Day 47 (cont’d) & Day 48

Note:  I am a poor note-taker and these summaries will contain errors and omissions which will reflect my limitations.  My intention is to report on the facts as accurately as possible although a subconscious bias may creep in.  I can only provide glimpses into what I see as relevant and interesting events. My goal is to capture the essence of the day’s events rather than be comprehensive.

Read the reference documents: The Legal Case and Events Leading to Trial to obtain an understanding of the case and its history.  Names and terms are abbreviated and defined in  Glossary.

Evidence of Avnish Nanda

(Direct Examination by Mr. Franken)

Mr. Nanda is an Edmonton lawyer who described himself as an advocate of pluralism, multiculturalism, and racial equity.  In 2019 he published 77 tweets about Caylan and authored an op-ed published in the Edmonton Journal.  He never met or talked to Caylan.

He testified extensively about his family history, noting that he comes from two successive generations of refugees who experienced extreme religious violence in India.  His grandparents were displaced by the partition of India and Pakistan, and his parents by religious strife in the Punjab.  He grew up hearing accounts of refugee experiences, ethno‑nationalist conflict, and the challenges faced by minorities in democratic societies.

He is the first generation in his family born in Canada and grew up in racialized, majority‑minority neighbourhoods.  His family was steeped in Hindu art, culture, and languages.

Summary of Mr. Nanda’s Evidence

• In 2019, Mr. Nanda was very active on Twitter, engaging with political and social justice issues.

• He first became aware of Caylan after reading a Toronto Star article about the Christchurch massacre, which mentioned that a UCP candidate had resigned after it came to light that she was “saddened by the demographic replacement of white peoples in their homelands.”

• He read additional articles about Caylan, including the Licia Corbella profile.

• On March 23, he began tweeting about Caylan, stating that she had made “fairly insane, dog whistle white supremacist racism” comments, that she should not be a political candidate, and that her views were “abhorrent.”

• He testified that he “knew” Caylan’s quoted statements were white nationalist or white supremacist.

• He could not reconcile Caylan’s denunciations of violence and extremism with what he believed were white supremacist statements.

• He felt a personal duty to confront racism because of his family’s refugee history.

Tweets and Public Statements

On March 24, Mr. Nanda published multiple tweets asserting that:

• Caylan’s ideas were “race hatred”;

• she had never apologized or retracted her statements;

• she showed “weird denial, lack of contrition” and had doubled down;

• she propagated falsehoods;

• she was a leader of “white supremacist propaganda”;

• she was associated with the “bozo candidate” problem.

He also retweeted a post calling Caylan an “unapologetic white supremacist.” Other tweets equated “population replacement” with “White genocide” and “race hatred.”

Mr. Nanda testified that he tweeted Caylan multiple times requesting her story, though none of these tweets remain online because he deleted them. Caylan denies ever receiving such tweets, and no documentary evidence supports Mr. Nanda’s claim.

He communicated on Twitter with Lebrun and Magusiak of Press Progress. He “tagged” Caylan in his tweets and considered this an invitation for her to respond, though at the time she was being tagged hundreds of times per day.

He had no recollection of Caylan tweeting him to invite him for coffee.

He believed Caylan needed to apologize and repudiate her quoted statements. He felt Alberta media did not sufficiently cover racial issues.

A March 26 tweet by Nanda inferred that Caylan was “peddling dangerous racist conspiracy theories and extreme white nationalist rhetoric.” Tweet Analytics showed that this tweet received 24,000 impressions, 143 likes, and 134 retweets or quote‑tweets.

On March 27, he tweeted that Caylan’s statements reflected racism and white supremacy, and that she espoused racist theories.

Edmonton Journal Op‑Ed

In June, the Edmonton Journal published his op‑ed, Opinion: White Supremacy has no place in Alberta. In it, he wrote that Caylan:

• was “channeling a well-known white supremacist conspiracy theory that warns of white people being supplanted in Europe and North America by non-white, often non-white, often non-Christian populations”;

• was “peddling racist conspiracy theories” that denigrate marginalized communities;

• “holds dangerous political views.”

He referenced “gruesome acts of violence,” including the Christchurch massacre, presumably to imply association. He inferred that Caylan espoused a worldview that placed him, as a racialized person, inferior to her.

Rachel Notley was among those who publicly commended the article.

Reaction to the Danielle Smith Interview

On March 29, Danielle Smith interviewed Caylan. That same day, Mr. Nanda published 15 tweets criticizing both Caylan and Ms. Smith. He did not consider the interview to be real journalism. He criticized Ms. Smith for not putting the quoted statements to Caylan and for not eliciting an apology.

He believed Albertans were looking to him to help voters make informed decisions and wanted to present the perspective of a racialized Albertan.

Day 48 – Continuation of Nanda Evidence

Mr. Nanda continued his testimony, elaborating on his concerns about white supremacism, white nationalism, replacement theory, extremism, anti‑racism, and xenophobia. He was certain that Caylan’s views were white nationalist, white supremacist, and xenophobic.

Collaboration with Progress Alberta

Following the Danielle Smith interview, Progress Alberta initiated a campaign against Ms. Smith and Caylan. Mr. Nanda collaborated with them to publicize a petition against Ms. Smith and CHQR.

He tweeted Emma McIntosh stating that “a bunch of us … are launching a campaign against Danielle Smith for allowing that interview with Ford to happen,” and later emailed her in an attempt to have criticisms of Danielle and Caylan published in the Toronto Star.

He published at least 11 tweets on April 1, mostly replying to himself, promoting criticism of Danielle and Caylan. One of these tweets received 25,083 impressions and 778 engagements.

He was counsel for Progress Alberta in an unrelated Elections Alberta matter.

He described Caylan’s views as “abhorrent.”

Reaction to Apologia and Subsequent Articles

Mr. Nanda read Caylan’s essay Apologia. Reading it appeared to confirm his belief that she was a white supremacist, white nationalist, believer in the Great Replacement Theory, and comparable to the Charlottesville neo‑Nazis.

On April 11, he published at least 16 tweets about Apologia.

He also read Graeme Gordon’s article A political hit job in the name of progress: how UCP candidate Caylan Ford fell from grace. He published four tweets in response, inferring that Caylan held perspectives of “West versus Rest, Clash of Civilization, and racial primordialism.”

He testified that Caylan’s statements were problematic because they conveyed white nationalism, racism, xenophobia, and white supremacist ideologies.

Conclusion of Evidence

Mr. Nanda was cross‑examined and his testimony concluded. His evidence closed the defence case. The Plaintiff did not call rebuttal evidence. Trial testimony is now complete.

Next Steps

• Plaintiff’s written brief due July 3

• Defendants’ rebuttal briefs due August 7

• Plaintiff’s sur‑rebuttal due August 31

• Oral arguments scheduled for three days beginning October 7

Madam Justice Harris will deliver judgment sometime after oral argument.

Comment Regarding Nanda

Avnish Nanda perhaps deserves to be distinguished from his more scurrilous co‑Defendants, Lebrun and Magusiak. Their motives were transparently political; they set out to destroy Caylan because doing so served their partisan objectives. Nanda’s motivations were different. He set out to save Alberta — or at least believed he was doing so — from the supposed threat he imagined Caylan represented.

He approached the matter not as a journalist or a neutral observer  He was a social justice warrior on a moral crusade, convinced that he was the exemplar of virtue, standing between Alberta and the rise of white supremacy. In that blissful frame of mind he was prepared to tweet endlessly until Caylan was cancelled.

His righteous certainty allowed him to seize upon a handful of phrases and inflate them into evidence of white nationalism, racism, xenophobia, and white supremacist ideology. No dialogue with Caylan was required; no context was relevant; no contradictory facts needed to be weighed.  He quickly reached his conclusion and everything else became noise.

This is all the more striking because Nanda read Apologia and read A political hit job in the name of progress: how UCP candidate Caylan Ford fell from grace. Objective readers of Apologia would recognize that Caylan was not a racist white supremacist, and reading A political hit job brings a recognition that Caylan was falsely accused and powerless to do anything about it.

Nanda knew that Caylan had denounced violence and extremism. He knew she had described white nationalists as “odious” and their reasoning as “perverse.” Most reasonable people, armed with the same information, would not have leapt to the conclusions he did. But moral certainty has a way of eclipsing facts, and righteous virtue has a way of eclipsing truth. For Nanda, the leap from considering Caylan as a “concerned citizen” to condemning her as a “white supremacist” required no hesitation at all.

Nanda was not responsible for Caylan’s resignation. His focus was not on the events that precipitated her departure; his focus was on ensuring her cancellation. And in that mission he found willing collaborators. With the assistance of the broader cancel chorus — Jivraj, Lebrun, Magusiak, the CBC, the Toronto Star, Emma McIntosh, Duncan Kinney, Mohamed, Nenshi, and Ganley — the campaign succeeded.

Day 47

Note:  I am a poor note-taker and these summaries will contain errors and omissions which will reflect my limitations.  My intention is to report on the facts as accurately as possible although a subconscious bias may creep in.  I can only provide glimpses into what I see as relevant and interesting events. My goal is to capture the essence of the day’s events rather than be comprehensive.

Read the reference documents: The Legal Case and Events Leading to Trial to obtain an understanding of the case and its history.  Names and terms are abbreviated and defined in  Glossary.

Dr. Perry Evidence

Examination‑in‑Chief of Dr. Barbara Perry by Mr. Franken (Counsel for Nanda)

Dr. Perry’s report and sur‑rebuttal report were entered as exhibits. Her continued testimony included the following:

• Dr. Perry was asked by Counsel for Nanda to answer three questions.

• She conducted desk research and identified key literature on the Great Replacement Theory (GRT).

• The first question posed to her was:

  • Is there a relationship between replacement theory and White supremacy or White nationalism? If so, what is the connection? How is replacement theory used by White supremacists and the White nationalist movement?

• Dr. Perry answered that yes, there is a relationship between GRT and both White supremacy and White nationalism.

• The second and third questions were:

  • Do [Caylan’s] Statements express views characteristic of White supremacist discourse or a White nationalist narrative?

  • Are the views expressed in the Statements views espoused and advanced by White supremacists? Are the Statements White supremacist talking points or rhetoric?

• Dr. Perry addressed these two questions together, treating them as essentially asking whether the statements “reflect White supremacist and/or White nationalist sentiments.”

• Dr. Perry concluded that “there are a number of White supremacist and White nationalist discourses reflected in the statements under review,” including findings that:

  • Caylan’s statements “coincide with” Great Replacement Theory.

  • There is “evidence of” anti‑immigrant, anti‑Muslim, and xenophobic narratives.

  • One statement “exploits” fears of cultural change and the loss of White primacy across the West.

  • Caylan’s statements “evoke” themes similar to those of White nationalists.

  • Caylan’s statements “portray” demographic change as wholly negative.

  • Caylan’s statements “raise” the common trope of immigrant—especially Muslim—violence and propensity for terrorism.

  • Caylan’s statements about immigration and Western culture “compare” to dystopian tropes used by White nationalists. (Quotation marks added.)

• Dr. Perry expressly denied saying that Caylan is a White supremacist or White nationalist.

• She stated only that Caylan’s statements can be read as reflecting related talking points.

Dr. Perry’s Definition of White Supremacy

Dr. Perry described White supremacy as including the following features:

• A hierarchical concept of human merit based largely on White superiority.

• The belief that the White race reigns supreme, with other races relegated to sub‑human categories.

• A focus on restoring White privilege.

• An intent to “preserve or restore what they perceive as the natural racial or ethnic hierarchy by enforcing social and political superiority over minority groups.”

• The slogan: “We must ensure the existence of the White race and a future for our children.”

• Fear of losing racial purity due to immigration and demographic change.

• A belief in an orchestrated threat of imminent White extinction.

• Anti‑authority narratives.

• Viewing multiculturalism, minority rights, and diversity/inclusion policies as dangerous.

• Targeting legacy media, academia, and the education system as controlled by liberal elites intent on diluting Western culture.

• Reliance on conspiracy theories.

• Close alignment with the Great Replacement Theory.

• The false premise that White terrorists are treated with less sympathy than Islamist extremists.

• Tropes of Muslim propensity for terrorism.

Methodology

• Dr. Perry’s methodology relied on her prior research on the Canadian far‑right, supplemented by other researchers’ work.

• She used a conceptual framework involving crisis narratives, White nationalism, and replacement theory to analyze the statements.

• She maintained that qualitative research of this type is legitimate.

Cross‑Examination of Dr. Perry

• One of her key sources developed a typology based on narratives found in 20 YouTube videos.

• She was not aware of the factual survey data relied upon by Dr. Kaufmann.

• She criticized Dr. Kaufmann without reading the attachments to his report.

• Her criticism was based on a false premise and therefore unfounded.

• She stated she did not mean to imply that anyone concerned about demographic or cultural change is a White supremacist.

• She did not conduct quantitative analysis.

• She could not articulate a clear method for determining what constitutes an extremist view.

• Her method involves identifying typologies of far‑right ideologies and examining groups with shared narratives.

• She does not rely on large‑scale data research.

• When analyzing Caylan’s messages, she viewed them through a “crisis typology” lens, which framed her analysis.

• She focused on identifying “congruences” between the messages and White supremacist or White nationalist discourse.

• She looked for similarities, not differences.

• She assumed Caylan was concerned about immigrants causing violence.

• She agreed her opinion would differ if Caylan were instead concerned about backlash violence against immigrants.

• Dr. Perry acknowledged a double standard in media treatment between Islamic terrorism and White supremacist extremism.

Dr. Perry was the final witness for the Toronto Star. The conclusion of her testimony marked the end of the Star’s evidence.

Comment

Dr. Perry offered definitions of white supremacy, white nationalism, accelerationism, and the Great Replacement Theory, but her definitions lacked precision and internal boundaries. To understand what she means by “white supremacy,” one must piece together statements scattered across multiple sections of her report. No single element appears essential; instead, she presents a broad constellation of possible indicators. The result is a definition so elastic that it risks capturing almost any expression of cultural, political, or demographic concern.

Under Dr. Perry’s framework, you—like Caylan—could be accused of engaging in “White supremacist and White nationalist discourses” if you express concern about any of the following:

• Government policies

• A “woke” academic environment

• Excessive political correctness

• Immigration levels or integration challenges

• Cultural change

• Demographic change

• Multiculturalism

• The application of Sharia law in Canada

• Discriminatory DEI practices

• Media bias

• A perceived Muslim propensity for terrorism

In other words, Dr. Perry’s definition risks collapsing ordinary political debate into extremist ideology simply because certain topics overlap with themes that extremists also discuss.

This stands in stark contrast to Dr. Kaufmann’s definition of white supremacy:

• “White supremacy”: the belief in the racial supremacy of the White race, which entitles White people to dominate or rule over other groups. Sometimes overlaps with white nationalism, sometimes separate (e.g., the antebellum South was white supremacist, not white nationalist). It is a hierarchical system in which one group is superior.

Dr. Kaufmann’s definition is clear, bounded, and rooted in the core principle of racial superiority. Under his definition, Caylan would be exonerated of the allegation of white supremacy. Under Dr. Perry’s, she is found guilty of engaging in “White supremacist and White nationalist discourses” based largely on thematic overlap rather than demonstrated belief in racial hierarchy.

Dr. Perry appears to suspect that Caylan is a White nationalist or White supremacist because she used some of the same language that extremists use. Dr. Kaufmann, by contrast, would require evidence that Caylan was motivated by the ideasthat actually animate white supremacists—racial superiority, racial hygiene, and the belief in a hierarchical racial order.

The difference is fundamental: Dr. Perry treats similarity of vocabulary as evidence of ideology; Dr. Kaufmann requires similarity of belief.

Day 46

Note:  I am a poor note-taker and these summaries will contain errors and omissions which will reflect my limitations.  My intention is to report on the facts as accurately as possible although a subconscious bias may creep in.  I can only provide glimpses into what I see as relevant and interesting events. My goal is to capture the essence of the day’s events rather than be comprehensive.

Read the reference documents: The Legal Case and Events Leading to Trial to obtain an understanding of the case and its history.  Names and terms are abbreviated and defined in  Glossary.

The defence of Avnish Nanda continued.

Dr. Barbara Perry was called as a witness. She was proffered as an expert qualified to give opinion evidence in sociology and criminology, hate studies, and extremism, with a focus on white supremacy, white nationalism, racism, Islamophobia, and their relationship to Great Replacement Theory (GRT).

Her evidence was intended to counter the testimony of Dr. Kaufmann, who has similar expertise and testified for Caylan.

The direct evidence of Dr. Perry, her cross-examination, and legal argument concerning Dr. Perry’s qualifications took up the entire day.

Direct Examination — Qualification of Dr. Perry

Dr. Perry holds a B.A., M.A., and Ph.D. in sociology. She is the Director of the Centre on Hate, Bias, and Extremism and a Professor of Social Science and Humanities at Ontario Tech University. Her impressive CV is 26 pages long. Her evidence regarding qualifications included:

• She previously held a UNESCO Chair for hate studies; there are approximately 40 UNESCO Chairs across Canada.

• “Hate studies” examines behaviour motivated by hate, bias, and prejudice.

• Her centre works on initiatives to counter hate and raise awareness in schools, law enforcement, and policy settings, including Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion initiatives.

• She described “hate” as demonstrating an “us versus them” worldview not typical of the broader population.

