Note: Transcripts may contain errors. If you wish to re-use all, or part of, a transcript, please contact CBC for permission. Please check the corresponding audio before quoting in print. Copyright © CBC 2024

The Current Transcript for November 13, 2024

Host: Matt Galloway

Prologue

SOUNDCLIP

Speaker: All the buddies, we all talk about. We have some pictures in our group chat of who’s betting on what. Go Leafs go baby! Yeah, gambling's a big thing, you know.

MATT GALLOWAY: Putting aside perhaps the wisdom of betting on the Toronto Maple Leafs, if you watch pro sports, gambling is almost inescapable these days, from online prompts on your phone to endless ads and sponsored content in the hockey game you're watching on TV. Many Canadians love it. But a new report says the billions of dollars funneled into this industry are creating a public health crisis and that gambling should be treated like alcohol and tobacco. In 30 minutes, a costly wager. Also this morning.

SOUNDCLIP

MARY ANN RUSSWURM: I have Really bad nightmares every night of trying to reach her and save her and I can't. It is a challenge. Every day is like the same day being lived over and over and over.

MG: Christy Harron was just a week past her 15th birthday when she vanished from a small town in southwestern Ontario. For 30 years, her mother, Mary Ann, has struggled with her loss and the questions police won't respond to. The answers she does have came through the work of investigative filmmaker David Ridgen. The story of Christy's disappearance shapes the new season of David's podcast, Someone Knows Something, and in an hour, they are here to talk about working together to find justice, the emptiness of the word closure and what Mary Ann would ask the man jailed for killing her daughter. But we begin with justice delayed and for some, justice denied. Good morning. I'm Matt Galloway and this is The Current.

[Music: Theme]

Time limits stopping criminal cases ever reaching trial

Guests: Emily Quint, Simona Jellinek, Daniel Brown

MG: More than half of the criminal charges laid by police in the province of Ontario never make it to trial, including serious ones like homicide and sexual assault. It's not because those cases lack merit. There simply isn't enough time to get to them. This is in part due to the so-called Jordan limit. In 2016, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that the accused must have their cases tried within 18 months for provincial court and 30 months for superior court. The time limit was meant to speed up proceedings, but some victims say it's actually working against them. Emily Quint had her case of an alleged sexual assault stayed after the case took too long to be heard. Emily, good morning.

EMILY QUINT: Good morning. Thank you for having me.

MG: Thank you for being here. Going ahead with pressing charges and bringing allegations to police is a really difficult thing to live with. What were the expectations that you had when you brought those allegations to police and pursued a criminal trial?

EMILY QUINT: I think initially, I wasn't even really sure, right? Like I think for me, I hadn't experienced this before, so it was completely new and there was really nobody to support me, advocate for me or help me navigate that. So I think for me, it was just about listening to what they want from me and giving them what I can.

MG: And what were you looking for in that process?

EMILY QUINT: I wanted accountability, right? Like I wanted to be able to say this is what happened to me and for at least somebody out there to say like, we believe you and this person will be held accountable for that.

MG: What ended up happening instead?

EMILY QUINT: My case never made it through the system. We were very, very close. I testified and I endured cross-examination. And then my case was completely tossed out because we had reached Jordan time limit. And this was something I had never heard about in my entire life. And all of a sudden, the past two years of my life, every grueling moment, it was just over.

MG: What were the explanations as to why your case was tossed out? What did you understand about why this was happening?

EMILY QUINT: So for me, I think looking back now, it was there loud and clear. But I mean, I was just really trying to survive in that moment. But my case was scheduled, my trial was scheduled for three days. The first two days, I showed up to court and was told to wait because there wasn't a courtroom, there wasn't staff to hear my case. And by the third day, I finally took the stand, testified and endured cross-examination. And a few months later, trial was set to resume at the earliest available dates. And they said, they called me a week before it was set to resume and they basically said, this is the crown, they contacted me and said, Emily, it's over. The defence put through a motion to have the charges stayed due to the accused charter right to a speedy trial.

MG: The language that was used was that this was an unreasonable delay.

EMILY QUINT: Yes.

MG: When you heard that, what went through your mind? I mean, I can hear it in your voice how difficult it is. When you heard that, what went through your mind?

EMILY QUINT: It was like… I remember in that moment, I was like begging and pleading. Like, what can I do? Like, this can't be happening. And then I started to get really angry and I was like, why are the rights of a perpetrator of violence held with more importance than the rights of a survivor? And like, maybe this person did deserve the right to a timely trial, but I also deserve the right to a trial, a full trial and a fair trial. And I feel like I was robbed of that.

MG: The justice who was overseeing this called the dismissal on those unreasonable delay grounds. The language that he used was shameful.

EMILY QUINT: Absolutely.

MG: You said that in the wake of this, your whole world, these are your words, your whole world went up in flames.

EMILY QUINT: Yeah, it was like, how am I going to live in a world that doesn't protect me? It doesn't protect us. Survivors aren’t deemed important enough. Like… It was… like I actually put my blood, sweat and tears into the last two years, and it was just all over in a moment and there was nothing I could do.

MG: What does something like that do to your trust in the legal system and in a system that is meant to provide some measure of justice? What does it do to your trust in that system?

EMILY QUINT: It's gone. Like it totally disappeared at that moment. And I think, you know, I'm a year out from hearing that the charges were stayed. And I think I'm still in that space where I've lost that trust, and I don't know if that trust can be repaired. Like it's going to take a lot, and I don't see it getting there any time soon.

MG: What would you want to see happen to address the impact that the Jordan decision is having on people like you? As I mentioned in the introduction, more than half of the criminal charges laid by police in Ontario never actually made it to trial.

EMILY QUINT: Yeah. And so I think there are a lot of systemic changes that a lot of us survivors would like to see. And so I think what is so important is that the government and policymakers actually hear us because we do have voices and we've actually been through the process and we've experienced how heartbreaking and soul crushing it is. I think obviously, a big one is properly staffing the courts and ensuring sufficient funding is actually going to the courts because nothing is going to get through if cases aren't heard. I also think that what's so important is a survivor first and trauma informed process. So what leans into that is transparency. I think that was the hardest thing for me. It was there was no transparency. Like I had never heard about the possibility of my case being tossed. And so to find out about that in real time as it was happening is revictimizing, it is retraumatizing. And I think also noting that there should be multiple pathways to justice and healing because the criminal justice process as we know it is not working. It is failing. And so it is so important to take a good, long, hard look at it and address the root causes of why it's failing survivors.

MG: It's really hard to have a conversation about this. And I really just on a personal level, just appreciate you being willing to do this. It's important as well. And so thank you for that, but also take care of yourself, Emily.

EMILY QUINT: Thank you so much. I really appreciate it.

