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.

Day 28

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.

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

Note: References to the “Article” are to the March 18 Press Progress article about Caylan. The other key document discussed below is the series of March 18 emails sent by Mr. Lebrun to Caylan (the “March 18 emails”).  Copies of those documents can be viewed by clicking the links above and where indicated below.

Background: January 2019 – Jivraj Identified as the Source

• In January 2019, Mr. Lebrun learned that Jivraj was the source of the screenshots circulating on social media.

• Thomas Lucaszyk provided Jivraj’s phone number, and Mr. Lebrun called him.

• The call was recorded by Lebrun. A transcript provided the following evidence:

First Phone Call

• Mr. Lebrun told Jivraj he was happy to protect anyone’s identity.

• He understood that Jivraj wanted anonymity because he was seeking a Conservative Party nomination.

• Mr. Lebrun asked whether it was true that Jivraj had been removed as president of the Mountainview Constituency Association.

• Jivraj replied that he had resigned because he was “disgusted.”

• Jivraj asked Press Progress not to mention his name; Mr. Lebrun agreed.

• Jivraj described Caylan as “an extremely dangerous person” and later as a “sane crazy person … very dangerous. So her feet need to be held to the fire.”

• Jivraj said that if the screenshots were published, Jason Kenney would “come after him,” and Kenney was “a very dangerous guy.”

Continued Lebrun Testimony and Evidence

• Mr. Lebrun had received emails from “Whistleblower” (Jivraj) on January 14 containing the “terrorist message” and the “pride parade” message.

• Press Progress did not publish anything about these messages until March 18 — the day before the writ dropped.

• In early March, Jivraj contacted Mr. Lebrun pitching “a super interesting story.”

• Mr. Lebrun gave him his phone number.

• Jivraj called Lebrun; Lebrun recorded this call without telling Jivraj that he was doing so.

Second Phone Call – Key Statements by Jivraj

Jivraj told Mr. Lebrun:

• He had been disqualified from running for the federal Conservative nomination in Calgary‑Centre.

• He was not thrilled but said the disqualification “liberates him in a way” because he had “some bones to pick.”

• “So whatever you [Press Progress] need about conservative politics in Calgary I will give you whatever you need.”

• “The second thing I want to reach out to you about is the Caylan Ford stuff.”

• “You guys should do a better job of dividing conservatives among themselves.”

• “I think now is the time to release a story about her views on pride. That it’s a celebration of vice and transgression.”

• “… it’s a lake of fire moment …”

• He suggested pretending there was a rift in the UCP between “progressive centrists and the hardcore religious right.”

• “So, what I would suggest is basically casting a huge divide within the conservative party …”

• “Um you need to target Caylan Ford, cause she’s the one who said these things. … it needs to be an article about her …”

• “Um, it could be devastating.”

• He explained that the campaign would be announced March 17 and said he debated whether to give Press Progress the information before or after the writ dropped. He concluded it should be released beforehand so Kenney could still disqualify Caylan.

• “I can send you a signed affidavit … attesting to the fact that these screenshots are authentic.”

• “I think the signed affidavit does the trick.”

• “And this is what I find to be the most damaging.  But I would, I would wait.  I would do the pride one first.  Hit. And then I would wait for a second shot in case he doesn’t disqualify her, ….”

• Jivraj was calling for a hit job on Caylan.

• “When you release these stories they need to be released in a very heavy fashion. Like they need to be bombshells.”

• He asked whether the “residency fraud issue” was still relevant.

• He offered to send Press Progress a list of questions that Caylan “will not give you a response” to.

• He claimed the UCP had tried to “stab [him] out of the party” by portraying him as “a bizarre creep and harasser,” and that Caylan had called the police on him, which he said led to his disqualification.

• He predicted the UCP would try to portray him as “one rogue crazy person who is on all sorts of meds or whatever.”

• He added: “… the stupidest thing they could have done was to disqualify me because had I been the federal candidate I would have had to be extremely careful. Um, now I don’t give a shit.”

Lebrun’s Response During the Call

• After Jivraj suggested an affidavit “does the trick,” Lebrun replied: “… Yeah I think it does too. Because there’s, you know, that gives us some, uh, qualified privilege.”

Further Evidence from Mr. Lebrun

• Jivraj had asked Press Progress not to publish anything about Caylan in January.

• By March, he wanted an article published.

• Mr. Lebrun never investigated the police report filed against Jivraj.

• He testified: “I mean, he wasn’t in jail or anything like that, so I saw no reason to believe there was anything to it.”

• He understood that Jivraj wanted anonymity because he could be discredited as a stalker or “rogue crazy person.”

• He granted anonymity knowing this.

Events of March 17

• Jivraj wrote to Mr. Lebrun: “… you can quote me as a prominent conservative speaking on condition of anonymity.”

• By the afternoon of March 17, the Article was written.

• Jivraj sent Press Progress the feature photo used in the Article (Caylan with Jason Kenney).

• Mr. Lebrun decided to describe Jivraj as a “prominent conservative,” despite knowing:

  • He had been suspended from the UCP.

  • He had resigned as Mountainview CA president under threat of removal.

  • He had been disqualified federally.

• In an internal email, Lebrun wrote that identifying him as a “Muslim conservative” would make it “look terrible” for anyone to attack him.

• He knew Jivraj wanted Caylan disqualified.

The March 18 Emails

[click HERE to view]. 

• At 3:56 PM EST, Lebrun emailed Katrina Miller (Broadbent Institute): “I’m about to send her an email and give her 3 hours to respond (I expect no response, but will give her an opportunity) ….”

• Although the Article had been written on March 17, he did not contact Caylan until the afternoon of March 18.