• Virulent, negative, and hostile narratives are indicators of hatred.

• The centre’s work is primarily focused on right‑wing extremism.

• Her courses are largely applied-learning programs that lead students into activist initiatives focused on “social justice” and “countering hate/extremist narratives.”

• She undertook a right‑wing extremism mapping project examining groups active in the right‑wing environment, their motivations, ideologies, and how to counter them.

• She was appointed to the Order of Canada in 2024 for contributions to understanding and addressing hate crime.

• She has received more than $7,000,000 in research awards.

• She authored In the Name of Hate: Understanding Hate Crimes.

• In 2019 she co‑authored Right Wing Extremism in Canada.

• She has been interviewed by CBC, and by Emma McIntosh of the Toronto Star.

• CBC has paid her for radio syndication interviews.

• She provided Duncan Kinney with an opinion letter dealing with white nationalism.

• The opinion letter was to be used by Kinney to defend an Elections Alberta investigation into Mr. Kinney and Progress Alberta.

• [Kinney and Progress Alberta were Defendants in this litigation but settled by paying Caylan $250,000.]

• She has previously been qualified as an expert in Ontario Superior Court on narratives relating to right‑wing extremism.

Cross‑Examination by Mr. Harrison (Qualifications)

• Dr. Perry wrote in an article that Stephen Harper vilified Muslims by saying “Islamicism is the greatest threat to the West.”

• What PM Harper actually said after 9/11 was that the greatest threat was “Islamic terrorism.”

• Dr. Perry testified she had misspelled Harper’s statement.

• In her 2019 book, she identified 100 active neo‑Nazi and white supremacist groups in Canada.

• In 2021, she testified before the parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Safety.

• She told Parliament there were 300 right‑wing hate groups in Canada.

• She has repeated the “300 groups” figure in media appearances.

• A 2019 CBC program, The Weekly with Wendy Mesley, referenced the alleged 300 groups.

• By 2024, journalists began questioning how the 300 figure was calculated.

• The identities of the 300 groups have never been disclosed.

• She has never released records showing how she calculated the figure.

• She has never released the list of groups.

• She has never released her methodology.

• She testified she could not publish the information because she required approval from Public Safety Canada (the Liberal government).

• Seven years after the first public reference to the 300 groups, no further information has been released.

• Counsel provided her with Caylan’s quoted statements as reported by Press Progress.

• She was asked to provide opinions on:

o   Is there a relationship between replacement theory and White supremacy or White nationalism? If so, what is the connection? How is replacement theory used by White supremacists and the White nationalist movement?

o   Do the statements express views characteristic of White supremacist discourse or a White nationalist narrative?

o   Are the views expressed in these statements views espoused and advanced by White supremacists? Are the Statements White supremacist talking points or rhetoric?

• Dr. Perry has received $5,697,341 in research grants from Public Safety Canada since 2010.

• Most grants relate to investigating hate, particularly right‑wing hate.

Cross‑examination concluded, followed by a brief re‑direct.

Ruling on Qualifications

Extensive legal argument followed, with the Plaintiff challenging Dr. Perry’s qualifications on several bases including an allegation that she was a biased advocate.

Madam Justice Harris ruled that Dr. Perry was qualified to give expert opinion evidence in sociology, criminology, hate studies, extremism, white supremacy, white nationalism, racism, Islamophobia, and their relationship with Great Replacement Theory.

The Justice noted that issues of reliability and bias would go to weight to be given to Dr. Perry’s evidence.

Adjournment.

Comment

Hatred has served Dr. Perry well and has provided her with both fame and fortune.  Her zealous pursuit of it enabled her to become a member of the Order of Canada and to be rewarded with over $5 million in government grants.  These benefits were conferred upon her by a Liberal government anxious to find right-wing hate groups wherever they may be, and no price was too high.

She is not beyond hyperbole.  She claimed she could not release the 300 hate groups information because Public Safety has not vetted it (it's been 7 years).  Numerous journalists have filed FOIP requests through her university to force the release of the data, and those have been denied on the grounds that Dr. Perry has complete control over her intellectual property and has not authorized the release of the data. 

Dr. Perry’s prior interactions: 

• Providing Duncan Kinney (a former Defendant who settled by paying Caylan $250,000) with an opinion letter;

• Doing an interview by Emma McIntosh (a current Defendant); and

• Doing interviews with CBC (also a Defendant),

These were suggestive of a pro-Defendant bias, and were the basis for the contention by Caylan’s Counsel that Dr. Perry was a biased advocate.

Day 45

Note:  I am a poor note-taker and these summaries will contain errors and omissions which will reflect my limitations.  My intention is to report on the facts as accurately as possible although a subconscious bias may creep in.  I can only provide glimpses into what I see as relevant and interesting events. My goal is to capture the essence of the day’s events rather than be comprehensive.

Read the reference documents: The Legal Case and Events Leading to Trial to obtain an understanding of the case and its history.  Names and terms are abbreviated and defined in  Glossary.

Defence Evidence Called on Behalf of the Defendant, Avnish Nanda

On day 45, Dr. Ennis was cross-examined by Mr. Harrison concerning the evidence Dr. Ennis had given on day 43.  Portions of the cross-examination and my Comment regarding the evidence of Dr. Ennis are included with the day 43 newsletter.

Court was adjourned after the conclusion of the cross-examination of Dr. Ennis.

The court proceedings are in recess until June 8 at 9:00 AM.

Day 44

Note:  I am a poor note-taker and these summaries will contain errors and omissions which will reflect my limitations.  My intention is to report on the facts as accurately as possible although a subconscious bias may creep in.  I can only provide glimpses into what I see as relevant and interesting events. My goal is to capture the essence of the day’s events rather than be comprehensive.

Read the reference documents: The Legal Case and Events Leading to Trial to obtain an understanding of the case and its history.  Names and terms are abbreviated and defined in  Glossary.

Defence Evidence Called on Behalf of the Defendant, Avnish Nanda

Dr. Hashman formerly testified on Caylan’s behalf concerning the psychological damage Caylan suffered because of the Defendants’ conduct.  Dr. Ennis was called by the Defendant Nanda to counter the evidence provided by Dr. Hashman.

Direct Examination of Dr. Liam Ennis by Mr. Franken (Counsel for Nanda)

Dr. Ennis, B.A., M.A., Ph.D., R. Psych., is a Registered Psychologist called to provide a critical review of the processes and procedures Dr, Hashman relied upon to formulate his clinical opinions. His evidence included the following:

• Dr. Ennis reviewed his education and professional experience as set out in his 17‑page curriculum vitae.

• He has been qualified as an expert witness 38 times, primarily in criminal matters, and has never been qualified as an expert in trauma.

• He did not conduct any evaluation of Caylan.

• He cannot offer any clinical opinions about her.

• His report is a critical review of the processes and procedures relied upon by Dr. Hashman in forming his clinical opinions.

Mr. Franken sought to have the Court qualify Dr. Ennis as an expert clinical psychologist with expertise in best practices for the treatment of trauma, trauma‑related symptoms, and depression.

The Court recognized Dr. Ennis as an expert in those fields, and his report was entered as an exhibit.

Dr. Ennis’s Evidence

• He referred to a report prepared by Dr. Houle, who also did not evaluate Caylan.

• Dr. Houle had been retained by Sun Life.

• Dr. Houle suggested that Caylan’s vocational capacity was not sufficiently impaired to justify long‑term disability benefits.

• Most people experience adverse events and are negatively affected for a period of time.

• In most cases, the effects are transient and individuals recover and return to baseline functioning.

• Recovery and resilience are the norm.

• Malingering is prevalent in forensic psychiatric settings.

• Malingering can arise in three circumstances:

  • a litigation context;

  • non‑compliance with treatment; and

  • a discrepancy between self‑reported symptoms and objective evidence.

• Dr. Ennis believes all three circumstances apply to Caylan.

• He relies on Dr. Houle’s report.

• Neither Dr. Houle nor Dr. Ennis evaluated Caylan.

• Dr. Ennis does not know the extent to which Caylan’s functioning may be impaired.

• The treatment of choice for major depression is cognitive behavioural therapy combined with medication.

• The treatment of choice for trauma is prolonged exposure therapy.

• Dr. Ennis was critical of Caylan’s refusal to try medication.

• He was also critical of the type of psychotherapy she received.

• Dr. Ennis criticized Dr. Hashman’s report on three grounds:

  • it relied too heavily on self‑reporting;

  • it was unclear whether Dr. Hashman followed a step‑wise diagnostic process;

  • Dr. Hashman’s prognosis was unduly pessimistic.

Cross‑Examination of Dr. Ennis by Mr. Harrison (Counsel for Caylan)

• Dr. Ennis did not review the reports of Dr. Brown or Dr. Mandel.

• He does not know what discussions Caylan may have had regarding the side‑effects of medication.

• Criterion A stressors represent the “typical course” in which a person experiences a negative event and then returns to baseline functioning.

• The following are not Criterion A stressors; they do not represent the typical course:

  • being defamed on the front page of newspapers and in national television broadcasts over multiple weeks;

  • being unable to obtain gainful employment for years due to reputational damage;

  • being unable to financially support one’s family for years due to inability to secure employment;

  • losing friends and one’s social network due to defamation;

  • being treated as a social pariah over a prolonged period;

  • being subjected to ongoing social‑media shaming, humiliation, and harassment for years;

  • being subjected to continued defamation over years.

• Dr. Ennis acknowledged that the prolonged nature of these stressors takes the situation outside the “typical case.”

• He acknowledged that Caylan’s circumstances are unique.

• He acknowledged that if Caylan’s ex‑spouse, family, friends, and co‑workers corroborate her self‑report, such corroboration would support the validity of her self‑reported symptoms.

Dr. Ennis’s testimony concluded, and he was excused.

Comment

Dr. Ennis was called to counter the evidence given by Dr. Hashman on Caylan’s behalf. A comparison of their evidence shows:

• Dr. Hashman is a psychiatrist; Dr. Ennis is a psychologist.

• Dr. Hashman spent 4.5 hours interviewing Caylan.

• Dr. Ennis did not meet or evaluate her.

• Dr. Hashman’s report was consistent with the reports of Dr. Bajwa, Dr. Pachet, and Dr. Lucido, all of whom examined Caylan.

• Dr. Ennis’s report relied on a report prepared for an insurer by Dr. Houle, who had not examined Caylan.

• Dr. Hashman concluded that Caylan had received appropriate psychotherapy.

• Dr. Ennis concluded that she had not.

• Dr. Hashman concluded that Caylan “continues to present with genuine, persistent symptoms and functional impairment.”

• Dr. Ennis inferred that Caylan had fully recovered.

• Dr. Hashman had no suspicion of malingering; Caylan’s reports were consistent with clinical observations and psychological testing.

• Dr. Ennis suggested malingering, despite conducting no clinical observations or psychological testing.

Day 43

Note:  I am a poor note-taker and these summaries will contain errors and omissions which will reflect my limitations.  My intention is to report on the facts as accurately as possible although a subconscious bias may creep in.  I can only provide glimpses into what I see as relevant and interesting events. My goal is to capture the essence of the day’s events rather than be comprehensive.

Read the reference documents: The Legal Case and Events Leading to Trial to obtain an understanding of the case and its history.  Names and terms are abbreviated and defined in  Glossary.

Day 43

The Toronto Star evidence concluded with the testimony of Ms. McIntosh, and the defence of Mr. Nanda commenced on Day 43.

The Defendant Avnish Nanda

Is an Edmonton lawyer and part-time Professor at the U of A.  He was recently appointed by Prime Minster Carney to the Ministerial Advisory Council on Rights, Equality and Inclusion.  That appointment was objected to by Pierre Poilievre and B’nai B’rith on the basis that someone with his background should not be appointed to a council investigating antisemitism.

Mr. Nanda was a human rights advocate and had represented pro-Palestinian campus activists in a complaint against the U of A.  The University had dismantled an anti-Israel protest encampment on the University campus.  Mr. Nanda alleged that the University had violated the freedom of expression and assembly rights of the activists who had been demanding that the University divest from companies with relations with Israel.

In 2019 he published 77 tweets and an op-ed in the Edmonton Journal alleging or inferring that Caylan was a believer in dangerous racist conspiracy theories and was espousing extreme White Nationalist rhetoric.  He had never  met or spoken with Caylan.

Opening Statement of Mr. Franken, Counsel for Mr. Nanda

In his opening statement, Mr. Franken advanced the following propositions:

• This lawsuit constitutes an attack on freedom of speech and public participation in an election.

• Caylan made statements that echoed white supremacist rhetoric.

• The statements attributed to Caylan raised legitimate questions about her suitability as a political candidate.

• Those statements generated national media attention that persisted for several days.

• Mr. Nanda did not enter the public conversation until March 23.

• The Plaintiff cannot establish that anything said or done by Mr. Nanda lowered Caylan’s reputation.

• The Court must balance the protection of reputation against the constitutional value of free expression.

• Mr. Franken identified the witnesses he intended to call and summarized the essence of their anticipated testimony.

• He also identified the publications made by Mr. Nanda that were at issue.

• Finally, he stated that the following legal defences were available to Mr. Nanda:

  • a limitation defence regarding one impugned publication;

  • a notice defence under the Defamation Act;

  • qualified privilege;

  • justification;

  • fair comment; and

  • responsible communication.

Mr. Franken then called Dr. Sarah Bracke as the first witness for the defence.

Dr. Bracke is a highly-educated professor from the Netherlands.  She testified on behalf of Mr. Nanda and provided her written report providing the historical and social context of the so-called Great Replacement Theory.  She had no knowledge of the facts of this case and expressed no opinions regarding the conduct of any of the parties to this litigation.

Her evidence was called to rebut the evidence of Dr. Kaufman, who testified on Caylan’s behalf regarding the same general subject matter.

Direct Examination of Dr. Sarah Bracke by Mr. Franken (Counsel for Mr. Nanda)

Dr. Bracke holds a B.Sc., B.A., M.Sc., and Ph.D., along with two additional postgraduate degrees. She is a Full Professor of Sociology and Gender and Sexuality at the University of Amsterdam. She testified regarding her extensive academic background, including her education, academic appointments, publications, books, peer‑reviewed articles, awards, research, teaching experience, and fluency in six languages, all as recorded in her 17‑page curriculum vitae.

Her testimony included the following points:

• She has expertise in the Great Replacement Theory.

• She has no knowledge of Mr. Nanda or Caylan.

• She was not provided with any materials relating to this case.

• She does not know what issues are in dispute in this litigation.

• She was asked only to prepare a report outlining the historical and social context of the so‑called Great Replacement Theory.

Mr. Franken sought to have the Court qualify Dr. Bracke as an expert in sociology, with a focus on racial and white nationalism, Islamophobia, and the nature and history of population‑replacement ideology and associated political and public discourse, including the iteration known as the Great Replacement Theory.

Dr. Bracke’s Substantive Testimony

Dr. Bracke identified the central features of the Great Replacement Theory:

• A fear of loss of power, control, or demographic supremacy by a majority population;

• A fear of replacement of the majority by a minority;

• The belief that replacement occurs through immigration and differential birth rates;

• The belief that “elites” are enabling or orchestrating these processes;

• Two core elements: racial supremacy and nationalism.

She then outlined the historical development of population‑replacement ideology. She noted that the term “Great Replacement” originates from Le grand remplacement, a book by Renaud Camus published in 2011.

Dr. Bracke’s Conclusions

• Population‑replacement ideology has existed in the Western world for more than a century, appearing in various formulations and terminologies across different national and political contexts.

• This ideology is characterized by a racialized form of nationalism and racial superiority, centred on the belief that the racialized nation is threatened with decline (“repopulation,” “substitution,” “replacement”) or even extinction (“race suicide,” “genocide”) through immigration and differential birth rates.

• Since the 1970s, the ideology has re‑emerged globally, first through the discourse of “white genocide” (United States, South Africa), and later through discourses of “Islamization” and “Eurabia” (Europe).

• Building on anti‑Muslim replacement discourses, Camus articulated the modern formulation of the Great Replacement Theory in 2011.

• The Great Replacement Theory is not a novel concept; it is the latest iteration of longstanding population‑replacement ideology. Its terminology is less inflammatory than earlier formulations, which has contributed to its broader political and cultural uptake.

• As a result, the Great Replacement Theory has played a significant role in mainstreaming population‑replacement ideology, both through political normalization and increased public awareness via media attention. Its language allows an ideology grounded in nationalism and racial superiority to “re‑brand” itself in a manner that appears superficially divorced from explicit racial terminology.

Cross-Examination of Dr. Bracke by Mr. Harrison (Caylan’s Counsel)

·      Dr. Bracke has never before been qualified as an expert witness.

·      Dr. Kaufmann uses quantitative research and analysis.

·      Quantitative research focuses on factual data – it seeks to prove facts using data.

·      Dr. Bracke uses qualitative research and analysis.

·      Qualitative research is more abstract – focuses on questions of meaning, context analysis, and subjective experience.

·      Dr. Bracke does not do data research – she relies on data provided by others.

·      Dr. Kaufmann does his data research.

·      Qualitative analysis could involve interviewing people to find out what they believe and what meanings they attach to their beliefs.

Comment

Doctors Bracke and Kaufman each provided evidence regarding similar subject matter, but their approach was quite different.

·      Dr. Bracke outlined the historical and social context of the Great Replacement Theory.

·      Hers was an academic treatise.