MG: Emily Quint’s case based on her allegations of sexual assault was stayed after, as you heard, it took too long to be heard. Since the beginning of last year, more than 400 criminal cases across this country have been dismissed, stayed or withdrawn because of Jordan challenges. Those include everything from sexual assault to child exploitation to drug trafficking. Simona Jellinek is senior counsel at Jellinek Ellis Gluckstein in Toronto. Her firm deals with people whose criminal cases were thrown out and who then turn to civil litigation. Simona, good morning to you.

SIMONA JELLINEK: Good morning. Thank you for having me.

MG: What goes through your mind when you hear Emily’s story? She says that the system failed her, that it was soul destroying.

SIMONA JELLINEK: It's heartbreaking. Emily's story is something that unfortunately, we hear almost on a weekly basis at my office. And it is gut wrenching.

MG: Can you just briefly remind us how the Jordan ruling came to be and what it was supposed to address in the system?

SIMONA JELLINEK: Sure. It was essentially supposed to address long delays between someone being charged and getting their day in court. And the Jordan principle makes sense on one level. Absolutely it does. But as we've heard in Emily's case, it really doesn't make sense on a lot of different levels.

MG: The limits now are, as I mentioned, 18 months for provincial courts, 30 months for superior courts. Are there exceptions to that rule to allow for more time?

SIMONA JELLINEK: That's a question better asked of a criminal defence lawyer as opposed to a civil lawyer, but I do believe there are some exceptions.

MG: We'll talk about that. We have a criminal defence lawyer who's going to follow our conversation. But in the wake of that, CBC is reporting that more than half of the criminal cases in Ontario have been stayed in part due to the Jordan limit. This is something that other provinces are dealing with as well.

SIMONA JELLINEK: Right.

MG: What's causing, I mean, again, as you understand it, what's causing the delays to get to the point where the Jordan ruling would apply?

SIMONA JELLINEK: Sure. Lots of different factors. I mean, Emily hit on one, which is the courts don't have enough funding to be able to adequately listen to all these cases in a timely manner. I do also think that sometimes, what happens is that some cases are significantly more complicated than others to bring to trial, sexual assault, murder, things of that nature being significantly more complicated than lesser offences. So you've got a one size fits all, but they are not one size cases.

MG: You've said that what flows out of the Jordan ruling, in your words, is fair to the accused. But the question that you asked, is it fair to society? Is it fair to society?

SIMONA JELLINEK: I believe that it is inherently unfair to society. Our criminal justice system is supposed to be there to make sure that if a crime is committed, there is a trial and it is a fair trial. But the fairness really only extends to the accused, the people who have been hurt as a result of those crimes or alleged crimes, what they need, what their rights are, are rarely, if ever, taken into consideration.

MG: So what needs to change? I mean, part of this is about funding, and I don't know where the funding comes from. Is that federal or is it provincial or?

SIMONA JELLINEK: Probably a little bit of both.

MG: What about the ruling itself, the Jordan ruling itself? Is there a need to rethink the limits that that ruling which was created for a specific reason, is there a point to rethink what has come out of that ruling and rethink those limits?

SIMONA JELLINEK: Yes, absolutely. I think that we as a society need to have a complete and utter revamp of our criminal justice system, especially when it comes to crimes such as sexual assault crimes, which are more complicated, often based on credibility, often based on factors that are not as simple as whether or not somebody stole a car. So I think that we as a society really do need to look at it, view it through a trauma informed lens, view it through a lens of fairness, and view it through a lens that survivors matter and what survivors need are just as important as what the accused may need.

MG: What does that mean? Does that mean not applying Jordan in sexual assault cases, for example?

SIMONA JELLINEK: No, not necessarily. I think that fundamentally, Jordan makes sense. It's just the complete wholesale abdication to what the survivor needs is what doesn't make sense. There's got to be a balance.

MG: Many of your clients have gone through the initial steps perhaps of a criminal trial and then come up against Jordan and then they turn to civil litigation. What does a civil case offer them?

SIMONA JELLINEK: Well, a civil case offers them lots of things that a criminal case doesn't. First and foremost, there aren't any time limits in civil cases. Our legislature realized back in 2016, interestingly enough, that sexual assault survivors should not be held to strict time limits, and that's why there is no limitation period to begin a case in sexual assault. It could have been 50 years ago and you still have the right to sue. The other thing that it offers is that you have a lawyer. That lawyer is there to protect your rights, to pursue your rights and to make sure that everything that the law can give you is there. In a criminal case, the crown is not your lawyer. The crown is the lawyer for the government, which is a very different thing. And one of the most important things, frankly, is that in a criminal case, the accused doesn't have to take the stand. The accused can decide not to take a stand and therefore not to be subjected to cross-examination. In a civil case, that option isn't available. And in cases about credibility, which is often in sexual assault cases, cross-examination is a very, very effective tool to get to the truth. And that happens in civil cases and not in criminal cases.

MG: I have to let you go, but what about the credibility of the justice system? Do you worry that stories like this.

SIMONA JELLINEK: Absolutely.

MG: That's your answer.

SIMONA JELLINEK: Absolutely. Yes.

MG: Simona, we'll leave it there. Thank you very much.

SIMONA JELLINEK: Thank you.

MG: Simona Jellinek is senior counsel at Jellinek Ellis Gluckstein in Toronto. Daniel Brown is a criminal defence lawyer, partner at Daniel Brown Law LLP, former president of the Criminal Lawyers Association. He's with me in studio. Good morning to you.

DANIEL BROWN: Hi. Good morning, Matt.

MG: Emily talked about how her case had been underway but then shut down due to Jordan limits. Is that the way that this ruling is supposed to work?

DANIEL BROWN: No, not at all. In fact, what we hope to happen, what we expect to happen is that the Jordan ceiling acts as an incentive to ensure that cases do make it under that hard ceiling, to make sure that cases are brought to justice, to make sure somebody like Emily gets her day in court, not years down the road, but maybe even months down the road. Speedy justice is not just good for an accused person who's facing the stigma of a criminal allegation, who’s facing the consequences immediately sometimes of a criminal charge, but also for somebody like Emily to ensure that she gets her day in court sooner than she needs to wait for.

MG: So what's causing the delays, as you understand it?

DANIEL BROWN: Well, there's a lot of factors. I mean, one thing we have to remember is that that delay clock doesn't start until the charge is laid. And so the Jordan decision was meant to be a culture change. And one of those culture changes may be the fact that we have to look at when charges are laid in the first place. Not to say that they shouldn't be laid, but the police can do investigation first and charge later. Often, what they do is they charge first and then start the investigation. And the evidence that is collected over time can delay the case and delay the case reaching trial. So what other provinces do other than in Ontario is they may wait to lay criminal charges. The crown attorneys who, when criminal charges are brought into the system, will screen those criminal charges before charges are laid to also ensure that other cases that need not be in the system, the ones that are consuming resources and taking up court time unnecessarily, those cases can be pushed aside. And the last thing that can also happen is just the idea that in Ontario, for example, cases are prosecuted using the standard of what they call a reasonable prospect of conviction. But when we think about what the burden of proof is, this proof beyond a reasonable doubt standard, there's sort of a far gap between those two ideas, what a prospect of conviction is versus proof beyond a reasonable doubt. In other provinces like British Columbia, they apply a substantial likelihood of conviction standard, which means that only the cases that are likely going to actually achieve that conviction are prosecuted in the first place. So when we think about just where we're dedicating resources, what's consuming the court's time, I mean, the justice system is a finite expense. We don't have unlimited money to put towards this.