• At 4:49 PM EST, he sent the first email to Caylan;

• He sent 7 emails in total; they were all sent in a time span of 3 hours and 20 minutes.

• He sent all of those emails so he could say that he had made multiple requests on Caylan to respond.

• Caylan was at her campaign launch work party and did not see the first of the series of emails until nearly 4:00 PM MST.

• She was given until 6:00 PM MST to respond.

• Lebrun claimed he had a “deadline,” though Press Progress had no regular publication deadlines.

• The email asked seven pointed questions, each premised on Caylan being a white supremacist or white nationalist.

Lebrun’s Evidence Concerning the Article

• Press Progress had possessed the “terrorist message” for months but did not publish earlier.

• There was no external deadline.

• The publication deadline was set arbitrarily by Mr. Lebrun.

• Additional Lebrun evidence is included in my Comment on the Article, below.

Comment – The Article

[click HERE to view]

Headline and Initial Mischaracterizations

• The headline — “UCP Candidate Complained ‘White Supremacist Terrorists’ are Treated Unfairly, Leaked Messages Show” — misrepresented Caylan’s comments.

• She had not complained that white supremacist terrorists were treated unfairly; she contrasted the treatment of white supremacists with the treatment of Islamists and found the asymmetry “interesting.”

• Although the Article quoted her reference to the “perverse moral reasoning” of white supremacists, it omitted her reference to the “odious aspects” of white nationalism.

Misquotation of the “Western Culture” Comment

• The Article claimed Caylan suggested “’Western culture’ would collapse if ‘another race’ takes over …”.

• She made no such statement.

• Her actual words were: “… I think it is unlikely that Western culture will survive without Western peoples. Why would another race want to cast away their own culture to adopt someone else’s on such a massive scale? Some people will, for sure, just as some Westerners have sought to adopt wholesale the customs and languages of other people, but it will always be limited.”

• Press Progress removed roughly half the words, altering the meaning.

• Her comment did not predict cultural collapse.

Misrepresentation of the Source

• The Article stated the messages were obtained “exclusively” by Press Progress.

  • In fact, CBC and the Toronto Star also had them.

• It described the source as a “long-time Muslim conservative with deep ties to the party.”

  • Jivraj had stated he rejected Islam.

  • His description as a Muslim had been adopted to insulate him from scrutiny and make anyone who attacked him appear racist. 

  • See the actual words used by Lebrun and Magusiak in their messages: [click HERE to view]

  • Press Progress identified Jivraj as a conservative with deep ties to the party although they knew he had been suspended as president of the Mountainview Constituency Association, had resigned as president under the threat of being removed, and had been disqualified by the federal Conservative party as a candidate in the Calgary-Centre riding because of a police report against him.

  • Press Progress also knew that Jivraj had requested anonymity because of his bad reputation; that if his identity was known he would come across as a“bizarre creep and harasser”, or as “one rogue crazy person who … is trying to discredit her, ….”, as Jivraj had acknowledged in the second telephone conversation.

Failure to Disclose the Three‑Hour Deadline

• The Article stated Caylan “did not respond to subsequent emails.”

• It omitted that:

  • She was given only three hours.

  • She lacked access to the messages and could neither confirm nor deny.

  • She was not provided the full statement nor the surrounding context.

  • An explanation was impossible without access to the entirety of the messages.

  • She was asked to answer seven pointed questions premised on her being a white supremacist.

Irrelevant and Prejudicial References

• The Article referenced the Charlottesville attack, which had happened two years previously and had nothing to do with Caylan.

·       It states, “… the Muslim conservative says Ford attempted to engage them in a dialogue over Facebook Messenger in an attempt to find ‘common ground.’” 

• In reality, Jivraj initiated the discussion, and Caylan called the Charlottesville violence “sickening.”

·       If Jivraj made that quoted statement it is another demonstration of his disingenuity; if he didn’t make the statement, it demonstrates Press Progress disingenuity.

• It referenced the Christchurch massacre, also unrelated.

False Claim of “Flirting with White Nationalism”

• The Article stated the messages showed Caylan “flirting with white nationalism.”

• Her actual statements included: “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.”

• And: “A white nationalist might say that race is the primary determinant of culture, for instance, and I wouldn’t agree with that.”

• Press Progress shamelessly quoted their anonymous source in three separate paragraphs despite knowing he lacked credibility.

Guilt by Association and Additional Misleading Elements

·       The ninth paragraph makes the damning insinuation that Caylan is somehow associated with the Christchurch shooter who, two years previously, had gunned down 50 Muslims during peaceful prayer.

• The Article repeated the claim that Caylan was “handpicked” by Jason Kenney – another demonstration of Press Progress indifference to truth.

• It included her description of white supremacists as “perverse” but omitted her reference to the “odious” aspects of white supremacy.

• It conflated demographic replacement (a demographic concept) with the “great replacement” conspiracy theory.

• It falsely stated she declared: “I think it is unlikely that Western culture will survive without Western peoples if ‘another race’ becomes dominant.”

  • She never said this.

  • There was no “if,” no reference to another race becoming dominant, and no prediction of collapse.

• The Article referenced disqualified UCP candidates to imply guilt by association.

• It quoted Janice Herrington: “A polite racist is still a racist.” – attempting to emblazon a swastika on Caylan’s forehead.

• The Article remains live on the Press Progress website. 

Day 27

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.

Cross‑Examination of Luke Lebrun by Mr. Harrison (Caylan’s Counsel)

Mr. Lebrun had testified on direct that Press Progress was editorially independent from the Broadbent Institute and that such separation was required by his labour agreement. On cross‑examination:

• He confirmed that the labour agreement only came into effect in 2024, not 2019.

