Court File No. 11-0230

ONTARIOSUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

B E T W E E N:

LAURIE MASSICOTTE, SHAUNA FRASER, JENNA FRASER andRACHELLE FRASER

Plaintiffs

and

MARY ELIZABETH HARRIMAN, DAVID RUSSELL WILLIAMS andHER MAJESTY THE QUEEN IN RIGHT OF ONTARIO

Defendants

AFFIDAVIT

I, Michael D. Heikkinen, of the City of Ottawa, in the Province of Ontario, MAKE

OATH AND SAY:

I am an associate with the law firm of AUGUSTINE’ BATER’ BINKS LLP, the

lawyers for the Defendant, Mary Elizabeth Harriman, and, as such, have knowledge

of the matters contained in this affidavit.

2. Augustine Bater Binks LLP has represented Mary Elizabeth Harriman in this and

other matters since May, 2010.

-2-

Laurie Massicotte

3. It is my understanding that in September of 2009, the plaintiff, Laurie Massicotte

(“Ms. Massicotte”), was the victim of an attack by the defendant, David Russell

Williams (“Russell Williams”).

4. Russell Williams was arrested and charged with the attack on Ms. Masicotte, among

other crimes, on February 8th, 2010.

5. Russell Williams pled guilty to the attack on Ms. Massicotte, among other crimes, on

October 18, 2010.

Civil Action by Ms. Massicotte — Representation by Counsel

6. I am informed by Mary Jane Binks, Q.C., and I verily believe to be true that as early

as June, 2010, Ms. Binks was contacted by lawyers representing Ms. Massicotte in

relation to a potential civil action Ms. Massicotte would be bringing against Russell

Williams and my client.

7. I am informed by Mary Jane Binks, Q.C., and I verily believe to be true that Ms.

Binks was made aware in May of 2010 that Michael Pretsell, of the firm Pretsell

Cavanagh (as it was then known) was representing a victim of Russell Williams and

was issuing a civil action against Russell Williams and Ms. Harriman.

8. I believe that Ms. Massicotte’s first lawyer was Heidi Louise Bergeron, who is a

lawyer in the Kingston area. Attached as Exhibit “A” to this my affidavit is a true

copy of correspondence from Mr. Pretsell indicating that Ms. Bergeron was

representing Ms. Massicotte. I note the date of this correspondence is the summer

of 2010.

9. The next lawyer I understood to be representing Ms. Massicotte was Kristian Bonn,

of the Bonn law office in Trenton, Ontario. Attached at Exhibit “B” to this my

affidavit is a true copy of correspondence from Mr. Bonn dated January 27, 2011.

10. Ms. Massicotte issued her statement of claim in this action on September 23, 2011.

At that time, J. David M. Ross, a lawyer in Belleville, Ontario, represented Ms.

Massicotte. Ms. Massicotte’s claim also named Shauna Fraser, Jenna Fraser, and

Rachelle Fraser (“the FLA plaintiffs”) as plaintiffs pursuant to the Family LawAct A

true copy of the Statement of Claim issued on behalf of Ms. Massicotte is attached

to this my affidavit as Exhibit “C”.

11. Augustine Bater Binks LLP was served with a Notice of Intention to Act in Person on

behalf of Ms. Massicotte and the FLA plaintiffs on May 10, 2012.

12. Ms. Massicotte informed Mr. Pretsell on November 15, 2012 that she had entered

into a Contingency Fee Retainer Agreement with Greenspon Brown & Associates on

November 2012. A true copy of this e-mail was forwarded to Jonathan M.

Richardson, on November 16th, 2012, a true copy of which is attached to this my

affidavit as Exhibit “D”.

-4-

13. I am informed by Mary Jane Binks, Q.C., and I verily believe to be true that she was

never contacted by Mr. Greenspon in respect of his being counsel of record for Ms.

Massicotte. To the best of Ms. Sinks knowledge, Ms. Massicotte continued to act in

person, with Mr. Pretsell appearing as her agent at court proceedings in this matter

in the autumn of 2012 and winter of 2013.

14. I am informed by Mary Jane Sinks, Q.C., and I verily believe to be true that Ms.

Sinks was first advised that Ms. Massicotte and the FLA plaintiffs’ current counsel,

Philip P. Healey would be representing Ms. Massicotte at a case management

conference of this (and related) actions in February, 2013.

15. Augustine Bater Sinks LLP was served with a Notice of Change of Lawyer by Mr.

Healey on May 8, 2013, a true copy of which is attached at Exhibit “D” of the

affidavit of Brian Chung.

Laurie Massicotte — Intention to Bring an Action

16. As early as October, 2010, Ms. Massicotte granted an interview to Macleans

magazine indicating that she was seeking a lawyer who would represent her in a

civil action arising from the attack on her. A true copy of the article published

October 5, 2010, is attached to this my affidavit as Exhibit “E”.

17. Ms. Massicotte granted a series of interviews to Joe Warmington and the Sun Media

chain in April, 2011. In those interviews, true copies of which are attached to this

-5-

my affidavit as Exhibit “F”, Ms. Massicotte indicated she wanted to sue both Mr.

Williams and my client and that she wanted “to get both of them on the witness

stand.

18. A further interview was granted to Joe Warmington of the Sun Media chain in July,

2011, indicating that Ms. Massicotte’s claim against Mr. Williams and my client had

been issued. A true copy of the article written by Mr. Warmington is attached to

this my affidavit as Exhibit “G”.

Claim issued in 2011

19. As can be seen by the Statement of Claim issued on behalf of Ms. Massicotte at

Exhibit “C”, the only claim pled against Ms. Harriman was that a domestic contract,

and transfer of the matrimonial home into my client’s name alone, was contrary to

the Fraudulent Conveyances Act

20. No further material facts and/or relief was sought against my client at the time the

claim was issued.