MG: But then you end up choosing which criminal matters get, I mean, what we decide to invest in. What does that do to the integrity of the system?

DANIEL BROWN: How does the integrity of the system serve when we have cases that have no hope of ever meeting that proof beyond a reasonable doubt standard? It's not in anyone's interest for someone like Emily to go through the system where the case is apparently weak enough that it will never meet that high threshold. And that's not Emily's case per se, but somebody in that situation where there is an evidentiary gap that everyone recognizes on the front end, but no one is allowed to stop that case. So we have a lot of on ramps, a lot of ways to get a case in the system and not a lot of off ramps. Like we heard Emily talk about, alternative ways of holding people accountable, restorative justice options. We could consider whether or not other types of cases, the cases where we're prosecuting people that have drug addiction and mental health, whether those cases can be diverted out of the system much earlier on in the process to free up the highway for these cases to move through quickly.

MG: There's been accusations that some, I'm not suggesting you, but some criminal defence lawyers are weaponizing this, that this is a way to game in some ways a system. You drag things out, then cases come up against a Jordan ceiling and those cases are tossed out. Is that a reasonable concern?

DANIEL BROWN: I don't think so.

MG: This was something that was raised seven or eight years ago when Jordan came into place.

DANIEL BROWN: Absolutely. I think the one thing you have to recognize is that a defence lawyer who's causing delay, that delay is immediately subtracted from the delay in the system. We heard Ms. Jellinek talk about the idea that complex cases should have different rules. They do have different rules. The Jordan decision says that complex cases ought to be treated differently. The ceiling changes and we don't hold this hard ceiling to those complex case.

MG: So there are some exceptions.

DANIEL BROWN: Absolutely. When we talk about specific exceptional circumstances, when the Covid pandemic hit, all of that time that was caused when the courts shut down for Covid, that was removed. So these hard ceilings are flexible In some ways. The inflexibility comes from a case that really just should have made its way through the system quicker. And when we're talking about the numbers of cases, tens of thousands of cases across the country, maybe hundreds of thousands of cases, and we have 400 stayed for Jordan DeLay, I mean, the reason why these cases are not making it through the system is not always because they're taking too long.

MG: But I mean, we just have a few seconds.

DANIEL BROWN: Sure.

MG: You take Emily's example. You take… in those 400, some of them are sexual assault cases, some are child exploitation, as I mentioned, drug trafficking. What does that do to the integrity of the system? There's this idea that justice needs to be seen to be done in some ways. Some people wonder whether it's being seen.

DANIEL BROWN: Absolutely. And I think Emily has a real concern. We all have a real concern. We all have a real interest in a justice system that works. And ensuring that the cases that ought to be in the justice system are there is essential, but also ensuring that the cases that need not be there, the ones that could be screened out or investigated on the front end before the delay clock starts ticking. These are also easy solutions to this particular problem.

MG: Daniel, good to have you here. Thank you very much.

DANIEL BROWN: Thanks, Matt.

MG: Daniel Brown is a criminal defence lawyer, partner at Daniel Brown Law LLP. Your thoughts on this, welcome. You can email us, thecurrent@cbc.ca. Your CBC news is next. And then, the bet bugs have bitten.

SOUNDCLIP

SPEAKER: It makes you more invested in what's happening on TV because yeah, if the fighter that you bet on loses, then you lose your money, right? So you're really invested and you're really watching, hoping that you get the results that you're looking for.

MG: Sports betting is everywhere. It's changing game night for many fans. We'll talk about why The Lancet Public Health Commission on Gambling is calling gambling a global threat to public health. What do we do about that? We'll discuss coming up in six minutes. I'm Matt Galloway and this is The Current. Stay with us.

Surge in online sports betting fuelling addiction

Guests: Adam Pettle, Nigel Turner, Malcolm Sparrow

MG: Hello, I'm Matt Galloway and you're listening to The Current.

SOUNDCLIP

VOICE 1: Why do I do online sports betting? It's fun. It gets the dopamine up. It's good. It makes the game a lot more enjoyable to watch. Sometimes games can be a little like, boring. So, if you have a little bit of money in the game, it's makes it a little bit more fun.

MG: Online sports betting in Canada is booming, and Ontario is leading the charge with people in that province alone, placing something like $63 billion in online bets last year. For fans across the country, it's changing how they watch sports. Here is what some people in Vancouver told us about their online betting habits.

SOUNDCLIP

VOICE 2: I bet a lot on UFC fighters and a lot for boxing fighters as well. To be honest, I end up losing more than I win, but it's still fun. I usually only bet like $20 or $50 at a time. Sometimes I worry about the money for sure. I don't know if I have $50 to lose living in the city, but it's worth it most of the time.

VOICE 3: So I know a lot of people that obviously are in severe gambling debt.

VOICE 4: If you don't if you can't risk going to the grocery store to spend 200 bucks on groceries and don't spend it on gambling, that's well, I don't know. But it's easier said than done when you have, like, that mental attachment. The dopamine rush that you get from it can be pretty high. You just have to be...

VOICE 5: Don't bet money you don't have.

MG: Don't bet many money you don't have. As online betting has exploded in popularity, so has problem gambling. A recent report from the medical journal The Lancet calls gambling a worldwide global health threat. In Canada, calls to gambling addiction hotlines are way up. Adam Pettle is currently in recovery from a sports betting addiction. Adam, good morning.

ADAM PETTLE: Good morning. Thanks for having me.

MG: Thanks for being here. Go back to that moment that you first won big from gambling. What did that feel like?

ADAM PETTLE: Well, it's going back a long way, probably. You know, when I was 11 or 12 years old, I grew up at the racetrack and around gamblers. And it was a feeling of, of pure joy. You know, it's tough to describe, but it was just joy and also like a kind of suit of armour and came over me and I could take on the world and nothing could really affect me or, you know, hit me in the same way as long as I was in action.

MG: This was before online betting was legal in Canada. And you mentioned the racetrack. I mean, what were you betting on in particular?

ADAM PETTLE: At the end, I mean, everything I bet on. I bet on, I played cards. I loved to go to the racetrack. I bet sports big time. You know, I bet what colour the Gatorade poured on the winning Super Bowl coaches had to be, how long the national anthem would last in the Super Bowl. Anything I could bet on, I did.

MG: How did that change when online gambling appeared?

ADAM PETTLE: For me, drastically. I mean, it progressed to, you know, it's a progressive illness, in my opinion, addiction. And it progressed so rapidly when I had a casino sportsbook, a racetrack in my pocket 24 hours a day.

MG: On your phone?

