Maxwelg, condolences to you and your coworkers, as well as anybody else touched by this tragedy.
Here is a quote from the CADOR's website:
"the information within should be treated as preliminary, unsubstantiated and subject to change"
The problem with CADOR's is it updated by several different agencies often simultaneously. This is why your post contains many duplicate entries for the same event. They are often entered by persons with second hand information with limited knowledge of the actual event. Unfortunately the media and laypersons get a hold of these and read more into them than they are worth.
If you take a thorough look at the occurances there is 16 +/- specific events.
3 and possibly a couple more are related to the GE engine for which Sikorsky is not responsible.
2 are unkown/unreported problems so that leaves at most 11 occurances related to the airframe. This is for Cougar's 6 S92's the first starting operations 4 years ago in 2005.
Many of the problems were false indications/warnings which are everyday occurances in aviation. Although they have to be treated seriously which it appears they were in every case.
There are a couple that were serious defects that could affect safety if not corrected. Interestingly the CADOR on 12/18/2006 involved low oil pressure but it does not specify which part of the machine.
I am not saying the 92 has no known problems, and hopefully the investigation results in improved safety and reliability.
I hope this helps put the CADOR's in perspective.
A much more reliable source of aircraft defects are the Transport Canada and FAA Service Difficulty Reporting system (SDR). These are required by law and entered by the company involved, usually by the Director of Maintenance or Quality Assurance. This is what the manufacture's and regulatory authorities use to identify problem areas with aircraft.