• Only after being confronted with his discovery evidence, did Mr. Lebrun acknowledge that Katrina Miller, Program Director of the Broadbent Institute, had final approval over editorial content in 2019.

October 13 Article — “Fraudulent Resident” Letter

Press Progress published an article on October 13 about the “fraudulent resident” letter written by Jivraj. Regarding that article, Mr. Lebrun testified:

• He wrote the headline: “UCP Constituency Associating Accuses Jason Kenney’s Handpicked ‘Parachute Candidate’ of breaking Party Rules.”

• The first paragraph stated: “Nine UCP constituency association board members say Kenney's party is putting 'parachute candidates' ahead of 'grassroots voices'.”

• Magusiak wrote the article; Mr. Lebrun edited and published it.

• Press Progress did not call or contact Caylan or the UCP for comment before publishing.

• Because Press Progress failed to contact the UCP, they were unaware that the Party had already:

  • investigated the letter,

  • confirmed the letter misstated Party rules, and

  • confirmed that Caylan was a legitimate candidate.

• Press Progress did not contact any of the signatories to the letter before publishing.

• Mr. Lebrun did not know whether the Mountainview Constituency Association board had anything to do with the letter, yet he wrote “UCP Constituency Associating Accuses …”

• The Constituency Association did not make any accusations.

• The fraudulent resident letter did not say that “Kenney’s party is putting 'parachute candidates' ahead of 'grassroots voices'.”; Press Progress chose that terminology.

• The letter did not accuse Caylan of being a parachute candidate, but the Press Progress article did.

• It was Mr. Lebrun who inferred that Caylan was “Kenney’s handpicked parachute candidate.”

• Nowhere in the article did Press Progress state that the allegations were unproven.

• Mr. Lebrun made no effort to check whether the facts were true.

• He acknowledged he was not concerned about the truth of the allegations.

• He understood that accusations of fraud and deliberate lying are serious and could harm Caylan’s reputation, yet he published the letter without knowing whether the insinuations were true.

• Press Progress never updated the article to reflect that the letter was incorrect, that the UCP had investigated, or that Caylan was confirmed as an eligible candidate.

• The October 13 article remains unchanged and online.

• It was the first of three Press Progress articles referencing Caylan’s residency status.

December 30 Article — “Bozos, Bigots and Sketchy Characters”

Press Progress published an article on December 30 titled: “Here Are All The Bozos, Bigots and Sketchy Characters Who Created Chaos for Jason Kenney's UCP in 2018.”

A section read: “The UCP parachute candidate who faced a revolt from her own constituency association…”

Mr. Lebrun testified:

• The reference to a “sketchy character” was intended to refer to Caylan.

• The article described her as an “Ontario resident” in the present tense, even though he knew she had lived in Alberta since February 2018.

• He had read in the National Post that Caylan met Jason Kenney at a meet‑and‑greet; he invented the detail that they met at a cocktail party.

• Press Progress never contacted Caylan to verify any of the statements.

• He asked Magusiak to make the headline “click baity”, and they agreed on “bozos, bigots, and sketchy characters.”

January 9, 2019 Article — “UCP Members Keep Getting Fed Up…”

The article described Caylan as Jason Kenney’s handpicked “Parachute Candidate” and stated:

“When she won the nomination, the board accused her of deliberately misleading the party about her residential history…”

Mr. Lebrun testified:

• He had not intentionally falsified the facts but misstated them when he said, “when she won the nomination”; it should have said “before she won the nomination.”

• He denied that the article lied when it stated “The board accused …”, even though he knew the board had done nothing.

• He denied that the article lied when it described Caylan as Jason Kenney’s handpicked parachute candidate.

• The article remains online.

January 12 Email — “paulgmacdonald”

On January 12, Mr. Lebrun received an email from “paulgmacdonald61@gmail.com,”.  The identity of paulgmacdonald has not been ascertained, but his email informed Mr. Lebrun that Jivraj:

·      Exploited his access to the Mountainview UCP party membership list.

• Emailed all party members anonymously using the pseudonym mountainviewconservatives@gmail.com.

• Authored the fraudulent resident letter.

• Was attempting to smear Caylan.

• He had been suspended by the UCP as president of the Mountainview Constituency Association.

• Purchased multiple domain names trying to block a candidate [Caylan] from using them.

• Was a nomination candidate for the federal Conservative Party.

• Was guilty of conduct created a troubling picture for conservatives considering nominating him.

Attached was an email from Kaylee Kent, UCP Constituency Development Coordinator, confirming: “The Executive Board has suspended Mr. Jivraj’s role as president of the Mountainview Constituency Association.”

Court adjourned.

Comment

Continuing Defamation

It is now established beyond doubt that:

·      Caylan was a resident of Alberta when she became a nomination candidate.

·      The UCP eligibility rules for nomination candidates required only that the candidate be a resident of Alberta.

·      The fraudulent resident letter misstated the eligibility rules of the UCP.

·      Caylan campaigned hard and decisively won a nomination contest against two credible opponents.

·      Caylan was not a “parachute candidate”.

·      The Mountainview Constituency Association had nothing to do with the fraudulent resident letter.

·      Caylan did not make any misrepresentations to the Party.

·      Caylan did not commit fraud.

Notwithstanding the facts as stated above, Press Progress continues to this day to have articles live on its website that:

·      Accuse Caylan of being a parachute candidate.

·      Insinuate that she misrepresented herself to the Party

·      Insinuate that she tried to fraudulently circumvent the Party’s rules.

·      Falsely state that the board or the Constituency Association accused Caylan.

·      Falsely state the circumstances in which Caylan met Jason Kenney.