ADAM PETTLE: Yeah. Yeah. And where I could be home, putting my kids to bed and gambling at the same time. It was like, you know, then the illusion and the delusion that I was, you know, being a good father. And you could. That, that was just it became so over accessible so quickly because I straddle both. You know, I started, I straddle the old world of gambling and the new world of gambling. So it was like just rapid. It was just like on steroids.

MG: When did you know that, that you had a problem with gambling?

ADAM PETTLE: Probably by the time I was a teenager, I knew that I didn't gamble like other people. I knew that I couldn't stop. I knew that I started hiding the way I was actually gambling, even while I was gambling. You know, I remember I went to Las Vegas when I was 16 or 17. And, you know, the trip to Vegas was like a ruse for what I was actually doing underneath it all, you know? So I knew I wasn't, I couldn't gamble like other people, but, you know, and cut to 30, 35 years later, like it took me a very, very long time to, to surrender finally and get help.

MG: What was that moment? Do you know, if you don't mind me asking, when you realised that the, the as you said, you know, the sportsbook in your pocket was ruining your life?

ADAM PETTLE: Yeah. I mean, it happened over, over 2020. I, you know, I just reached the point where I was completely defeated. I didn't, you know, I have such a beautiful family that I love so dearly. And I, I thought the only way out would be if, you know, they could cash in my life in terms of, I was so ruined and I didn't really want to, you know, be around anymore and, and was just so powerless to stop, you know, for like, the last year of my gambling career. It's such a funny word to use. I was conscious of what I was doing, which was the worst, you know, because I was in a dream world for so many years and on autopilot. But I don't know why, you know, whatever, you know, through its grace or, you know, bad luck, maybe, I don't know. But I woke up and it was so painful being conscious, watching myself do a thing that I couldn't stop.

MG: I mean, there's a financial cost to this as well. I mean, the phrase and it's a cliche because it's true, the house always wins. What did it cost you financially?

ADAM PETTLE: Oh, everything. I mean. I mean, not everything. I still, you know, I luckily still have my family and I'm rebuilding. But, you know, I had a, I was making a ton of money. I lost. We had to, you know, sell our family home because of my dad's. And we, you know, I spent everything you know, we lived large, too. And I and it wasn't just the gambling, but it's also the lifestyle and the mindset, you know? But...

MG: That suit of armour that you were talking about.

ADAM PETTLE: Yeah, Yeah. But absolutely everything, you know, like, it's just. It's impossible. There is no win big enough. You know, when I was making enough money for all my, the dreams that I had to come true and it's still, it's not a financial issue when you're a compulsive gambler or a gambling addict. It has nothing to do with money. It's the action and it's the drug, you know, so it's, it's like the money did it and it's hard to explain, but wins and losses don't matter when, when you're an addict.

MG: It's everywhere now. I mean, from the sports that you watch to the ads that pop up in your phone, to the billboards that are around the city that you might be in. What were, giving what you've gone through, what worries you the most when you see that kind of access to online betting?

ADAM PETTLE: What worries me the most is for my children and everybody's children. You know, when I say I had a casino in my pocket, I mean, you know, most people have phones now at 11 or 12, which means they do, too. And the exposure and normalisation of gambling to our kids is terrifying to me because, you know, the messaging from the industry is it's just a small percentage of addicts that it affects. And that might be true. Let's, like, let's say it's 10%. Now, hundreds of millions of new people are being exposed are kids. The marketing is aimed at young people. So, even if it remains 10%, which I don't think it will, that's 10% of hundreds of millions of new, we're just creating a new generation of, of addicts. And, and my kids come from four generations of compulsive gamblers. You know, my great grandfather, my great grandfather, you know, lost his only pair of shoes and came over from the shtetl with no shoes on because he lost them in a card game. You know, this is, this is an illness that is genetic and affects generations. And I'm terrified for the next generation.

MG: How are you doing now? And I ask you this in part because, again, if you watch sports on TV, these ads are everywhere. There was a study from Marketplace on CBC saying that viewers in Canada see gambling ads three times a minute during a sports broadcast. How, how do you go about avoiding those things?

ADAM PETTLE: Well, you can't. You can't. And to answer for, I'm, I'm doing really, really well now, thanks to, you know, an incredible recovery community, an incredible therapist, the most incredible family. But I couldn't do it alone, you know, and, and the. It's impossible to avoid exposure to it. I couldn't watch sports. I love sports. I watch sports for the first year and a half of my recovery. I ca--, I can now kind of, you know, through splayed fingers. Like I said in that article, it's like watching a horror movie. [MG: Yeah.] And, you know, but at least when I'm watching with my son or my daughter, you know, we're very open about it and transparent about my addiction and that the, what it can cost you sort of, you know, the dialogue in our household is. But, but, you know, I like it's the Wild West. It's completely and it's like, you know, there's no, it seems to be not sanctioned. It's like, you know, everybody smoked in the '50s and '60s and they were like, 'Oh, sorry, it's bad, it's bad for you.'

MG: I can understand, I mean, it's the kind of thing that I mean, you've been through it, so I can imagine it's a bit pointed for you. It's salty language included. I'm glad you're doing okay. And that that you would be willing to talk about this because it's a tough thing. Adam, thank you very much.

ADAM PETTLE: Thank you so much.

MG: Adam Pettle is currently in recovery for sports betting addiction. He is in Toronto.

MG: Nigel Turner is a scientist at the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, also in the city of Toronto. He's also an assistant professor at the University of Toronto's Dalla Lana School of Public Health, and his research focuses on gambling. Nigel, good morning to you.

NIGEL TURNER: Good morning.

MG: What is the explosion of online? I mean, it sounds obvious in some ways, but what is the explosion of online betting meant for problem gambling?

NIGEL TURNER: Well, as the previous guest said, it means it's very difficult to get away from the marketing. You're surrounded by it in terms of helpline statistics. So, this is the number of people calling the Ontario Problem gambling helpline. We've gone from a situation in 2019 where the majority of calls to the helpline were related to slot machines to now the majority of calls to the helpline are related to online gambling. So, that's quite a shift in the way in which people are gambling and the crisis that they are having. And the total number of calls to the helpline has increased.

MG: What just briefly, what do we know about what the ability to gamble anywhere almost at any time does to the brain? I mean, we heard, you know, about the dopamine hits that people are getting. We heard from Adam about the fact that it's not about the money. In some ways, it's about the experience of being in the game. What is that doing to us?

NIGEL TURNER: Well, gambling is thrilling. It's, it's a very exciting to the brain. And in part, partly that's because random chan--, our brain wants to organise the world, right? And when we experience gambling, which is actually random, our brain does its best to try and organise the world and make sense of that. And it actually enjoys that, enjoys that experience of randomness and dopamine is released and dopamine is a learning chemical, so it actually consolidates the behaviour that you're experiencing. So, you're gambling. The dopamine's released and it makes you want, it programs your brain to keep doing that. So, and the brain loves that randomness. So you get the highest, the strongest effect, that of pure random chance.

