonder, Professor
15 Campbell, if you could turn to the transcripts at
16 tab 21. Before I move to that can I take you to
17 paragraph 34 of your affidavit.
18 A Back in the affidavit?
19 Q Yeah. At paragraph 134 you say:
20
21 Thus, it appears to me that Bountiful's
22 residents will have some apprehension about
23 seeking out and obtaining social or medical
24 services for difficulties that may be
25 perceived as linkable to polygamy.
26
27 So again when you say "Bountiful's residents"
28 you really can only generalize to the 22 women
29 that you interviewed?
30 A Yes.
31 Q And we should read that instead of "Bountiful's
32 residents"?
33 A Sure.
34 Q And you go on:
35
36 They seem to perceive such a move as
37 potentially increasing their vulnerability
38 and the risk of coming to the attention of
39 law enforcement authorities.
40
41 And so on. These services on here, the social and
42 medical services --
43 A Yes.
44 Q -- you would agree that the transcript provisions
45 that I took you to, many of those people wouldn't
46 support this generalization?
47 A "Social and medical services that may be perceived
77
1 as linkable to polygamy." So marital counselling

2 issues, things like that. Or even medical issues
3 that may be linked as being -- perceived as
4 linkable to polygamy.
5 Q So they have no problem getting medical services
6 generally?
7 A For like an ear infection, no. That's my
8 appreciation of things.
9 Q Now, Professor Campbell, can you read out the
10 question -- you're asking the question. This here
11 is participant 14 in tab 21. And the question is
12 marked by "AC." And it starts "what it boils down
13 to."
14 A Which page of the affidavit? Sorry, of the --
15 Q In the transcript, tab 21.
16 A I'm there.
17 Q Page 486 at the top.
18 A Sorry. Okay, so the first -- very first question?
19 Q The question halfway down the page. It says "AC,
20 what it boils down to."
21 A Okay. So you want me to read this passage?
22 Q Yeah. This is your question, I take it.
23 A Yes.
24
25 What it boils down to is the way law defines
26 polygamy and the way that it defines polygamy
27 is that if a man takes a wife and then has
28 another, either somehow fraudulently has a
29 marriage certificate with wife number two or
30 maybe they've been set up as a conjugal
31 living arrangement with wife number 2, and
32 whether the wives know about each other
33 really doesn't matter, so by doing that he's
34 engaged in polygamy. If the women know about
35 each other they're all engaged in polygamy
36 and they're all potentially criminally
37 responsible. So it's the fact that kind of
38 living with the second wife and supporting
39 her and having a space sharing and everything
40 that goes with conjugality that would make
41 criminal responsibility, whereas if a man had
42 a marriage then committed adultery, just had
43 an affair that went on maybe more than five
44 years, but he never lived with all his wives
45 there was no real representation to the world
46 at large that his mistress was his partner
47 for life and there would be no triggering of
78
1 responsibility because he's not committed

2 [inaudible] sharing. And it seems to me that
3 it's only because you're sharing a space that
4 the law somehow says, hey, you're on the hook
5 now. And then -- but then and then you have
6 [inaudible] -- how it's a sharing of space
7 [inaudible] responsibility for the wife and
8 any children that they father that
9 [inaudible] potentially a criminal offence,
10 which seems contradictory, right? Because if
11 you want to think in terms of moral
12 culpability and what's wrong, if you want to
13 say it's the fact of not being monogamous,
14 they're both equally not monogamous. But in
15 one case you just kind of have and he's
16 sleeping with a woman and in another he's
17 kind of holding himself out as married to
18 both. And I think the way the state sees the
19 law as having an interest in that is that
20 they're worried or is worried about ensuring
21 there's enough a provision to all the wives,
22 because -- pause -- historically from what I
23 understand the criminal provisions against
24 polygamy was to keep the Mormons out of
25 Canada so that polygamy the reason that the
26 [inaudible]. And in the 1950s that was
27 removed but polygamy remained on the books
28 and it was designed for the protection of
29 conjugal rights, and I think in doing that it
30 was meant to protect what a wife and children
31 are entitled to in the marriage. And so if
32 you start to have subsequent wives you're
33 making the husband's tie in thinner places so
34 that there may not be enough to go around.
35 On the other hand, poor men are not
36 prohibited to marrying, right, but they have
37 nothing to give so it seems contradictory and
38 it seems making it a criminal act that would
39 be very difficult I think to justify in my
40 opinion. Although [inaudible], and I don't
41 know if I'm in the major opinion at all, but
42 I think it's difficult to justify the
43 criminal prohibition against polygamy,
44 because especially when you think about it,
45 the fact that we don't -- we've never
46 criminalized adultery. And as you know, the
47 Canadian Supreme Court has said that if a
79
1 freely consenting couple chooses consensually

2 that let's say, you know, I'm in a monogamous
3 marriage and I say, hey, it's interesting to
4 me to have more than one sexual partner
5 [inaudible], so let's experiment with that,
6 then that's okay even though the clause that
7 actually allows that to happen is
8 [inaudible]. And that's okay. But then you
9 have this kind of commitment to fidelity only
10 when it comes to marriage. And I feel like
11 that's so much so that we're using our
12 heaviest tool, criminal law, to enforce it,
13 [inaudible], and I don't feel that that is
14 [inaudible] should be justified. But I have
15 talked to other people who are law professors
16 who are [inaudible] than I am, who say, no,
17 no, no, [inaudible].
18
19 Q And so that's not really a question at all, is it,
20 Professor Campbell? It's more of a speech?
21 A I wouldn't characterize it as a speech. It's an
22 explanation.
23 Q An explanation. It's your words?
24 A It's my words.
25 Q Your voice, not the participant's?
26 A No.
27 Q And certainly not an open-ended question?
28 A It's not a question.
29 Q Now, can I have you turn to paragraphs 196 and 199
30 of your affidavit. And this is in a section on
31 social science literature; is that correct?
32 A 196 and following?
33 Q Yeah. Well, and prior to that. It's within the
34 section where you did -- you had a look at various
35 social science literature.
36 A Yes.
37 Q And you would agree that you've told us already
38 you're not an expert in any of the social
39 sciences, so you don't have any more expertise
40 than another person with respect to reading social
41 science literature?
42 MR. MACINTOSH: That wasn't quite the evidence,
43 My Lord. There is no formal qualifications.
44 MS. GREATHEAD:
45 Q In social science.
46 A So no formal education in social science research
47 methods.
80
1 Q Or in social sciences generally. Anthropology,

2 sociology?
3 A Yes, that's fair enough. I mean, I have an
4 undergraduate degree in history but not sociology
5 or anthropology.
6 Q And you've already told us that you didn't
7 interview any children; correct?
8 A That's right.
9 Q And paragraphs 196 to 199 you discuss the ability
10 of children to outgrow harmful aspects of
11 polygamy?
12 A In some contexts.
13 Q And then you suggest the studies are suspect
14 because of the cultural context?
15 A Oh, I don't suggest that they're suspect at all.
16 I don't mean to undermine the researchers in
17 question here. I said that the context, the
18 social and cultural context is relevant to think
19 about when assessing the generalizability of a
20 study.
21 Q But you reach an impression at paragraph 200?
22 A Yes.
23 Q
24 In the context of young people's intellectual
25 development my impression is that the social,
26 economic and cultural forces of the community
27 will be extremely important on determining
28 the overall well-being and accomplishments of
29 residents where polygamy is not socially
30 stigmatised and where appropriate educational
31 resources and facilities exist and where
32 there is adequate familiar and parental
33 support for learning, the research indicates
34 that young people can succeed academically.
35
36 And this is an impression and you bolstered your
37 impression with your own observations from young
38 people from Bountiful?
39 A And from the literature discussed earlier.
40 Q And did you keep any field notes about your
41 observations of children in Bountiful?
42 A No.
43 Q And you indicate that you spoke with many children
44 while you were at Bountiful, but your talks with
45 these children were not for the purpose of your
46 research, were they?
47 A I was onsite. I was there for research purposes
81
1 and I spoke to the children who were there.

2 Q There were no consents given with respect to the
3 children?
4 A No, no.
5 Q And you agree that they weren't for the purposes
6 of your qualitative research that you would have
7 needed to get consent?
8 A If I was interviewing them, yes, I would have.
9 Q You say that -- that you were impressed with the
10 general level of insightfulness and maturity and
11 articulateness of the young people. What was the
12 basis for that comparison?
13 A Children in my own community.
14 Q And isn't this something that should be assessed
15 by ethnographers or developmental psychologists,
16 or you're just offering this as a person on the
17 street essentially. There's no --
18 A Oh, this was just my impression.
19 Q No expertise and no benefit to you over someone
20 else?
21 A I'm sorry, just the part about benefit I didn't
22 understand.
23 Q You weren't bringing any expertise with respect
24 to -- it wasn't part of your qualitative study and
25 there was no expertise in your impression with
26 respect to the kids in Bountiful?
27 A No, I think that's fair to say. I mean, I was
28 assessing or reached this conclusion based on my
29 impression of just ordinary informal discussions
30 with children who approached me because they were
31 interested in what I was doing there.
32 Q Professor Campbell, in your affidavit number 2
33 paragraphs 19 to 23.
34 THE COURT: I'm sorry, I missed that reference.
35 MS. GREATHEAD: Affidavit number 2, Chief Justice, at
36 paragraph 19.
37 Q So you talk in paragraph 19 through 22 with
38 respect to the age of marriage in Bountiful?
39 A M'mm-hmm.
40 Q Do you agree with that?
41 A Yes.
42 Q And you didn't triangulate this data with any
43 other source of information; is that right?
44 A The vital statistics that were mentioned earlier
45 today.
46 Q Or anything else?
47 A Only other interviews and discussions and
82
1 observations within the community.

2 Q And the -- at tab 8 of the -- of the Exhibit 2,
3 the white binder there, we have a list of the
4 questions that you put to the -- or that you
5 prepared. Let me turn there. If you turn to
6 tab 8. This is page 136 at the very bottom.
7 Appendix G this is appendix G to the letter?
8 A I have that.
9 Q And these are the interview questions of June
10 2008, for your June 2008 interviews?
11 A Yes.
12 Q And you will agree with me that there's no
13 question in there in what you were set out to ask
14 about the age that women marry at?
15 A There was no direct question on that point.
16 Q Right. And over the page that is your interview
17 questions for the interview when you went in 2009?
18 A Yeah.
19 Q And there's no question about the age of the
20 brides there?
21 A Again no direct question.
22 Q And the information, then back at your affidavit,
23 Exhibit 2. It's paragraphs 19 and 23. Your
24 understanding was that the age that girls marry
25 used to be young, maybe 15 was the youngest you
26 had heard of, but that it is presently
27 discouraged?
28 A That was what I was told.
29 Q And if you go -- and then you go on to cite from a
30 couple of the participants and at paragraph 21
31 you're citing from the transcripts from one of the
32 participants?
33 A Yes.
34 Q And in that the participant's indicating that she
35 was married when she was 16?
36 A M'mm-hmm.
37 Q And then she goes on to say that "that is
38 something I hope to change" when she is talking
39 about --
40
41 I've often wondered why 16 is the age they
42 got married because really it's kind of -- I
43 think it's an old-fashioned thing, but this
44 is something I hope to change.
45
46 And would you agree with me that if it's something
47 that she hopes to change that means it's happening
83
1 and there's a need to be -- need for something to

2 be done about it.
3 A It means it could still be happening. Even though
4 the practice is not desirable any longer it could
5 still be happening.
6 Q And in fact she goes on to say in her next
7 paragraph that her daughter, that participant's
8 daughter married at 16?
9 A Yes.
10 Q Now, the -- you indicated that of the -- that the
11 interviews included two people that had left the
12 community and our review of the transcripts -- so
13 the two -- are the two people that left the
14 community both people that left unhappy polygamous
15 marriages?
16 A Yes.
17 Q And can you tell us which transcripts, which
18 participant --
19 A No, I can't.
20 Q -- number they are?
21 A Because it would identify those participants.
22 Q Well, I mean, one of the participants is at -- is
23 obvious from the reading of the -- of the text of
24 the --
25 MR. DICKSON: My Lord, it may be obvious to
26 Ms. Greathead. There is an order in place that
27 makes clear that no questions will be put to
28 Professor Campbell that tend to or could
29 reasonably identify a person, and so I remind the
30 court of that if I may.
31 MS. GREATHEAD: I'll withdraw the question, My Lord.
33 MS. GREATHEAD:
34 Q And Professor Campbell, can you tell me how many
35 of the people who were in a plural marriage were
36 married to the same man?
37 A I didn't ask that question.
38 Q You have no idea?
39 A I don't have an idea.
40 Q And would you agree that if all of the people that
41 you talked to were in a plural marriage that would
42 affect generalizations that you could make about
43 the sample. If they were -- if all of the feel --
44 so you interviewed some people in a plural
45 marriage and some in a monogamous marriage?
46 A Yes.
47 Q And if all of the ones were within -- if all of
84
Cross-exam on qualifications by Ms. Cameron (voir dire)
1 the plural marriage women were married to the same