·      Dr. Kaufmann defined his terms, specifically “white supremacy”, “white nationalism”, “racism”, “demographic/population replacement” and the “Great Replacement Theory”.

·      Dr. Kaufmann identified the elements of each the terms he defined, to provide certainty to the meanings of the terms.

·      Dr. Kaufmann also identified problems arising from the “fallacy of association” and “concept creep”.

·      Dr. Kaufmann provided a test to ascertain if Caylan’s quotes white supremacist, white nationalist, racist, or statements of the Great Replacement Theory.

·      Dr. Bracke’s testimony was barely relevant to the issues in this litigation.

Day 42

Note:  I am a poor note-taker and these summaries will contain errors and omissions which will reflect my limitations.  My intention is to report on the facts as accurately as possible although a subconscious bias may creep in.  I can only provide glimpses into what I see as relevant and interesting events. My goal is to capture the essence of the day’s events rather than be comprehensive.

Read the reference documents: The Legal Case and Events Leading to Trial to obtain an understanding of the case and its history.  Names and terms are abbreviated and defined in  Glossary.

Toronto Star Testimony Continues

Direct Examination of Angela Mullins by Ms. Cooper

Ms. Mullins has worked as a journalist for 25 years in a variety of capacities. In 2019 she was a senior editor of national news for the Toronto Star.  All Star Metro outlets across the country reported to her.  Her evidence:

·      She and Alex Boyd communicated almost daily.

·      The description of Caylan as a racist white supremacist was agreed upon by Ms. Mullins and Ms. Boyd.

·      Ms. Mullins was led through each of the defamatory Toronto Star publications about Caylan.

·      She went to great lengths to explain why the description of Caylan as a racist white supremacist was, in her opinion, justified.

·      The description of Caylan as a racist white supremacist was justified because Caylan had used words used by white supremacists.

·      Caylan’s message about Western culture is codified language that was common within some political movements at the time.

·      Ms. Mullins was not aware of the Emma McIntosh tweets at the time.

Ms. Mullins’s testimony concluded and she was excused.

Comment

Ms. Mullins gave no indication that she or Ms. Boyd considered any alternative interpretation or reading of Caylan’s words.  For them it was a foregone conclusion that Caylan was a racist white supremacist.  It’s easy to reach such a conclusion when you avoid speaking to the person about whom the conclusion is reached.

Direct Examination of Emma McIntosh by Ms. Cooper

In 2019 Ms. McIntosh was working for Star Metro Calgary as a reporter/photographer and reported to Ms. Boyd. She was then a recent graduate from journalism school.  Her evidence:

·      She then knew that Caylan was a high-profile candidate for the UCP in the Mountainview riding, she knew that Caylan had worked for Global Affairs and was a film maker.

·      When she saw the March 18 Press Progress article, she decided Caylan‘s statements were the statements of someone who believed in the great replacement theory.

·      She was examined interminably about tweets, news articles and press releases by former and current Co-Defendants like Progress Alberta, the NDP, CBC, Global News, and the Calgary Herald.

·      She explained at length why each of those articles was appropriate.

·      On March 29 Danielle Smith conducted her live interview of Caylan.

·      When the interview had barely started Ms. McIntosh tweeted “What in the fresh hell are we giving airtime to an unapologetic white supremacist  so she can continue to deny what she [sic] was deeply disturbing and problematic?”

·      Ms. McIntosh’s description of Caylan as an unapologetic white supremacist was seen 53,697 times on Twitter.

·      Ms. McIntosh was highly critical of Danielle Smith’s interview.

·      Ms. McIntosh had just graduated from journalism and knew better than Danielle Smith how to report on stories about extremist statements.

·      She considered it unethical that Global News was giving Caylan an opportunity to tell her story.

·      She considered Danielle Smith a partisan who should not be allowed to have a radio show.

·      Ms. McIntosh understood that Caylan had advocated for one minority but thought that Caylan could still harbor hateful views about other minorities.

·      She considered Caylan’s denunciation of extremism as vague.

·      She condemned Caylan because she had not apologized.

·      Caylan had said that white supremacist was odious and a perverse form of moral reasoning.

·      Ms. McIntosh dismissed that description of white supremacy because she thought that Caylan was not talking about white supremacy.

·      She didn’t think that Global News was conducting the interview responsibly.

·      Ms. McIntosh described the interview as “fucking irresponsible”.

·      In her view it was irresponsible of Smith not to put the actual quotes to Caylan.

·      She said that Global News could and should have gotten a response from Jivraj about Caylan’s allegations. 

·      She considered Caylan’s discussion of demographic replacement as an endorsement of the great replacement theory.

·      Caylan stated in the interview that it was ludicrous to consider her a white supremacist.

·      Ms. McIntosh said Caylan’s statement was meaningless because Caylan did not expressly say she was not a white supremacist.

·      Ms. McIntosh was critical of the Graeme Gordon article which provided Caylan’s story.

·      Ms. McIntosh cared a lot about upholding the standards of the journalist profession.

·      When a journalist behaves unethically, it harms the public perception of everyone in the profession.

·      The star decided not to write anything about the Danielle Smith interview.

·      Ms. McIntosh did read Apologia, but her dichotomous mind was made up.

Cross-examination of Ms. McIntosh by Mr. Harrison (Caylan’s Counsel)

·      Ms. McIntosh’s understanding of white supremacy was that it was an opinion or conclusion that can be drawn about someone.

·      There is no objective test for white supremacy; it’s just an opinion you can draw.

·      In her examinations for discovery Ms. McIntosh had admitted that Caylan disavowed white supremacy in the first 3 minutes of the Danielle Smith interview.

·      Ms. McIntosh’s testimony at trial was that Caylan’s disavowal of white supremacist was not convincing to her.

·      She re-tweeted the defamatory posts published by Nanda.

Comment

General

I have not mentioned that all the Toronto Star witnesses were led by Counsel to the Torstar Journalism Standards Guide, which is the guide for Toronto Star journalists to their provision of fair, balanced and accurate journalism.  Each of the Toronto Star witnesses in turn professed to consider the Guide as a bible guiding their every journalistic decision. 

McIntosh Idealism

 Ms. McIntosh was a recent graduate from journalism school and was suffused with righteous idealism.  She was highly judgmental about journalists who did not see the world as she did and was particularly critical of Danielle Smith for giving Caylan an opportunity to tell her story.

Ms. McIntosh condemned Danielle Smith and Global News because, in her opinion, they should have gotten a response from Jivraj to the allegations made by Caylan.  She dismissed the Smith interview as irresponsible and unethical.  Yet Ms. McIntosh made no effort to get a response from either Caylan or Jivraj. 

Graeme Gordon v. Emma McIntosh

Ms. McIntosh was critical of Graeme Gordon’s article entitled A political hit job in the name of progress: how UCP candidate Caylan Ford fell from grace.  Mr. Gordon had spent approximately two weeks preparing the article, interviewed 12 sources, reviewed emails and social media posts, and read prior Press Progress publications.  He conducted four or five interviews with Jivraj (the first two lasting several hours), two interviews with Caylan, wrote to Press Progress, and spoke with many individuals knowledgeable about the political situation.

Ms. McIntosh spent no time preparing for her publications, interviewed no one, read only the Press Progress article, conducted no interviews, and spoke to no one except persons in her echo chamber, equally intent on destroying Caylan.  And on that basis of that research, she characterized Caylan as a racist white supremacist.

The time and effort spent on their respective publications provide a measure of truth, integrity, and responsibility.  Mr. Gordon would exonerate Caylan; Ms. McIntosh would condemn her.  Choosing between them is not difficult.

Day 41

Note:  I am a poor note-taker and these summaries will contain errors and omissions which will reflect my limitations.  My intention is to report on the facts as accurately as possible although a subconscious bias may creep in.  I can only provide glimpses into what I see as relevant and interesting events. My goal is to capture the essence of the day’s events rather than be comprehensive.

Read the reference documents: The Legal Case and Events Leading to Trial to obtain an understanding of the case and its history.  Names and terms are abbreviated and defined in  Glossary.

Toronto Star Testimony Continues

Direct Examination of Ms. Boyd by Ms. Cooper (Day 2)

• Ms. Boyd read Caylan’s Apologia.

• She did not assign anyone to write about it.

• Reading Apologia did not change her view of Caylan’s Facebook comments.

Cross‑Examination of Ms. Boyd by Mr. Harrison

• Ms. Boyd inferred from the PressProgress article that Caylan was promoting racist white supremacist talking points.

• She understood that Caylan intended to be perceived and understood differently.

• The Toronto Star did not publish anything positive about Caylan, even after:

  • the Danielle Smith interview;

  • the publication of Apologia; and

  • the Joel Crichton interview.

• In the Danielle Smith interview, Caylan explained what she meant by “demographic replacement” and clarified that it was not the same as the “Great Replacement” theory.

• Ms. Boyd acknowledged that with more context, Caylan’s discussion of demographic replacement would be understood differently.

Comment

An About Face

Mr. Leavitt recognized as early as January 2019 that Jivraj was a questionable source. Jivraj had provided him with a nine‑page rant filled with hyperbolic falsehoods about Jason Kenney, the UCP, and Caylan. The fact that such a document came from someone presenting himself as a conservative and demanding anonymity would raise immediate red flags for an experienced reporter.  And Mr. Leavitt appeared to have recognized those red flags.

He shared his information and his concerns about Jivraj with Ms. Boyd and they mutually agreed at that time not to publish a story because they:

• were concerned about Jivraj’s insistence on anonymity;

• were concerned about his motives;

• were concerned about the authenticity and context of the messages; and

• did not consider the story sufficiently newsworthy to overcome those concerns.

But in March 2019, the Toronto Star abruptly jettisoned those earlier journalistic reservations and joined the media pile‑on. They escalated the narrative by characterizing Caylan as a racist white supremacist. They granted Jivraj anonymity, thereby avoiding scrutiny of his character and reputation.

Confusion and Defamation

Ms. Boyd read in the Press Progress article that Caylan had used the words demographic replacement.  She confused Caylan’s discussion of “demographic replacement” with the “great replacement theory” and concluded that Caylan was an evil, racist white supremacist who should be condemned, excluded from political life, and permanently cancelled. Perhaps Ms. Boyd was predisposed to that conclusion, but it was a conclusion wrapped in righteous moral certainty, and by characterizing Caylan as she did, Ms. Boyd could justify and later defend repeated defamations of Caylan.

Day 40

Note:  I am a poor note-taker and these summaries will contain errors and omissions which will reflect my limitations.  My intention is to report on the facts as accurately as possible although a subconscious bias may creep in.  I can only provide glimpses into what I see as relevant and interesting events. My goal is to capture the essence of the day’s events rather than be comprehensive.

Read the reference documents: The Legal Case and Events Leading to Trial to obtain an understanding of the case and its history.  Names and terms are abbreviated and defined in  Glossary.

Toronto Star Witnesses Continue

Direct Examination of Trevor Howell by Ms. Cooper (Counsel for the Toronto Star)

Mr. Howell was an investigative reporter for StarMetro Calgary in 2019. His evidence:

• He now works for the NDP.

• He suffered a concussion in an accident in Mexico in March 2019.

• He testified that his memory remains impaired as a result of the concussion.

• In 2019 he reported to Ms. Boyd.

• Emma McIntosh was also an investigative journalist in the Calgary newsroom at that time.

• Mr. Howell was aware that that Mr. Leavitt had received information about Caylan from a source.

• Mr. Leavitt lacked confidence in the source, who refused to go on the record.

• Mr. Howell did not recall seeing the nine‑page email Mr. Leavitt had received from “Whistleblower.”

• He did not recall seeing emails Mr. Leavitt had sent to him.

• Before leaving for his vacation in Mexico, Mr. Howell wrote a riding profile for Calgary‑Mountain View.

• The article stated that Caylan:

  • “was lured into Alberta politics by UCP Leader Jason Kenney”; and

  • “had been accused by members of the UCP Calgary Mountainview board of deliberately misleading the party over her residency to circumvent nomination rules.”

• He was in Mexico when Caylan resigned.

• His article had not yet been published at the time of her resignation.

• Another journalist modified the article to include material related to Caylan’s resignation.

• The article was ultimately published on March 25.

• The headline at publication read: “Alberta Liberal leader defends lone Calgary stronghold, as UCP candidate steps down for white supremacist comments.”

Mr. Howell’s testimony concluded and he was excused.

Comment

Mr. Howell was interested in the allegations that Caylan was not a legitimate UCP candidate.  But he never bothered to investigate the truth of those allegations.  His article stated the Jivraj falsehood that Caylan was lured into politics by Jason Kenney.  He would have learned from basic investigation that the allegation was false.  A phone call to Caylan would have sufficed.

The accusation that Caylan had misled the party over her residency originated with Jivraj and had been publicized by Press Progress. Mr. Howell knew that Jivraj was a suspect source and presumably knew that Press Progress had an NDP agenda, but he simply adopted their defamatory statements.  A phone call to Caylan could have provided him with the facts, but the call was not made.  It suggests a preference for defamatory material over facts - particularly when the defamatory material is about a UCP candidate.

Mr. Howell’s present employment with the NDP suggests a reason for that preference.

Direct Examination of Alexandra Boyd by Ms. Cooper (Counsel for the Toronto Star)

Ms. Boyd holds a Master’s degree in Journalism and in 2019 was the Alberta bureau chief and managing editor for the Toronto Star. Her evidence:

• In January, Mr. Leavitt informed her that he had been contacted by an anonymous source claiming to have screenshots of Facebook messenger conversations with Caylan.

• Mr. Leavitt later learned the anonymous source was Jivraj, who demanded anonymity.

• Jivraj was pressuring Mr. Leavitt to publish a “hit piece” on Caylan and the UCP.

• Mr. Leavitt was suspicious of Jivraj, who refused to show him the actual messages and insisted on anonymity.

• Mr. Leavitt wanted to understand the context of the messages.

• Ms. Boyd expected Caylan to be a candidate in the upcoming election and was interested in a potential story.

• However, she was concerned about the authenticity of the material and Jivraj’s insistence on anonymity.

• On January 16, Jivraj sent Mr. Leavitt an affidavit swearing to the authenticity of the screenshots attached as exhibits.

• Ms. Boyd knew that Caylan had alleged that Jivraj was harassing her, fabricating quotes, and attempting to damage her career.

• She also understood that Caylan and Jivraj had previously been friends and that their relationship had deteriorated.

• Although she was interested in the story Jivraj was promoting, Ms. Boyd made no effort to reach out to Caylan.

• Ms. Boyd decided not to publish a story at that time because:

  • she was concerned about Jivraj’s insistence on anonymity;

  • she was concerned about his motives;

  • she was concerned about the context of the messages; and

  • she did not consider the story sufficiently newsworthy to overcome those concerns.

• When she saw the March 18 Press Progress article, she immediately recognized Jivraj as the source.

• She equated Caylan’s reference to “demographic replacement” with the “Great Replacement” theory.

• Based on that equation, she concluded that Caylan was a racist.

• The Toronto Star published its first article about Caylan on March 19 at 9:04 a.m.

• They described Jivraj as “a conservative Muslim with deep ties to the UCP.”

• Jivraj had told Mr. Leavitt that he had no association with the UCP.

• They granted Jivraj confidentiality because he had told Mr. Leavitt he feared retribution, and because he had requested anonymity in January.

• The Star published four articles about Caylan on March 19, each stating that she resigned “after comments promoting racist white supremacist talking points.”

• A March 22 article again stated that Caylan had promoted racist white supremacist talking points.

• That same statement appeared in at least three additional Star articles.

• Another Star article stated that Caylan had to “answer or dodge questions” about comments with “racist, Islamophobic or anti‑LGBTQ sentiment.”

• The Star’s efforts to contact Caylan consisted solely of Mr. Maiman’s attempts, and he never followed up on Caylan’s invitation to do so.

• Caylan invited Mr. Maiman to email any questions he had.

• Ms. Boyd interpreted Caylan’s invitation to email questions as a refusal to speak by phone.

• No further phone attempts were made, and no questions were emailed to Caylan.

• Ms. Boyd considered it newsworthy to highlight in the Star’s reporting that questions had been raised about how Caylan became the candidate in Mountain View.

• She was aware of the Danielle Smith interview of Caylan.

• She testified that she “half‑listened” to the interview and it did not have her full attention.

• Nothing in the interview struck her as newsworthy or worth spending time on.

Court adjourned for the day.

Ms. Boyd’s direct examination continued the following day.

Day 39

Note:  I am a poor note-taker and these summaries will contain errors and omissions which will reflect my limitations.  My intention is to report on the facts as accurately as possible although a subconscious bias may creep in.  I can only provide glimpses into what I see as relevant and interesting events. My goal is to capture the essence of the day’s events rather than be comprehensive.

Read the reference documents: The Legal Case and Events Leading to Trial to obtain an understanding of the case and its history.  Names and terms are abbreviated and defined in  Glossary.

Toronto Star Witnesses Continue to Testify

Direct Examination of Kieran Leavitt by Ms. Cooper, (Counsel for the Toronto Star and Ms. McIntosh)

Mr. Leavitt was the Provincial Affairs reporter for Star Edmonton in 2019. His evidence:

• He reported to Alex Boyd.

• He became aware of Caylan around late 2018 or early 2019.

• He knew she was running to become an MLA in Calgary–Mountain View.

