Keelman testified that since he was first retained, the investment policies and goals of the Saint John Pension board were entirely in line with national standards, and its investment decisions were not contrary to API's advice. When asked by pension board lawyer Barry Morrison how the performance of the SJ pension board from 2002-2007 compared to boards elsewhere, Keelman responded glowingly: “It was fantastic. The pension board is a group of astute people who spend a lot of time looking into their investment affairs. They're not an easy audience for me or anyone else.”
Asked whether API makes a habit of dealing with clients with poor reputations, he stated, “If we don't have a sterling reputation, we could be sued for errors and omissions. We turn down business from people with bad reputations.” Keelman said API continued to work with the pension board even after Mr Ferguson's comments allegedly defamed its reputation, adding he knew nothing of the remarks.
Later on, former pension board trustee Fred Slipp was called for further cross-examination. Lawyer Rod Gillis attempted to show that Slipp and his fellow trustees failed to nip the unfunded liability in the bud. He also suggested they were lax in deciding who deserved disability pensions. Slippp described the fallout from Ferguson's 2006 comment that “any attempt to push the issue under the carpet wouldn't last forever.” He told the court, “I had a number of people come up to me and ask me what the pension plan was pushing under the rug. I tried to tell them [it] wasn't trying to sweep anything under the rug—but they didn't seem to understand that.”