Nothing could more clearly demonstrate the willingness of Press Progress to continue the defamation, to perpetuate the harm done to Caylan.

“paulgmacdonald”

The paulgmacdonald email is significant because:

• By January 12, Mr. Lebrun knew that Jivraj had acted treacherously in his role as constituency president.

• He knew Jivraj was targeting Caylan.

• He knew Jivraj had been suspended by the Party.

• He knew that Jivraj had purchased domain names to block a candidate

• Despite this, Mr. Lebrun continued to collaborate with Jivraj because they shared the objective of damaging Caylan’s career.

Document Production and Redaction

• Parties must produce all relevant documents in litigation.

• When producing its documents, Press Progress redacted the identity of all the third parties with whom they had communicated, including Duncan Kinney, Thomas Lucaszyk, and all the synonyms used by Jivraj.

• Jivraj used at least 6 pseudonyms in his communications.

• Press Progress denied that they knew the identity of the author of the pseudonymous communications.

• In discovery Jivraj admitted that he was the author of the pseudonymous communications.

• Even after they were directly communicating with Jivraj, Press Progress continued to redact his name and claimed he was a confidential source.

• Reasonable observers could conclude that Press Progress was embarrassed or ashamed to reveal that they had collaborated with Jivraj and relied on him as a source.

Day 26

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. Devonshire by Mr. Harrison (Caylan’s Counsel)

Mr. Devonshire is a chartered accountant (CPA, CA) and certified business valuator. He previously testified on Day 18 and was recognized as an expert in valuation and loss quantification. His earlier evidence addressed Caylan’s loss of income resulting from the alleged defamation.

He was recalled to provide supplemental evidence and explained that recently received information required four changes to his original report. These revisions were incorporated into a supplemental report, which was entered as an exhibit.

One of the key changes was the addition of a disability contingency. The supplemental report calculated Caylan’s past and future losses as follows:

Past Loss Damages
Scenario	Damages (without deduction of long-term disability)	Damages (with deduction of long-term disability)
Scenario A	$765,010	$673,691
Scenario B	$387,085	$295,766
Scenario C	$587,160	$445,841
Scenario D	$1,502,265	$1,410,946

Future Loss Damages
Scenario	Damages
Scenario A	$3,052,699
Scenario B	$2,964,857
Scenario C	$4,303,429

Refer to Day 18 to understand the scenarios postulated by Mr. Devonshire in his calculations.

Mr. Devonshire was briefly cross-examined.

Mr. Devonshire’s evidence concluded and he was excused.

Direct Examination of Luke Lebrun by Mr. Mack (Counsel for the Broadbent Institute and Defendants Lebrun and Magusiak)

Mr. Lebrun identified himself as an investigative journalist and the editor of Press Progress. He held that role in 2019 and continues to do so. He resides in Ottawa and holds a BA and MA in English.  He testified for the remainder of the day.

He described Press Progress as a news organization focusing on underreported stories relating to social and economic inequality, health, and education.

Mr. Lebrun’s Testimony

• The Broadbent Institute founded Press Progress.

• Press Progress is editorially independent from the Broadbent Institute.

• Press Progress has never endorsed political parties.

• Mr. Lebrun had been a member of the NDP on two occasions but was not a member in 2019.

• Stephen Magusiak became the Alberta reporter for Press Progress in September 2018.

• Press Progress operated a “tip line” advertised on its website.

Document Identification Process

The remainder of the day consisted mostly of Mr. Mack introducing documents to Mr. Lebrun for identification.

• Mr. Lebrun would confirm whether he had seen, sent, or received the documents.

• Some documents prompted brief comments or answers; others were simply identified and then entered as exhibits.

• Because the documents were not visible to the observer, no substantive information could be gleaned from the evidence.

I abandoned my note taking and gave up.

Comment

Two points stood out from Mr. Lebrun’s examination:

1. Use of Anonymous Tips Mr. Lebrun and Mr. Magusiak appeared willing—if not eager—to rely on tips from individuals whose identities were initially unknown. When identities became known, the tipster was usually Jivraj, though Thomas Lukaszuk also provided tips.  Mr. Lukaszuk was a former deputy premier of Alberta, turned anti-conservative activist, then promoter of the Forever Canadian petition.

2. Extent of Collaboration with Jivraj The level of communication between Jivraj and Mr. Lebrun was striking. By my count, at least 17 emails were exchanged between them on March 17 and 18. The defamatory Press Progress article was published late on March 18.

Day 25

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 Dr. Mandel by Mr. Harrison (Caylan’s Counsel)

Dr. Mandel, BA, MA, PhD, R. Psych, is a clinical and rehabilitation psychologist. His CV is 23 pages.

Mr. Harrison sought to qualify him as an expert in clinical, psychological, and vocational assessment; cognitive functioning; psychological injuries and diagnoses; and the impact of such injuries on employment and employability.

Qualification Evidence

• Dr. Mandel obtained an M.A. in Clinical Psychology with Honours and a Ph.D. in Psychology (Clinical/Counselling).

• His private practice now focuses primarily on medical‑legal assessments, including psychological, cognitive, and vocational evaluations.

• His main practice areas involve personal injury litigation, chronic pain, and rehabilitation.

• He previously provided psychotherapy to a broad range of clients with physical and psychiatric disabilities.

• His firm holds a contract with the Alberta government to provide psychological assessments for the AISH program across Southern Alberta.

• His firm also provides assessments for assisted living and social support programs, including post‑secondary students with learning disabilities.

• He conducts assessments for the Workers’ Compensation Board.

• His goal in any assessment is to provide as clear a psychological and holistic picture as possible and determine the impact of an injury on future employment capability.

• He has testified as an expert witness 33 times.