MG: You mentioned the problem gambling hotlines and some of your research has looked into some of the data around that in the province of Ontario. What are the demographics of the people who are calling those hotlines?

NIGEL TURNER: Well, this is one of the interesting things that there's also been a shift. As well as being a shift in terms of what people are gambling on, there's a shift in who's gambling. The online gambling appeals more to males, and it appeals more to younger people. So there is that demographic shift towards younger people calling the helpline, whereas prior to 2019 that the, the, it was more, it was more, it was equally balanced between males and females. And the distribution was well across the ages. It's now shifted towards relatively more younger males who are gambling.

MG: And what are they saying? As far as you understand it, what are they saying about the fact that they believe their gambling is problematic?

NIGEL TURNER: Well that the helpline, it's, it's an anonymous helpline and there's very little information that's recorded. So. But when people call in, in a crisis over a gambling problem that's reported, that's recorded as a problem gambling contact. In terms of why people think that it's a problem, it's, it's based on, mostly it's based on related to a crisis over money because it is money ultimately that is the primary harm caused by gambling, and that results in additional harm from relationships, that emotional harm from losing your life savings, potential career harm, especially if somebody has access to money at work and starts embezzling, they could end up in prison. So, there's a whole bunch of secondary consequences from gambling. The first and foremost is the lack is this, the disappearance of money from one's life.

MG: I mean, there are a lot of people who gamble and there are a lot of people who enjoy gambling. You yourself don't mind a bit of blackjack now and again, I understand.

NIGEL TURNER: I like blackjack. I like poker. I love the sound of a roulette ball rolling around the roulette wheel. Yeah. Most people who gamble, gamble very small amounts. Modest amounts, amounts they can afford. 90% of the people who gamble, gamble within reasonable limits. But a desperate. But there's that, that the rest gamble far more than they can afford. And they are the ones who are getting into trouble from gambling. And most people actually understand that gambling is a waste of money. Then, and it's fun. It's a fun, it's a fun way to waste your money. And that's the way you should look at gambling. You know, it's a fun way to waste your money. It's not a way to make money. And if you think this is a way to make money, you're in the wrong field. You're doing the wrong thing.

MG: What do you make of those ads that, as I said, are almost incessant on television? I mean, there, there's, there's a fun tone that runs through many of them. Are you concerned about not just the ads, but how frequently they're shown?

NIGEL TURNER: I'm concerned about the frequency. I'm concerned about the timing, the fact that, you know, they're inundated during sports games. A lot of youth watch these sports games, too, as they admire the game. And they're being inundated with these ads. They're being programmed essentially to want to gamble. And I'm concerned about, you know, when they they're, whether they're gambling now, which is mostly private, that's if they're under the age of 19. And whether that will turn into a lifelong dependency on gambling, a problem that will emerge when they, when they become legally able to gamble. So, we're concerned about that. I think there's too much advertising. We're being too saturated. I mean, if people really want to gamble, they'll gamble without the, without needing to be constantly swamped by the ads.

MG: We asked the Alcohol and Gaming Commission in Ontario, this is the organisation that regulates online gambling for an interview. No one was available to talk with us, but they sent us a statement. It reads in part that they're the only North American jurisdiction that requires operators to continuously monitor their players' betting patterns, intervene to assist players who might be at risk. As a result, over the last year, regulated iGaming operators in Ontario proactively intervened an average of almost 600 times per month to reassess patrons' risk levels, contact players directly, attempt to reduce potential risk or limit or exclude players from gambling altogether. Is that enough, do you think, to deal with the concerns that you have?

NIGEL TURNER: Well, I don't know if it's enough. I mean, the fact that we do have people calling the helpline who are reporting having problems. I mean, I will say that, you know, compared to prior to the legalisation of wide open online gambling in Ontario, back when we, it's licensed. Prior to that licensing process that started in April 2022, who knows what you were going to get and the amount of information for people who were having problems was very splotchy at best. Hit and miss. You may, there's some, some of, like I went on to a number of the, these grey market sites that were not legal licensed in Ontario prior to 2022, and some of them had helpline information, some of them had responsible gambling information, but there was no required regulation. So, I do think that we do have a lot of good information on the sites in Ontario, but I don't know if it's enough, and I think it should be more prominent. And one of the big things that's lacking is a comprehensive self-exclusion program, which is the first line of sort of defence that people have that they can they can exclude themselves, but if they exclude themself from one site, they're not excluded from the other sites, which I think is a weakness of the current system. But I do think we, the regulated market, there are some good things about that. The fact that it is that you, that it is regulated, that it is a known quantity. But on the other hand, I think there are, there's more they could do to engage with problem gamblers and make it easier for them to quit.

MG: Nigel, thank you very much for this.

NIGEL TURNER: You're welcome.

MG: Nigel Turner is a scientist at the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, also an assistant professor at the University of Toronto's Dalla Lana School of Public Health.

MG: Malcolm Sparrow is a co-author of this recent report from The Lancet Public Health Commission on Gambling, also Professor in the practice of public management at Harvard's John F Kennedy School of Government. Malcolm, hello to you.

MALCOLM SPARROW: Good morning, Matt.

MG: This report in The Lancet looked at the gambling industry and it called that industry and its effects globally a worldwide health threat. Why that language?

MALCOLM SPARROW: Because that was the purpose of the commission was to sort of establish the global picture and to raise awareness of gambling as a major public health issue and to do so at a particular point in time, given the trajectory of rapid growth that we seem to be on.

MG: Why? Why specifically public health, though? Why? Why? And what does that mean when it's looked at as a public health issue?

MALCOLM SPARROW: It puts gambling in the same category as tobacco and alcohol. Things that we probably mostly won't prohibit entirely because a lot of people enjoy them. But where, where there is established link with detrimental outcomes: Health, financial, employment, etc..

MG: This is a big part of, of the issue itself. And one of the things that the report points out is that the industry presents gambling as a source of employment and revenue, a form of leisure, harmless fun for the majority of people who gamble responsibly. What's wrong with that framing?

MALCOLM SPARROW: This is actually a framing that really suits the purposes of the industry. And what they like to say is that gamblers fall neatly in two categories. There's the recreational gamblers for whom it's nothing but harmless fun. And then, there's this very small sliver of people who get into trouble and that the industry is prepared to help and support. There's a number of things wrong with this framework. First of all, and perhaps most importantly, it diverts attention from corporate conduct. It puts the whole onus for controlling harms on the individual consumer. And meanwhile, the gambling operators are designing products to be as addictive as possible. They are, they are using very clever techno--, technological means to create an immersive experience that will hold a person on an app for as long as possible. They want to get consumers into the zone where they lose track of time and how much they're losing. So, it's putting all of the attention on the individual gambler. Secondly, it's worth noting that the whole business model for the gambling industry depends on heavy gambling. More than half of the revenue comes from people who are heavy gamblers. And many of them, even if they don't reach the sort of clinical standard for disordered gambling, they're somewhere on the at risk spectrum. And so the industry's profitability actually depends on risky gambling behaviours. And you can tell that because if a heavy gambler tries to stop in many jurisdictions, the operators will go after them and entice them back with personalised and special offers and bonus bets, knowing full well that they're not only, will lose the $200 or $500 that they've been given, but they'll carry on and lose more of their own money. And if that weren't the case, then they wouldn't use these strategies.