2 men then that would affect what you could say
3 about the sample?
4 A If that were the case it may have an effect, yes.
5 MS. GREATHEAD: Those are my questions.
6 THE COURT: Thank you. Now, it's 3:10. Where are we
7 as far as timing?
8 MR. CAMERON: My Lord, if we could take the break I
9 would be able to hopefully further rationalize the
10 questions I'd ask and I hope to ask very few
11 questions. I don't believe there are that many
12 people in addition to me that are going to be
13 asking questions.
14 THE COURT: Are there any?
15 MR. MACINTOSH: Well, I am going to speak to that,
16 My Lord, if I may too.
17 MS. MILNE: My Lord, we wanted to ask questions as they
18 pertain specifically to children and I understand
19 the amicus has an issue on us being able to
20 cross-examine on expertise.
21 THE COURT: Okay. We'll take a break.
22 THE CLERK: Order in court. Court is adjourned for the
23 afternoon recess.
24
25 (STOOD DOWN)
26 (AFTERNOON RECESS)
27
29
30
31 ANGELA CAMPBELL, a witness
32 for the Amicus, recalled.
33
34 MR. CAMERON: My Lord, I have basically two or three
35 questions and I should be done inside five
36 minutes.
38
39 CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. CAMERON:
40 Q Professor Campbell, you've taken quite a public
41 stance on the issue of polygamy in Canada, have
42 you not?
43 A Do you mean by producing media articles?
44 Q M'mm-hmm?
45 A Yes.
46 Q I'm just going to hand up for the court and for
47 yourself what I believe are copies from three
85
Cross-exam on qualifications by Ms. Cameron (voir dire)
1 articles from the Montreal Gazette, the National

2 Post and the Globe and Mail. The Gazette article
3 is from July 26th, 2008?
4 A Yes.
5 Q "Sister Wives Have Their Say"?
6 A Yes.
7 Q And appears to be authored by yourself?
8 A It is.
9 Q And would you agree that this is an accurate
10 reproduction of this article, because since
11 obviously not the newspaper itself?
12 A Yes, I understand. Yes.
13 Q Okay. And the second article is entitled "Town
14 More Diverse than Perceived," the National Post,
15 September 26th, 2009?
16 A Yes.
17 Q Would you agree that this is an article you wrote
18 for the National Post in or around that time?
19 A Yes.
20 Q And it's an accurate --
21 A This is for the National Post, yes.
22 Q Yeah. And it's an accurate representation of that
23 article or an reproduction of that article as far
24 as you can tell?
25 A Yes.
26 Q And the third article is entitled "In the Name of
27 the Mothers"?
28 A M'mm-hmm.
29 Q That article is from the Globe and Mail?
30 A Yes.
31 Q January 10th, 2009?
32 A Yes.
33 Q And would you agree that this copy before you
34 appears to be an accurate reproduction of that
35 article?
36 A Yes.
37 MR. CAMERON: My Lord, I would apply to have these
38 either as one exhibit or three exhibits in the
39 voir dire.
40 THE COURT: Thank you. I think we can collectively
41 exhibit -- is it 5?
42 MR. CAMERON: I believe 6.
43 THE CLERK: 6 on voir dire, My Lord.
45
46 EXHIBIT 6: 7 page p/c document; first page is an
47 article titled "'Sister Wives' Have Their Say" by
86
Submissions re interested party examination on qualifications
1 Angela Campbell dated July 26, 2008

2
3 MR. CAMERON: Those are my questions. Sorry, for the
4 record it's Craig Cameron for the plaintiffs.
5 THE COURT: Thank you, Mr. Cameron. Now.
6 MR. MACINTOSH: My Lord, I have a submission and it's
7 based in a procedural point but I must say it's
8 partly driven by time -- a concern for time and I
9 hope not to take as much time in arguing it as
10 would be consumed in the cross.
11 THE COURT: Sure.
12 MR. MACINTOSH: As you will recall, My Lord, the
13 parties here are the two attorneys and myself as
14 amicus. Others here are interested persons or
15 interveners and we are in a court context as
16 opposed to an administrative tribunal context and
17 so the parties have an especial status in
18 comparison to the intervenors and interested
19 persons. And I had been thinking of but did
20 not -- had been thinking of making a submission
21 that Mr. Samuels for Stop Polygamy should not be
22 entitled to be having a say in what constituted
23 the evidentiary record as between the attorneys
24 and the amicus and therefore should not be able to
25 make one of the complaints against Professor
26 Campbell's evidence going in. I chose not to do
27 that and he made the submission and I said fine.
28 Where we're going now is that intervenors,
29 non-parties who have not objected to Professor
30 Campbell's evidence going in now want to
31 cross-examine and they want to cross-examine
32 within the voir dire on whether she is introduced
33 as an expert witness qualified to give opinion
34 evidence and I object to that.
35 And I say that if there's an intervener who
36 wishes to cross-examine a witness on the merits
37 that that is allowable and the protocol has been
38 worked out in this case for that. But we are in a
39 time constraint situation where only three parties
40 have objected. The two attorneys who as I say
41 don't object to the transcripts but object to the
42 affidavits, and Stop Polygamy who has objected to
43 the affidavits as well. And so we've heard from
44 them more than fully and we will be hearing from
45 them in argument, and I respectfully say that
46 where the admissibility of a party's affidavit is
47 in issue, which it is here, the only parties who
87
1 can cross-examine or interested persons who can

2 cross-examine as to qualifications are those who
3 are objecting to the affidavit going in.
4 That is my submission.
5 And it's not just for this moment, My Lord,
6 but it's for the entire hearing going forward.
7 Although we're scheduled I think until the end of
8 January we have limited time, and in my respectful
9 submission only parties who are objecting to the
10 admissibility of a piece of evidence have the
11 right to be in that process. That's my submission
12 THE COURT: Thank you. Ms. Milne?
13 MS. MILNE: My Lord, I don't think there's been a
14 formal sort of motion objecting, and that's not
15 been in the process in this court. We've joined
16 in the objection with respect to Professor
17 Campbell's expertise, and my questions --
18 MR. MACINTOSH: I'm sorry to interrupt my friend. I
19 didn't know that until this second. Is it the
20 case that my friend is objecting to Professor
21 Campbell being qualified as an expert witness?
22 I've never heard that before. Is that the case?
23 MS. MILNE: We are -- yes, we are joining in -- our
24 questions and we've been working with the other
25 parties in terms of ensuring that our questions
26 are very pointed, relate specifically to children,
27 which is our interest in the proceedings. And I
28 will be brief. We are -- we did actually seek to
29 cross-examine this witness and so we are -- the
30 other interested parties or persons have indicated
31 a wish to cross-examine.
32 THE COURT: Right. That's fine.
33 MS. MILNE: And so the cross-examination -- the scope
34 of that cross-examination in my submission
35 includes the scope of her expertise, and not
36 necessarily whether the whole affidavit goes in or
37 the whole material goes in but in respect of some
38 of the sweeping opinions that she has put forward
39 in terms of children in particular. And some of
40 those questions have already been asked. I will
41 not duplicate what anyone else has already been
42 asked. It's just very specific in relation to her
43 expertise around children.
44 MR. MACINTOSH: My Lord, that goes to weight and I
45 don't accept that parties can come up to the
46 podium now, or interested persons, and say hey,
47 I'm joining a group to stop evidence from going
88
1 in. I say that my friend is fully entitled -- if

2 Professor Campbell is introduced as a witness she
3 is fully entitled to cross-examine as she was
4 proposing here. And that's where she has that
5 right, in my respectful submission.
6 THE COURT: I agree, counsel. So you will have that
7 opportunity in due course and if indeed the
8 witness is tendered.
9 So we are on submissions then, I take it. How
10 long are the submissions?
11 MR. MACINTOSH: My Lord, I haven't spoken to my friends
12 about the length of their submissions although I'm
13 not optimistic, and it might be that it's useful
14 that we sit a bit late if that's possible, but I
15 don't know. I would hope so.
16 THE COURT: It might be, yeah. Let's see how we go.
17 So who is going first? Mr. Cameron?
18 MR. CAMERON: My Lord, it's my understanding that it
19 will be the amicus that would be making
20 submissions first on the admissibility of his own
21 witness.
22 MR. MACINTOSH: No, My Lord. My friend has objected to
23 this witness being qualified. I have tendered the
24 witness as a qualified expert; my friend has
25 objected to it. If we need to go first because my
26 friends aren't ready we will, but as I understood
27 it was my friends who objected to this and now we
28 get to hear why they're objecting.
29 THE COURT: Exactly.
30 MR. CAMERON: Fair enough. I will come up to the
31 lectern, My Lord.
32 My Lord, I believe the witness should be
33 excluded for this portion of the proceedings.
34 MR. MACINTOSH: My Lord, I have never heard of that
35 ever, for an expert witness to be excluded from a
36 court room. They give opinion evidence, and I
37 don't know what the purpose of that it. Perhaps
38 at least my friend could state the purpose of
39 that.
40 MR. CAMERON: Well, we're making legal submissions. I
41 have never actually seen the witness sitting in
42 the witness box while making legal submissions.
43 THE COURT: Well, no, sitting in the witness box,
44 that's true.
45 MR. MACINTOSH: She can step down.
46 MR. CAMERON: That's what I'm saying.
47 THE WITNESS: I'm happy to go.
89
Submissions re Dr. Campbell's expert qualification
By Mr. Cameron
1 THE COURT: Professor Campbell will be pleased to leave

2 the box.
3
4 (WITNESS STOOD DOWN)
5
6 MR. CAMERON: My Lord, I'm passing up an argument that
7 my friend should have shortly.
8 My Lord, excuse me for a second. We're just
9 going to rejig so my colleague can come and sit
10 next to me in case she has something to add.
11 THE COURT: Well, this is going to be a very lengthy
12 argument, I see. Is the AGBC of the same length?
13 MS. HORSMAN: I'll be delivering the argument for the
14 AGBC, My Lord, and I don't expect to be long.
15 MR. DEANE: My Lord, I will be doing the argument for
16 Stop Polygamy Canada and I think I'll probably be
17 15 minutes if that.
18 THE COURT: And you just saw this, Mr. Macintosh?
19 MR. MACINTOSH: Yes.
20 MR. CAMERON: And we have yet to see the amicus's
21 argument.
22 MR. DICKSON: And we have not seen the arguments of the
23 parties at all.
24 MR. MACINTOSH: But we're -- don't take that, My Lord,
25 as us asking for any time delays.
26 THE COURT: No, no. Go ahead.
27 MR. CAMERON: My Lord, I'm going to pass up for your
28 convenience a book of authorities. Again, as with
29 the joint expert binder the Attorney General and
30 the interested persons, certain interested
31 persons, have attempted to work together to make
32 these proceedings as efficient as possible.
33 Consistent with that we've produced now a book of
34 authorities that is joint as between ourselves.
35 Your Lordship may take some comfort in the
36 fact that I do not -- don't intend to go through
37 the law on the admissibility of expert evidence in
38 detail unless the Court otherwise directs nor do I
39 intend to take Your Lordship to specific case law.
40 The cases are cited by me for their -- for their
41 general statements on the law.
42 The Attorney General of Canada takes the
43 position that the expert reports of Angela
44 Campbell, what we have in these proceedings as
45 affidavit number 1 and affidavit number 2, should
46 not be admitted in these proceedings.
47 I'll come back to this at the end of my
90
By Mr. Cameron
1 submissions, My Lord, with regard to remedy and