The Court recognized Dr. Mandel as an expert in the areas requested. His report and sur‑rebuttal report were entered as exhibits.

Expert Testimony

Factors Considered

• Ms. Ford was referred for a psycho‑vocational assessment to determine the impact of the alleged defamation on her psychological functioning and employability.

• His assessment included a four‑hour interview, 5.5 hours of psychometric testing by his assistant, review of all documents provided by counsel, and vocational research.

• His firm administered 20 objective tests of Caylan, extending over two days.

• He reviewed 24 documents, including reports from Dr. Bajwa, Dr. Pachet, Dr. Lucido, and Dr. Hashman.

• Caylan provided her personal and medical history and stated she had sustained damage to her “moral personality.”

• She reported feeling she was no longer as good a person as she once believed; less courageous and resolute; less reliable as a friend and coworker; more insecure; more sensitive to perceived slights; more attuned to negative experiences; unable to let go of negative thoughts; fatigued; less motivated; socially uncomfortable, sad and prone to spontaneous crying.

• She had 50 incomplete essays on her laptop and was hyper‑aware of criticism.

• Dr. Mandel described her as very intelligent, a deep thinker, introspective, and formerly high‑achieving.

Test Results

• Caylan’s IQ of 132 places her in the very superior range, higher than 99% of her age group.

• Her FSIQ is consistent with success at the doctoral level and in occupations requiring the highest cognitive complexity.

• She demonstrated exceptional verbal comprehension (99.7th percentile), the most important cognitive function for academic and verbally demanding professions (e.g., lawyer, politician, film author, school administrator).

• Her working memory score (77th percentile) was a relative weakness and consistent with her reported difficulties concentrating.

• Working memory score of 111 represents a major discrepancy from her other index scores.

• Processing speed was her second‑lowest score but still in the superior range.

• The discrepancy between working memory and her other scores is consistent with trauma; differences of this magnitude occur in only 1.5% of cases.

• Working memory, processing speed, and executive functioning are the cognitive domains most affected by depression.

• Her working memory score would not be expected in someone with her overall intellect.

• Dr. Mandel stated her results were among the highest he had seen in his 35+‑year career. Individuals with IQs like hers can succeed at the highest academic levels and access virtually any career.

• Performance validity tests confirmed she was truthful and neither minimizing nor exaggerating symptoms.

• Her tests consistently indicated major depressive disorder.

• The results objectively confirmed her subjective complaints of reduced cognitive functioning and diminished productivity.

Present Condition

• Dr. Mandel concluded that Caylan was forced to resign her candidacy, became a political pariah, endured repeated personal attacks, suffered reputational harm, and developed significant negative psychological reactions—best characterized as major depressive disorder and trauma.

• Her marital relationship was severely strained by her depression, and she is now divorced.

• She showed signs of post‑traumatic stress; although the original trauma does not meet the criteria for PTSD, she exhibited PTSD‑type symptoms.

• Her depression is marked by sadness, loss of interest, and loss of pleasure.

• She has become excessively self‑absorbed, unassertive, downhearted, and shy.

• She tends to devalue her achievements and fears humiliation and rejection.

• She is apprehensive and uncomfortable socially.

• She is introspective and self‑conscious, unsure of her identity and self‑worth, and sees herself as markedly and negatively different from others.

• She experiences an isolated and distorted sense of self, along with dysphoric and fatalistic thoughts—highly indicative of major depressive disorder.

• She feels trapped in ongoing hopelessness, alienation, and self‑criticism.

• Depression affects cognitive functioning, particularly executive function, memory, and attention.

• There is ample evidence that depression impairs cognitive performance.

• In Dr. Mandel’s view, Caylan has never not been depressed since 2019, though her symptoms wax and wane.

• Her depression is prolonged and chronic; she has never been in remission.

Effect on Earnings

• Caylan reported difficulty paying attention, concentrating, maintaining her train of thought, managing workload, completing tasks on time, and meeting her own expectations at least 50% of the time.

• Depression substantially affects cognitive functions such as slowed thinking, concentration, memory, and decision‑making.

• These impairments significantly affect day‑to‑day functioning, including employment.

• A study of 771 patients found depressive symptom severity correlated with loss of work productivity; even minor symptoms reduced work function.

• The study also found that lack of initiative and poor self‑esteem are major barriers to obtaining and maintaining employment.

• Another study found that individuals with depression had higher odds of non‑employment, sickness/disability unemployment, home‑care responsibilities, and early retirement.

• Depression was associated with reduced weekly hours and lower household income.

• Dr. Mandel stated that Caylan experienced loss of opportunity and vocational capital due to the alleged defamation, reputational damage, and resulting psychological harm.

• Her ongoing depression and compromised cognitive functioning have reduced her efficiency and productivity.

• Absent reputational loss and mental health difficulties, she could have competed for government positions paying $170,000 to $313,000.

• He concluded she will suffer a 20–30% lifetime loss of earnings compared to her pre‑2019 potential.

• Scientific evidence indicates people with depression retire, on average, 1.5 years earlier.

Dr. Mandel was briefly cross‑examined by counsel for two Defendants.

Dr. Mandel’s testimony concluded and he was excused.

Day 24

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 Dr. Kaufmann by Mr. Harrison (Caylan’s Counsel)

Dr. Kaufmann began by defining key terms to ensure clarity. He provided definitions of white nationalism, white supremacy, racism, ethnic nationalism, civic nationalism, ethnic group, culture, race, nation, demographic replacement, the Great Replacement theory, and scientific racism. Selected definitions appear in the Comment section.

He continued:

• Dr. Kaufmann cautioned against the “fallacy of association”: sharing some traits does not establish equivalence; a match of all relevant traits is required.