• On January 6, he received a nine‑page email from “Whistleblower” making scurrilous statements about Caylan, Jason Kenney, Licia Corbella, the UCP, and others. The statements included:

  • Allegations of fraud and corruption in the Calgary–Mountain View UCP nomination;

  • Jason Kenney breaching the grassroots guarantee by parachuting in a candidate from Ontario;

  • The nomination being plagued by “dirty tricks”;

  • A systemic, deliberate, organized strategy to breach Party rules;

  • A candidate fraudulently purchasing a membership;

  • The UCP taking the unprecedented step of authorizing a candidacy without investigating residential history;

  • The UCP collaborating with Licia Corbella to publish a flattering puff piece on Caylan;

  • The Party disqualifying Mark Hlady, “the only serious competitor.”

• Mr. Leavitt did not know the identity of Whistleblower at that time.

• He replied the next day asking whether there was any hard evidence of collaboration between Licia Corbella and the UCP.

• He brought the email to the attention of Alex Boyd.

• He did not ask for Whistleblower’s identity because he was not working on a story.

• He later learned Whistleblower’s identity when Jivraj called him.

• On January 16, Jivraj sent him an email attaching an affidavit sworn by Jivraj attesting to the authenticity of screenshots attached as exhibits.

• Mr. Leavitt forwarded the affidavit to Alex Boyd and Trevor Howell.

• He told Jivraj he needed to see the original messages, understand the context, and know why they were sent.

• Jivraj said he would be comfortable with a Calgary reporter reviewing the messages on his phone.

• No Toronto Star reporter ever looked at the screenshots on Jivraj’s phone.

• Mr. Leavitt wanted to review the messages himself, but Jivraj would not allow it.

• Jivraj also insisted on anonymity in any published story.

• Mr. Leavitt was not prepared to write a story because he needed:

  • Verification of authenticity;

  • Context;

  • Information about Jivraj;

  • And because Jivraj insisted on anonymity.

• He expressed these concerns to his editor, Ms. Boyd, who agreed.

• He became frustrated with Jivraj and concluded there was not enough authentic information to write a story.

• He did not recall any further conversations with Jivraj after January 17.

• He did nothing with the material until March 19.

• He became aware of the March 18 Press Progress article.

• He learned that Mr. Maiman was covering Caylan’s resignation for the Toronto Star.

• He gave Mr. Maiman Jivraj’s phone number, email address, and the affidavit.

• He saw Caylan’s resignation statement referencing an obsessive campaign of intimidation, harassment, and defamation by Jivraj.

• He did not investigate Caylan’s allegations.

• He had no information about the relationship between Caylan and Jivraj.

Cross‑Examination of Mr. Leavitt (by Mr. Harrison, Counsel for Caylan)

Mr. Harrison’s cross‑examination made clear that Mr. Leavitt declined to pursue a story based on Jivraj’s material because:

• Jivraj refused to let him see the messages;

• He needed to know the context;

• Jivraj insisted on anonymity;

• He had reason to doubt Jivraj’s credibility and motivations.

It was also clear that he shared his concerns with Ms. Boyd, who agreed with his assessment.

Comment

Mr. Leavitt exercised sound judgment in suspecting both Jivraj and the story he was attempting to sell. His editor, Ms. Boyd, agreed with him—until March 19, when that judgment was abandoned.

Direct Examination of Madeline Smith (by Ms. Cooper)

Ms. Smith appeared by video. She is now employed by the CBC but in 2019 was a reporter‑photographer for Star Metro Calgary. Her evidence:

• She worked with Trevor Howell and Ms. McIntosh in the Calgary newsroom and reported to Ms. Boyd.

• She became aware of Caylan when the Press Progress article was published on March 18.

• She wrote an article published on March 23 in which she described Caylan as promoting “white supremacist talking points.”

• She wrote another article in April titled “What’s At Play Behind UCP ‘Bozo Eruptions’”.

  • The article named Caylan as a candidate who had to answer or dodge “questions about messages with racist, Islamophobic, or anti‑LGBTQ sentiment.”

• Ms. Smith testified that the reference to “racist” in the article was directed at Caylan.

• She said that concern about the replacement of white people is racist, and that Caylan’s messages constituted a “bozo eruption.”

• A second April article reported that Caylan “stepped down when reports emerged about white supremacist rhetoric she expressed …”.

• Ms. Smith listened to the Danielle Smith interview of Caylan but did not write about it.

Cross‑Examination of Ms. Smith (by Mr. Harrison)

• Ms. Smith summarized prior Toronto Star reporting by referring to Caylan as racist.

• She chose to quote a third party describing UCP candidates as coming from a “garbage pool” expressing “hateful views.”

• Her April articles were written after she had listened to the Danielle Smith interview.

• She testified that she did not need to contact Caylan for comment before writing about her.

Ms. Smith’s testimony concluded and she was excused.

Comment

Ms. Smith listed to the Danielle Smith interview of Caylan   After listening to that interview a serious reporter would want to at least interview Caylan before writing more about her.  But Ms. Smith blithely went on to describe Caylan as a racist and a bozo.  Her reporting demonstrates an agenda that was indifferent to the facts.

Day 38

Note:  I am a poor note-taker and these summaries will contain errors and omissions which will reflect my limitations.  My intention is to report on the facts as accurately as possible although a subconscious bias may creep in.  I can only provide glimpses into what I see as relevant and interesting events. My goal is to capture the essence of the day’s events rather than be comprehensive.

Read the reference documents: The Legal Case and Events Leading to Trial to obtain an understanding of the case and its history.  Names and terms are abbreviated and defined in  Glossary.

The Toronto Star begins its defence today.

Opening Statement of Ms. Cooper (Counsel for the Toronto Star and Emma McIntosh)

Ms. Cooper delivered her opening statement, identifying the defences upon which the Toronto Star and Ms. McIntosh rely in defending this action.

• The Toronto Star published news about the resignation of a high‑profile candidate.

• In January 2019, the Toronto Star received excerpts of Facebook messages from Jivraj.

• The Toronto Star decided not to pursue a story based on those messages at that time.

• Press Progress published its article on Caylan on March 18.

• The Defendants rely on the following defences: justification, responsible communication on a matter of public interest, and fair comment.

• Justification: the published stories were substantially true; the defence need only prove substantial truth.

• Ms. Cooper stated that Caylan made statements reflecting white supremacist or white nationalist views.

• Caylan acknowledged that the words were her words.

• Responsible communication: the Toronto Star acted responsibly in reporting on a matter of public interest.

• Candidates for public office are subjects of public interest.

• The Toronto Star acted responsibly in reporting on Caylan’s resignation.

• The articles set out both sides of the story.

• Fair comment: comment may include deductions, inferences, conclusions, judgments, remarks, or observations.

• Terms such as bigoted, racist, and white supremacist are comments rather than statements of fact.

• The statements made by the Toronto Star were comment on a matter of public interest.

• Comment must be based on fact, and the articles set out a significant factual basis.

• The Toronto Star will call seven witnesses.

• A brief description of each witness’s evidence was provided.

• The Toronto Star published 13 stories that are the subject of this litigation.

• The Toronto Star only reported after Caylan had resigned.

• The Plaintiff’s claim for joint and several damages is not justified.

• Ms. McIntosh acted independently in publishing some material about Caylan.

• The Toronto Star will ask the Court to dismiss all claims against it and Ms. McIntosh.

• Ms. McIntosh pleads that she was not given proper defamation notice in a timely manner.

• Ms. McIntosh’s statements were comment and expressed opinions that any person could reach based on the facts.

• Her statements were tweets made in public discourse about a star candidate.

• Her statements do not need to be true to qualify as fair comment.

• Ms. McIntosh also relies on justification.

• She is not liable for damages because she did not cause Caylan’s resignation.

• There is no legal basis for punitive damages on a joint and several basis.

• Ms. McIntosh made tweets from her personal computer, reflecting her personal opinion.

• She listened to the Danielle Smith interview and was frustrated by Smith’s failure to press Caylan on issues.

Direct Examination of Kevin Maimann (by Ms. Cooper)

Mr. Maimann is now a reporter for the CBC. In 2019, he was a journalist for Star Metro Edmonton, working in the Edmonton newsroom covering politics and other matters. His evidence:

• Star Edmonton was a local news bureau owned by the Toronto Star.

• Alex Boyd was the managing editor in 2019; Kieran Leavitt was the Alberta legislature reporter.

• Ms. McIntosh was a reporter for Star Calgary.

• Mr. Maimann first learned of issues relating to Caylan on the morning of March 19.

• He saw the Press Progress article and learned of Caylan’s resignation.

• He saw articles and statements about Caylan published by Canadian news outlets and by the Council of Canadian Muslims.

• He was assigned to look into the story and began reaching out to contacts.

• He spoke with Janice Harrington and obtained audio files from Jason Kenney, Kathleen Ganley, and Naheed Nenshi.

• He learned that Kieran Leavitt had communicated with Jivraj and had his contact information.

• Mr. Leavitt provided Jivraj’s contact information.

• Mr. Maimann called Jivraj and recorded the conversation. In that conversation, Jivraj:

  • Immediately demanded anonymity;

  • Said he was concerned about retaliation;

  • Said the messages between him and Caylan were private;

  • Said he and Caylan used to be friends but had a falling out;

  • Said the Mountainview Constituency Association had ostracized him because he had access to “unsavoury things”;

  • Said Hlady was disqualified from the nomination contest because he could have beaten Caylan;

  • Alleged that the UCP “stacked the system,” “rigged the nomination,” disqualified the only serious competitor, and “quelled dissenters”;

  • Suggested that Caylan was involved with “stupid, alt-right, neo-Nazi shit”;

  • Said Jason Kenney flew in a star candidate [Caylan] from Toronto;

  • Stated that he did not like Caylan and that she was ruthless and had made up lies about him;

  • Said he had introduced Caylan to Jason Kenney;

  • Gave Mr. Maimann Hlady’s phone number.

• The following quote from the taped conversation is notable:

  • Mr. Maimann: “… do you have any involvement with the [UCP] party?”

  • Jivraj: “Umm no, no”.

[This is noteworthy because Mr. Maimann later quoted Press Progress describing Jivraj as “a Muslim conservative with ties to the UCP .]

• Mr. Maimann spoke with Mark Hlady twice.

• Hlady made extensive complaints about Jason Kenney, Alan Hallman, the UCP, the Mountainview riding, its Constituency Association, and Janice Harrington.

• Hlady requested that his name not be associated with Jivraj.

• He claimed he had been unfairly ousted as a nomination candidate because the party wanted Caylan.

[In fact, Hlady had been disqualified due to inappropriate sexual conduct, and his support in the riding was under 3%.]

• Mr. Maimann contacted the UCP and spoke with Janice Harrington.

• Ms. Harrington said Hlady misunderstood the rules, that the nomination was run fairly, and that Caylan had the same opportunities as anyone else.

• The first Toronto Star article about Caylan was written by Mr. Maimann and published shortly after 9:00 a.m. on March 19.

• There were four Toronto Star articles about Caylan published on March 19.

• The articles featured:

  • Headline: “Calgary UCP candidate resigns after comments about white nationalism surface online”;

  • First paragraph stated that Caylan resigned “after comments promoting racist white supremacist talking points”;

  • Repetition of much of the Press Progress March 18 article;

  • Described Jivraj as “a Muslim conservative with ties to the UCP”;

  • Quoted Caylan saying the comments were “distortions and are not reflective of my views”;

  • Quoted Caylan saying “I strongly denounce extremism, violence and stand with marginalized communities everywhere”;

  • Quoted Hlady’s statement that Kenney had recruited Caylan and that “They couldn’t beat me … They had to disqualify me so they could have … Caylan Ford become the candidate”;

  • Quoted NDP candidate Ganley;

  • Remain online today.

• Mr. Maimann believed his characterization of Caylan as a racist was accurate.

• He never saw the full Facebook Messenger conversation.

• The Toronto Star published four stories about Caylan that day, each referring to her “promoting racist white supremacist talking points.”

• Mr. Maimann attempted to contact Caylan:

  • He called and spoke with her husband;

  • He emailed her;

  • Caylan responded, referring him to her resignation statement and inviting him to email further questions;

  • He did not send any questions;

  • He emailed again asking if she would chat;

  • Caylan replied that she was not able to speak that day but would be happy to talk after Wednesday;

  • Mr. Maimann never followed up.

• He wrote another article on March 22, again stating that Caylan “promoted racist white supremacist talking points.”

• On March 26, he wrote another article stating that Caylan resigned after “messages she sent promoting racist white supremacist talking points were made public,” and quoting third parties referring to “racist,” “xenophobic,” and “homophobic” comments.

• Another article referred to Caylan as a “candidate who stepped down for expressing white nationalist and Islamophobic views.”

• Mr. Maimann testified that he believed Caylan had been unfairly promoted as a nomination candidate and then resigned.

Cross‑Examination of Mr. Maimann (by Mr. Harrison)

• Mr. Maimann interpreted Caylan’s quoted statements as racist and white supremacist.

• He did not ask to see the actual messages and never saw them.

• He did not know the context of the messages.

• He did not publish the statements immediately preceding or following the quotes.

• He omitted portions of the statements.

• He did not question Jivraj about being ostracized by the party.

• He did not question the party about Jivraj’s claim.

• He never corroborated the messages Jivraj provided.

• He never investigated the relationship between Caylan and Jivraj or the reasons for their falling out.

• He never asked for proof of the allegation that Jason Kenney recruited Caylan and flew her into Calgary.

• He assumed Jivraj still had ties to the UCP despite Jivraj saying he had none.

• He never asked Jivraj why he had no involvement with the party.

• He never asked Hlady why he did not want to be associated with Jivraj.

• He did not know that Jivraj had authored the fraudulent resident letter.

• The Toronto Star had a Torstar Journalism Standards Guide.

  • It states: “We do not provide anonymity to those who attack individuals or organizations … the unattributed cheap shot. People under attack in our organization have a right to know their accusers.”

  • It also states that journalists “must always reveal the sources’ identity to editors and provide a compelling reason for why the source will not be named in news reports.”

• Alex Boyd granted Jivraj confidentiality.

• Mr. Maimann did not recall why.

• His article stated that Caylan “responded to an email and referred to her Facebook statement,” but did not mention that she invited him to email further questions.

• The Guide cautions journalists: “We should be wary of sources with axes to grind and always ensure that information from sources whose motives are in question is based in fact and can be verified independently by the journalist.”

• Mr. Maimann’s sources—Jivraj and Hlady—both had obvious axes to grind.

• His March 19 articles quoted Hlady extensively.

• Hlady was a discredited candidate with a motive.

• Everything Hlady told him was false.

• Mr. Maimann did not even try to independently verify what Hlady told him.

• He acknowledged that he had not conformed to the standards in the Guide.

Mr. Maimann’s testimony concluded and he was excused.

Comment

The Toronto Star was the first outlet to assert as a fact that Caylan made racist comments. The CBC had already characterized Caylan as white supremacist, but the Toronto Star stepped up the level of defamation by adding the term racist.

Mr. Maimann’s primary sources—Jivraj and Hlady—were each sources with axes to grind, and were each both dishonest and discredited, yet he made no meaningful effort to investigate them or their motives or to verify their claims. His failure to seek balance, context, or corroboration, combined with his disregard for the Torstar Journalism Standards Guide, reflects poorly on the quality of his journalism. So does his portrayal of Caylan as a racist.

Day 37

Note:  I am a poor note-taker and these summaries will contain errors and omissions which will reflect my limitations.  My intention is to report on the facts as accurately as possible although a subconscious bias may creep in.  I can only provide glimpses into what I see as relevant and interesting events. My goal is to capture the essence of the day’s events rather than be comprehensive.

Read the reference documents: The Legal Case and Events Leading to Trial to obtain an understanding of the case and its history.  Names and terms are abbreviated and defined in  Glossary.

Testimony of CBC Witnesses (Continued)

Direct Examination of Theresa Reichart by Mr. Woodley (Counsel for the CBC)

Ms. Theresa Reichart, B.A., C.A., C.B.V., was called by the CBC as an expert witness qualified to give opinion evidence concerning the quantification of damages. Her evidence regarding qualifications included:

• She works in litigation support with a focus on quantifying losses.

• She has worked in the field since 1992.

• She has been qualified as an expert in courts in Alberta, British Columbia, and Ontario, as well as before Alberta tribunals.

• She estimated she has been qualified approximately 50 times.

Mr. Woodley applied to have Ms. Reichart recognized as an expert in loss quantification.

Mr. Harrison opposed the application on the grounds that:

• her report exceeded the proper scope of her expertise,

• she withheld information from the Court and provided it to defence counsel for use in cross‑examining Mr. Devonshire, and

• she demonstrated an adversarial approach.

Justice Harris retired to consider the submissions and returned with her ruling. She recognized Ms. Reichart as an expert in loss quantification, with the limitation that she could not give evidence on certain pension issues.

Ms. Reichart’s report was entered as an exhibit.

Evidence of Ms. Reichart

• She made several corrections to her report and replaced one schedule.

• She confirmed she was engaged by the CBC to:

  • review Mr. Devonshire’s report and sur‑rebuttal report concerning Caylan’s losses, and

  • provide her own calculations of the Plaintiff’s losses.

• She based her calculations on events after the first CBC publication.

• Because Caylan had already resigned before the CBC published, Ms. Reichart recognized that CBC did not cause her resignation.