2 what different strategies we could take in this
3 situation, but our primary position is that the
4 expert reports should not be admitted into
5 evidence.
6 We say the amicus has failed to establish
7 that Professor Campbell is qualified to provide
8 expert opinion as a scholar or a qualitative
9 researcher. To the extent that Professor Campbell
10 is qualified to give expert opinion evidence the
11 evidence contained in her reports falls outside of
12 her expertise in whole or in part.
13 Professor Campbell's expert reports are
14 unnecessary and should be excluded on that basis.
15 The Attorney General of Canada does not object in
16 principle to the amicus tendering the transcripts
17 of the interviews conducted by Professor Campbell
18 into evidence and indeed I believe they are
19 already evidence in these proceedings. These
20 transcripts speak for themselves and the court
21 does not require Professor Campbell's evidence to
22 decipher the transcripts. Her reports in short
23 place an unnecessary and improper gloss on the
24 transcripts.
25 In the circumstances Professor Campbell's
26 reports should be excluded in their entirety.
27 I'll take you to paragraph 6 which is an excerpt
28 from the third edition of Sopinka's Law of
29 Evidence in Canada which stands for the
30 proposition that the party tendering the expert
31 evidence has the evidential and legal burden to
32 satisfy the Mohan admissibility criteria to a
33 balance of probabilities.
34 Paragraph 7, in the Supreme Court of Canada
35 case in R v. JJ the Supreme Court emphasized very
36 never clearly that a trial judge should take
37 seriously the role of gatekeeper when determining
38 the admissibility of expert evidence and the court
39 stated, and it's very important to focus on this:
40
41 The admissibility of expert evidence should
42 be scrutinized at the time it is proffered
43 and not allowed too easy an entry on the
44 basis that all of the frailties could go at
45 the end of the day to weight rather than
46 admissibility.
47
91
By Mr. Cameron
1 THE COURT: But isn't there -- aren't we facing a

2 different situation with a reference though?
3 MR. CAMERON: My Lord, I would submit not. I would
4 submit that there is no -- it's not in the
5 interests of justice for an improperly qualified
6 expert to be giving opinion outside of her area of
7 expertise in any proceeding.
8 THE COURT: Look at the material I'm reading in the
9 Brandeis brief.
10 MR. CAMERON: Right, My Lord, but the status of an
11 expert is different, I would submit than the
12 status of the documents in the Brandeis brief.
13 THE COURT: You mean I might be tempted to give more
14 weight to somebody who is giving testimony here?
15 MR. CAMERON: My Lord, I expect that some triers of
16 fact would do so.
17 THE COURT: Then it is weight.
18 MR. CAMERON: Yes, and as such it is an admissibility
19 issue because our position is that you should give
20 no weight to the reports of Professor Campbell.
21 Specifically --
22 THE COURT: I understand that.
23 MR. CAMERON: -- our submission is not that you should
24 not give no weight to her academic articles. In
25 fact, My Lord, I believe you can draw whatever
26 evidence you need from Professor Campbell from her
27 academic articles.
28 THE COURT: I mean, you know --
29 MR. CAMERON: And the transcripts.
30 THE COURT: -- isn't this just the type of thing that
31 we find the Supreme Court of Canada referring to
32 when they're considering charter cases they read
33 an article by a law professor in a journal? Is it
34 really very different from that?
35 MR. CAMERON: Well, I would submit, My Lord, that it
36 is.
37 THE COURT: I mean, I don't mean to suggest that we
38 should not take serious concern with the
39 qualifications of people who express expert
40 opinions in our courts. But --
41 MR. CAMERON: Not in these proceedings.
42 THE COURT: Well, no, I'm suggesting that, but this is
43 different.
44 MR. CAMERON: I would submit no, My Lord. The same
45 concerns we have about allowing opinion evidence
46 which generally is excluded in the courts to be
47 admitted only in certain circumstances apply by
92
By Mr. Cameron
1 the same force in these circumstances,

2 particularly where here the expert reports of
3 Professor Campbell are rather egregiously offside
4 the law.
5 Now, in paragraph 8 I have a quote from
6 Justice Doherty in the Ontario Court of Appeal
7 decision in Abbey. That's not the 80s Abbey;
8 that's the 2009 Abbey. Justice Doherty says:
9
10 Before deciding admissibility a trial judge
11 must determine the nature and scope of the
12 proposed expert evidence. In doing so the
13 trial judge sets not only the boundaries of
14 the proposed expert evidence but also if
15 necessary the language in which the experts'
16 opinion may be proffered so as to minimize
17 any potential harm to the trial process.
18
19 Now, to me, My Lord, and this is answering
20 perhaps your question that the implicit assumption
21 in Justice Doherty's remarks are that there is
22 harm to the trial process where the evidence of an
23 expert is not kept within their strictly defined
24 and delineated boundaries. We do not invite
25 people off the street to opine in court on any
26 matter. I, My Lord, will not put myself forward
27 as an expert in qualitative research.
28 We reserve that privilege for those that have
29 built up a considerable body and considerable
30 wealth of expertise in a particular area. They
31 are afforded a privileged position in the courts,
32 and the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in
33 the Courts of Appeal recognize that I would
34 submit.
35 Over the page, the quote from Justice Doherty
36 continues:
37
38 At the conclusion of the voir dire the trial
39 judge must identify with exactitude the scope
40 of the proposed opinion that may be
41 admissible. He or she will also decide
42 whether a certain terminology is unnecessary
43 to the opinion and potentially misleading.
44
45 That might well be of applicability in this case.
46 Now, in paragraph 9 Justice Doherty sets --
47 emphasizes why such clear limits are necessary:
93
By Mr. Cameron
1
2 A cautious delineation of the scope of the
3 proposed expert evidence and strict adherence
4 to those boundaries if the evidence as
5 submitted are essential. The case law
6 demonstrates that over-reaching by expert
7 experts is probably the most common fault
8 leading to reversals on appeal.
9
10 Now, that comment is more than likely focussed
11 primarily on criminal trials of course, My Lord,
12 but the same caution with respect to the process
13 of fact finding in a civil context is applicable.
14 Skip over a few paragraphs until we hit
15 paragraph 13. One of the criteria set out by
16 Mohan in determining the admissibility of an
17 expert report is the question of necessity, and I
18 have underlined a portion of the quote from Mohan
19 referring back to its decision in the 1980s Abbey:
20
21 If on the proven facts a judge or jury can
22 form their own conclusions without help then
23 the opinion of the expert is unnecessary.
24
25 Now, in Mohan the Court further noted:
26
27 The word "helpful" is not quite appropriate
28 and sets too low a standard. What is
29 required is that the opinion be necessary and
30 that it provide information which is likely
31 to be outside the experience and knowledge of
32 a judge or jury. The Court further
33 emphasized that in order for expert evidence
34 to be admissible the subject matter of the
35 inquiry must be such that ordinary people are
36 unlikely to form a correct judgment about it
37 if unassisted by persons with special
38 knowledge.
39
40 I take you now to paragraph 16 where we have
41 reproduced a quote from Professor Pachiocco
42 [phonetic], if that's how it's pronounced, whose
43 thoughts or sentiments were adopted by Justice
44 Major in Regina v. DD and I will just focus on the
45 underlined portion:
46
47 When should we place the legal system and
94
By Mr. Cameron
1 truth at such risk by allowing expert

2 evidence? Only when the lay persons are apt
3 to come to the wrong conclusion without
4 expert assistant or access to important
5 information would be lost unless we borrow
6 from the learning of experts. As Mohan tells
7 us it is not enough that the expert evidence
8 be helpful. Before we will prepare to run
9 these risks that sets too low a standard it
10 must be necessary.
11
12 And I refer Your Lordship to the rest of that
13 quote for, and indeed Profession Pachiocco's
14 greater works, for authority for the proposition
15 or support for the proposition that one should
16 maintain the bright line between what is
17 considered admissible expert evidence and what is
18 not in proceedings including civil proceedings.
19 On paragraph 17 we set out briefly -- and
20 following set out briefly some of the statements
21 of law regarding what constitutes a properly
22 qualified expert. Paragraph 17, an expert must be
23 properly qualified to give the proposed evidence.
24 Expert evidence must be given by a witness who is
25 shown to have acquired special or peculiar
26 knowledge through study or experience in respect
27 of the matters on which he or she undertakes to
28 testify.
29 Paragraph 20. The Court must distinguish
30 between the true expertise of the expert and the
31 heightened knowledge of a generalist. Sopinka has
32 noted that there is a distinction between a
33 witness who has the knowledge and expertise on a
34 particular subject matter and whose evidence also
35 bears upon a related area of expertise of which
36 the witness has a working knowledge and is a
37 generalist. Parenthetically I think Professor
38 Campbell is certainly in the area of social
39 sciences most definitely, if anything, a
40 generalist.
41 Now, there's a distinction between a witness
42 who has the knowledge and expertise in a
43 particular subject matter whose evidence also
44 bears upon a related area of expertise of which
45 the witness has a working knowledge, and a
46 generalist who is more knowledgeable than the
47 ordinary trier of fact but lacks a sufficient
95
By Mr. Cameron
1 degree of knowledge, skill or experience in this

2 particular subject matter at issue. The concern
3 is whether the generalist can give real
4 assistance. In our submission, just foreshadowing
5 it, My Lord, is that it's been that Professor
6 Campbell, particularly if the -- the transcripts
7 are in, is simply unnecessary and doesn't assist
8 the Court.
9 Paragraph 21. The expert must be more than
10 just familiar with or involved in the subject
11 matter to which he or she proffers an opinion. We
12 cite Hughes v. Haberlin, a decision of the British
13 Columbia Supreme Court in which Justice Harvey
14 rejected the report of an expert, noting that:
15
16 His expertise in the field in which he
17 proposes to give evidence has been obtained
18 by courses, seminars and research.
19
20 After rejecting the report Justice Harvey stated:
21
22 With regards to the qualification of an
23 expert the Court must be satisfied that the
24 person under consideration has expertise with
25 respect to the opinions he advanced, which is
26 something distinct from just familiarity or
27 involvement.
28
29 There's ample case law to suggest that the
30 courts will scrutinize the expertise of a
31 proffered expert, and I reference there Macintosh
32 for the proposition that simply because a person
33 conducts research in a learned science and
34 lectures at universities on the topic of interest
35 to her does not qualify her as a forensic expert
36 testifying in court.
37 Over page. In section D I set out the various
38 limits on the expert evidence. It's axiomatic
39 that an expert's opinion must be confined to
40 matters within their expertise. Authority for
41 that among others is the decision in Yewdale.
42 Paragraph 25:
43
44 If the witness purports to go beyond the
45 bonds of his or her expertise the Court may
46 reject the witness's evidence. The question
47 of whether a certain opinion falls outside an
96
By Mr. Cameron
1 expert's specified area of expertise is a

2 preliminary question of law for the judge to
3 determine. It is the Court, not the expert
4 or the scientific community from which he or
5 she comes, that defines the boundaries of the
6 field in question. While textbooks, seminar
7 papers and similar academic literature are
8 persuasive, they are not determinative.
9
10 And the authority of that is the decision R v.
11 Taylor, the BC Supreme Court.
12 Related to the caution that the expert's
13 opinion must be confined to matters within their
14 expertise is the admonition that to the extent
15 that an expert speculates or argues rather than
16 opines the evidence is not reliable or of
17 assistance. And we go to Hoskin v. Han for that.
18 There is actually multiple cases that say that.
19 Speculation is a no-go and it's basically
20 unnecessary.
21 Over on paragraph 28, it is similarly
22 axiomatic that experts may not offer argument in
23 the guise of opinion. Experts acting as advocates
24 violate their duty to present the Court with
25 objective and reliable information likely to be
26 outside the expertise and knowledge of the judge.
27 Skip down to paragraph 31. Again perhaps
28 overuse of the word "axiomatic," but it is even
29 further axiomatic that it is the responsibility of
30 the trier of fact, not the expert, to decide the
31 truthfulness or credibility of a witness.
32 An expert may draw inferences from facts but
33 it's the role of the Court to conclude whether or
34 not those facts exist. An expert report cannot
35 prove the truth of the facts contained therein.
36 Indeed, I would think that would go to the
37 authenticity of representativeness of the asserted
38 facts.
39 Paragraphs 33, 34 and 35 simply go to the
40 proposition that the Court is under no obligation
41 to excise portions of an offending expert report
42 but may do so. And that doubt should be resolved
43 in favour -- against the party that tenders the
44 report.
45 Now moving on to how the law applies in this
46 circumstance is at paragraph 36. The amicus has
47 put forward Professor Campbell as an expert
97
By Mr. Cameron
1 entitled to give opinion evidence as a legal

