Article content continued

Vance came to court with four banker’s boxes full of documents in response to a personal subpoena dated Dec. 18 of last year. But he testified that in response to an earlier defence subpoena served upon the department in October — it sought disclosure of all records, emails, text or BlackBerry messages in which the Norman matter was discussed — he didn’t search his personal phone or email address.

Similarly, when Astravas was asked the same questions in court, she too replied that she had never searched her personal phone or email for communications about Norman on the advice of DND.

She said she was “not certain” who in the department had advised her.

Yet justice lawyer Rob MacKinnon confirmed for the judge that when he gave advice to DND last December, “I made it clear the searches were to include” personal emails and phones.

So who at the DND advised Vance and Astravas about whether to search their personal phones or emails?

The DND has responded, naming the Department of Justice.

“The Department of Justice provides advice to the Department of National Defence on this matter,” the department pointed out in an email to Postmedia. “The provision of that legal advice is protected in the solicitor client relationship, but we can advise that the department has been fully compliant with its obligations under the subpoena and has addressed any inconsistencies in a timely way.”

“National Defence will continue to produce any outstanding documents and information requested for the third party application, including recent requests,” the department added.

Norman’s lawyers have questioned why it has taken the DND so long to produce even the most basic documents. In court they have argued that there have been attempts within DND to obstruct justice.