• He illustrated the fallacy of association with an example: Hitler was a Nazi and had a German shepherd; my neighbor has a German shepherd; therefore my neighbor must be a Nazi.

• He stated that concern over the ethnic composition of nations is common globally; ethnic conflict is a feature of human societies, and groups worry about their relative positions.

• He identified “concept creep” or conceptual stretching, where a term is expanded beyond its intended meaning.

• The term “replacement” has been used repeatedly by academic demographers in peer‑reviewed literature.

• Caylan’s use of the word “replacement” should not be confused with the Great Replacement Theory.

• The fact that white nationalists use the word “replacement” and Caylan used the same word does not mean she is a white nationalist.

• Conflating her use of “replacement” with white nationalism is an example of concept creep.

• Concern about immigration is not equivalent to being inspired by the Great Replacement Theory.

• Caylan’s criticism of perceived double standards in how Canadian media and officials treat white nationalist versus Islamist extremism does not mean she endorses the idea that elites are conspiring to replace whites.

• Caylan correctly observed that speech about majority and minority groups is not held to the same moral standard.

• There is a legitimate argument about double standards, which opponents are free to contest with logic and evidence.

• There is no evidence that Caylan was motivated by ideas of racial superiority or racial hygiene that animate white nationalists and white supremacists.

• Her remarks reflect common public concerns about cultural change, identity loss, and Muslim integration.

• She echoes the views of the three in four Canadians of all races who believe that “political correctness has gone too far.”

• Ultimately, Caylan’s views reflect those of the mainstream, not the white nationalist fringe.

Dr. Kaufmann’s testimony concluded and he was excused.

Comment

Consider Caylan’s quotes in light of the following definitions provided by Dr. Kaufmann:

·      “White nationalism” - a form of ethnic nationalism where you must be white to be a full member of the nation. Requires the expulsion of people who are non-white. It’s about ethnic exclusivity within a territory. **It is different from favouring restrictive immigration policies.

·      “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.

·      “Racism” is about hating another group, feeling superior to another group. Racism is about hatred to the outgroup, which is not the same as attachment to one’s in-group, unless that attachment leads to discrimination or demands for race purity.

·      “Demographic / population replacement”: where one group in a population grows while another declines in relative numbers. It’s about compositional change in a population. 

·       “Great Replacement Theory” is a worldview or theory that says whites are being replaced in western societies as part of a deliberate process orchestrated by globalist elites, chiefly by the Jews.  This definition necessitates the idea that there is a nefarious intentionality by globalists. The way it’s talked about by the far-right necessarily involves the Jews as orchestrating this.

Caylan’s Quotes (Bolded) and Analysis

“I am somehow saddened by the demographic replacement of white peoples in their homelands, - more in Europe than in America – partly because it’s clear that it will not be a peaceful transition, and partly because the lack of demographic diversity in the human race is sad.

• Not white nationalist — she does not advocate ethnic exclusivity or expulsion; she expresses concern about backlash and demographic diversity.

• Not white supremacist — no claim of white superiority.

• Not racist — no hatred or superiority toward another group.

• Many people express concerns about immigration for varied reasons; hers are unrelated to white exclusivity or supremacy.

• She also stated: “On whether Canada should remain an essentially white country I’m kind of agnostic; it doesn’t make an awful lot of sense to me given our history as an immigrant nation to insist that one race ought to remain dominant in perpetuity.”

• “Demographic replacement” is a legitimate demographic term and unrelated to the Great Replacement Theory.

• Her statement is an expression of concern about the effects of immigration and that concern is widely shared.

“Why would one march in pride?  I mean they trace their origins to the stonewall riots, then emerged as a celebration of vice and transgression.  What are the redeeming values?I’m too prudish for pride.  I believe in sexual modesty and unrestrained passion and exuberance is just not my idea of a good time.If there was a gay Haydn concertwhere the conductor and the musicians were all queer I would attend.”

• Not a criticism of gay people; it expresses a preference not to participate in Pride parades.

• Distaste for sexual excess in Pride parades is understandable.

• Preference for sexual modesty is not homophobia.

• Willingness to attend a gay concert is inconsistent with homophobia.

“When the perpetrator is an Islamist the denunciations are intermingled with breathless assurances that they do not represent Islam, that Islam is a religion of peace, etc.

When the terrorists are white supremacists that kind of soul-searching or attempts to understand the sources of their radicalization or their perverse moral reasoning is beyond the pale.  And anyone who shares even some of their views (e.g., wanting strong orders and immigration control), while rejecting the more odious aspects, is painted with the same brush.  All are white supremacists; all should be extricated and denounced and marginalized.  You just don’t have the same attempts to separate the violent terrorists from the wider community of belief.”

• This is an observation about differing societal and media responses; it reflects concern about double standards.

• Caylan advocates equal legal treatment without discrimination.

• Nothing in the statement is anti‑Islamic.

• She describes white supremacist aspects as “odious” and their moral reasoning as “perverse.”

• White nationalists do not self‑identify as odious or perverse.

• Equating her criticism of double standards with white supremacy or white nationalism is a fallacy of association.

Conclusion: None of Caylan’s quotes can be objectively considered white supremacist, white nationalist, racist, Islamophobic, or homophobic. She was engaged in an intelligent discussion of controversial issues.

Direct Examination of Dr. Lucido by Mr. Harrison (Caylan’s Counsel)

Dr. Lucido is a psychiatrist with a subspecialty in psychotherapy. She treated Caylan from August 2020 to June 2023.

Her testimony:

• She conducted three initial assessment sessions: one two‑hour session and two 53‑minute sessions.

• Caylan had been high‑functioning until a 2019 trauma that severely impaired her functioning across all life domains.