• She challenged Mr. Devonshire’s assumption that Caylan would retire at age 65.

• Statistics Canada data suggested an earlier retirement age, which would reduce losses.

• She challenged the discount rate used by Mr. Devonshire.

  • He used a single discount rate.

  • She testified he should have used short‑, medium‑, and long‑term rates.

  • Using varying rates would reduce his calculated losses by approximately one‑third.

• She rejected Mr. Devonshire’s Scenario A, which assumed Caylan would have been elected and appointed to cabinet.

• Because Caylan had resigned before the CBC published, Ms. Reichart said it was impossible for her to be elected and appointed to cabinet in that election cycle.

• She assumed that if Caylan returned to Global Affairs, she would not have earned more than she earned in her current employment.

• She concluded that Caylan suffered no loss after 2024, because she now earns more than she would have at Global Affairs.

• Therefore, in her view, Caylan would experience no future loss of income beyond 2024.

Cross‑Examination of Ms. Reichart by Mr. Harrison (Counsel for Caylan)

Mr. Harrison highlighted that:

• Ms. Reichart made numerous mistakes in her report.

• She failed to consider several relevant factors in assessing loss.

• She did not consider the possibility of election and cabinet appointment in a future election.

The major failing in Ms. Reichart’s report is addressed in the comment below.

Comment

The central flaw in Ms. Reichart’s report was her assumption that, absent the defamation, Caylan would not have earned more after 2024 than she actually did earn. She did not consider the possibility—despite Caylan’s age, intellect, education, and history of excelling—that Caylan could have become:

• a cabinet minister,

• a deputy minister,

• a senior manager,

• or the equivalent of such positions, or better.

By artificially limiting Caylan’s future prospects, Ms. Reichart was able to conclude that Caylan would experience no future income loss.

Interesting Differences

Three highly qualified experts provided opinions on Caylan’s income loss due to defamation:

• Mr. Devonshire — for the Plaintiff (Caylan)

• Mr. Aldridge — for the Defendant Broadbent Institute

• Ms. Reichart — for the Defendant CBC

The differences in their assessments are striking.

Past Losses

Mr. Devonshire’s estimates (to June 2025):

• Scenario A: $814,141

• Scenario B: $387,085

• Scenario C: $537,160

• Scenario D: $1,502,265

Mr. Aldridge

• Did not dispute these past loss figures and can be taken to have agreed with them.

Ms. Reichart’s Estimates (to March 2, 2026)

Past Losses

Loss with deduction of disability benefits
	Alternative 1 Global Affairs Canada	Alternative 2 Foreign Service Group
Past loss	$233,140	$133,153
Prejudgment interest	$25,428	$13,402
Total	$258,568	$146,555

Loss without deduction of disability benefits
	Alternative 1 Global Affairs Canada	Alternative 2 Foreign Service Group
Past loss	$324,459	$224,472
Prejudgment interest	$38,361	$26,335
Total	$368,820	$250,807

Future Losses

Mr. Aldridge	Mr. Devonshire	Ms. Reichart
5% deduction – $166,027	Scenario A – $3,115,557	0
10% deduction – $332,055	Scenario B – $2,882,725	0
20% deduction – $664,109	Scenario C – $4,265,060	0

Ms. Reichardt was the last witness to testify on behalf of the CBC.  The Toronto Star will begin with its witnesses on Day 38.

Day 36

Note:  I am a poor note-taker and these summaries will contain errors and omissions which will reflect my limitations.  My intention is to report on the facts as accurately as possible although a subconscious bias may creep in.  I can only provide glimpses into what I see as relevant and interesting events. My goal is to capture the essence of the day’s events rather than be comprehensive.

Read the reference documents: The Legal Case and Events Leading to Trial to obtain an understanding of the case and its history.  Names and terms are abbreviated and defined in  Glossary.

Testimony of CBC Witnesses (Continued)

Direct Examination of Christine Boyd by Ms. Layton (Counsel for the CBC)

Ms. Boyd has been a reporter for 21 years and has worked for the CBC in both Toronto and Calgary. She is currently an artificial intelligence advisor for the CBC Transformation Office. Her evidence included the following:

• In 2019 she was a Digital Service Producer for CBC Calgary, reporting to Kathleen Petty.

• She first learned about the Caylan story on the morning of March 19.

• Her involvement in the story was minimal.

• She served as the copy editor for the CBC story published on the evening of March 19.

• She “polished up” the story written by Rachel Ward.

• Rachel Ward’s draft headline referred to Caylan’s “comments about white supremacists.”

• Ms. Boyd changed the headline to “white supremacist comments.”

• It was Ms. Boyd who characterized Caylan as a white supremacist.

• She testified that audiences often see only the headline and decide whether to read the story based on it.

• She stated that Caylan’s comments reflected white supremacist ideology and echoed white supremacist rhetoric.

• She knew nothing about Jivraj, the source of the quotations.

• Ms. Boyd found Caylan’s comments about pride parades ambiguous—she did not know whether Caylan was playing devil’s advocate—so she left the quotations as they appeared.

Cross‑Examination of Ms. Boyd by Mr. Harrison (Counsel for Caylan)

• Ms. Boyd conducted no fact‑checking, yet she wrote the headline.

• She did not see the messages exchanged between Caylan and Jivraj.

• The CBC article contained 1,168 words, of which only 22 words covered Caylan’s resignation statement.

• The article omitted any mention of Jivraj’s harassment of Caylan.

• Ms. Boyd considered Jivraj’s harassment irrelevant.

• She did, however, consider it relevant to describe Jivraj as a conservative Muslim with deep ties to the party.

• She considered Caylan’s relationship with Jivraj irrelevant.

• She was unaware that Caylan had said she “does not believe that people are chiefly defined by race or ethnicity.”

• She was unaware that Caylan had said, “I do not believe that whiteness is the defining feature of Western civilization.”

• She was unaware that Caylan had said: “White nationalists believe that race is central to their identity. The preservation of white dominance is their principal political objective. I absolutely do not share those aims and beliefs.”

• She did not recall whether Caylan expressed sadness about the diminishment or loss of any ethnic group, not just white people.

• She was unaware that Caylan wrote: “I’m not against miscegenation, I would reject any policy of discrimination based on race (positive or negative discrimination). Altogether I just find identity politics dangerous.”

• She did not understand that Caylan had said it would not make much sense for Canada to remain majority‑white given its history as an immigrant nation.

• She did not understand that the violence Caylan feared was anti‑immigrant backlash.

• She did not understand that Caylan had called the neo‑Nazi rally in Charlottesville “sickening.”

• The CBC articles remain online despite the CBC now having access to all of Caylan’s statements.

Ms. Boyd’s testimony concluded and she was excused.

Comment

I previously wrote that Rachel Ward had characterized Caylan as a white supremacist. That was incorrect. Ms. Ward wrote that Caylan made “comments about white supremacists.” It was Ms. Boyd who changed the headline to accuse Caylan of making “white supremacist comments.”

Ms. Boyd sought a headline that would draw attention—she wanted sensationalism. The accusation that Caylan was a white supremacist provided that sensationalism.

Direct Examination of Marie Caloz by Mr. Woodley (Counsel for the CBC)

Ms. Marie Caloz has been in journalism for 33 years and is now the CBC Director of Legal Risk. She is responsible for ensuring compliance with the CBC Journalistic Standards and Practices, making decisions regarding litigation, and supporting journalists facing legal issues. Her evidence included the following:

• When the CBC is involved in litigation, she reviews all new information to determine whether updates to articles are warranted.

• She continually reviews publications to ensure they are appropriate, fair, and balanced.

• She decides how to handle potential conflicts of interest when the CBC reports on itself.

• When the CBC is involved in litigation, a litigation protocol applies.

• The protocol requires that anything written be produced by an independent journalist walled off from the CBC.

• The CBC program Front Burner had a headline: “White supremacist and homophobic posts force UCP candidates out.”

• After this litigation commenced, Ms. Caloz had that webpage taken offline.

• The first CBC story about Caylan had 315,000 “unique visitors.”

• Ms. Caloz continually assesses whether stories should remain online.

• CBC came to recognize that Jivraj had credibility issues and was a “scoundrel.”

• Serious allegations against Jivraj have now been proven.

• She testified that determining whether an article should be changed is more difficult when dealing with a source who is not credible.

• Even if a source is a liar, if documents can be otherwise verified, they may still be used.

• Jivraj’s motivation and lack of credibility became less important to the CBC.

• She said the public interest required publication of the information Jivraj provided.

• That information led to the resignation of a candidate.

• After her analysis, Ms. Caloz was comfortable with what the CBC published about Caylan.

• She read Caylan’s essay Apologia.

• She noted that Caylan had been consistent in responding to the articles about her.

• Caylan consistently stated that the articles did not reflect her actual views.

• But Caylan acknowledged in Apologia that she had used controversial words.

• That acknowledgement allowed Ms. Caloz to conclude that the CBC articles should remain online.

• CBC did not change its articles.

• CBC did not publish a story about Apologia because they believed it added nothing to their original reporting.

• In 2023 Ms. Caloz received the complete Facebook conversation between Caylan and Jivraj.

• She expressed the opinion that CBC journalists had acted responsibly.

At this point, Madam Justice Harris interrupted, stating that Ms. Caloz was not qualified to give opinion evidence and that the Court would assign zero weight to her opinions about whether CBC journalists acted responsibly.

• Ms. Caloz considered it appropriate that the CBC deleted portions of Caylan’s conversation comparing terrorists.

• CBC omitted part of Caylan’s conversation relating to demographic replacement.

• They omitted Caylan’s explanation that her sadness was “partly because of the loss of diversity.”

• Ms. Caloz concluded that the omitted portions would not have changed audience understanding.

• Regarding the Pride Parade message, she found the CBC reporting fair and accurate.

• She knew that CBC had omitted Caylan’s statement that she preferred sexual modesty to pride parades.

• They also omitted Caylan’s statement that she would willingly attend a gay Haydn concert.

• Ms. Caloz stated that she is a queer person and found Caylan’s statements homophobic.

Justice Harris again intervened, stating that she would disregard opinion evidence.

• Ms. Caloz made one change: she replaced the word “laments” with “describes” in the terrorism paragraph.

• She concluded that no other corrections or clarifications were required.

• In 2023 CBC reported on Caylan’s success in the restraining‑order litigation against Jivraj and noted that he had been held in contempt of court.

• CBC then stopped granting Jivraj anonymity.

• CBC recently published a story about this litigation written by an independent journalist.

Cross‑Examination of Ms. Caloz by Mr. Harrison (Counsel for Caylan)

• CBC could have informed itself about Caylan’s views by:

  • reading Apologia,

  • watching the Danielle Smith interview,

  • watching Caylan’s documentary When the Mob Came, or

  • listening to any of Caylan’s radio or podcast interviews.

• CBC gave no indication that additional information about Caylan had become available.

• CBC published several third‑party statements and adverse opinions about Caylan.

• They published nothing from people defending her.

• They were aware that other news organizations did publish statements supportive of Caylan.

Ms. Caloz’s testimony concluded and she was excused.

Comment

Ms. Caloz appeared to believe that she and the CBC possess a kind of moral superiority that validates whatever they do—therefore, in their view, they do no wrong.

The CBC continues to characterize Caylan as a white supremacist despite her now well‑known rejection and condemnation of white supremacy and white nationalism. Yet they maintain that their coverage is fair and balanced.

Day 35

Note:  I am a poor note-taker and these summaries will contain errors and omissions which will reflect my limitations.  My intention is to report on the facts as accurately as possible although a subconscious bias may creep in.  I can only provide glimpses into what I see as relevant and interesting events. My goal is to capture the essence of the day’s events rather than be comprehensive.

Read the reference documents: The Legal Case and Events Leading to Trial to obtain an understanding of the case and its history.  Names and terms are abbreviated and defined in  Glossary.

Testimony of CBC Witnesses (Continued)

Direct Examination of Kathleen Petty by Mr. Woodley (Counsel for the CBC)

Ms. Kathleen Petty has been employed by the CBC since 1989. In 2019 she was an Executive Producer of CBC News, responsible for supervising journalism. She currently hosts two radio programs. Her evidence included the following points:

• In March 2019 she was focused on political news in advance of the Alberta election and oversaw political coverage.

• The CBC views its role as providing the public with thorough, thoughtful information necessary to make informed decisions on election day.

• The CBC aims to provide balanced, fair, and accurate news in an impartial manner.

• She discussed the CBC’s Journalistic Standards and Practices.

• She first heard of Caylan when Drew Anderson told her he had information about her.

• Anderson said his information came from someone associated with conservative politics.

• He sent Ms. Petty some of the Facebook messages he had received from Jivraj.

• Because Anderson was potentially conflicted, Ms. Petty instructed him to turn the file over to Bryan Labby.

• She did not initially consider the story a priority and gave no specific instructions to Anderson or Labby.

• Nothing was done with the material provided to CBC by Jivraj for about 3 weeks.

• Ms. Petty next heard about Caylan when Press Progress published its March 18 article.

• Caylan resigned late on March 18.

• Ms. Petty only learned of the resignation on the morning of March 19.

• She knew the CBC had material about Caylan.

• The CBC did not publish on March 18 because they wanted to see the impact of the Press Progress article and felt they had not yet done enough of their own work.

• The CBC knew they possessed a message Press Progress did not have—the “Pride Parade” message.

• CBC published its first story on Caylan at 8:17 a.m. on March 19.

• The CBC had not reached out to Caylan before publishing that story.

• The first story attributed information to Press Progress.

• CBC then began pursuing an interview with Caylan and sought to verify the screenshots in their possession.

• Mr. Labby was assigned to contact Jivraj to verify the screenshots; he contacted and met with Jivraj.

• Labby obtained a screenshot of one Facebook message; Jivraj later emailed him additional screenshots.

• In one of her emails Ms. Petty wrote: “… but to be clear we need the messages re: racism that Press Progress reported so we can report without attributing to Press Progress and then of course we will also have the LGBTQ stuff.”

• CBC did not want to give attribution to Press Progress.

• After Labby obtained a screenshot directly from Jivraj, CBC believed it no longer needed to attribute to Press Progress.

• CBC stated in subsequent articles that they had “seen and verified” the Facebook messages.

• Mr. Labby, Rachel Ward, and Elizabeth Whittey all reached out to Caylan.

• CBC wanted to speak with the subject of the story and give her an opportunity to provide context for the message excerpts.

• They updated their first story throughout the day as new developments arose.

• Ms. Petty had no role in granting Jivraj confidentiality; that was Helen Henderson’s responsibility.

• Ms. Petty was in the newsroom when Rachel Ward spoke with Caylan by phone.

• She understood that conversation to be off the record.

• She was relieved when she learned Caylan had agreed to an on‑the‑record interview.

• Caylan then did an interview with Canadian Press.

• In that interview Caylan discussed her resignation.

• Ms. Petty dismissed Caylan’s statements in that interview, writing that it was “… full of tripe about civil discourse …”.

• CBC’s biggest priority was to question Caylan about the Pride Parade message.

• Ms. Petty learned that Caylan would not participate in the Eyeopener interview.

• She was disappointed that Caylan withdrew and said the CBC would have treated her fairly.

• CBC then decided to proceed with its story, giving prominence to the Pride Parade message.

• Rachel Ward was the primary writer.

• The story was posted at 11:22 p.m., and CBC Calgary sent it to CBC Toronto requesting national coverage.

• Ms. Petty explained why she believed it appropriate to characterize Caylan as a white supremacist.

• The first line of the CBC story stated that Jason Kenney condemned Caylan.

• Jason Kenney had not condemned Caylan; he had condemned the quoted statements.

• The story said Caylan “lamented” that white supremacist terrorists face a double standard.

• Ms. Petty testified that “lamented” was appropriate because Caylan was expressing regret.

• The message does not express regret; it simply identifies a double standard.

• Ms. Petty conflated Caylan’s discussion of demographic replacement with the disreputable “Great Replacement Theory.”

• These are two entirely different concepts.

• The story included Caylan’s description of white supremacist “perverse” moral reasoning.

• It did not include her description of white supremacists as “odious.”

• The story referred to Caylan’s take on “pride events,” although she had questioned the value of “pride parades.”

• Ms. Petty said CBC broadened “pride parades” to “pride events” to avoid repetition.

• The story did not include Caylan’s statement that the Press Progress article “represents a gross distortion of my views and doesn’t represent what I believe in.”

• Ms. Petty stated that the description of Jivraj as a “conservative Muslim …” was lifted from the Press Progress article.

• She noted that all attribution to Press Progress was removed from the CBC story.

• The CBC story quoted NDP candidate Kathleen Ganley and now‑NDP leader Naheed Nenshi.

• CBC did not seek any positive statement about Caylan.

• All CBC articles about Caylan remain live and online.

Cross‑Examination of Ms. Petty by Mr. Harrison (Counsel for Caylan)

Mr. Harrison drew the Court’s attention to matters raised in Ms. Petty’s direct examination and read Caylan’s statements relevant to the pride parade.  Shortly after questioning the value of pride parades Caylan stated that she preferred sexual modesty over pride parades, and said that she would be willing to attend a gay Haydn concert.