MG: We're out of time. But let me just ask you very briefly. I mean, if this is about public health, is it possible to regulate it in the same way as alcohol and tobacco?

MALCOLM SPARROW: A long-term dream would be that we would do exactly that. The Framework Convention on Tobacco Control is a UN treaty. 180 countries signed up, and they're unapologetic about the mission it is to reduce consumption worldwide. That is a very different idea than just providing medical help for those that develop lung cancer. It is a population level control.

MG: Malcolm, we'll leave it there. Good to have you on the program. Thank you very much.

MALCOLM SPARROW: Thank you.

MG: Malcolm Sparrow is co-author of a recent report from The Lancet Public Health Commission on Gambling. Also, Professor, the practice of public management at Harvard's John F. Kennedy School of Government. These ads are everywhere, and public consumption of those gambling sites is at an all-time high in many places. Your thoughts on this. Is it too late to put the horse back in the barn? You can email us: thecurrent@cbc.ca. [Music: Theme fading in] We're back in 90 seconds. We'll talk about Someone Knows Something, season nine. That's coming up.

[Music: Theme]

And the search for Christine Harron

Guests: David Ridgen, Mary Ann Russwurm

MG: Hello again. I'm Matt Galloway. You're listening to The Current. On May 18th, 1993, Christine Harron spent the morning with her mother, skipping school, watching television at their home in Hanover, Ontario. It was a week after her 15th birthday. And then, the truant officer from her school called. Christine argued with her mom, then left for school around 1 p.m. and she never came home.

SOUNDCLIP

MARY ANN RUSSWURM: When she didn't show home, I started phoning her friends and my family just to see if maybe she went to one of her friend's house after school or something and nobody had seen or heard from her. So, then the family and I, we started going out and looking for her, looking in parks and in the area just to see if she was someplace else and just hadn't come home yet.

MG: That's Christine's mother, Mary Ann. She phoned the police that night, but they told her it was too soon to do anything.

SOUNDCLIP

MARY ANN RUSSWURM: What we actually got from the Hanover police chief himself was that his daughter runs away a lot, takes off for days. So mine probably did the same thing.

MG: Mary Ann stayed up all night waiting for her daughter and worrying. But Christine was gone. It was a cold case for years until the investigative filmmaker David Ridgen started looking into it. And thanks to his work, Christine's killer is now behind bars. But there are still many unanswered questions. David Ridgen is host, writer and producer of the CBC podcast, Someone Knows Something. Season nine is the Christine Harron case. David joins us now. David, good morning.

DAVID RIDGEN: Good morning, Matt.

MG: Your involvement with this story started, as I mentioned, you were a documentary filmmaker and you were looking at doing a documentary about this for The National, and you said that there was something about this case that spoke to you. What was it that spoke to you about Christine's case?

DAVID RIDGEN: Well, I've been doing this since 2004. As you say, I'm a documentary filmmaker and I was developing some television documentaries for CBC back in the late 2000s about unsolved disappearances and murders. And I recall Chrissy's case, Chrissy, as her mom calls her. I attended a memorial service for her in Hanover at the Lutheran Church, just to do some initial research and something about the service. Her photo was up there at the front. I hadn't met Mary Ann yet or anybody really. Some police were at the front. Something about how people spoke about her. And I remember saying something to the associate producer I was with her at the time and I said "Chrissy was someone I wish we had been able to meet." And that was something that I felt strongly. And I remember feeling that kind of heat of frustration about her case that maybe I could help.

MG: You also say I mean, in the in the opening episode of season nine, that I mean, there were tears on your face for somebody that you'd never met.

DAVID RIDGEN: Yeah, it's a feeling that just ca--, comes over me and sometimes I get choked up and can't speak at those moments. And at that time, there were some tears I do recall.

MG: So go back to, to August of 2004. What happened after this case? I mentioned it was a cold case. It was cold for over 11 years.

DAVID RIDGEN: So in August 2004, at a party with family members, a man aged 35 at the time, near the end of the evening after some drinks and some kind of upset, apparently with his family, started telling people that he had killed Christine Harron. And he picked up the phone, dialled 911, then he hung up. But the police responded anyway, based on the 911 hang up, which they do in Ontario. And then this man confesses to the police officer that turns up and says, "I killed Chrissie" and says, "I can show you where I left her, where I buried her." And at the time, 11 years earlier when Chrissy disappeared, the guy would have been 24 years old and his name was Anthony Edward Ringel, and he had worked at the local Canadian Tire but was unemployed in May 1993. When I met him, he was living between locations, including a family member's house and a local trailer park.

MG: What do we know about what may have happened? I mean, I want to ask about, about what happened with the case, given the fact that he called police. But what do we know about what may have happened that day in 1993?

DAVID RIDGEN: Well, we know what we know based on what Anthony told police. So after he was arrested in 2004, he was taken to the police station and interviewed extensively over many hours. And after that, he is jailed and goes through the stages of what would have been a murder trial in 2006. And everything that he told police was in documents that had been sitting around doing nothing until I had found them in the archives. But this trial that was allegedly going to happen in 2006, the judge throws out the case because basically police errors. The case is stayed for a year. Ringel was freed. Nothing new happens, and it just ends. Anthony still lived in the area at the time. Nobody did anything. No reporter talked to him. No police action could be seen to be happening. And this is 2006. So, you add three more years and I come on the scene in 2009 and eventually I meet with Chrissy's mother, Mary Ann.

MG: Tell me how you met with Mary Ann.

DAVID RIDGEN: Well, I, it was a series of phone calls. And then I met Mary Ann, where she currently lives, and we spoke about the case and we decided, I think, on the basis of trying to find out more, trying to find out what happened, exploring together these dark places that we would go forward and do that. And it's been 15 years that we've been working together.

MG: Mary Ann is on the line with us now. Mary Ann, good morning to you.

MARY ANN RUSSWURM: Good morning.

MG: It's been over 30 years since Chrissy disappeared. How are you doing?

MARY ANN RUSSWURM: Not so good. Every day is a challenge for me. I have really bad nightmares every night that do with her where I'm trying to reach her and save her, and I can't. So, I have post-traumatic stress disorder. So, it is a challenge. Every day is like the same day being lived over and over and over.

MG: That's really hard. [MARY ANN RUSSWURM: Yes.] I'm sorry. Tell me a little bit about, about what she was like.

MARY ANN RUSSWURM: Chrissy, aww. She was so easy to love, is she wasn't one to go to parties or things like that. She was more of a loner. She had a few close friends. She loved being around children, hated going to school, though. She just detested going to school. Very, very smart, though. She wanted to be home schooled and that was something I was going to look into for her. But, you know, she was just a beautiful child. She got along with everyone.