2 scholar and qualitative researcher addressing the
3 interface between the practice of polygamy and the
4 legal prohibition against polygamy with emphasis
5 on the polygamist communities in Bountiful, B.C.
6 And of course the specific area in which the
7 amicus is tendering the witness is all-important
8 in determining qualifications.
9 The Attorney General of Canada takes the
10 position that Professor Campbell lacks the
11 appropriate qualifications to give expert evidence
12 either as a legal scholar or a qualitative
13 researcher. In the area --
14 THE COURT: Expertise as a legal scholar?
15 MR. CAMERON: Well, My Lord, in paragraph 38 the
16 term -- I'm not even sure what the term "legal
17 scholar means," My Lord. I would ask my friend
18 Mr. Macintosh and his colleague to allow me to
19 give my presentation unimpeded. In direct he
20 suffered no interruptions and I would ask the
21 same.
22 MR. MACINTOSH: My friend is entirely correct.
23 THE COURT: Thank you for that, and so I say legal
24 scholar?
25 MR. CAMERON: Well, My Lord, I don't know that you
26 would have anyone who would be able to reliably or
27 consistently tell you the ambit of what a legal
28 scholar is or is not an expert in, other than
29 something that relates in some manner to the law.
30 THE COURT: How about anybody who went to Harvard?
31 MR. CAMERON: Well, My Lord --
32 MR. JONES: I agree with that.
33 MR. CAMERON: I'll take no position on that, My Lord.
34 In any event, any expertise Professor
35 Campbell has as a legal scholar does not qualify
36 her to examine and opine on the practice of
37 polygamy in Bountiful from the perspective of
38 women in Bountiful, nor does it qualify her to
39 conduct a literature review on the subject of
40 polygamy more generally.
41 Now, my friend will likely point out that
42 Professor Campbell conducted a literature review
43 for Status of Women Canada, and I would -- what I
44 would say to my friend is that the standards for
45 conducting literature review for Status of Women
46 in Canada may well differ than the standards
47 applied to which experts may give and provide
98
By Mr. Cameron
1 expert evidence by way of a literature review in

2 the courts.
3 Now, in addition as has been referred to by my
4 learned friends, Professor Campbell has failed to
5 establish sufficient expertise in the area of
6 qualitative research to opine in the court as an
7 expert on that subject. At most she has developed
8 recently a familiarity with the field of
9 qualitative research and has some "involvement" in
10 the area. She has not developed a special
11 knowledge or skill in the field.
12 Now, there are good reasons -- taking a little
13 bit of a broader view -- there are good reasons
14 for the strict requirement that experts providing
15 opinion evidence to court must have a
16 demonstrated -- must have demonstrated sufficient
17 expertise. The Court relies on well established
18 indicia of expertise, prolonged education,
19 in-depth training, significant experience,
20 acquired professional status, established
21 publishing history in the area, et cetera, to
22 ensure that it can place reliance on the expert's
23 evidence. And it's highly unlikely that this
24 court, or for that matter the lawyers appearing
25 before it, are experts in the field of qualitative
26 research methodology or ethnography. As such this
27 court alone nor the lawyers before it cannot
28 distinguish proper from improper methodology from
29 the perspective of ethnography or qualitative
30 research and is therefore forced to rely on the
31 evidence of experts in this regard. Without clear
32 indicia of expertise the court cannot safely
33 assess or place weight on a particular expert's
34 opinion.
35 Professor Campbell, among other things, does
36 not have the experience necessary to opine on
37 and/or ensure the court that the evidence she has
38 adduced is accurate or representative even for the
39 women she has interviewed, let alone the Blackmore
40 faction, let alone the FLDS as a whole, let alone
41 women in polygamy generally. Allowing such
42 opinion evidence into court would risk misleading
43 the court.
44 Now, even if Professor Campbell was
45 sufficiently qualified to opine on "the interface
46 between the practice of polygamy and the legal
47 prohibition against polygamy," her expert reports
99
By Mr. Cameron
1 would still be inadmissible in large part.

2 Experts must restrict themselves to opining on
3 matters that are entirely within their expertise.
4 The scope of an expert opinion admissibility must
5 be determined again with exactitude. I provide
6 you two examples here. In her first report,
7 affidavit number 1, Professor Campbell opines on
8 FLDS theology and the place of polygamy within
9 FLDS theology despite the fact that she has no
10 demonstrable expertise in this area and has
11 admitted as much in cross-examination today.
12 In her second reports, affidavit number 2,
13 Professor Campbell --
14 THE COURT: You know, every affidavit I have read so
15 far gives me a brief history of their
16 understanding of the -- for example Dr. Beall with
17 respect to Colorado City and Hilldale, et cetera.
18 So I mean everybody is getting their historical
19 perspective as an introduction to their evidence.
20 MR. CAMERON: I don't -- I can't comment on Professor
21 Beall's evidence, My Lord. I would just say that
22 it's important that when an expert is opining on
23 the beliefs of a particular community or the
24 theology of a particular community, particularly
25 the FLDS, that they actually know what they're
26 talking about. It's not a matter that is -- I
27 mean you or I could pick up a book on the FLDS and
28 give our impression of what theology might be, but
29 how much reliance should a Court place on her
30 evidence in that regard, or her opinion in that
31 regard.
32 In her second report, affidavit number 2,
33 Professor Campbell purports to conduct a
34 literature review on the effects of polygamy on
35 women and children across the world despite the
36 fact that she has no expertise as an ethnographer,
37 anthropologist, sociologist, psychologist or any
38 of the other fields in social sciences. Professor
39 Campbell is not qualified to assess the validity
40 of research in social science fields that lie
41 outside her stated expertise.
42 THE COURT: Just half a sec. Mr. Reporter, are you
43 okay?
44 MR. CAMERON: I apologize.
45 THE COURT: Go ahead.
46 MR. CAMERON: At paragraph 48 we go into the necessity
47 portion of the argument.
100
By Mr. Cameron
1 The Attorney General of Canada doesn't object

2 in principle to the amicus tendering the
3 transcripts of the interviews conducted by
4 Professor Campbell with members of the Bountiful
5 community. The transcripts if entered would
6 provide the Court with the perspectives, the voice
7 of the women whom Professor Campbell interviewed
8 and would add to the other FLDS voices, some
9 anonymous, from which the Court is already
10 hearing.
11 The question before this Court therefore is
12 whether Professor Campbell's opinion on the
13 interview transcripts is necessary because the
14 court is unlikely to form a correct judgment about
15 the interview transcripts if unassisted by
16 Professor Campbell.
17 In order to answer the question of what
18 Professor Campbell's opinion adds one must examine
19 the nature of the inquiry which she undertook in
20 Bountiful. In her "Wives' Tales" article before
21 she travelled to Bountiful Professor Campbell made
22 it clear that her research would be oriented
23 towards moving beyond the existing accounts of
24 plural marriage by engaging in discussions with
25 the women of Bountiful about how they interpret,
26 manage and adhere to the rules of polygamy and the
27 rules of the Canadian state.
28 She goes on to clarify her project starting
29 point at page 30 of that article:
30
31 My project starting point resists
32 presumptions about false consciousness and
33 assumes the authenticity, truth and
34 legitimacy of the stories women tell. These
35 are stories that matter most to this research
36 and so I depend on this regardless of any
37 influence exerted by culture on the
38 narrator's account. This approach makes room
39 for the voice of women who have "different
40 priorities" and are in the process of
41 articulating the issues about which I seek to
42 learn.
43
44 Later in her "Bountiful Voices" article Professor
45 Campbell delivered what she called a
46 "counter-narrative to the popular depiction of an
47 FLDS wife" and noted that her interviews were
101
By Mr. Cameron
1 "aimed to elicit an understanding of the

2 participant's views on polygamist life and the
3 law's approach to it." In her discussion of the
4 methodology in "Bountiful Voices" Professor
5 Campbell specifically stated that:
6
7 The narratives revealed here are not
8 presented as necessarily representative of
9 the experiences of all polygamist wives or
10 even as authentic.
11
12 She then went on to state:
13
14 The mechanisms to determine
15 representativeness or authenticity --
16
17 And this is an important point,
18
19 -- would only have undermined a central
20 objective of this project --
21
22 I would say the central objective of this project.
23
24 -- which is the collection and sharing of
25 participants' observations about polygamist
26 life with a review to reflect upon how such
27 first-hand observations compare to
28 conventional assumptions about plural
29 marriage in Canada.
30
31 Again a counter narrative to what Professor
32 Campbell, as I will later say, show -- sees as the
33 mainstream view.
34 After conducting the interviews Professor
35 Campbell found that many interviewees reflected
36 positively on plural marriage, but most also
37 articulated concerns and challenges about this way
38 of life. And she goes on saying that some of the
39 participants and realism about the hard parts of
40 plural marriage and committed to accepting and
41 working around them as part of the way of life
42 they see as yielding important social economic and
43 religious benefits.
44 Put simply, Professor Campbell found that
45 some of the women she interviewed in Bountiful
46 exercise some control and their lives and seem
47 happy or content about practising polygamy.
102
By Mr. Cameron
1 I won't take you through you this in entirety,

2 My Lord, but on paragraph 7 Professor Campbell
3 made it clear that the ambit of her research on
4 polygamy is limited and repeatedly states that her
5 findings are not necessarily representative or
6 authentic, and there's a quote -- various quotes
7 from "Bountiful Voices."
8 Professor Campbell has gone so far as
9 explaining some of the reasons why her research is
10 limited in scope, and this is a quote from her
11 most recent article "Bountiful Voices" -- sorry,
12 this is also a quote from "Bountiful Voices,"
13 page 230:
14
15 There is no clear way to ascertain whether or
16 not some women in Bountiful felt apprehensive
17 about participating due to fear or coercion
18 and thus opted not to be interviewed.
19 Further, no criteria were deployed to screen
20 women who did not participate. They were not
21 subject to inquiries about whether they had
22 come to be interviewed of their own volition
23 or whether they promised to tell "the truth"
24 about polygamy. Such a mechanism would only
25 have undermined the central objective of this
26 project.
27
28 And again:
29
30 The collection and sharing of participant's
31 observations about polygamist with a view to
32 reflecting how such first-hand observations
33 compare to conventional assumptions about
34 plural marriage in Canada.
35
36 The Attorney General of Canada is prepared to
37 accept that some women in polygamist
38 relationships, including some women in Bountiful,
39 may perceive polygamy to be beneficial and
40 healthy. The point is relatively uncontroversial,
41 and moreover it can be readily inferred by the
42 court from the interview transcripts themselves.
43 As such, to the extent that Professor Campbell's
44 reports are adduced by the amicus for this limited
45 purpose they are not necessary. Given her express
46 cautions about the limitations of her work, which
47 were repeated today in cross-examination,
103
By Mr. Cameron
1 Professor Campbell's reports cannot be adduced by

2 the amicus to make generalizations about the harms
3 of polygamy to woman in general or to the women of
4 Bountiful or to the women on the Blackmore side of
5 the split in Bountiful.
6 Paragraph 62, Professor Campbell also engages
7 in speculation in her reports, and my friend from
8 the Attorney General of British Columbia was
9 cross-examining Professor Campbell on this area.
10 To the extent that she engages in speculation her
11 reports are inadmissible as being without
12 foundation, and more importantly again,
13 unnecessary. And in paragraph 63 I set out some
14 clear examples of speculation without foundation
15 included in affidavit number 2.
16 Professor Campbell similarly lapses into broad
17 generalizations on occasion when drawing
18 conclusions from the interviews. On several
19 occasions she attributes or extrapolates the
20 comments of a small number of participants in the
21 study group or the FLDS as a whole. Such
22 generalizations also amount to little more than
23 speculation given the caveats expressed by
24 Professor Campbell regarding representativeness of
25 her work. Again, My Lord, I invite you, as with
26 the examples set out in paragraph 63 about
27 speculation, to review the examples in
28 paragraph 65 on the subject of generalization.
29 I think it's fair to say that throughout
30 her -- particularly affidavit number 2, Professor
31 Campbell, while stating that her work is not
32 representative or authentic necessarily, lapses
33 into generalizations and broad statements about
34 what life is like for women in Bountiful.
35 Paragraphs 63 to 74 deal with Professor
36 Campbell's actions as an advocate both for giving
37 voice to the women of Bountiful who are
38 pro-polygamy in particular and also as an advocate
39 for the decriminalization of polygamy. I won't
40 purport to take you through all these, but
41 everything and up to the National Post and Globe
42 and Mail articles as they were entered into
43 evidence, My Lord, calls for the decriminalization
44 of polygamy or supports it -- expresses a positive
45 support for it. And her perspective or opinion
46 went so far as to creep into the interviews. As
47 Your Lordship heard before the break from
104
By Mr. Cameron
1 cross-examination of my friend the Attorney