Comment

The CBC was scooped by the Press Progress article. In its early‑morning March 19 story, CBC was obliged to attribute to Press Progress, but immediately entered “scramble mode,” attempting to verify enough information to publish without attribution. Labby was dispatched to meet Jivraj and confirm that he had exchanged Facebook messages with Caylan. He managed to take one photo of one screenshot on Jivraj’s phone, and CBC treated that as sufficient to claim they had “seen and verified” the messages. The broader context of the Facebook conversation was not considered.

But CBC needed to go further than Press Progress. They had the Pride Parade message, which Press Progress did not, and they featured it prominently in their headline. To surpass Press Progress, they:

• labelled Caylan a white supremacist,

• falsely described a neutral observation as a “lament,”

• broadened “pride parades” into “pride events,”

• quoted NDP candidate Ganley attributing racist views to Caylan,

• quoted Nenshi and a Mount Royal political scientist,

and then, to imply guilt by association, referred to other UCP controversies.

Having been scooped, CBC pursued one‑upmanship—and may have succeeded. But that success came at the expense of objectivity.

Day 34

Note:  I am a poor note-taker and these summaries will contain errors and omissions which will reflect my limitations.  My intention is to report on the facts as accurately as possible although a subconscious bias may creep in.  I can only provide glimpses into what I see as relevant and interesting events. My goal is to capture the essence of the day’s events rather than be comprehensive.

Read the reference documents: The Legal Case and Events Leading to Trial to obtain an understanding of the case and its history.  Names and terms are abbreviated and defined in  Glossary.

The day was filled with the testimony of CBC witnesses.

Direct Examination of Rachel Ward by Mr. Woodley (Counsel for the CBC)

Ms. Ward, BA, MA, is a Producer of the CBC program Fifth Estate.  Her evidence:

·      In March 2019, she was an Associated Producer for CBC working on the Eye Opener program and as a web writer.

·      She became aware of the Press Progress article about Caylan on the night of March 18.

·      She had gone home when Caylan posted her resignation and she returned to work at 2:00 Pm on the 19th.

·      Helen Henderson instructed her to work on the Caylan story and reach out to Caylan.

·      Helen Henderson had made the decision that Jivraj would be a confidential source.

·      She wrote to Caylan copying the screenshot of the “Pride Parade” message and putting questions to Caylan concerning that message.

·      Caylan responded to Ms. Ward’s email saying she would reply in 15 minutes.

·      Ms. Ward became aware that Ms. Whitey was talking to Caylan on the phone.

The telephone call:

·      Ms. Ward and Caylan then had a telephone conversation that was recorded.

·      Caylan first asked that the conversation be off the record.

·      She later agreed that the conversation could be on the record.

·      [It was never clarified whether the conversation was on or off the record.]

·      Caylan agreed to do a pre-taped interview for the Eye Opener.

·      Ms. Ward confirmed that the taped interview would be edited.

·      Caylan told Ms. Ward about the profoundly misleading articles Press Progress had written about her.

·      And that Press Progress was utterly disinterested in correcting the record.

·      Caylan told Ms. Ward that she had deleted the Facebook messages; that she had no record of the conversations and it was very difficult to respond.

·      Caylan told Ms. Ward that Press Progress had published defamatory articles about her and had failed to correct their false statements when advised of the facts.

·      Caylan told Ms. Ward that Jivraj was a “diagnosable psychopath who has been stalking and intimidating and engaged in an incredibly involved elaborate campaign of defamation against me for a year.”

·      Caylan told Ms. Ward about the nefarious conduct of Jivraj and of the various attempts he had made to sabotage her political career including:

o   Jivraj’s false allegation that Caylan had accused a candidate of sexual assault.

o   His purchase of Caylan’s domain name.

o   That he had a habit of making up quotations, attributing them to Caylan, and then buying ads on Google to promote them.

·      She also told Ms. Ward about Jivraj’s fraudulent campaign as a supposed political candidate, his lewd comment about her tits, the cease-and-desist letter, and the police report on Jivraj.

·      Caylan gave Ms. Ward the name of Sadiq Valliani, who could confirm her statements about Jivraj fraud as a supposed candidate.

Following the phone conversation:

·      At 7:17 PM Ms. Ward wrote Caylan with an email entitled “URGENT CBC NEWS”:

o   Quoting the “Pride Parade” message excerpt.

o   Telling Caylan that a CBC reporter had seen quotations on Jivraj’s phone.

o   asking that Caylan provide documents confirming what Caylan had told about Jivraj.

o   Telling Caylan that CBC would seek more information concerning Jivraj.

·      At 9:00 PM Caylan emailed Ms. Withey advising that she would not be participating in the Eye Opener interview because “I’m not sure I’ll get a fair hearing”.

·      Ms. Ward emailed Caylan saying the door was still open for an interview.

·      Ms. Ward wrote the first CBC article about Caylan; it was published at 11:02 PM. [click HERE to view] (updated)

·     ·      The headline was “Star UCP candidate who made white supremacist comments also questioned value of Pride parades”.

·      The sub-headline was “Jason Kenney condemned Caylan Ford for lamenting replacement of white peoples in their homelands”

·      [Jason Kenney did not condemn Caylan; he condemned the comments; he made a point of emphasizing that fact when testifying.]

·      The article states that Caylan “… lamented there was a double standard for white supremacist terrorists …”

·      [Caylan did not “lament”; she described a double standard.]

·      The article described Jivraj as a “longtime Muslim conservative with deep ties to the party”.

·      Quoted NDP candidate Ganley saying “… [Caylan] is a star candidate that he [Jason Kenney] convinced to move here from Ontario specifically to run in this election”.

·      [The quoted statement is utterly false except for “star candidate”.  However, it serves the purpose of diminishing Caylan while lending credibility to her NDP opponent.  Its inclusion in the article suggests that Ms. Ward either was indifferent to the truth or found it acceptable to publish falsehoods contained in a third person quotation.]

CBC justification:

·      Ms. Ward characterized the quotations as being white supremacist.

·      She thought Caylan was complaining that Islamic terrorists were not treated fairly.

·      She thought use of the words “demographic replacement” demonstrated beliefs held by white supremacists.

·      She was not aware of any information that disputed the Press Progress characterization of Jivraj, so kept the same description.

·      Helen Henderson had granted Jivraj confidentiality.

·      The demographic replacement comment was not reproduced in full because “we picked out the part that was most in the public interest and the clearest”.

·      They included “it will not be a peaceful transition” because that seemed like a white supremacist theory about a race war.

·      They did not include Caylan’s concern about a loss of diversity because it was “repetitious and confusing”.

·      [It would only be confusing if you wanted to conclude that Caylan was a white supremacist].

·      They wanted to publish comments that raised questions about whether Caylan held racist or homophobic views so the public could see and assess for themselves.

Subsequently:

·      On March 20 Ms. Ward wrote an article when Caylan’s replacement candidate was appointed.

·      The article was entitled “UCP finds replacement for UCP candidate who resigned over white supremacist comments”.

·      It repeated the CBC claim that Caylan “lamented there was a double standard for white supremacist terrorists.”

·      Ms. Ward did not listen to or watch the Danielle Smith interview of Caylan.

·      In April, Caylan emailed Ms. Ward sending her a copy of Caylan’s essay Apologia.

·      Ms. Ward read the essay and concluded that “it seemed like a commentary on political discourse and was nothing new.”

·      Ms. Ward “did not understand [Apologia] to be a written statement … it didn’t seem like a statement responding to my questions about pride parades.”

·      Ms. Ward did not respond to Caylan; she did not understand her receipt of Apologia as an invitation to interview Caylan.

Cross-examination of Ms. Ward by Mr. Harrison (Caylan’s Counsel)

·      Ms. Ward asked Mr. Labby to send her the pride parade messages but did not ask for any surrounding context.

·      The proposed pre-taped interview of Caylan would have been edited by CBC and portions may be deleted.

·      The edited interview would be used on different CBC news segments.

·      Ms. Ward recognizes that Press Progress is a left-leaning advocacy organization, and not a news outlet.

·      Caylan suggested CBC call Mr. Valliani to confirm Jivraj’s fraudulent activity in connection with the Calgary-Centre nomination.

·      Neither CBC nor Ms. Ward followed up with Mr. Valliani.

·      Ms. Ward told Caylan that CBC would seek information about Jivraj from the police and from the Law Society.

·      CBC did not do so.

·      The CBC article stated that CBC had “seen and verified the messages”.

·      Ms. Ward who wrote the article did not know what Mr. Labby had seen – he only saw one message on Jivraj’s phone.

·      Ms. Ward didn’t know who came up with the description of Jivraj as a “long time Muslim conservative with deep ties to the party”.

·      They did not mention that Caylan had described Jivraj as “someone who has waged an obsessive campaign of intimidation, harassment, and defamation” against Caylan.

·      The article did not inform readers that Caylan had declined an interview because she did not have her copies of the messages and because she did not think she would be treated fairly.

·      It was in the public interest to publish the terrorist message.

·      CBC deleted content from the terrorist message.

·      It was not in the public interest to publish all of the terrorist message?

·      Caylan’s statement that the quotes were a gross distortion of her views was omitted from the CBC article.

·      Ms. Ward did not think Caylan’s Apologia had any content significant to Ms. Ward.

·      The CBC only quoted persons who were condemnatory of Caylan,

·      They did not try to present any positive views about Caylan.

·      Ms. Ward did not consult any legal or academic definitions of “white supremacist” before applying the term to Caylan.

·      She did not consider that describing Caylan as a white supremacist would adversely affect her employability or her life.

·      She did not consider that describing Caylan as a white supremacist would subject her to contempt and ostracism.

·      CBC had formerly said that they would reconsider their coverage of Caylan if she submitted a written statement.

·      She did not consider Apologia a written statement.

Comment

In her resignation statement and in her telephone conversations with Ms. Ward and Ms. Withey, Caylan provided CBC with sufficient information about Jivraj and Press Progress to alert them to the fact that neither of those sources were credible.  Yet the CBC published its March 19th articles relying entirely on those two disreputable sources.  They were so enthusiastic about publishing an article damaging to a prominent conservative candidate that they disregarded the red flags about their sources.

What is a white supremacist?

Ms. Ward characterized Caylan as a white supremacist. She has a Masters degree in journalism and should be capable of precision in her language.  What is a white supremacist?

Dr. Kaufman defined white supremacist as: “White supremacy” - believes in the racial supremacy of the white race which entitles white people to dominate or rule over other groups. Sometimes this overlaps with white nationalism, sometimes it is separate (e.g. antebellum south was white supremacist, not white nationalist.) It’s a hierarchical system where one group is superior.

What is a white supremacist?

Ms. Ward characterized Caylan as a white supremacist. She has a Masters degree in journalism and should be capable of precision in her language.  What is a white supremacist?

On Day 24 of the trial, Dr. Kaufman defined white supremacist as: “White supremacy” - believes in the racial supremacy of the white race which entitles white people to dominate or rule over other groups. Sometimes this overlaps with white nationalism, sometimes it is separate (e.g. antebellum south was white supremacist, not white nationalist.) It’s a hierarchical system where one group is superior. 

Wikipedia defines white supremacist as “the belief that white people are superior to those of other races. The belief favors the maintenance and defense of any power and privilege held by white people.”

None of the quotes attributed to Caylan suggests that she believes in the racial supremacy of white people.  But if sensationalism is the objective rather than truth, white supremacist is the term of choice.  Press Progress had not called Caylan a white supremacist, so Ms. Ward outdid even Press Progress; she excelled in sensationalism.

Day 33

Note:  I am a poor note-taker and these summaries will contain errors and omissions which will reflect my limitations.  My intention is to report on the facts as accurately as possible although a subconscious bias may creep in.  I can only provide glimpses into what I see as relevant and interesting events. My goal is to capture the essence of the day’s events rather than be comprehensive.

Read the reference documents: The Legal Case and Events Leading to Trial to obtain an understanding of the case and its history.  Names and terms are abbreviated and defined in  Glossary.

The testimony of witnesses called by the CBC continued.

Direct Examination of Drew Anderson by Ms. Layton (Counsel for the CBC)

Mr. Anderson has a BA in Political Science and a journalism degree. He has worked in journalism for more than 20 years and, in March 2019, was a web journalist for the CBC. His evidence:

• He testified about the CBC Journalistic Standards and Practices.

• He first became involved in the story through a January 9 email from “Whistleblower.”

• Whistleblower sent him screenshots of a Facebook message exchange in which Caylan discussed a trip to Calgary.

• He told Whistleblower he was interested in UCP infighting and viewed this as an example of discord.

• Whistleblower alleged that Caylan had been handpicked by Jason Kenney as a candidate.

• On February 27, he wrote to Whistleblower saying he remained interested in pursuing the UCP infighting angle.

• He testified that he did not then know Whistleblower’s identity.

• He said he did not feel comfortable pursuing a story about Caylan because of a family connection.

• On February 28, he received an affidavit sworn by Jivraj attesting to the veracity of attached screenshots.

• He then knew that Whistleblower was Jivraj.

• Jivraj imposed a condition that his identity not be disclosed.

• Mr. Anderson had no role in the CBC decision to grant Jivraj anonymity.

• He took no steps to investigate either Jivraj or the screenshots.

• He decided not to pursue a story about Caylan because the connection was too close.

• He passed the file containing the Caylan material to Bryan Labby.

• He had no involvement in the March 19 CBC story about Caylan.

• He called Jivraj but could not recall the conversation.

• He provided Labby with Jivraj’s email address and phone number.

• He remained interested in pursuing a UCP infighting story about the Mountainview nomination.

• Mark Hlady then called him unexpectedly and discussed the Mountainview nomination contest.

• His evidence confirmed his belief that Caylan had been handpicked by Jason Kenney.

• He knew the relationship between Jivraj and Caylan was strained.

Mr. Anderson’s direct testimony concluded.

Cross‑Examination of Mr. Anderson by Mr. Harrison (Counsel for Caylan)

• He agreed he would investigate the credibility of an anonymous source if he were doing a story.

• He was interested in UCP infighting.

• He knew Caylan grew up in Calgary but never challenged Jivraj’s statements about her residency.

• He was focused only on the allegation that Caylan had been handpicked by Jason Kenney.

• Mark Hlady had told him he was disqualified as a candidate to make room for Caylan.

• He did not investigate whether that allegation was true.

• He was not concerned about the truth of Whistleblower’s allegations about Caylan.

• He did not contact Caylan to verify any of the allegations.

• He said he did not investigate because he was not doing a story.

• He did not recall being told that Jivraj had been suspended by the UCP for misconduct.

• He had been provided with the October 2018 Press Progress article about the fraudulent resident letter.

• He considered the Jivraj information fertile ground for a story about the Mountainview nomination contest.

• He contacted members of the Mountainview Constituency Association board.

• He did not recall who he spoke to or what was discussed.

• The affidavit he received from Jivraj contained screenshots of the “pride parade” and “terrorist” messages.

• He received the affidavit on February 28.

• He did not contact Caylan to learn the context of the messages.

• He did not recall how many times he spoke to Jivraj or what they discussed.

• He provided Labby with Jivraj’s email address and phone number.

Mr. Anderson was excused.

Comment

Mr. Anderson appeared still to believe that Caylan had been handpicked by Jason Kenney.  He said he had spoken to a member of the Mountainview Constituency Association board.  By 2019, when Mr. Anderson was involved, all of the board members knew that Caylan was a legitimate candidate who had been elected by UCP members in a competitive contest against credible opponents.  The board members also knew that Jivraj was a despicable liar and fraudster.  It is unfortunate that such information was not conveyed to Mr. Anderson by the board member to whom he spoke.

Direct Examination of Bryan Labby by Ms. Layton (Counsel for the CBC)

Mr. Labby is an enterprise reporter who has worked at the CBC since 2007. His evidence:

• He spoke about the CBC’s Journalistic Standards and Practices.

• He first became aware of news tips about Caylan in March 2019.

• Drew Anderson, who had a conflict, passed him an inch‑thick file concerning Caylan.

• The file included an affidavit from Jivraj attesting to the authenticity of attached screenshots.

• He knew the file concerned Caylan but did nothing with it initially.

• Mr. Anderson told him that Caylan and Jivraj had been friends and had a falling‑out.

• Mr. Anderson also told him that Helen Henderson had granted Jivraj confidential status.

• He became aware of the Press Progress article and Caylan’s resignation on March 18.

• He was instructed to reach out to Jivraj the next day to authenticate the screenshots.

• CBC wanted to authenticate the screenshots so it would not have to attribute them to Press Progress.

• He called and texted Jivraj and arranged to meet him at a café.

• They met and their meeting lasted about 45 minutes.

• He saw Jivraj scrolling through his phone looking for screenshots and saw Caylan’s photo.

• Jivraj was jittery and nervous and said he expected to be served with a legal document.

• Jivraj did not want his identity known.

• Jivraj found one quotation and showed it to him; Mr. Labby took a photo of it.

• Jivraj could not find the other screenshots but later emailed them.

• Mr. Labby did not ask to see any messages before or after the screenshots.

• Because he had personally seen screenshots, CBC could say it had verified them without attributing them to Press Progress.

• After leaving Jivraj, he went to Caylan’s campaign office, which was vacant, and took photos.

• He attended an NDP news conference held by Ms. Ganley and recorded her statements.

• He attempted to contact Caylan by text and voicemail but received no reply.

• He did not participate in the CBC story published later that day.

• On March 20, Caylan emailed Ms. Withey with attachments:

  • the cease‑and‑desist letter sent to Jivraj,

  • the “Too Good” letter Jivraj had anonymously sent to 1,400 voters,

  • confirmation that Jivraj had purchased the domain caylanford.ca.