MG: Which is why I mean, you mentioned not going, wanting to go to school. That's why she was home with you that morning on the 18th of May.

MARY ANN RUSSWURM: Yes. She wasn't feeling well, so she. I was sitting on the couch and she had her head in my lap and I was going to allow her to stay at home. At the truant officer had called and threatened to charge me if she didn't go to school. So I made her go that day, that afternoon.

MG: What has it been like? I mean, you talked about how difficult it is and the nightmares that you're living through. What has it been like all these years looking for answers?

MARY ANN RUSSWURM: It's been difficult. It's been a fight. Right from day one. You know, it was a fight to try to get the OPP to come in and take over the case. Back then, it wasn't allowed. So it was years of fighting before I could get them to come in. And it seemed that every time there was somebody different handling the case, they made so many mistakes that everything got thrown out. So, it was the town police that made mistakes. It was the OPP that worked out of Walkerton area. They made all their mistakes. And then, finally another group of OPP officers came on from a cold case. But it's been a fight the whole time just to try to get some justice for her.

MG: Given that, what was it like to have David come in to the scene when he did in the wake of, of that case falling apart and you still looking for answers? What was that like to have David there?

MARY ANN RUSSWURM: Well, at first it was a little uneasy because the OPP had warned me about talking to him. A point blank said, Do not talk to him.

MG: What were they concerned about?

MARY ANN RUSSWURM: I don't know. They said if I started talking to him that maybe the case would get thrown out again. And they didn't want that. But, you know, they weren't doing anything. So I thought, you know, I'll speak with David, see what he's about, you know, what he wants to do. Give him a chance.

MG: David, what do you make of that? That the OPP would, would warn Mary Ann against talking to you?

DAVID RIDGEN: I think it's regular training for police. Sort of goes back to what must be the 1930's. It's kind of an antiquated. I do understand that police don't want information hold back or whatever going out there. Mary Ann didn't know when to hold back. She didn't know any information to talk about, mainly except for what happened the day Chrissy disappeared. But I understand police not wanting to talk to media. You know, I'm a long form worker. I don't go away. I don't grab information and put it on the news that night kind of thing. But sometimes, police have been written in the past. But also, I think there's obviously some reasons why police would not want media attention on this case, which the podcast shows.

MG: Yeah. Why was it important for you to have her as part of, of this story, to have Mary Ann there?

DAVID RIDGEN: Well, I always work with family members on my cases because I think it's proof against exploitation since the family members want to work with me off the top and have approached me, or at least they've agreed to go through the what I call the SKS process with me. I'm out there, people can listen or watch my films. They know who I am and what kinds of things we could get up to. So, SKS was designed as a self-healing program, as much of a, as much as a true crime one, I would say. And it's my belief and I've seen the proof that facilitating these kinds of journeys into darkness of cases so that family members can confront details and maybe even meet some of the people they may have always thought might know something can lead to a kind of self-healing, kind of like an exorcism. Yes, someone did call me the Antichrist the other day for working on the abortion doctor shooting season. I'll tell you, Matt. So maybe I'm at least an exorcist. But anyway, directly being involved in cases means that family members have the opportunity to be agents in uncovering the truth they need. It's not a perfect process, and it can take time. I worked for, as I said, for 15 years on the Christine Harron case so far. It's not over yet, but I can see some change in those I've worked with, some a lot of change. We all experienced trauma where, we all experienced sudden loss even, but we don't all experience it where we don't have answers as to why. And we may not even have the remains of the person or know where they are. So, victims' family members in these cases suffer a kind of guilt that never really goes away. Why wasn't I there to help my daughter? Why did I let my son go play in the park? I shouldn't have argued with him the last day before he disappeared or I shouldn't have let her go to school, as in Mary Ann's case, and victims' family members reorganise their lives around trying to solve not only the case but themselves. And I think the ethics process someone knows something process gives them a big self-healing boost along the way.

MG: How closely were you working with Mary Ann in this case?

DAVID RIDGEN: We worked very closely together, I would say. Many times I was in the field, Mary Ann was either there with me or nearby. And as new things were learned, we would convene and assess on the best course of action. And I would share as much as I possibly could with Mary Ann about what I was getting from the courts and the police. Hundreds, thousands of pages of documents about what was actually going on in this case throughout the 2000s.

MG: Mary Ann, how has being involved in this with David, how has that helped you?

MARY ANN RUSSWURM: It's helped a lot. He's given me information that I would not have known from anywhere else. Working with David, like my family says, he's part of our family. We work that close together. We consider him that. But he has helped me tremendously.

MG: He says you were really brave over the course of this process, and I want to play an example of that. Have a listen to this. This is from the early days of his investigation.

SOUNDCLIP

DAVID RIDGEN: So, Mary Ann, tell me what we're doing this morning.

MARY ANN RUSSWURM: This morning, we're going to see if Anthony Ringel will speak to me. Just try to get some answers out of him. If he actually did something to Christine or why he confessed, if he didn't.

MG: Why did you want to do that, Mary Ann? Why did you want to go and confront the man who's accused of killing your daughter?

MARY ANN RUSSWURM: Well, I wanted answers. That simple. You know, why would he do it to her? You know, where did he leave her? Where can we find her body so that she can have a decent burial? That's what was on my mind. I needed answers. And any time I would see him on the street, I would try to get to him. Tried to get answers. I was never afraid of him.

MG: You would see him on the street?

MARY ANN RUSSWURM: Yes, I'd see him walking and I would try even running towards him. But he'd run away from me.

MG: That's a pretty brave thing to do.

MARY ANN RUSSWURM: I didn't realise that at the time. I just wasn't afraid. I wanted answers where she was.

MG: Did he ever agree to talk to you?

MARY ANN RUSSWURM: No, he will not.

MG: He will not. Not even in the past. But even now, he won't agree to talk to you?

MARY ANN RUSSWURM: No. No, he won't talk to me.

MG: David, you did manage to speak with him, right?

DAVID RIDGEN: I did speak to him. Yeah, I spoke directly to him in his trailer at the trailer park. It was a long conversation, and he opened up and it was definitely revealing, I would say the conversation.

MG: And over the course of the conversation, a lot comes out. What was it that eventually led to his conviction?

DAVID RIDGEN: So from 2009 to 2012, Mary Ann and I gathered a ton of information about Chrissy's case, the court drama where the case is stayed. I speak to Ringel, as we talked about, and lots of others all on camera, because I'm shooting this for a documentary for television. And all of that goes into a 20- minute TV doc made for CBC. It goes to air in spring of 2012. Then shortly after that documentary goes to air, police start an undercover operation on Anthony Ringel in the same trailer park where I met him. And the podcast tells his whole story, too, and then picks up where the TV show left off and tells the rest of the tale of how it all happened. And the work Mary Ann and I did is literally used by police so they can, again, arrest Anthony Ringel in February 2013. Except this time when he's arrested, the trial goes forward in 2016 and Anthony Ringel is convicted and is now serving a life sentence here in Ontario in a federal pen for second-degree murder of Christine Harron. I think it's pretty amazing. And I don't self-aggrandise a lot. I don't like to talk that way, but I'm proud that the work did its job.