2 General of British Columbia, Professor Campbell
3 explicitly went into her position that the
4 decriminalization of polygamy is preferred, or put
5 otherwise, that the criminalization of polygamy is
6 without foundation in the actual interviews with
7 the women from Bountiful that she was talking to
8 about polygamy.
9 Now, I mean, I'll leave it for my friends to
10 go into about how much of a breach this is of the
11 qualitative research methodology that is accepted
12 in the field, but from the perspective of the
13 court I think it also just adds to the unnecessary
14 nature of her opinion evidence.
15 In the circumstances it does not appear that
16 the offending portions of Professor Campbell's
17 affidavits can be excised from the little that is
18 within her expertise. Her affidavits go into five
19 broad areas. I would describe them as one, what
20 she did to go to Bountiful, going to Bountiful
21 setting up the interviews, conducting the
22 interviews; two, FLDS theology and the place of
23 polygamist marriage within that theology, and that
24 would be the two sections in her first affidavit.
25 And then in her second affidavit there's three
26 broad sections, one, her reflections or spin on
27 the interviews she conducted in Bountiful; two,
28 her literature review on polygamy generally around
29 the world; and three, her responses to Professor
30 Cook's expert report which go into a couple of the
31 earlier areas.
32 It may be that portions of these reports are
33 admissible, My Lord, but I would say that the
34 inadmissible material outweighs, or certainly the
35 paragraphs outnumber those that are admissible.
36 If Your Lordship is inclined to strike the
37 inadmissible portions I'm sure we could quite
38 quickly come up with a -- submissions on which
39 paragraphs are acceptable.
40 Again, the Attorney General of Canada does not
41 object to giving a voice to the women in Bountiful
42 that Professor Campbell interviewed there. The
43 Attorney General does not oppose and did not
44 oppose the introduction of the interview
45 transcripts as evidence in these proceedings, and
46 in addition the Attorney General of Canada would
47 not object to Angela Campbell giving evidence as a
105
By Ms. Horsman
1 lay witness with an academic interest in Bountiful

2 and who conducted a study involving women in
3 Bountiful on the subject of what she did there and
4 what she herself observed.
5 Apart from that, My Lord, we submit that the
6 expert evidence should be excluded. Those are my
7 submissions subject to your questions.
8 THE COURT: Thank you, Mr. Campbell.
9 MS. HORSMAN: My Lord, it may be a relief to you to
10 know I don't have a written argument to refer to.
11 I adopt my friend's summary of the law. I do have
12 an aid in making my oral submissions to you,
13 My Lord. I'll explain what it is and why I've
14 handed it up when I get to that portion of my
15 short submission.
16 THE COURT: Yes.
17 MS. HORSMAN: My Lord, I'll start with a point that my
18 friend left off about, and that was the importance
19 of ensuring that there is some mechanism for
20 hearing what I will call the voices of Bountiful,
21 the women presently living there or who have lived
22 in the community who have views that this court
23 should hear about in the course of this reference.
24 The question is how do we hear those voices
25 and through what mechanism. What we do have now
26 is of course the transcripts of Professor
27 Campbell's interviews and Professor Campbell has
28 testified that those record the interviews she
29 conducted both in 2008 and 2009 which in turn form
30 the basis for her research and affidavits.
31 So the question facing Your Lordship on the
32 present application, given the parties' position
33 that the transcripts can go in, is what in
34 addition can Professor Campbell bring by way of
35 expertise that the Court wouldn't otherwise
36 possess.
37 Now, I want to start with the comment
38 Your Lordship put to my friend about well, this is
39 a constitutional reference and there's different
40 standards and why can't this all go to weight,
41 which I think is if I'm correct is likely going to
42 be the central issue in arguments on this
43 application. And in my submission it's not simply
44 a matter of weight because it's flexible as the
45 rules of evidence necessarily have to be in this
46 reference. There have got to be some limits or
47 the door would be open to whoever wanted to walk
106
By Ms. Horsman
1 in and put in an affidavit as an expert witness.

2 Now, Professor Campbell is clearly not in the
3 same position of any man or woman on the street.
4 She is a legal scholar who as Your Lordship has
5 noted written articles and the question you posed
6 to my friend is why can't the articles go in.
7 Well, they plainly can. They could go in as part
8 of a Brandeis brief in the same way that I'm told
9 literally dozen of other articles that appear in
10 journals have gone in by way of Brandeis Brief.
11 So the question is what in the affidavits gives
12 Professor Campbell some elevated status above that
13 of any other legal scholar or any other academic
14 who has authored an article that is before this
15 Court through a Brandeis brief.
16 So by admitting Professor Campbell as an
17 expert what the Court would be doing would be in
18 effect to elevate her status.
19 Now, my submission, My Lord, is not simply
20 that Professor Campbell's evidence is not helpful.
21 My submission goes further than that and suggests
22 there's a danger to adducing it because it's
23 admission would be premised on the possession by
24 Professor Campbell of an expertise she doesn't
25 have in the area of qualitative research.
26 And at the risk of belabouring the much
27 discussed paragraph 132, My Lord, it's the
28 paragraph that my colleague Ms. Greathead put to
29 Ms. Campbell.
30 THE COURT: Yes, I remember.
31 MS. HORSMAN: And I just really have two points to make
32 on those series of questions, but I don't suggest
33 the only problem is with paragraph 132. I suggest
34 that 132 is the -- indicative of the general
35 problems created by qualifying Professor Campbell
36 as an expert.
37 Now, you will recall that Professor Campbell
38 agreed that she couldn't from the work she had
39 done draw generalizations beyond the 22, and my
40 colleague Ms. Greathead put to her well, in
41 paragraph 132 aren't you purporting to speak for
42 the broader community and Professor Campbell said,
43 no, I'm not because I'm accepting that any
44 conclusions I draw have to be limited to the 22
45 but I'm just saying it's possible that they might
46 extend beyond the 22
47 THE COURT: Well, that's what -- she said that
107
By Ms. Horsman
1 expressly.
2 MS. HORSMAN: She did say that, My Lord. And that's
3 true, it might be possible and anything can be
4 possible. But given that Ms. Campbell herself
5 agrees that as a matter of qualitative method you
6 can't draw any generalizations beyond the 22, it's
7 not simply not helpful to have her do so, but it's
8 dangerous to suggest that you can in the context
9 of an expert affidavit.
10 Now, the second point I wanted to make on 132,
11 and 134 for that the matter, is you will recall
12 that Ms. Greathead put a rather lengthy series of
13 transcript excerpts to Professor Campbell in the
14 course of her cross and it went to the opinion
15 that was apparently expressed by Professor
16 Campbell in paragraphs 132 and 134 that women
17 living in polygamous communities would have
18 difficulty accessing services. And I think
19 Professor Campbell's response was, no, that's not
20 what I'm saying in those paragraphs. They can go
21 and get groceries and they can go to a doctor for
22 an ear appointment, but what they can't do is
23 access any sort of counselling or mental health
24 services or any sort of service that might
25 publicly identify them as polygamists. Now, my
26 first point on that, My Lord, is that that's not
27 what the interview participants said in the
28 transcript references that Ms. Greathead put to
29 her. And that goes to the handout, My Lord.
30 This goes somewhat beyond the
31 cross-examination that Ms. Greathead carried out.
32 What we have done here, My Lord, is divide the
33 summary of the transcript into themes.
34 THE COURT: All right.
35 MS. HORSMAN: So that, for example, on the first page,
36 My Lord, you will see the first heading is
37 "Interview Technique" and immediately underneath
38 is the word "objectives" and then there's a quote
39 from Professor Campbell's affidavit setting out
40 what her objective is.
41 MR. DICKSON: My Lord, I'm sorry to rise on this. I
42 have a couple of concerns about this. First, just
43 on the technical matter it's -- this document
44 would have to be sealed. It's -- I'm concerned
45 about references to the transcripts in it and
46 again I --
47 THE COURT: It's in the same category as Exhibit --
108
By Ms. Horsman
1 MR. DICKSON: Yes, sorry, the issue is just that this

2 from the -- this is from the transcripts.
3 MS. HORSMAN: It is, yes.
4 MR. DICKSON: And the transcripts are subject to heavy
5 confidentiality concerns and I raise that now.
6 THE COURT: It's the same class as -- what is the
7 transcript exhibit?
8 MR. DICKSON: 5.
9 THE COURT: 5.
10 MR. DICKSON: Thank you, My Lord.
11 The other concern I have is that this hasn't
12 been put to Professor Campbell on
13 cross-examination or at least not all of these
14 selections. I haven't been able to discern
15 whether all of them have or not. And in my
16 respectful submission it ought to be if there are
17 going to be submissions on this on her
18 qualification.
19 THE COURT: Well, so the transcripts are in so your
20 friend can use them as a basis for arguing, but on
21 their face they don't support the evidence in the
22 affidavit and therefore should not -- I should not
23 be accepting her evidence in that regard. I don't
24 know that she has to be confronted on each and
25 every example of that.
26 MR. DICKSON: Fair enough, My Lord.
27 THE COURT: So I'll take it same as Exhibit 5.
29 THE COURT: And hear Ms. --
30 MS. HORSMAN: Horsman.
31 THE COURT: Ms. Horsman.
32 MS. HORSMAN: Thank you, My Lord. And, in fact, my
33 friend's objection, My Lord, emphasizes the point
34 in my submission. If the point is that Professor
35 Campbell opines in her affidavit that women of
36 Bountiful believe this and to challenge that
37 assertion we have to engage in three hours of
38 cross-examination on the transcripts which
39 ultimately are going to be open to interpretation
40 to whoever the reader is, again that's not a
41 helpful process for this reference and in my
42 submission it's a hurtful one.
43 Now, my other point before I leave those two
44 paragraphs 132 and 134, My Lord, is that even if
45 one assumes that the transcript excerpts support
46 the interpretation that Professor Campbell is now
47 placing on them, which I don't suggest they do,
109
By Mr. Deane
1 one would have to revise that paragraph so that it

2 didn't read women in Bountiful have difficulty
3 accessing social and medical services. It would
4 be, oh, well, how you have to read that is they
5 have difficulty accessing mental health services
6 and counselling services that might demonstrate
7 their presence in a polygamous relationship, which
8 isn't what the paragraph says. And we don't need
9 that, My Lord, in any event, because we've got the
10 transcript.
11 And so what we're facing here, My Lord, in my
12 submission is that there is a benefit we're trying
13 to achieve. We're trying to give some voice to
14 the women living in Bountiful who otherwise are
15 not participants in this reference and we're
16 trying to avoid a danger, and the danger is having
17 someone who doesn't possess the requisite
18 expertise give evidence interpreting those voices
19 and thus distort the process through which the
20 voices are heard. And both those objectives,
21 My Lord, are met by admitting the transcripts and
22 not the affidavits of Professor Campbell, and
23 neither in my submission are met by having
24 Professor Campbell qualified as an expert witness.
25 THE COURT: Thank you. Mr. Deane.
26 MR. DEANE: Yes, you'd like me to start now, My Lord?
27 THE COURT: Well, how long are you going to be?
28 MR. DEANE: I would say 15 or 20. I said 15 before,
29 but --
30 THE COURT: We're getting there. And how long -- who
31 else is going -- that's it. And how long do you
32 think you will be, Mr. Dixon?
33 MR. DICKSON: Yes, if we're going to argue tonight I
34 can -- I will try hard to compress my submissions.
35 If we can finish tonight. And to say 15 minutes.
36 THE COURT: Okay. Well, how are we doing, staff?
37 MR. DEANE: My Lord, I also have a written submission
38 which I will pass out to my friends.
39 My Lord, I'm going to focus on a few key
40 points and bring to your attention a case that has
41 been referred to briefly earlier but that in my
42 submission would be of considerable assistance to
43 you as you examine Professor Campbell's evidence.
44 May I first say that the position of Stop
45 Polygamy in Canada is set out in paragraph 2 of my
46 written submission. Our objection is to the
47 qualification of Professor Campbell as a
110
By Mr. Deane
1 qualitative researcher. We do not take a position

2 with respect to her qualification as a legal
3 scholar. Nor, as I say in paragraph 3, do we take
4 any position regarding the admissibility of the
5 transcripts of Professor Campbell's interviews
6 with women from Bountiful. Our objection is
7 focussed on the generalized opinions expressed by
8 Professor Campbell regarding those interviews in
9 the Campbell reports, which in our submission she
10 is not, as the term is known in the law of
11 evidence, qualified to express.
12 Now, I can skip over, My Lord, right through
13 to paragraph 15 because my friend Mr. Cameron has
14 gone through the general law of evidence and the
15 importance of A, identifying with precision the
16 expert's professed area of expertise and B,
17 ensuring the opinion that is expressed does not
18 stray beyond the boundaries of that expertise.
19 At paragraph 15, My Lord. There are
20 comparatively few cases dealing with the
21 admissibility of expert evidence that is based on
22 qualitative research, and it's not the position of
23 my client that qualitative research, simply
24 because it's not quantitative or a hard science,
25 is not capable of forming the basis of an expert
26 opinion. That's not our position. And that was
27 the approach taken by the Ontario Court of Appeal
28 in Abbey. That's the case that was referred to
29 briefly by my friend Mr. Cameron. I note it's
30 referred to in Ms. Horsman's submissions. And I'm
31 going to spend a few moments dealing with Abbey
32 because, in my submission, as I said at the
33 outset, it is instructive on how to assess in
34 particular the reliability of an opinion said to
35 be based on qualitative research. And I don't
36 need to ask you to turn up the case, My Lord -- it
37 is in the book of authorities that has been passed
38 up to you at tab 5 -- because I have extract the
39 relevant portions in my written submission.
40 I begin in paragraph 16 by outlining certain
41 factors which Justice Doherty for the Court of
42 Appeal suggested would be helpful to a trial judge
43 on a voir dire when asked to assess the
44 reliability of a qualitative research study being
45 presented by an expert, and I set out those bullet
46 points at the top of page 6.
47 And you can read them, My Lord, but you can
111
By Mr. Deane
1 see they include such factors as to what extent is