21. During the period between the issuance of the statement of claim by Mr. Ross, and

the autumn of 2013, no attempt was made by Ms. Massicotte or any counsel on her

behalf to amend the statement of claim.

-6-

22. During the period between the issuance of the statement of claim by Mr. Ross and

the autumn of 2013, no material facts or additional relief was sought against Ms.

Harriman in any form. No correspondence was written by Ms. Massicotte or on her

behalf alleging additional relief would be sought or that new material facts came to

light.

Amendment to Statement of Claim

23. Augustine Bater Binks LLP was first provided with a draft amended Statement of

Claim by Mr. Healey on November 7th, 2013. Mr. Healey stated at that time in his

covering correspondence that “the amendments proposed are not different from

that which was originally pleaded” but were in fact, “further particulars.” A true

copy of the covering e-mail and draft amended Statement of Claim are attached to

this my affidavit as Exhibit “H”.

24. I am informed by Mary Jane Sinks, Q.C., and I verily believe to be true that she was

advised by Mr. Healey in a tele-conference dated November 8th, 2013 that he was

considering making further amendments to the Statement of Claim issued on

behalf of Ms. Massicotte,

25. Augustine Bater Binks LLP was provided with a copy of the further amended

Statement of Claim on November 15, 2013. A true copy of the covering

correspondence and further amended Statement of Claim is attached to this my

affidavit as Exhibit “I”.

-7-

New Claims in Amended Statement of Claim

26. Despite Mr. Healey’s statement that the amendments are what was originally

pleaded, new causes of action have been pled as against Ms. Harriman.

27. In particular, paragraph 63 of the amended Statement of Claim (which is the same

as paragraph 67 of the further amended Statement of Claim) states:

“The Plaintiffs further plead as against the Defendant Harriman that she wasaware of the illicit conduct of Williams; did not report that conduct to thepolice; has, through the transfer and disiosal of assets of Williams, gainedfinancially from this illicit conduct; and that all of this gives rise to furtherdamages against the Defendant Harriman.

28. The above paragraph is clearly seeking new relief as against Ms. Harriman. The

above paragraph alleges that Ms. Massicotte is entitled to further damages

(damages above and beyond those alleging the transfer of the matrimonial home is

contrary to the Fradularit Conveyances Act) on the basis that Ms. Harriman

allegedly had knowledge of Russell Williams conduct and failed to report Russell

Williams’ conduct to the police.

29. The further amended Statement of Claim also seeks relief pursuant to the Charter

of Rights and Freedoms, and in particular, an Order declaring s.30 of the Pension

Actto be void.

30. This claim was never raised in the Statement of Claim issued on behalf of Ms.

Massicotte in 2011.

-8-

31. This claim was further never raised at any time prior to November, 2013, when

Augustine Bater Binks LLP received the further amended Statement of Claim.

Expiration of Limitation Period

32. More than 4 years passed from the date of the attack on Ms. Massicotte to the date

Augustine Bater Binks LLP received the draft amended Statement of Claim.

33. Nearly 4 years elapsed between the date Russell Williams was charged with the

attack on Ms. Massicotte and the date Augustine Bater Binks LLP received the draft

amended Statement of Claim.

34. Over 3 years elapsed between the date Russell Williams pled guilty to the attack on

Ms. Massicotte and the date Augustine Bater Binks LLP received the draft amended

Statement of Claim.

35. Over 2 1/2 years have elapsed since the date of the interview in which Ms.

Massicotte stated she wanted to sue Ms. Harriman and the date Augustine Bater

Binks LLP received the draft amended Statement of Claim.

36. Over 2 1/2 years have elapsed since the date Ms. Massicotte’s Statement of Claim

was issued and the date Augustine Bater Binks LLP received the draft amended

Statement of Claim.

37. On any reasonable standard, the limitation period for seeking relief against Ms.

Harriman has long since expired.

Prejudice Against Ms. Harriman

38. Ms. Harriman will suffer prejudice if this claim is amended to allow new relief

beyond the expiration of the limitation period.

39. Ms. Harriman has approached these actions on the presumption, given the

expiration of any reasonable limitation period arising as against her that no further

claims would be issued.

40. The materials filed on behalf of Ms. Massicotte on this motion introduce no

evidence whatsoever of the scandalous allegations now being made in respect of

Ms. Harriman.

41. I make this affidavit to respond to the affidavit of Brian Chung, dated December 16,

2013.

MICHAEL D. HEIKKINEN

SWORN BEFORE ME at the City ofProvince of Ontario on

..., 2014

RCP-E 4D (July 1, 2007)

LA

UR

IEM

ASS

ICO

TT

Eet

aLan

dM

AR

YE

LIZ

AB

ET

HH

AR

RIM

AN

etaL

Plai

ntiff

sD

efen

dant

s

__

__

__

_

Cou

rtFi

le#:

11-0

230

Ont

ario

SUPE

RIO

RC

OU

RT

OF

JUST

ICE

Proc

eedi

ngC

omm

ence

dat

BELL

EVIL

LE

AFF

IDA

VIT

AU

GU

ST

INE

’BA

TE

R’B

INK

SLL

P

141

Lau

rier

Ave

nue

Wes

tSu

ite11

00O

ttaw

aO

NK

1P5J

3B

OX

126

Mar

yJa

ne

Bin

ksQ

.C.

—L

SUC

#12

584H

Tel:

6135

69-9

500

ext.

116

Fax:

613-

569-

9522

Law

yers

for

the

Def

enda

nt,

Mar

yE

lizab

eth

Har

rim

an