• The email also included the police file number of a police investigation of Jivraj.

• Ms. Withey acknowledged receipt and told Caylan, “Will work through it.”

• She forwarded the material to Mr. Labby with the instruction “Go to town.”

• Mr. Labby did nothing with the material.

• He did not reach out to Caylan because other CBC colleagues were in touch with her.

• He again reached out to Jivraj, who urged him to write about Jason Kenney not revoking Caylan’s UCP membership.

• He wrote an article about Caylan on April 5.

• The article attributed racist and homophobic opinions to Caylan.

• He had never spoken to Caylan.

• He did not reach out to her before writing the article.

• He had earlier been reported to the CBC Ombudsman.

• The Ombudsman found he had breached CBC standards and written an unfair and unbalanced story.

Cross‑Examination of Mr. Labby by Mr. Harrison (Counsel for Caylan)

• Caylan’s resignation letter referred to Press Progress distortions and disregard for truth and decency.

• CBC reported only her resignation, not the Press Progress conduct.

• Her resignation letter also described Jivraj’s harassment and campaign against her.

• CBC again reported only her resignation, not Jivraj’s conduct.

• Mr. Labby was not asked to determine whether Press Progress had accurately reported Caylan’s comments.

• He was not asked to find the full context of the messages.

• His assignment was to meet Jivraj and verify screenshots.

• He was not asked to investigate the relationship between Caylan and Jivraj.

• He never asked Jivraj why he was disclosing private conversations.

• Helen Henderson had granted Jivraj confidentiality.

• He met with Jivraj, who scrolled through messages; Mr. Labby could not see the text as he scrolled.

• He did not ask to see the full conversation.

• He photographed the one screenshot Jivraj could locate.

• He saw only that one screenshot; others were emailed later.

• He was looking specifically for the “white supremacy” and “pride parade” comments.

• On March 19, he attempted but failed to reach Caylan.

• CBC had already published its first story.

• On March 20, Ms. Withey forwarded documents to him.

• The documents made clear that Jivraj:

  • had written pseudonymous emails to sabotage Caylan,

  • had purchased her domain name,

  • had harassed and stalked her,

  • had been reported to police.

• Ms. Withey’s email said “Go to town.”

• He interpreted this as permission to use the information as he wished.

• Despite this, he did nothing to investigate Jivraj.

• Instead, he sought more information from Jivraj to incriminate Caylan.

• On April 5, CBC published his article attributing racist and homophobic opinions to Caylan.

Mr. Labby was excused.

Comment

Although CBC claims to conduct fair and balanced reporting, Mr. Labby’s assignment was narrowly focused on finding incriminating material about Caylan. He was not asked to examine context, motivation, or credibility. When provided with clear evidence of Jivraj’s misconduct, he did nothing with it and instead published a story attributing racist and homophobic views to Caylan.

Direct Examination of Elizabeth Withey by Mr. Woodley (Counsel for the CBC)

Ms. Withey has been with the CBC since 2017 and is an Associate Producer with the Eye Opener. Her evidence:

• She knew nothing about Caylan until after Caylan had resigned.

• She was assigned to reach out to Caylan on the afternoon of March 19.

• She emailed Caylan inviting her to appear on the Eye Opener the next day.

• She wanted to know:

  • why Caylan resigned,

  • the context of the Press Progress messages,

  • who the “conservative Muslim” was,

  • Caylan’s perspective on the issues raised.

• Caylan initially agreed to an interview.

• Caylan asked for the line of questioning.

• CBC does not provide interview questions in advance.

• Ms. Withey knew Rachel Ward had also contacted Caylan.

• She and Caylan had a short, unrecorded phone call.

• Caylan told her about Jivraj; it sounded to Ms. Withey like Caylan had been the victim of a smear job.

• She emailed Caylan confirming the interview.

• Later that evening, Caylan emailed saying she had changed her mind and would not participate in the interview because she did not believe she would get a fair hearing.

• The next day, Ms. Withey texted asking if Caylan wished to reconsider.

• She also asked whether Caylan had documents to share.

• Caylan provided the requested documents, saying they could inform CBC reporting.

• The documents showed that Jivraj:

  • had written pseudonymous emails to sabotage her,

  • had purchased her domain name,

  • had harassed and stalked her,

  • had been reported to police.

• Ms. Withey forwarded the documents to Mr. Labby with the note “Go to town.”

• In April, Caylan sent her the essay Apologia.

• Ms. Withey read it and wanted to get Caylan on the Eye Opener.

• It was unclear whether Caylan wished to be interviewed.

Cross‑Examination of Ms. Withey by Mr. Harrison (Counsel for Caylan)

• Ms. Ward was told by Caylan that she could not answer CBC’s questions because she did not have records of the Facebook messages.

• Caylan emailed CBC saying she would not do the interview because she did not believe she would receive a fair hearing.

• She had initially agreed to an interview.

• She then interacted with Ms. Withey and Ms. Ward.

• She learned CBC was broadcasting ongoing stories about her.

• She learned CBC had met with Jivraj and sought more leaked messages.

• She then wrote saying she did not believe she would be treated fairly.

• Ms. Withey requested documents.

• Caylan sent documents showing that Jivraj had:

  • written pseudonymous emails to sabotage her,

  • purchased her domain name,

  • harassed and stalked her,

  • been reported to police.

• Ms. Withey replied, “Got this. Will work through it.”

• She forwarded the documents to Mr. Labby with “Go to town.”

• She was confident Mr. Labby would use the documents appropriately.

• In April, Caylan sent Apologia and suggested it was a good time for a post‑mortem.

• Ms. Withey suggested to Jennifer Keen that CBC interview Caylan.

• Ms. Keen did not assign the interview.

Ms. Withey was excused.

Comment

Ms. Withey may be the CBC employee who thought that Caylan had been wronged and genuinely wanted to hear her story.

Day 32

Note:  I am a poor note-taker and these summaries will contain errors and omissions which will reflect my limitations.  My intention is to report on the facts as accurately as possible although a subconscious bias may creep in.  I can only provide glimpses into what I see as relevant and interesting events. My goal is to capture the essence of the day’s events rather than be comprehensive.

Read the reference documents: The Legal Case and Events Leading to Trial to obtain an understanding of the case and its history.  Names and terms are abbreviated and defined in  Glossary.

Opening Statement of the CBC Defence by Mr. Woodley, Counsel for the CBC

Mr. Woodley delivered the opening statement on behalf of the CBC. He contended that:

• The central issue is whether the CBC acted responsibly.

• The Plaintiff is seeking “unusual and inappropriate” remedies by asking for joint and several damages.

• A joint and several award could make the CBC liable for the acts of other defendants.

• The CBC should not be held responsible for the conduct of others.

• The CBC only reported the Plaintiff’s own words.

• The CBC can establish three defences: truth, fair comment, and responsible communication on a matter of public interest.

• It was in the public interest to publish the Plaintiff’s controversial statements.

• The CBC was not responsible for Caylan’s resignation.

• The CBC’s role was to:

  • report on an unfolding controversy accurately, fairly, and with balance, and

  • provide information to help voters decide which party to support.

• The CBC made repeated attempts to contact Caylan on March 19.

• After that, it was up to Caylan to reach out if she wished to be interviewed.

• The CBC reported the truth.

• The CBC reported that Caylan had resigned and that her statements were characterized as racist, homophobic, or white supremacist.

• Editorial decisions were based on facts.

• Editorial deductions based on provable facts are protected by the defence of fair comment.

• Caylan’s views on LGBTQ issues, immigration, and demographic change were relevant to her candidacy and were matters of public interest.

• The CBC is not responsible for Jivraj’s decision to send private messages.

Direct Examination of Ms. Tracy Johnson by Ms. Layton (Counsel for the CBC)

Ms. Johnson was the first witness for the CBC. She has been employed by the CBC since 1997 and is currently the Director of Journalism in Calgary—the highest-ranking CBC journalism position in the city. Her evidence included:

• In 2019, Helen Henderson was the Director of Journalism in Calgary.

• The Eye Opener was CBC Calgary’s main morning radio program, hosted by David Gray, featuring news, traffic, and weather.

• The program is live, with 7–8 interview segments per day; most are live, some are taped.

• CBC’s Journalistic Standards and Practices guide its reporting.

• Accuracy, fairness, impartiality, balance, and integrity are core principles.

• CBC reveals private correspondence only when justified by public interest.

• CBC prefers to name its sources.

• A “confidential source” is known internally but not publicly.

• Confidentiality is granted after weighing the value of the information against risks to the source.

• She became aware of the Press Progress article on March 18.

• She recognized Press Progress as a left‑leaning advocacy organization, not a news outlet.

• She knew Press Progress was associated with the Broadbent Institute.

• Mr. Labby was assigned to cover the story.

• Ms. Henderson wanted to verify the authenticity of the Facebook messages before publishing.

• Labby was instructed to meet with Jivraj to verify the messages.

• The story was significant because it raised questions about UCP candidate vetting.

• CBC first published a web story at 8:00 a.m. on March 19 stating that Caylan “lamented that white supremacist terrorists face a double standard compared to Islamic terrorists.”

• CBC did not contact Caylan before publishing that first story.

• Brian Labby contacted Jivraj to verify the messages by viewing them on his phone.

• Ms. Withey from CBC called Caylan.

• Rachel Ward called Caylan and recorded the conversation.

• In that conversation, Caylan made allegations about Jivraj.

• The conversation was off the record.

• CBC expected Caylan to appear on The Eye Opener.

• A pre‑interview was planned, to be edited down to six or seven minutes.

• CBC intended to give Caylan an opportunity to tell her side.

• Rachel Ward was told by Caylan that she did not have the Facebook messages.

• CBC sent Caylan two of the messages.

• Rachel Ward told Caylan CBC would send all the messages they had.

• CBC journalists prepared interview questions, including:

  • “Are you racist?”

  • “Are you homophobic?”

• CBC staff were disappointed when Caylan withdrew from the interview.

• After Caylan withdrew, CBC decided to publish a story including the pride parade comments.

• On March 19, Ms. Withey again asked Caylan to appear on The Eye Opener.

• On March 20, Caylan sent Ms. Withey multiple documents incriminating Jivraj.

• CBC did nothing with that information.

• Ms. Johnson did not listen to the Danielle Smith interview.

• She received Caylan’s Apologia essay and scanned it but felt it did not address the Facebook message comments.

Cross‑Examination of Ms. Johnson by Mr. Harrison (Counsel for Caylan)

Key points from cross‑examination:

• One CBC publication stated that Caylan “endorsed white supremacist views.”

• Ms. Johnson said this was the reporter’s attempt to summarize.

• CBC did not hold the view that Caylan was racist.

• CBC did not disclose the full transcript of the Facebook messages.

• CBC selected which parts of the messages were “relevant.”

• Ms. Johnson did not see the messages immediately before or after the quoted excerpts.

• CBC did not report that Jivraj had published numerous false stories about Caylan because Ms. Johnson did not know they were false.

• She did not know whether Press Progress had altered the messages.

• CBC did not publish the full messages because of editorial judgment.

• CBC did not check the police report concerning Jivraj.

• CBC sought to protect Jivraj as a confidential source.

• Ms. Johnson heard Caylan say she did not have the messages.

• She heard that there was broader context to the quotes.

• CBC planned to pre‑tape the interview and edit it.

• The interview would begin with David Gray stating that the messages “seemed to show Caylan’s sympathy for white supremacists.”

• Ms. Johnson inferred that Caylan had shown sympathy because she compared white supremacist and Islamic terrorism.

• Caylan addressed her views on white supremacy in her Apologia essay.

• Ms. Johnson said the Apologia essay was not on the record, despite being publicly available.

• Caylan also addressed her views in the Danielle Smith interview.

• CBC did not report on either the Apologia essay or the Danielle Smith interview, claiming they were not on the record.

• CBC does report on public statements but did not report on Apologia due to editorial judgment.

• A CBC reporter omitted Caylan’s description of white supremacy as “odious and perverse.”

• Caylan’s stated reason for declining the interview was: “recent experiences being what they are, I’m not sure I’ll get a fair hearing.”

• CBC did not report her stated reason.

• Helen Henderson made the decision to grant Jivraj confidentiality.

Cross‑examination continued with extensive questioning about CBC’s compliance with its Journalistic Standards and Practices. After a brief re‑direct, Ms. Johnson was excused.

Comment

Caylan initially agreed to appear on The Eye Opener but later declined, telling CBC she did not believe she would receive a fair hearing. The draft interview questions—including “Are you racist?” and “Are you homophobic?”—were accusatory in form, akin to the classic loaded question, “When did you stop beating your wife.” Her concerns were justified.

By March 20, CBC had received substantial information about Jivraj: that he had made false allegations, authored and leaked the fraudulent resident letter, purchased Caylan’s domain name, written and leaked the Too Good letter, purchased Google attack ads, and been reported to police. CBC did nothing with this information.

By April, CBC had access to the Danielle Smith interview and Caylan’s Apologia essay—both publicly available and both presenting Caylan’s account. CBC showed no interest in reporting that perspective, and its articles about Caylan remain online.

One might reasonably conclude that the CBC’s conduct reflects an ideological mindset.

Day 31

Note:  I am a poor note-taker and these summaries will contain errors and omissions which will reflect my limitations.  My intention is to report on the facts as accurately as possible although a subconscious bias may creep in.  I can only provide glimpses into what I see as relevant and interesting events. My goal is to capture the essence of the day’s events rather than be comprehensive.

Read the reference documents: The Legal Case and Events Leading to Trial to obtain an understanding of the case and its history.  Names and terms are abbreviated and defined in  Glossary.

Evidence of Dr. Cassandra Brown

Dr. Cassandra Brown was called as an expert witness for the Defendants to provide opinion evidence regarding the psychological and vocational harm allegedly suffered by Caylan as a result of the defamation. Her evidence stands in contrast to that of Dr. Mandel, the Plaintiff’s expert on the same issues. Both are psychologists with strong credentials and similar professional practices.

Direct Examination of Dr. Brown by Ms. Tiessen (Counsel for the Broadbent Institute and Defendants Lebrun and Magusiak)

Dr. Brown, PhD, practices in Calgary in the areas of neuropsychology, vocational psychology, and clinical psychology. Regarding her qualifications, she testified:

• She has prepared five psycho‑vocational assessments for litigation.

• She has prepared approximately twenty reports for litigation.

• She has never previously been qualified as an expert witness in court.

The Court recognized Dr. Brown as an expert qualified to give opinion evidence in clinical psychology, neuropsychology, vocational psychology, disability assessment, cognitive function, psychological injuries and diagnosis, and the impact of such injuries on employment abilities. Her report was entered as an exhibit.

Background and Assessment

• She worked with the late Dr. Pachet from 2013 to 2021.

• Dr. Pachet conducted the first vocational assessment of Caylan; Dr. Brown was not involved in that assessment.

• She completed a psycho‑vocational assessment of Caylan in 2025.

• She conducted two interviews and administered a battery of psychological and cognitive tests.

Observations

• Caylan was cooperative, verbally fluent, and provided accurate answers.

• She appeared mildly depressed and became tearful at times.

• She experienced fatigue and anxiety during testing and requested breaks when mentally fatigued.

Test Results

• Caylan passed all validity tests, indicating adequate effort and no misrepresentation.

• Working memory and verbal comprehension scores were very high.

• Learning and memory scores were above average.

• Caylan reported significant anhedonia.

• She also reported sadness, low energy, and disengagement from normal activities.

• She presented with clinically significant defensive avoidance.

• Test results were consistent with her reported experience.

• She exhibited depressive and trauma‑related symptoms, as well as fatigue.

• Her intellectual functioning was extremely high, with no below‑average results and no indication of impairment.

Dr. Brown’s Conclusions

• Caylan does not have cognitive difficulties that would preclude her from the vocational fields she is interested in.

• From a cognitive standpoint, there is no indication of vocational limitations.

• She has persistent psychological symptoms consistent with major depressive disorder.

• Her depression is in partial remission.

• Her symptoms are not persistent or severe enough to indicate ongoing major depression.

• Several factors suggest a positive recovery trajectory: absence of pain, other health issues, childhood adversity, or personality disorders.

• There is a possibility of recovery.

• She did not experience a significant decline from her previous ability.

• There is no compelling psychological reason why she could not earn at the top salary range for politicians, government employees, or professors.

Cross‑Examination of Dr. Brown by Mr. Harrison (Counsel for Caylan)

Dr. Brown testified:

• She was not asked to and did not provide an opinion on whether reputational harm affected Caylan’s vocational potential.

• She is not qualified to opine on the vocational impact of reputational damage.

• She could not say whether Caylan could be hired as a deputy minister after being called a white supremacist.

• She confirmed that Caylan has major depressive disorder in partial remission.

• She explained the “practice effect,” whereby repeated testing can improve scores.

• Caylan had taken some tests twice before Dr. Brown administered the same tests.

• Caylan scored higher on the tests administered by Dr. Brown.

• The practice effect may have contributed to improved scores, but the effect is not expected to be large.

• Dr. Brown’s report stated that Caylan was less focused on entrepreneurial interests.

• One question used to assess entrepreneurial interest was whether Caylan wanted to open a nail salon.

• A “no” answer to the nail salon question is taken as indicating less entrepreneurial interest.