2 the work within that field subject to quality
3 assurance measures and appropriate independent
4 review by others in the field, what are the
5 particular expert's qualifications within that
6 discipline. To the extent that the opinion rests
7 on data accumulated through various means such as
8 interviews is the data accurately recorded, stored
9 and available. Skipping down. To what extent has
10 the expert arrived at his or her opinion using
11 methodologies accepted by those working in the
12 particular field in which that opinion is
13 advanced. To what extent do the accepted
14 methodologies promote and enhance the reliability
15 of the information gathered and relied upon by the
16 expert. To what extent has the witness in
17 advancing that opinion honoured the boundaries and
18 limits of the discipline from which his or her
19 opinion expertise arises. And again, or rather
20 last, what extent is the proffered opinion based
21 on data or other information gathered
22 independently of the specific case or more broadly
23 the litigation process.
24 Is the qualitative research that is said to
25 underlie the opinion the proffered expert's
26 academic work or is it a litigation report. All
27 of those factors taken together, Justice Doherty
28 says in Abbey, inform the trial judge's analysis
29 on a voir dire of the reliability of that
30 particular instance of qualitative research.
31 And the facts of Abbey, My Lord, are
32 instructive in terms of the type of qualitative
33 research at least in the Court of Appeal's view
34 should be accepted and would be admissible in
35 evidence. This evidence that was before the Court
36 in Abbey was rendered -- was decided to be
37 inadmissible by the trial judge and the Court of
38 Appeal reversed that.
39 And it was the opinion of an expert on gang
40 culture in Canada who was called to give a series
41 of opinions, but essentially, My Lord, they turned
42 on the meaning of a teardrop tattoo. And I have
43 set out in paragraph 17 certain aspects of that
44 opinion. Dr. Totten was the expert. He was
45 accepted by all parties to be the preeminent
46 leader in his field. He based his opinion on data
47 gathered through research projects conducted over
112
By Mr. Deane
1 10 years, a 25-year year clinical practice

2 involving long term relationships with gang
3 members and a review of the academic literature.
4 He didn't base his opinions on a single study. He
5 conducted six different studies over a period of a
6 decade. And he and his fellow researchers, as I
7 say in paragraph C, conducted lengthy recorded
8 interviews over that 10-year period with 300 gang
9 members. The researchers examined and compared
10 the data obtained during their interviews and also
11 compared their own assessments.
12 And I'm paraphrasing, My Lord, what is found
13 in paragraphs 37 to 46 of Abbey but it's useful
14 because the judgment relates to what Dr. Totten
15 and others in the field of qualitative research
16 were familiar with in terms of techniques to
17 assure reliability. And I have set them out at
18 sub-paragraph (D). And you will recall, and I'll
19 deal with it briefly in a moment, that these were
20 many of the areas that were canvassed in
21 particular in Mr. Samuels' cross-examination of
22 Professor Campbell. They included conducting
23 interviews following a fixed and carefully
24 formulated format, using prior studies and input
25 from peer review of the proposed questions, to
26 select carefully the language used during the
27 interviews. So Dr. Totten had actually had peers
28 review the questions that he was going to ask and
29 his researchers were going to ask. Ensuring, and
30 this is in framing the questions, that no aspect
31 of the questions was suggestive of the answer,
32 ambiguous or would not have a common meaning
33 across a broad spectrum of interviewees.
34 Dr. Totten had given evidence and the Court
35 of Appeal referred to it about the importance of
36 checking the answers given by interviewees
37 "against reliable independent sources such as
38 criminal records and police reports, the process
39 known as triangulation." And discarding answers
40 that were not consistent with those external
41 resources.
42 You also heard a reference in Mr. Samuels'
43 cross-examination to investigative discourse
44 analysis and the Court of Appeal refers to that.
45 Dr. Totten used a technique known as investigative
46 discourse analysis which examines the actual
47 language used by an interviewee to gauge the
113
By Mr. Deane
1 veracity of those answers, and Dr. Totten, and

2 this is a quote:
3
4 Testified that this technique was well
5 understood by him and other qualitative
6 sociological researchers and that it had a
7 long and well-established pedigree as a
8 useful tool in his kind of research.
9
10 And the penultimate point. Excluding
11 potential subjects whose personal circumstances
12 gave them a motive to be less than honest in their
13 responses.
14 Finally, My Lord, the Court of Appeal refers
15 in some detail to Dr. Totten's view and his
16 evidence that was accepted by that Court of the
17 importance of peer review throughout the process.
18 And I have included an extract from the judgment
19 in paragraph 46 where the Court of Appeal reports
20 Dr. Totten testifying that in addition to the
21 efforts made to carefully select those interviews
22 and to produce questions that yielded reliable
23 answers his study underwent extensive peer reviews
24 at several level. And you can see it's peer
25 reviewed at the pre-study level, a post study peer
26 review occurred if any of the collected data were
27 proposed for publication, co-authors were a means
28 of peer review, and finally the body that had
29 commissioned the research, which was again not
30 prepared for the purposes of litigation in which
31 Dr. Totten was involved, also conducted a peer
32 review. And in those circumstances and having
33 regard to those considerations, My Lord, the Court
34 of Appeal had erred and found that the trial judge
35 had erred in refusing to admit that Dr. Totten's
36 evidence based on his qualitative research and
37 found that it was admissible.
38 That case, My Lord, is instructive to you not
39 only because of the factors that Justice Doherty
40 enumerates as being useful to consider when faced
41 with evidence of this type, opinions based on
42 qualitative research, but it's also useful to you
43 because as I say in paragraph 19 the gulf between
44 the qualifications of Dr. Totten and the
45 qualifications of Professor Campbell and the type
46 of work that they've done is stark.
47 Professor Campbell, as you have heard and as
114
By Mr. Deane
1 she said, is not a sociologist, a psychologist, an

2 anthropologist or an ethnographer. She doesn't
3 profess to have any specific expertise in those
4 fields. She hadn't even taken -- she had never
5 taken any formal courses in qualitative research
6 methodology.
7 In my submission it became clear in --
8 particularly in Mr. Samuels' closing that she
9 understood that she was doing phenomenological
10 research but she was not directly aware of the
11 importance of spending an extensive and prolonged
12 period within the community that was being
13 studied. And my notes of her evidence were not
14 simply that she did not spend as extensive and
15 prolonged a period in Bountiful as Marla Peters,
16 but that she didn't spend as extensive and
17 prolonged a period in Bountiful as would be
18 understood in the lexicon of sociology.
19 You have heard as I say in paragraph C about
20 the need to hire a graduate student, ultimately
21 hiring student who was -- had completed
22 undergraduate studies in order to be able to carry
23 out an effective qualitative study. The limited
24 interviews in Bountiful relate both to the scope
25 of the research that was taken. This on any view
26 is not research on the scope undertaken by
27 Dr. Totten in Abbey. It's much more limited both
28 in terms of the number of interviewees and the
29 time that was spent in Bountiful observing and
30 conducting interviews.
31 Paragraph E, Professor Campbell, in my
32 submission as emerged on cross-examination
33 apparently took few if any steps such as
34 triangulation to ensure the qualitative validity
35 of her research conclusions.
36 In paragraph F I refer to investigative
37 discourse analysis which you will -- as you saw
38 the Court of Appeal found an important aspect of
39 Dr. Totten's work. Professor Campbell, to be
40 fair, my notes indicate wasn't familiar with that
41 term and so she obviously didn't conduct that.
42 But the most fundamental point, My Lord, is
43 likely this, which is Professor Campbell's candid
44 evidence that her observations based on her
45 interviews and the evidence that -- or the
46 material that she obtained through interviews
47 cannot essentially be generalized at all beyond
115
By Mr. Deane
1 the women she interviewed. It cannot be

2 generalized to all of the women in Bountiful or
3 even the Blackmore side of the Bountiful
4 community.
5 And so you're left, My Lord, with the position
6 that the conclusions and the opinions that
7 Professor Campbell draws add nothing -- they add
8 nothing to the voices of the women themselves
9 appearing in that transcript.
10 And that is why it's the position of my client
11 that Professor Campbell's opinions are A, not the
12 product of -- are not the product of a properly
13 qualified expert; B, are unnecessary, because the
14 transcripts will apparently be before you and you
15 can read them and form your own view about what
16 the women are saying and how they relate to each
17 other; and C, for all of the reasons that I've
18 gone through in my explication of Abbey the
19 conclusions, to the extent there are any, that she
20 does, notwithstanding what she says about the
21 inability to generalize, if she does generalize,
22 that those are not based upon reliable research.
23 Now, we've taken a bit of a different approach
24 than my friends from the Attorney General of
25 Canada in paragraph 22. I have identified in
26 those paragraphs the particular paragraphs in
27 which Professor Campbell is doing something other
28 than reviewing literature, commenting on Professor
29 Cook's report, providing information based on her
30 academic studies. These paragraphs that are
31 indicated here are the paragraphs where she
32 expresses opinions based on the allegedly
33 qualitative research that was undertaken in
34 Bountiful.
35 So in my submission, just wrapping up,
36 My Lord, it is the burden of the amicus in my
37 submission to demonstrate that Professor Campbell
38 is qualified to give the opinions that she
39 purports to give as a qualitative researcher, and
40 in my submission the Court in the exercise of its
41 gatekeeping role should refuse to admit into
42 evidence those enumerated paragraphs knowing that
43 the voices of the women in the transcripts will
44 still be before the court and those stories will
45 still be told.
46 We take no position on that, but it is an
47 important issue that arose today. Subject to any
116
By Mr. Dickson
1 questions. Those are my submissions.

2 THE COURT: Thank you, Mr. Deane. Mr. Dickson.
3 MR. DICKSON: My Lord, I hand up our written submission
4 in a brief brief of references that include a law
5 and some references to the affidavit evidence
6 tendered in this case.
7 And I'll just turn to the first page and to
8 paragraph 2, and of course Professor Campbell as
9 you have heard is a law professor at McGill
10 University, and she has, in my respectful
11 submission, a deep knowledge of the social science
12 literature on polygamy and she reviews that
13 literature in her affidavits, but of course we
14 know more centrally she's conducted qualitative
15 research. Uniquely among the experts tendered in
16 this case, My Lord, she has interviewed 22 women
17 on the Blackmore side of the community during her
18 two research trips.
19 My Lord, I stress there in paragraph 2 that
20 she received funding from SSHRC, the Social
21 Sciences and Humanities Research Council, in order
22 to carry out this research. She has recently been
23 awarded a second SSHRC grant to further the
24 research. That was awarded in 2010. I don't
25 mention there but you might think it's germane
26 that she also awarded $10,000 in funding from this
27 research for Borden Ladner Gervais, Mr. Deane's
28 law firm.
29 In paragraph 3 I set out why we tender her as
30 an expert in this case. And I'll turn over the
31 page because of the pressing time. And in
32 paragraph 7 I set out the Mohan test and of course
33 the really relevant criterion there is D, a
34 properly qualified expert, and that was explained
35 in the Mohan case this way, "the evidence must be
36 given by a witness who is shown to have acquired
37 special or peculiar knowledge through study or
38 experience in respect of the matters on which he
39 or she undertakes to testify." I don't like quite
40 like the word "peculiar" but it certainly the case
41 here that Professor Campbell has special knowledge
42 as to the practices of plural marriage in
43 Bountiful in particular.
44 It appears that my friends say well, she's got
45 to be a sociologist, she's got to be an
46 anthropologist, an ethnographer or anything that
47 she isn't, and I just point out in case that
117
By Mr. Dickson
1 follow that there is no requirement that an expert