MG: What are you most proud of? I mean, you're welcome to blow your own horn here. What are you most proud of?

DAVID RIDGEN: Just that the fact that spending so much time has helped Mary Ann to learn the truth about what happened. Some of her questions at least, were answered. Not all of them. Happy that in some way, the work was directly used by police. It's, it just means that the work I am doing is has a meaning, is meaningful and has in the past. But in this case, it's fairly dramatic.

MG: What about for you, Mary Ann? I mean, in the podcast you say that that there's no such thing as closure. And I wonder what that, what that word means to you, given what you have gone through.

MARY ANN RUSSWURM: Well, there is no closure is a word that I actually hate because you're only hearing his side of the story. So, you don't know whether he's exaggerated or whether he's telling the truth, you know? So, yeah, I don't like that. I don't have closure. I don't have my answers as to what happened that day. But without David's help, he would not be behind bars because they weren't doing their job until he did the documentaries.

MG: What does that word mean to you, David? I mean, it's a word that people run away from often because it doesn't mean, to some people, it doesn't mean anything at all. And yet, it's a word that's often used in narratives like this.

DAVID RIDGEN: Yeah, it's a good question. Closure is a media expression, I believe, that is meant to imply that there's a beginning, middle and end to every story, and that when we find out who did something, it's the end. And it isn't, closure's bullshit. And most, if not all, the victims' family members I have known and worked with have said something like Mary Ann just did. We find out the truth, we find a perpetrator, the gavel falls, but the loss is still there. We don't know where Chrissy is yet. All the questions are not answered yet, if they can ever be. Sometimes, it can be cold comfort to hear that closure is an ephemeral concept, but in fact I think it's a healthy part of surviving to recognise that it is. And that's what it's all about. Surviving these cases, surviving, growing, trying to self-heal, having an agency to continually strive for being satisfied with yourself and being happy.

MG: So, what are, what are the things you're still searching for in this?

DAVID RIDGEN: Well, I've been trying to get Anthony to speak to Mary Ann, and that's going to continue. That's a process that is going to continue reaching out to him, his lawyer and through the institutions. We're also still searching for Chrissy. And there's an attempt or attempts made, and we're going to continue that search as well. And anything else Mary Ann wants to do, I'm there.

MG: Why, why is it important for you that he speaks to her?

DAVID RIDGEN: Because Mary Ann has the questions. And I think direct access, direct confrontation with, with those kinds of people are important for victims' family members. And I think it's important that Mary Ann gets that chance.

MG: Mary Ann, if you had that chance, what are the questions that you would ask this man?

MARY ANN RUSSWURM: I'd want to know why he did it. Why, how? Where he left her. Like, there's a million questions going through my brain that I want answers to from him, and only he can give them to me. So, it's difficult. And I don't understand why he's afraid to talk to me. I don't understand that he's already in jail. You know, nothing more can happen to him. So why not give me the truth?

MG: If he did that, if he spoke to you, what do you think those answers would give you?

MARY ANN RUSSWURM: Just a little more knowledge of that day. Like, I can't believe everything he says because, you know, it's just his version. You know, what really happened, you know? So, it's, it's tough. But I want answers to everything. I've waited so long for them. The police won't give me my answers that I need. They won't tell me anything. I've asked them to reveal all of the undercover tapes and everything of Ringel, and they won't even do that. I've been fighting for that for years now.

MG: You've been fighting for this alongside David for a long time. And I wonder what his persistence and his, his, I don't know want to say obsession. But in some ways it is with this story, what that says to you.

MARY ANN RUSSWURM: That someone cares. Someone cares enough to help me find the answers I need. Like I said, David is family to me and to the rest of my family. You know, what he has done for us is remarkable.

MG: David, in that first episode, and this goes back to what we said at the very beginning. There's, you say that there's something about this story that keeps pulling you back and I just, just finally I mean, having worked on a number of these, this is season nine, but having worked on this, these a number of these sorts of stories, what it's like for you to hear from Mary Ann that this is work, but you're also now family.

DAVID RIDGEN: Thanks, Mary Ann, for including me in your family with the Chihuahuas. To me, Chrissy just seemed forgotten, like all the cases that I've worked on, actually. Forgotten or let down by everyone but our family. And I just wanted to make sure that didn't continue, and that that's sort of the thing that helps to drive me and the feeling that there is something that can help. And all those answers may not come. We have a lot of the information and some of the information I didn't share with Marianne, and Mary Ann knows that. Some of it was very difficult information in these videos. The undercover operation, we talked about it and some someday that information may be, you know, passed on whenever Mary Ann is ready for that.

MG: David, thank you very much for this. [DAVID RIDGEN: Thank you.] And Mary Ann, it's good to talk to you. Thank you very much. And take care of yourself.

MARY ANN RUSSWURM: You're welcome. Thank you.

MG: David Ridgen is the host, writer and producer of Someone Knows Something, The Christine Herron Case from CBC Podcasts. Mary Ann is Christine Harron's mother. The first two episodes of that podcast are available now wherever you listen to podcasts, and you can find episode one on The Current's podcast feed.

MG: That is The Current for this Wednesday, the 13th of November. Q's up next on CBC Radio One. Before we go, British Columbians and people beyond that province's borders are mourning the loss of the former premier of B.C., John Horgan.

SOUNDCLIP

JOHN HORGAN: My mom, Alice, taught me at a very early age that the best you can do is all you can do.

MG: In February of 2023, John Horgan said an emotional goodbye to the B.C. legislature as he announced he was retiring as an MLA.

SOUNDCLIP

JOHN HORGAN: I have tried over 18 years in this place as an MLA, 30 years working here, 63 years, drawing breath to try and make it better every day for the people around me. And I want to thank you all for allowing me to say today how important that has been for me, for my family, and for my community. I loved every minute of it, and I can't say any more than that inside the house. But thanks for everything, all of you.

MG: John Horgan served as B.C.'s New Democrat Premier for five years, stepping down in 2022 to focus on his health after a cancer diagnosis. He was one of the most popular premiers in the history of British Columbia, sometimes called Premier Dad. He was praised for his advocacy for workers, his caring, his humour, his love of Star Trek and his leadership through the pandemic. Last year, he was appointed Canada's ambassador to Germany. John Horgan died yesterday in Victoria. He was 65 years old. And the response from people across party lines and across this country was quite something. John Horgan loved music and we thought we would leave you this morning with a song by his favourite band, The Skydiggers. This is "I Will Give You Everything." I'm Matt Galloway. Thanks for listening to The Current, and we'll see you tomorrow.

[Music: I Will Give You Everything by Skydiggers]

[Music: Theme]

Wednesday, November 13, 2024 Full Transcript

Social Sharing