• She suffered unrelenting grief, hopelessness, and despair.

• Symptoms included low mood, low energy, loss of interest, social isolation, nightmares, and PTSD‑type symptoms.

• Caylan felt she had suffered a “social death.”

• Dr. Bajwa’s report corroborated Dr. Lucido’s understanding.

• PTSD requires a life‑threatening trauma, which Caylan did not experience.

• Instead, she experienced a character attack causing moral injury.

• She was publicly attacked, wrongfully accused, dismissed, and powerless to respond.

• She exhibited PTSD‑type symptoms: flashbacks, nightmares, avoidance, hopelessness, foreshortened sense of future, distrust, diminished sense of safety, and employment insecurity.

• She experienced suicidal ideation that affected her functioning.

• She met criteria for major depressive disorder.

• Her hopelessness and despair were more intense than typically seen by Dr. Lucido.

• Treatment involved goal‑setting and weekly sessions.

• Goals included cultivating self‑compassion and overcoming destructive thought patterns.

• Caylan was committed to treatment and attended consistently except when prevented by legal proceedings or vacation.

• She was composed but cried frequently.

• In November 2021 she called a 24‑hour distress line in the early morning.

• Dr. Lucido was concerned about passive suicidal thoughts.

• By June 2023 Caylan showed improved functioning and healthier self‑reflection.

• She had started a charter school and completed a documentary.

• They mutually agreed she had substantially met her therapy goals and ended treatment.

• Caylan still had PTSD‑type symptoms and was referred for additional modalities.

Cross‑Examinations of Dr. Lucido

By Ms. Tiessen (Broadbent Institute / Press Progress)

• Focused on Caylan’s lack of medication.

• Dr. Lucido testified she had suggested antidepressants early on; they discussed risks and benefits; Caylan made an informed decision not to take medication.

By Counsel for Defendant Nanda

• Emphasized that Caylan did not experience a life‑threatening trauma.

• Dr. Lucido agreed and reiterated she diagnosed PTSD symptoms, not PTSD.

• Cross‑examination also addressed Caylan’s ability to return to work in 2021 and later.

By Ms. Layton (CBC)

• Dr. Lucido agreed that COVID‑19 could have exacerbated Caylan’s depression and hopelessness.

Re‑Direct by Mr. Harrison

• Clarified that Dr. Lucido did not recommend medication upon discharge.

• Reiterated that she did not diagnose PTSD, only symptoms.

• Noted that Dr. Pachet, an independent neuropsychologist, did diagnose PTSD.

Dr. Lucido was excused.

Direct Examination of Dr. Hashman by Mr. Harrison (Caylan’s Counsel)

Dr. Hashman is Section Head and Academic Chief of Forensic Psychiatry for Alberta Health Services, Medical Lead for Forensic Inpatient Services, Deputy Head of Psychiatry at the University of Calgary, and a Clinical Associate Professor. His CV is 19 pages.

He was qualified as an expert in psychiatry and forensic psychiatry.

He was retained to conduct an independent psychiatric evaluation of Caylan to assess psychological damage caused by the Defendants’ conduct. In 2025 he conducted a 4.5‑hour videoconference interview and reviewed:

• Reports from Dr. Bajwa (Oct 2020, May 2023)

• Reports from Dr. Lucido (Sept 2020, June 2023)

• A report and independent neuropsychological assessment from Dr. Pachet

All clinicians reached substantially similar conclusions.

Dr. Hashman’s Findings

• Major Depressive Disorder, single episode, severe — in partial remission.

• “Other Specified Trauma and Stressor Related Disorder” and employment‑related problems.

• Severe, incapacitating depressive symptoms.

• Symptoms included profound grief, despair, tearfulness, hopelessness, amotivation, impaired concentration, weight gain, insomnia, low energy, social avoidance, shame, poor self‑esteem, hopelessness, and passive suicidal ideation.

• She felt socially avoided, lacked resilience, felt like a pariah, lost close friends, felt no joy as a parent, avoided thinking about the future, became guarded and suspicious, and had diminished cognitive capacity.

• She received appropriate psychotherapy.

• She was reluctant to take antidepressants due to viewing her problems as circumstantial and concerns about side effects.

• She continues to experience significant depressive symptoms including low energy, reduced endurance, amotivation, and reduced concentration and multitasking ability.

• She has not returned to her pre‑2019 baseline.

• Prognosis is guarded — between fair and poor.

• Individuals with major depressive disorder lasting more than two years have only a 10% chance of full recovery.

• Prior to 2019 she had no mental health concerns and was resilient.

• The events of March 2019 contributed to the breakup of her marriage.

• She continues to present with genuine, persistent symptoms and functional impairment.

• No suspicion of malingering; her reports were consistent with clinical observations and psychological testing.

• Validity testing showed no over‑ or under‑reporting.

Conclusion of Dr. Hashman

“Although Ms. Ford has benefited from treatment, she continues to present with persistent moderate depressive and trauma‑related symptoms… I therefore conclude that Ms. Ford’s condition and resultant impairments… are causally related to the events leading up to and after 2019… These events both precipitated and have perpetuated her ongoing symptoms and impairment.”

After brief cross‑examinations, Dr. Hashman was excused.

Day 23

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.

Examination of John von Heyking by Mr. Harrison, Caylan’s Counsel
Mr. von Heyking has a PhD in political science and is a professor at Arizona State University.  In 2020 he was a professor and chair of political science at University of Lethbridge.  He testified that:

·      He first met Caylan in 2019 at a Civitas conference in Toronto.

·      Civitas is right-of-centre association of journalists, lawyers, academics who meet annually to discuss political, economic, and social policy.