2 possess academic credentials or qualifications to
3 be qualified as an expert by the court. The
4 expert may be qualified by practical experience
5 rather than through academic training. And I have
6 set out the Supreme Court of Canada decision in
7 Markhart there where they say the only requirement
8 for the admission of expert opinion is that the
9 expert witnesses possess special knowledge and
10 experience going beyond that of the trier of fact,
11 and that's -- with respect that's the case of
12 Professor Campbell, at least at this early stage
13 of this record. Deficiencies in the expertise go
14 to weight, not admissibility. And again quoting
15 there Sopinka Lederman and Brian, the
16 admissibility of such expert evidence does not
17 depend upon the means by which that skill was
18 required.
19 And then in paragraph 9 I set out three cases
20 there that just reiterate that point and I'll just
21 highlight the middle one, Shatzko, where it's
22 underlined there. The court says "practical
23 experience and common sense often combine to
24 provide the most reliable form of expertise" and
25 that strikes me, My Lord, as germane with respect
26 to Professor Campbell. She's certainly
27 commonsensical, has undertaken her study in a
28 manner that is responsive to the context of
29 Bountiful and has been extremely conscientious and
30 diligent in doing her research.
31 And in paragraph 10 I set out some excerpts
32 from CLE book on expert evidence in B.C. and the
33 chapter on qualifications, and that was --
34 actually it happened to be written by Mr. Samuels,
35 and he notes there this principle that academic
36 qualifications are not necessary to qualify an
37 expert and that leads to corollary that the Court
38 may prefer an expert with no academic
39 qualifications over one with extensive
40 qualifications, and then he discusses a case
41 there, Miller and White Truck, and there an expert
42 who had practical experience over one that had
43 eminent academic qualifications was preferred
44 because that was what was useful in the context.
45 And again, in that case he -- or sorry, in his
46 chapter he says that qualifications generally go
47 to weight instead of admissibility, as indeed they
118
By Mr. Dickson
1 do, and the tendency has been not to disqualify

2 experts where there's a problem but to treat such
3 matters as going to weight rather than
4 admissibility.
5 And I won't take you to it, but I'll just note
6 for you on page 75, that's in tab 1 of this brief,
7 he says, in fact there's a relatively low
8 threshold that must be met in order to qualify as
9 an individual to give expert opinion. And again,
10 the only requirement for the admission of expert
11 opinion is that the expert witness possess special
12 knowledge and experience going beyond that of the
13 trier of fact. And he cites the Markhart decision
14 of the Supreme Court of Canada, and indeed that is
15 the case in our respectful submission.
16 So turning then to the merits of the
17 objection, My Lord, and that starts on page 5
18 where I speak to Professor Campbell's research.
19 And just going back to the four steps in the Mohan
20 test, it's: First, relevance; second, is it
21 necessary; third, is there an exclusionary rule;
22 fourth, is there expertise. And Professor
23 Campbell's research is, in my respectful
24 submission, highly relevant. It presents
25 empirical data relating to the experiences and
26 dues of women within the Bountiful community. And
27 I remember Mr. Jones saying in a colourful phrase
28 something like Bountiful is polygamy made real,
29 and it -- obviously Bountiful does become very
30 important in this reference. And here Professor
31 Campbell is going into that community, conducting
32 research and bringing out her results. It's
33 highly relevant in this reference if I may say so.
34 On the question of necessity it certainly is
35 necessary in that it will assist the court to
36 examine all the evidence on polygamy. She is the
37 only academic witness in this entire reference to
38 provide empirical data on polygamy in Bountiful.
39 The only academic witness whatsoever to
40 provide empirical data on polygamy in Bountiful
41 MR. JONES: I'm sorry, I don't think that's true.
42 Dr. Henrich has, I believe, the only quantitative
43 data in his second affidavit on Bountiful, and
44 that was provided by the FLDS itself. I just
45 don't think that's correct to say.
46 MR. MACINTOSH: FLDS stats, that's right.
47 MR. DICKSON: All right. With that qualification,
119
By Mr. Dickson
1 My Lord, Dr. Henrich has looked at some stats that

2 the FLDS has now provided.
3 But -- and that goes on the FLDS side and
4 Professor Campbell's research was on the Blackmore
5 side, so there's this split as you of course know.
6 And of course Mr. Blackmore is not participating
7 in this reference as its funding application was
8 successfully opposed by the attorneys general.
9 If in this reference the Court is to consider
10 the existing academic research on polygamy it will
11 clearly want to consider Professor Campbell
12 Campbell's research, in my respectful submission.
13 It is the best research in Canada on polygamy to
14 date.
15 Third, I say that there's no exclusionary rule
16 that applies. Her research will plainly and
17 obviously not usurp your role in this reference.
18 She does not opine on whether section 293 should
19 be upheld or struck down, although again her
20 research is relevant to that consideration. Her
21 evidence simply prevents -- presents data from the
22 Bountiful community and links it to the broad
23 issues that arise in this case. It's no different
24 at all than what a large number of expert
25 witnesses also do in their evidence in this
26 reference, and I will show you some of that later
27 on. The only difference of course is that her
28 opinions are supported by empirical research
29 within Bountiful.
30 And I set out some reasons why her data is
31 reliable as she has remained careful not to have
32 her participants snowball from one source.
33 There's a balanced portrayal in that there is
34 reflected benefits to polygamy and detriments to
35 polygamy. In no case did a male member of the
36 community insist on being present for the
37 interviews. Her interviews were recorded and
38 transcribed. Those redacted transcripts have been
39 produced, and indeed Ms. Horsman is quite right
40 that those transcripts can be referred to and
41 debated and argued.
42 Last, it's plain, in my submission, that
43 Professor Campbell's developed the expertise to
44 conduct her research and provide her evidence in
45 this reference. While it's true she's a law
46 professor, does not have an extensive academic
47 background in social science, she nonetheless has
120
By Mr. Dickson
1 developed, in my respectful submission, more than

2 sufficient expertise to qualify as an expert, and
3 she acquired that expertise in three main ways.
4 One was through practical experience in
5 qualitative research, and I noted there her
6 research at Harvard but of course she also
7 conducted research with Professor Van Praagh at
8 McGill. Second, she engaged in extensive study of
9 academic sources on qualitative methods in advance
10 of her research, and third, she consulted with
11 persons with better backgrounds in qualitative
12 methods including -- with the help of her research
13 assistant and Professor William Shaffir.
14 And she has been recognized as having
15 expertise in qualitative methods. Her piece
16 "Wives' Tales" is her explanation of her
17 methodology for her research in Bountiful, and
18 that was published in a peer reviewed journal
19 which often publishes work at the intersection of
20 law and social science. Furthermore, at McGill
21 law school she teaches the graduate legal
22 methodology course which includes empirical
23 research techniques. And in addition to the many
24 other conferences and workshops at which she has
25 presented she has also recently presented at the
26 Canadian Law and Society Association meeting on
27 the pedagogical relevance of empirical research.
28 And furthermore, in paragraph 20 Professor
29 Campbell's particular methodology for her
30 Bountiful research was subjected to rigorous peer
31 review, and again in order to obtain the necessary
32 funding, when she applied to the Social Sciences
33 and Humanities Research Council she had to explain
34 her methodology including her background as we
35 saw, and that methodology was subjected to peer
36 review. SSHRC funded that research and has since
37 funded her again to carry out further research.
38 McGill's ethics board also approved her
39 methodology and research protocol. And her piece
40 "Bountiful Voices" which really presents -- that's
41 her main piece presenting her findings to date,
42 has been published in the prominent peer reviewed
43 journal. And she presented at, I listed there, 11
44 conferences there, and Mr. Macintosh took you
45 through those this morning.
46 At paragraph 11 I say it's also relevant that
47 other scholars whose work has been entered into
121
By Mr. Dickson
1 evidence in this case endorse or rely upon

2 Professor Campbell's work, and I list a few. And
3 the first is Professor Lorie Beaman who is
4 tendered by us as an expert and she is a
5 sociologist and full professor in religious
6 studies at the University of Ottawa and a Canada
7 Research Chair in the contextualization of
8 religion in a diverse Canada. She has a PhD in
9 sociology and she teaches theory and methods and
10 the social scientific study of religion, and she
11 will be coming here on December 13th to testify.
12 And in her affidavit she has spoken, and she can
13 speak again and more, about the importance of
14 Professor Campbell's research. I have set out the
15 paragraph references for you there and they're at
16 tab 9 in this brief, but because of the time I
17 won't taking you to them now.
18 The second is Nicholas Bala, and he is a law
19 professor Queen's University. He has been
20 tendered as an expert by Stop Polygamy in Canada,
21 and like Professor Campbell he wrote one of the
22 reports in the 2005 Status of Women study of
23 polygamy and like Professor Campbell he provides a
24 review of social science literature in his
25 affidavit in this reference. But unlike Professor
26 Campbell he has conducted no empirical research on
27 polygamy at all.
28 And Mr. Samuels in his cross-examination made
29 a great many insinuations about Professor
30 Campbell's research, but I remind the Court they
31 are of course just that, insinuations. Neither he
32 nor any of his allies have put before the Court
33 any expert on qualitative research seeking to
34 undermine Professor Campbell's methodology, and
35 indeed the only expert who addresses Professor
36 Campbell's methodology at all is Mr. Samuels'
37 expert Professor Bala. And so we should turn to
38 see what Professor Bala has to say. If you don't
39 mind turning to tab 11 in the brief, My Lord. To
40 paragraph 48.
41 There he addresses -- in paragraph 48 he
42 addresses Professor Campbell's research and it
43 appears to have been just after her first trip.
44 It doesn't include reference to her second trip in
45 2009. And he says:
46
47 The methodology of Campbell's study does not
122
By Mr. Dickson
1 allow for an assessment of how representative

2 the study is of the community, but there is
3 concern that she may have interviewed women
4 who were most positively disposed to this
5 practice, while those with negative
6 experience may have been too intimidated to
7 conduct the researchers. Some aspects of her
8 research protocols, such as giving
9 interviewees the opportunity to verify their
10 already anonymized comments were unusual,
11 adding to concern.
12
13 He says:
14
15 The study is not insignificant, for as
16 Professor Campbell notes, their stories are
17 inconsistent with the dominant legal and
18 social narrative.
19
20 And then skipping down he says:
21
22 However, it is impossible to know if the
23 women who report positive experiences in the
24 media depict a true representation of the
25 Bountiful community or even of their own
26 lives. At least some of the women who were
27 speaking out were likely encouraged to do so
28 by community leaders because they were
29 expected to report favourably on polygamy.
30
31 And I just pause there. I heard Mr. Cameron say
32 something about speculation and that being a
33 no-go, and I point out here Professor Bala's
34 comments here at the very least, but really more
35 than here, are rife with speculation. You will
36 look in vain for any reference to anything in
37 support of these comments. And I remember just
38 now my friends complaining that Professor Campbell
39 cannot say something was possible. You remember
40 in paragraph 132 of her affidavit they're
41 complaining that she said something was possible
42 on the basis of the qualitative research that she
43 has done interviewing 22 women. And of course
44 here Professor Bala is saying something is likely
45 on the basis of no evidence at all.
46 And that is Stop Polygamy in Canada's expert.
47 But if we turn over to the last page, My Lord,
123
By Mr. Dickson
1 paragraph 96, just a further point I want to make

2 on Professor Bala here. Paragraph 96 he says in
3 the middle starting in the sentence on the right:
4
5 However, the criminal prohibition on polygamy
6 undoubtedly reduces the incidence of a
7 practice that is socially harmful and
8 contrary to fundamental Canadian values.
9
10 Undoubtedly.
11
12 This criminal law serves important symbolic
13 and educational functions and there is even
14 some suggestion that the threat of
15 prosecution and the publicity surrounding the
16 harms of polygamy may be slowly changing
17 attitudes and practices in Bountiful.
18
19 And for this entire statement he has one source
20 and that's Angela Campbell that he's pointing to.
21 Turning then to Rebecca Cook. She is a law
22 professor again at the University of Toronto. She
23 has been tendered by the Attorney General of
24 Canada to provide among other things, as I say
25 there, a literature review of the harms of
26 polygamy, which is an interesting mandate,
27 especially as viewed through the perspective of
28 international human rights law. She cites
29 Professor Campbell's research a number of times in
30 her affidavit and I would like to take you to them
31 and because I do think they're informative.
32 And the first is at paragraph -- sorry,
33 tab 12, My Lord, and the first is at paragraph 34.
34 And she says in the first sentence of that
35 paragraph:
36
37 There is evidence that maximizing
38 reproduction is one of the theological
39 principles of polygyny among fundamentalist
40 Mormon groups in the Canada and the United
41 States.
42
43 And in the footnote she cites the economist, the
44 social researcher and -- Sally Armstrong, but then
45 Angela Campbell "Bountiful Voices," where she says
46 "some interview participants spoke of the
47 negotiation of contraception" and she sets out a
124
By Mr. Dickson
1 portion of her transcripts there.