• Caylan’s symptoms had impacted her capacity to work, but she is able to perform at a high level.

• Dr. Brown disagreed with Dr. Mandel’s prognosis that Caylan’s depression was “likely to remain present.”

• She found reasons for optimism that reduced efficiency and productivity may not be permanent.

• She agreed that chronic depression has vocational implications.

• She agreed that Caylan has a history of major depression with anxious distress and other trauma‑related disorders.

• However, that history does not mean she is unsuited to most vocational opportunities.

• The exception may be “public facing” roles, such as:

  • elected official,

  • deputy minister,

  • professor (which “would be difficult”),

  • author (which could also be public facing).

• Despite this, Dr. Brown had concluded that there was no reason Caylan could not earn at the top salary range for politicians, government employees, and professors.

• Dr. Mandel had concluded that Caylan would suffer a 20%–30% lifetime loss of earnings.

• Dr. Brown stated she would need to review Dr. Mandel’s studies more closely to comment on that conclusion.

• Q: “If her symptoms do persist, would you agree that this would likely impact her future employability and earnings potential?” A: “Yes. Chronic depression, one would expect vocational implications. The degree of impact is variable. But even in a chronic course, I wouldn’t expect it to remain static.”

• She agreed it is possible that Caylan could perform at a higher vocational level if she had no depressive symptoms.

Similarities and Differences Between Dr. Brown and Dr. Mandel

Both psychologists are highly qualified and conducted similar assessments. Their reports, however, differ significantly in interpretation and prognosis.

Examples from Their Reports

Dr. Brown:“Ms. Ford is a 39‑year‑old woman who is alleged to have been the victim of a campaign of defamation and harassment, resulting in psychological trauma, reputational harm and vocational disruption.”

Dr. Mandel:“Because of allegedly false information that was spread about her, she was forced to resign her candidacy, became a political pariah, endured repeated personal attacks on her integrity, suffered material damage to her reputation, and developed significant negative psychological reactions…”

Dr. Brown:“Overall, her current presentation is not strongly indicative of a current major depressive episode, but lingering concerns were apparent.”

Dr. Mandel:“It is very concerning that these conditions remain present to the degree that they do… the duration of her symptoms reflect a chronic course, and suggest a poor future prognosis.”

Dr. Brown:“There is no occupation for which she would not be suited due to general ability.”

Dr. Mandel:“It would appear that Ms. Ford’s ability to pursue a career in politics or in any type of high‑level policy work… has been nullified for the foreseeable future.”

Dr. Brown:“There would be no limitations expected in her ability to be successful in any educational endeavour she should choose to undertake.”

Dr. Mandel:“While Ms. Ford is without doubt capable of attaining a tenured position… it remains unclear whether any university would risk hiring her given her defamed reputation.”

Dr. Mandel (re earnings): He concluded that Caylan will suffer a 20%–30% lifetime loss of earnings due to ongoing depression and compromised cognitive functioning.

Comment on Dr. Brown’s Evidence

Caylan underwent extensive testing by multiple professionals—psychiatrists, psychologists, and psychotherapists—and all results indicated she was accurately and credibly self‑reporting, neither exaggerating nor minimizing her symptoms.

Despite this, Dr. Brown repeatedly referred to Caylan’s difficulties as “perceived inefficacy,” “perceived poor performance,” “perceptions of diminished mental ability,” and “perceptions of diminished capacity.”

Dr. Brown stated she had no reason to doubt Caylan’s credibility, yet suggested that Caylan’s perceptions may not reflect actual limitations. This approach effectively allowed Dr. Brown to discount Caylan’s reported impairments despite objective testing supporting them.

Conclusion of Defence

Dr. Brown was the final witness called by Press Progress and the Broadbent Institute. With her testimony, the defence of those Parties is concluded.

Day 30

Note:  I am a poor note-taker and these summaries will contain errors and omissions which will reflect my limitations.  My intention is to report on the facts as accurately as possible although a subconscious bias may creep in.  I can only provide glimpses into what I see as relevant and interesting events. My goal is to capture the essence of the day’s events rather than be comprehensive.

Read the reference documents: The Legal Case and Events Leading to Trial to obtain an understanding of the case and its history.  Names and terms are abbreviated and defined in  Glossary.

Evidence of Mr. Derek Aldridge

Mr. Aldridge was called as an expert witness for the defence to provide opinion evidence on the quantification of Caylan’s loss of income arising from the alleged defamation. His evidence was tendered to counter the expert report and testimony of Mr. Devonshire, who testified for the Plaintiff on the same issue. As expected, Mr. Aldridge’s loss estimates were significantly lower than those of Mr. Devonshire.

Direct Examination of Mr. Aldridge by Ms. Tiessen (Counsel for the Broadbent Institute and Messrs. Lebrun and Magusiak)

Mr. Aldridge holds a BA and MA in economics and works primarily in personal injury litigation, quantifying income loss and other pecuniary damages. His evidence regarding his qualifications included:

• He outlined his education and work experience.

• He has prepared approximately 2,000 expert reports and has testified in court and before the Alberta Human Rights Tribunal.

• He has been qualified as an expert in 27 Alberta court cases.

Cross‑Examination on Qualifications

• Mr. Aldridge acknowledged that his evidence had not been accepted in several cases in which he testified.

• He acknowledged that he could not recall any case in which he had been retained to quantify damages arising from reputational loss.

Mr. Aldridge was accepted by the Court as an expert qualified to provide opinion evidence on pecuniary loss. His report was entered as an exhibit.

Further Evidence

• Mr. Aldridge did not dispute the past loss calculations provided by Mr. Devonshire.

• Dr. Mandel (Plaintiff’s medical expert) opined that Caylan could be expected to earn 20%–30% less than she would have earned absent the defamation.

• Dr. Brown (Defendants’ medical expert) suggested Caylan would suffer only a negligible loss of vocational capacity.

• Mr. Aldridge selected 5%, 10%, and 20% loss‑of‑capacity figures—positioning himself between the opinions of Dr. Mandel and Dr. Brown.

• Unlike Mr. Devonshire, he did not construct specific employment scenarios.

• He assumed Caylan would fall within a specific StatsCan occupational category.

• He relied on census income data providing average and above‑average income levels for the chosen occupational category.

• He placed Caylan in the category of “policy researchers, analysts, consultants, and program officers.”

• He assumed this was the occupation she would have pursued absent the defamation.

• The category includes full‑time workers, part‑time workers, and unemployed persons.

• He assumed Caylan would earn more than 75% of her peers and less than 25% of peers of the same age and occupation.

• He then applied 5%, 10%, and 20% deductions to those income levels.

• He also applied a disability contingency.

• He discounted future losses to present value using a 2.5% discount rate.

• He included scenarios in which Caylan’s loss of income ended at age 65 (retirement), age 46, or age 43—these latter ages were included at the request of his clients.

Mr. Aldridge’s Conclusions (Loss to Age 65)

• 5% loss of vocational ability deduction: $166,127

• 10% loss of vocational ability deduction: $ 332,055

• 20% loss of vocational ability deduction: $ 664,109

Cross‑Examination of Mr. Aldridge by Mr. Harrison (Counsel for Caylan)

Key points from cross‑examination:

• Mr. Aldridge did not specifically address reputational harm; he equated reputational harm with emotional harm.

• He agreed that Caylan’s losses would be greater if reputational damage limited her future employability.

• Dr. Mandel’s 20%–30% loss estimate did not include any allowance for reputational harm because Dr. Mandel was not qualified to opine on reputational effects.

• Mr. Aldridge did not consider the impact of Caylan’s inability to work full‑time.

• He did not use a StatsCan category for part‑time workers.

• The category “policy program researchers, officers and consultants” is:

  • lower than Caylan’s current role as Chief Development Officer,

  • lower than the income levels of MLAs, lawyers, university professors, and deputy ministers.

• StatsCan does not have a category for individuals in the 98th percentile for IQ.

• StatsCan does not have a category for individuals with two Master’s degrees.

After a brief re‑direct, Mr. Aldridge’s testimony concluded and he was excused.

Comparison of Expert Approaches

Mr. Devonshire’s loss‑of‑income estimates were based on detailed employment scenarios and divided into past losses (2019–2025) and future losses.

Devonshire – Past Loss Damages

• Scenario A: $ 814,141

• Scenario B: $ 387,085

• Scenario C: $ 537,160

• Scenario D: $ 1,502,265

Mr. Aldridge did not dispute these past‑loss figures.

Future Losses – Divergent Approaches

• Aldridge: placed Caylan into a StatsCan occupational category and applied various percentage deductions.

• Devonshire: projected future losses based on specific employment scenarios, with deductions as stated by Dr. Mandel.

Future Loss of Income – Comparison

Future Loss of Income – Comparison

Mr. Aldridge	Mr. Devonshire
5% deduction : $166,027	Scenario A: $3,115,557
10% deduction: $332,055	Scenario B: $2,882,725
20% deduction: $664,109	Scenario C: $4,265,060

Comment

Several factors are relevant in assessing the weight of Mr. Aldridge’s report and conclusions:

• He assumed Caylan’s employability and income would not be affected by reputational damage.

• He did not account for Caylan’s inability to work full‑time.

• He placed her in an occupational category equivalent to—or lower than—the category she occupied in her twenties as a senior policy advisor at Global Affairs.

• He placed her in a category lower than her current employment level.

• He did not consider her academic credentials or exceptional intellectual abilities.

Day 29

Note:  I am a poor note-taker and these summaries will contain errors and omissions which will reflect my limitations.  My intention is to report on the facts as accurately as possible although a subconscious bias may creep in.  I can only provide glimpses into what I see as relevant and interesting events. My goal is to capture the essence of the day’s events rather than be comprehensive.

Read the reference documents: The Legal Case and Events Leading to Trial to obtain an understanding of the case and its history.  Names and terms are abbreviated and defined in  Glossary.

Direct Examination of Mr. Stephen Magusiak by Ms. Tiessen (Counsel for the Broadbent Institute and Messrs. Lebrun and Magusiak)

Mr. Stephen Magusiak is a Calgary resident with a journalism degree. In 2019, he was the Alberta reporter for Press Progress. His testimony included the following points:

• He suffers from PTSD, which affects his memory.

• He has never been a member of a political party.

• He authored the October 13 Press Progress “fraudulent resident” article (Tab 4) [click HERE to view].

• He did not consult Caylan before writing the article, stating that such consultation would have been Lebrun’s responsibility.

• He also wrote the Press Progress article “Bozos, Bigots and Sketchy Characters,” which included Caylan.

• Lebrun asked him to meet with Jivraj to verify the authenticity of the Facebook messages Jivraj was providing to Press Progress.

• He met Jivraj at a café, scrolled through Jivraj’s cellphone, viewed the messages between Caylan and Jivraj, and saw Caylan’s profile.

• He then called Lebrun and reported that “it appeared to check out.”

• He asked Jivraj if he could be referred to as a “prominent Muslim conservative,” and Jivraj agreed.

• He participated in the Alberta Advantage podcast.

Direct examination concluded.

Cross‑Examination of Mr. Magusiak by Mr. Harrison (Counsel for Caylan)

During cross‑examination, Mr. Magusiak testified:

• He described Caylan as “a parachute candidate 100%.”

• He said Caylan was “covering her past in Ontario, safe to say.”

• He had written that “… this clearly parachuted candidate … shows how dubious these nomination battles are.”

• He had written that “… it looks like she never lived in Alberta, as far as I can tell, certainly not until recently.”

• He could not recall the names of persons who had emailed him (Press Progress had redacted the names).

• He could not recall whether Thomas Lukaszuk informed him that allegations about Caylan were being disseminated by Jivraj.

• Mr. Mack (counsel for Magusiak) informed the Court that Thomas Lukaszuk was the source of the email.

• Magusiak learned from Lukaszuk that Jivraj was the source of allegations about Caylan appearing on social media.

• Although he wrote the October 13 “fraudulent resident” article, he conducted no investigation into the truth of the statements in the fraudulent resident letter which formed part of the article.

• He never spoke to Caylan before writing the story.

• He stated that determining the truth was Lebrun’s responsibility.

Tweets Between Caylan and Magusiak (February 2019)

• Magusiak: “nobody in the party had heard of her [Caylan] outside of maybe party conservative circles”

• Caylan: “you’ve polled 4.2 million Albertans, and nobody has heard of me? That’s weird. I’ve lived in Calgary for 20+ years. Sorry to disappoint – I know conspiracies are more fun.”

• Magusiak: “I’ll take your word on that I guess.”

• Caylan: “Talking to someone is usually the better way of getting information about them. And while we’re here. My nomination was in December, I signed the purchase agreement on my Calgary home months before meeting Jason Kenney and my board of directors is actually excellent.”

Despite these exchanges, which informed him of Caylan’s long‑term residence in Calgary, he never updated the October 13 article to correct its false statements and continued to describe her as a parachute candidate.

Additional points from cross‑examination:

• He did not recall whether he had published two further articles about Caylan.

• He vaguely recalled participating in the Alberta Advantage podcast about Caylan.

• The podcast title was “Corbella on Caylan Ford, Who Said White Supremacist Things.”

• The podcast was publicly available and not behind a paywall.

Statements made by Magusiak on the Alberta Advantage Podcast

• Caylan had a “fully formed white nationalist ideology.”

• “the entire constituency association, like the entire board of the Mountainview Constituency Association, put out a protest letter against Caylan Ford.”

• Caylan’s husband was staying at home because he was “chained to a radiator.”

• Caylan’s husband was “a background dufus.”

• Caylan was a “grifter.”

·       He used the phrase “simple partner.”

He could not recall whether he was referring to Caylan’s husband when he used the phrase “simple partner.”

At the time of the podcast, Magusiak had been informed that:

• The “fraudulent resident” letter was signed by only nine members of the board.

• It had not been approved by the Constituency Association.

• It had not been approved by the board of the Constituency Association.

• It was based on a false interpretation of UCP eligibility rules.

• Caylan had been approved as a legitimate candidate by the Party.

Failure to Consider Caylan’s Actual Philosophy

Although he reviewed the Facebook messages between Caylan and Jivraj, he did not recall reading Caylan’s statements that:

• she “does not believe that whiteness is the defining feature of Western civilization.”

• she “does not believe that people are chiefly defined by race or ethnicity.”

• “white nationalists believe that race is central to their identity. The preservation of white dominance is their principle political objective. I absolutely do not share those aims and beliefs.”

• “My point is that the loss of any identity is lamentable.”

• “I’m not against miscegenation, I would reject any policy of discrimination based on race (positive or negative discrimination). Altogether I just find identity politics dangerous.”

• she called the neo‑Nazi rally in Charlottesville “sickening.”

He acknowledged knowing there was a “personal beef” between Jivraj and Caylan.

He stated that he never corrected the false statements in the October 13 article because that was Lebrun’s responsibility.

Comment

Mr. Magusiak began his testimony by stating that he suffers from PTSD and that it affects his memory. That may explain his inability to recall during cross‑examination.

His indifference to verifying the truth of what he published was striking. His participation in the Alberta Advantage podcast, however, stands out as independently significant. The podcast featured four individuals laughingly and derisively celebrating Caylan’s downfall, ridiculing her, her husband, and even their daughter, on a publicly available broadcast syndicated on CJSW. The tone and content reflected a sadistic absence of basic decency.

Mr. Magusiak’s testimony concluded and he was excused.

Direct Examination of Ms. Jennifer Hassum by Mr. Mack (Counsel for the Broadbent Institute and Defendants Lebrun and Magusiak)

Ms. Jennifer Hassum has been Executive Director of the Broadbent Institute since 2021. She described the Institute as “Canada’s leading social democratic think tank.” Her testimony included:

• The Broadbent Institute does not have ties to any political party.

• Press Progress is an independent media project of the Broadbent Institute and functions as a newsroom.

• Press Progress is structured to be editorially independent from the Institute.

• Press Progress is a member of the Canadian Association of Journalists and has won Canadian online publishing awards.

• Press Progress receives some government funding, accepts donations, and receives financial support from the Broadbent Institute.

• Press Progress subscribed to a service that tracked social‑media sharing metrics to provide data about readership.

• Press Progress deleted that data so it was impossible to know how many readers had read articles about Caylan.

• Press Progress does not endorse political parties in elections.

Cross‑Examination of Ms. Hassum by Mr. Harrison (Counsel for Caylan)

Key points from cross‑examination:

• Only individual journalists—not Press Progress as an organization—are accredited with the Canadian Association of Journalists.

• All of the Press Progress articles at issue in this litigation were approved by the Broadbent Institute before publication.

• Ms. Hassum testified that the Press Progress editor had final authority over publication.

• She stands by the truth of the “Bozos, Bigots, and Sketchy Characters” article, which included Caylan.

• She declined to answer whether Caylan was a “sketchy character.”

• She declined to answer whether Caylan was recruited by Jason Kenney at a cocktail party.

• When asked whether Caylan moved to Calgary to run for the UCP, she stated she stood behind the Press Progress story.

• She stands behind the truth of the contents of the March 18 Press Progress article.

• She stands behind the statement that Press Progress “exclusively obtained” the leaked messages.

• She stands behind the description of Jivraj as a Muslim conservative with deep ties to the conservative party.

• She stands behind reporting that Caylan “flirts with white nationalism.”

• She stands behind reporting that Caylan promoted hateful and extremist views.

Her testimony concluded after a brief re‑direct.