·      Caylan was interested in philosophy and political theory and they shared similar intellectual interests.

·      He had read of Caylan’s tribulations.

·      He had seen articles about those tribulations by the CBC, Global News, and Press Progress.

·      He invited Caylan to give a public lecture at the University of Lethbridge.

·      The lecture was scheduled for Friday, March 13 and Caylan was to talk on the documentary she had produced called Letter from Masanjia, and to discuss her experiences with cancel culture.

·      The University made a poster entitled Free Inquiry in the Age of Outrage advertising Caylan’s talk.

·      The posted was displayed on digital screens around the campus.

·      Between March 2 and 13 Professor von Heyking received emails from 33 different individuals in the university community – 30 of the emails expressed opposition to Caylan‘s talk.

·      Those opposing Caylan’s talk characterized Caylan as a white supremacist and a homophobe, and expressed the view that people such as Caylan did not deserve a platform at the University.

·      Some of those opposing the talk stated that they were in favor of free speech but not for this particular person.

·      Professor von Heyking had never experienced such a negative reaction.

·      He responded to each of the people opposing Caylan’s talk and invited each of them to meet with him to discuss the issue.

·      Only one of the 33 opponents took him up on his invitation to come and talk.

·      Some of the opponents sent copies of articles from CBC, Global New, or Press Progress as reasons for their opposition.

·      Some faculty members wanted to hold a “teach-in” as a counter-event to take attention away from Caylan’s talk.

·      The experience was stressful and unpleasant; the aggregate effect was significant.

·      Professor von Heyking did not believe that private messages provide a measure of character.

·      He wanted to let Caylan speak her piece and tell her story.

·      He also believed that the University should be a forum for robust debates, to provide an understanding of the political world.

·      The Provost of the University issues a statement affirming the University’s support for free speech.

·      The covid shutdown occurred on March 13 and because of covid Caylan’s talk did not proceed.

After a brief cross-examination by Mr. Mack, the testimony of Professor von Heyking was concluded, and he was excused.

Examination of Eric Kaufmann by Mr. Harrison, Caylan’s Counsel, regarding Expert Qualification

Dr. Kaufmann holds a BA from the University of Western Ontario and a MSc and PhD from London School of Economics and Political Science. He is a Professor of Politics at the University of Buckingham.

Mr. Harrison advised the Court that he wished to qualify Dr. Kaufmann as an expert witness qualified to provide the Court with opinion evidence in the fields of sociology, political science and history, with particular expertise in nationalism, ethnic identity, demography, cultural conflict, and elite discourse.

Dr. Kaufmann’s curriculum vitae was introduced; it was 65 pages long and provided details of his activities.  He is the author of 6 books, has contributed to 45 Refereed Articles, is the recipient of 26 Awards and Research Grants, is affiliated with think tanks, is a public commentator, has been interviewed on CBC and BBC, and often participates in podcasts.

Dr. Kaufmann testified for more than 2 hours concerning his CV, and his work with such subjects as ethnic nationalism, historical sociology, demography, cultural left liberalism, group ethnicity, liberal progressivism, intellectual multiculturalism, WASPs, race, bohemian left liberalism, demographics and religion, ethnic conflict, history, the rise of the social justice left – “wokeism“, postmodernism, and political science.

Dr. Kaufmann is also the vice-president of the Centre for Heterodox Social Sciences which he described as a research-based centre established to address a “crisis of viewpoint identity”

He described himself as an empirical quantitative social scientist.

He has expressed criticism of left illiberalism where “woke” cultural leftism is impinging on freedom of speech.

Cross-Examination of Dr. Kaufmann by Defence Counsel regarding Expert Qualification

Three of the Defendants’ Counsel cross-examined Dr. Kaufmann extensively and made the following points:

·      Dr. Kaufmann had been a professor at Birbeck College, University of London,

·      He was a critical of wokeism;

·      At Birbeck, Dr. Kaufmann had hostility with some of the faculty and students concerning wokeism

·      He appeared before a tribunal to defend his views

·      Dr. Kaufmann is a free speech advocate and his report advocates free speech

·      He described Canada is the first woke nation and said the legitimizing ideology was woke

·      Dr. Kaufmann is a fellow with several conservative think tanks

·      He sits on the advisory boards for the Free Speech Union (UK and Canada) and University of Austin

·      One of his books represents fighting back against wokeism and cancer culture

·      He does not approve of human rights tribunals

·      He has never before been qualified as an expert in court proceedings

·      He does not have a degree in history and no teaching post in history

·      He re-tweeted a post by Caylan in which she discussed this litigation

Re-Direct Examination of Dr. Kaufmann by Mr. Harrison

Dr. Kaufmann agreed that white nationalism, white supremacy, and racism exist.  He is opposed to all three.  But he thinks it important to identify them correctly and differentiate between extremism and mainstream opinions that are important in democratic debate.

Legal Argument

Counsel for the Defendants argued vigorously against recognizing Dr. Kaufmann as an expert witness.  The factual basis for the arguments appeared to be that Dr. Kaufmann was associated with right wing thought, was in favor of free speech and opposed to cancel culture. 

Comment

News outlets are supposedly advocates for free speech, but in this case the Defendants were tenacious in their efforts to prevent Dr. Kaufmann from testifying because he is a true advocate.  The Defendants objections to Dr. Kaufmann were largely based on the contention that only orthodox views should be allowed in court.

Ruling

Madam Justice Harris delivered a judgment on the qualification issue, ruling that Dr. Kaufmann was recognized by the Court as an expert witness qualified to give opinion evidence in the fields of sociology, political science and history, with particular expertise in nationalism, ethnic identity, demography, cultural conflict, and elite discourse.