2 Over on paragraph 39, just the page over. She
3 says in paragraph 39:
4
5 The material and health harms associated with
6 polygyny vary across and within legal and
7 social context.
8
9 And then she footnotes Martha Bailey and Amy
10 Kaufmann, Polygamy in the Monogamous World, and
11 that's a text written by two legal scholars.
12 Martha Bailey is at Queen's University and she
13 wrote one of the Status of Women reports.
14 Professor Bala wrote one. Professor Angela
15 Campbell wrote one. And that book really is the
16 latest in terms of a published academic piece on
17 polygamy in Canada. And I'm not going to take you
18 to it next, but it's in the submissions. But they
19 also cite Professor Campbell's work.
20 In the next sentence back in Rebecca Cook,
21 paragraph 39, she says:
22
23 Narrative accounts of polygyny in North
24 America indicate the degree to which
25 individual experiences of plural family can
26 differ.
27
28 And then the first source there is cited and
29 that's Professor Campbell. And of course, it
30 appears to be that diversity of accounts that my
31 friends are so anxious to keep out of this
32 reference.
33 And the next citation -- next reference,
34 My Lord, is paragraph 45 and there she says:
35
36 Emerging ethnographic work in Bountiful,
37 British Columbia suggests that collaboration
38 is common among co-wives though feelings of
39 competition and jealousy are also present.
40
41 And she cites Professor Campbell again for that.
42 And of it's phenomenological.
43 And so as I say, all of these experts who,
44 aside from Professor Beaman, my friends have
45 tendered, all find value in Professor Campbell's
46 research. And indeed the amicus knows of no
47 expert in the case or in any academic or other
125
By Mr. Dickson
1 work who has suggested that Professor Campbell

2 does not have the necessary qualifications to do
3 her work. Professor Bala doesn't say anything
4 like that. He raises some concerns that he
5 speculates about. He does not for the slightest
6 moment suggest that Professor Campbell does not
7 have the qualifications to carry out that
8 research.
9 And that is the expert that my friends Stop
10 Polygamy in Canada have tendered in this reference
11 to address Professor Campbell's research, not
12 Dr. Totten in the Abbey case.
13 I think, My Lord, it's also important to keep
14 in mind the nature of the evidence in this case.
15 There is a vast amount of opinion evidence
16 tendered and that's natural, we say, given the
17 context here, which is a constitutional reference
18 tried by yourself alone on an issue that has broad
19 social and legal ramifications. This is about as
20 far as you could get from the Abbey case, which is
21 a criminal trial in a gang context.
22 And the parties have tendered expert evidence
23 from many law professors who opine on a great many
24 issues outside of the interpretation of statutes
25 and judgments and I have taken you to the
26 affidavits of two of them, and it sounded to me,
27 My Lord, that Ms. Greathead was insinuating that a
28 professor could not provide a literature review on
29 social science perspectives on polygamy because a
30 law professor is not a social scientist, and I
31 will just say Professor Cook and Professor Bala,
32 they are both engaging in long literature reviews
33 of social science evidence here. They are both
34 law professors. From what I can tell neither of
35 them has any academic training in social sciences,
36 and we don't take issue with that.
37 And I have set out just some of the headings
38 of what they address there. I should also say
39 just on this point, while we're on Professors Cook
40 and Bala, that as I said they both wrote --
41 they've both written reports in the past.
42 Professor Bala wrote his status women in 2005 and
43 he's since published as well, and he comes to the
44 conclusion that 293 is sound. That it's
45 constitutionally sound. And again we don't take
46 issue with that. Lots of experts have addressed
47 this issue. They have thought about it. They
126
By Mr. Dickson
1 have opined with argument. Among the 30 lawyers

2 participating in this case and yourself keeping
3 all of that in mind, no doubt they're not going to
4 usurp the role of the Court.
5 Professor Cook, her affidavit appears to be
6 very similar to a report that she wrote for the
7 Department of Justice some years ago and the
8 conclusions seemed to match up pretty well.
9 The last reference I want to make is to the
10 AGBC's expert, Professor Mohammad Fadel, and
11 that's at the top of page 11. And he's a U of T
12 law prof, Canada research chair in the law and
13 economics of Islamic law. And he addresses in his
14 affidavit in part the practices of Muslims in
15 Canada and he acknowledges that any information he
16 has regarding those practices in Canada or
17 anywhere else derives only from his personal
18 experience as a Muslim living in Canada and other
19 societies. It's not based on scholarly research
20 at all. And when he sets out his observations and
21 opinions he's not citing anything. Indeed -- and
22 again, you know, in this context fair enough, you
23 know, it goes to weight.
24 And then the last of course, the AGBC's
25 Brandeis brief. It includes 35 articles from
26 legal academics and again three of them are pieces
27 by Professor Campbell which includes her
28 "Bountiful Voices" piece which talks about her
29 findings based on her Bountiful research. And it
30 also includes a whole host of books and articles
31 from journalists and from personal experience.
32 Daphne Brown and John Krackauer, and they will
33 never -- they will never be under
34 cross-examination at all in this case.
35 And so in conclusion, My Lord, the AGBC and
36 the AGC have been at pains to try and exclude
37 evidence from within fundamentalist Mormon
38 communities in this reference, successfully argued
39 against Mr. Blackmore which has had the effect of
40 precluding his participation in this reference and
41 direct evidence from his side of the Bountiful
42 community. They later opposed the FLDS's
43 application vigorously I would say to have his
44 personal experience witnesses testifying
45 anonymously, knowing that if they succeeded in
46 opposing that the women from the FLDS would not
47 testify. And now they have opposed Professor
127
Discussion re Documentation and Ms. Lang
1 Campbell's research on women within Bountiful.

2 And at the same time they have tendered an
3 enormous amount of evidence on the Brandeis form
4 on harms they attributed to polygamy, the
5 methodological soundness of which will never be
6 tested.
7 In my respectful submission their challenge
8 must fail, and this Court in our respectful
9 submission really ought to hear from Professor
10 Campbell
11 THE COURT: Thank you. Does someone want to do one
12 reply?
13 MR. CAMERON: No, My Lord.
14 MR. JONES: No, My Lord. There were some, in my view,
15 unfair shots in the very last part of the
16 presentation but I won't take the court's time
17 responding to them. I do have a couple of things
18 to say on other matters before we adjourn if we
19 might.
20 THE COURT: Okay. Well, it's critical to rule on this
21 as far as I can see. We're one day into the
22 availability of this witness as I understand it
23 and the submissions of counsel as to the timing
24 and her availability. For reasons which I'll
25 expand upon in my final judgment I am admitting
26 the report of Angela -- or the affidavits of
27 Angela Campbell. I am qualifying her as an expert
28 on the basis tendered by Mr. Macintosh, and as I
29 say my reasons will articulate why that is so.
30 But I thank all the parties for their full
31 submissions.
32 MR. JONES: Thank you, My Lord. Two quick points. One
33 of them was there was a document handed up and out
34 by Ms. Horsman. That was the excerpts from the
35 affidavits provided by Angela Campbell. Two
36 points to make about this. First, my colleague
37 Ms. Horsman noticed in the last few minutes that
38 there may be a word in here that might tend to
39 identify one of the participants and so we would
40 seek to re-collect those from counsel who have
41 them. And given that Your Lordship has ruled --
42 we were going to replace them with altered
43 versions but given Your Lordship's ruling that may
44 not be necessary now. Under the terms of the
45 consent order the parties would be obliged in any
46 event to destroy these documents in due course.
47 So that was the first point.
128
Discussion re Documentation and Ms. Lang
1 THE COURT: Right.

2 MR. JONES: My Lord. So if we could get the court's
3 copy back then we'll collect them from counsel at
4 the close of today.
5 The second point on that was just to remind
6 the counsel, given that we're into this evidence
7 now and particularly tomorrow with respect to
8 transcripts, that they should familiarize
9 themselves with the term of Your Lordship's
10 consent order and govern themselves accordingly
11 with respect to how these things are stored and
12 destroyed in due course.
13 The second thing I wanted to say was that my
14 colleague again Ms. Horsman has been in touch with
15 Ms. Lane and she has indicated that she is quite
16 flexible in her availability. So subject to the
17 court's suggestion I think -- she wasn't asked
18 this question but I don't expect based on my
19 conversation to her that her submission will be
20 longer than half an hour.
21 THE COURT: Well, it will have to be Thursday. Does
22 that interfere with the plans for --
23 MR. JONES: I believe that's Dr. Beall Thursday. I'm
24 not sure that we've had a very full discussion
25 about whether we expect him to last the whole day.
26 THE COURT: Well, it will be no earlier than Thursday.
27 We'll have your discussion, I want to get
28 Professor Campbell in and out tomorrow.
29 MR. JONES: Yes, My Lord. So Thursday at 10 o'clock
30 shall we tell Ms. Lane?
31 THE COURT: Well, if that doesn't interfere with
32 Dr. Beall because he has to get in and out too,
33 does he not, in one day?
34 MR. DICKSON: That's right, My Lord. Thank you.
35 THE COURT: And first thing tomorrow morning we'll make
36 all the exhibits on the voir dire exhibits in the
37 trial.
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47 THE CLERK: Order in court. Court is adjourned until
129
Certification
1 November 31st, 2010, at 10:00 a.m.

2
3 (PROCEEDINGS RECESSED AT 5:16 P.M.)
4
5 I, SPENCER J. CHAREST, OFFICIAL REPORTER
6 IN THE PROVINCE OF BRITISH COLUMBIA, CANADA,
7 DO HEREBY CERTIFY:
8
9 THAT THE PROCEEDINGS WERE TAKEN DOWN BY
10 ME IN SHORTHAND AT THE TIME AND PLACE HEREIN
11 SET FORTH AND THEREAFTER TRANSCRIBED, AND THE
12 SAME IS A TRUE AND CORRECT AND COMPLETE
13 TRANSCRIPT OF SAID PROCEEDINGS TO THE BEST OF
14 MY SKILL AND ABILITY.
15
16 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I HAVE HEREUNTO
17 SUBSCRIBED MY NAME THIS 10TH DAY OF JANUARY,
18 2010.
19
20
21
22 ______________________
23 SPENCER J. CHAREST
24 OFFICIAL REPORTER
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47

11-30 - 2010 Transcript of Proceedings at Polygamy Reference Case Day 6

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

11-30 - 2010 Transcript of Proceedings at Polygamy Reference Case Day 6

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

1

1 November 30th, 2010

1 application with respect to the publication ban

1 THE COURT: So you will get back to us on that and keep

1 you would be I believe volume 1, tab 1 in the

1 A The Institute of Comparative Law's vocation

1 Q And that was in 2000/2001?

1 researchers on Status of Women's website. So they

1 assistance from a person trained in sociological

1 letter points out in undergraduate you did not

1 And the primary goal of a qualitative study is

1 when you did work in Bountiful?

1 we've heard earlier your qualifications indicated

1 except that in the dealings with McGill that's one

1 community but also women who made their

1 patriarchal structure that I felt wasn't to be

1 Gervais with a research fellowship of $10,000?

1 Q All right. And in your publications I think I

1 Q And that again was a peer reviewed article?

1 Q And going to page 8 in October of 2005 about

1 And the opinion I will be seeking, My Lord, to

1 for ease of reference so that we don't have to

1 Q I would like you to turn, Professor Campbell, to

1 A At the end of her degree.

1 Q You say Cresin?

1 field between the researcher and the participant.

1 Q When you say no are you saying it's not a standard

1 Q And what about for deception?

1 A Yes, I do. I think that's right.

1 the researcher to accept the veracity of the

1 Q Do you know what methods are recommended by

1 Q You've mentioned Creswell a number of times and

1 Q Are you familiar with the name Denzin?

1 women that you interviewed you could not

1 triangulate it you could go to the vital

1 comment on what they say about it?

1 A That's all correct.

1 of the experiences within the Blackmore faction at

1 second bullet it says "avoid reinforcing responses

1 that it's important for the researcher to disclose

1 for the provision on polygamy was unclear as I

1 will hear that information.

1 please. On page 44 under the heading "Positioning

1 there's a paragraph that begins with the word

1 me to ask for this funding to do this research.

1 object to Ms. Campbell's transcripts being made

1 interviews took place.

1 the experience on the ethics board.

1 representatives as well. So my role there --

1 Q Let me refer you to paragraph 32 of your affidavit

1 A Sometimes they were prearranged but not all.

1 Q And they've been redacted to remove identifying

1 Q Not filtering it through any expertise?

1 Q Answer, yeah. And so I take it you agree with me

1 or options for services that would be available to

1 the feeling that people from the outside, you

1 about being stigmatised or some other fear

1 through are general services and resources, so

1 as linkable to polygamy." So marital counselling

1 responsibility because he's not committed

1 freely consenting couple chooses consensually

1 Q Or in social sciences generally. Anthropology,

1 and I spoke to the children who were there.