Day 15
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 Graeme Gordon
By Richard Harrison, Counsel for the Plaintiff
Mr. Graeme Gordon testified on behalf of Ms. Ford.
Background and Article Preparation
Mr. Gordon has written for both left‑leaning and right‑leaning publications and considers himself non‑partisan.
In 2019, he published A political hit job in the name of progress: how UCP candidate Caylan Ford fell from grace in The Post Millennial, Tab 105, [click HERE to view].
He spent approximately two weeks preparing the article, interviewing 12 sources, reviewing emails, social media posts, and documents, and reading prior Press Progress publications.
He conducted four or five interviews with Jivraj (the first two lasting several hours), two interviews with Ms. Ford, wrote to Press Progress, and spoke with knowledgeable individuals, most off the record.
Assessment of the Press Progress Article
He read the March 18 Press Progress article and considered it damaging and defamatory.
He believed Press Progress had a reputation for “shoddy work.”
He testified that Ms. Ford resigned because of the article and that he sensed “intrigue” behind the story.
He described Ms. Ford as a “star candidate” with a strong résumé.
Specific Criticisms of the March 18 Article
Mr. Gordon testified that the article:
defamed Ms. Ford by portraying her as a white supremacist
lacked a byline, which he considered inappropriate for a story of such seriousness
referenced the Christchurch terrorist attack, which he viewed as irrelevant and prejudicial
provided anonymity to Jivraj despite his lack of credibility, noting he had renounced Islam, been disgraced by the UCP, and was not involved in UCP politics
allowed Ms. Ford only three hours to respond despite allegedly working on the story for months
would have contacted Ms. Ford earlier if truth‑seeking had been the goal
Political Context
His article examined connections between Press Progress, the Broadbent Institute, and the NDP.
He testified that Press Progress was widely known to be partisan and to publish articles targeting conservatives.
Backstory and Jivraj’s Conduct
His article recounted Ms. Ford’s past friendship with Jivraj, her assistance to him, the rupture of their relationship, and his email apologizing for his conduct.
He sought to understand why Jivraj would disclose private communications.
He testified that Jivraj had a reputation in Ontario as a political “hatchet man,” had fallen out with the Ontario PC Party, had a history of pseudonymous or anonymous attacks, and changed his story when confronted with contradictory facts.
Media Handling of Jivraj’s Material
CBC and the Toronto Star received material from Jivraj in January but did not investigate him.
By March, both outlets knew he was the sole source of the material they published.
Mr. Gordon testified that Jivraj had previously attempted to harm Ms. Ford, including in the Phil Schuman incident.
He identified Jivraj as the author of the “fraudulent resident” letter and the “Too Good” letter, both containing falsehoods intended to sabotage Ms. Ford’s candidacy.
Jivraj leaked both letters to Press Progress.
Verification Concerns
Mr. Gordon emphasized that responsible reporting requires verifying authenticity and that one anonymous source is insufficient.
He stated that both Press Progress and CBC should have obtained the full Facebook message thread, which neither did.
He explained that Ms. Ford’s reference to “demographic replacement” was a term used by demographers and distinct from the “Great Replacement” conspiracy theory.
He described Ms. Ford’s fall from leading candidate to resignation as typical of “cancel culture.”
He noted that Ms. McIntosh of the Toronto Star repeatedly referred to Ms. Ford as a white supremacist on social media.
Cross‑Examination of Mr. Gordon
By Mr. Mack (Broadbent Institute), Mr. Lebrun, and Mr. Magusiak
Mr. Gordon acknowledged he already held a negative view of Press Progress.
He considered Press Progress tied to the NDP and biased.
He could not recall the source for his statement that Press Progress had worked on the story for two months.
Press Progress did not answer his inquiry about the timeline.
He confirmed he did not know how long they worked on the story.
He spoke with Ms. Ford for three to four hours during his investigation.
He recorded his interviews with both Ms. Ford and Jivraj.
He discussed the context of the messages and the Press Progress quotes with Ms. Ford.
He read Ms. Ford’s Apologia before publishing.
He discussed the UCP’s decision not to respond to Press Progress, summarized as: “If you are explaining, you are losing.”
By Ms. Layton (CBC)
Mr. Gordon did not recall whether Ms. Ford told him the UCP instructed her to resign.
His article did not address CBC contacting Ms. Ford after her resignation, CBC publishing part of her resignation letter, CBC publishing after she resigned, or CBC asking about the Pride Parade message.
His article focused on Press Progress, not CBC.
He did not know how long CBC had the information, why they delayed publication, or what they had received from Jivraj.
By Ms. Cooper (Toronto Star) and Ms. McIntosh
Mr. Gordon began writing shortly after March 18; the article was published April 15.
He and his editor spent two days editing and shortening it.
Publication occurred shortly before Alberta’s election day.
He did not contact Ms. McIntosh or the Toronto Star before publishing.
His article quoted only one statement from Ms. McIntosh and focused on Press Progress.
Mr. Gordon was excused.
Direct Examination of John Vos
By Richard Harrison, Counsel for the Plaintiff
Mr. John Vos, a longtime radio executive with Corus Entertainment and former Regional Program Director for CHQR, testified on behalf of Ms. Ford.
The CHQR Interview and Aftermath
Danielle Smith, then a CHQR employee, reported to Mr. Vos.
Mr. Vos authorized her to interview Ms. Ford.
The interview aired live and was posted on the Corus website on March 29, Tab ?, [click HERE to view].
After airing, a coordinated campaign emerged encouraging complaints against CHQR and Ms. Smith.
A form petition was circulated to facilitate complaints.
Mr. Vos testified that Press Progress orchestrated the campaign and “fomented concern.”
An exhibit of petition emails was entered: 366 pages, representing more than 500 complaints.
Corus and Ms. Smith reviewed whether airing the interview had been appropriate and considered apologizing if they had erred.
Ms. Smith issued a “clarification,” acknowledging she had not been sufficiently probing.
Communications occurred between Corus and Jivraj or his lawyers, but these were subject to a non‑disclosure agreement.
The examination was adjourned pending resolution of NDA issues.
Direct Examination of Philip Schuman
By Richard Harrison, Counsel for the Plaintiff
Mr. Philip Schuman testified on behalf of Ms. Ford. In 2018, he was a candidate for the UCP nomination in Calgary‑Glenmore.
The False Allegation Incident
Mr. Schuman met Ms. Ford and Jivraj at a 2018 UCP fundraising event.
He recalled a memorable conversation with Ms. Ford.
He found Jivraj lively, boastful, and claiming powerful connections.
He later received a text from Jivraj claiming Ms. Ford accused him of sexual misconduct.
The allegation terrified him due to his political ambitions and relationship.
He testified that Jivraj sowed “seeds of chaos.”
After consulting friends, he met Ms. Ford, who denied the allegation.
He became certain Jivraj fabricated it.
He confronted Jivraj, who proposed a three‑person meeting.
The Meeting
They met at a restaurant; Jivraj arrived late and inebriated.
Jivraj admitted fabricating the allegation and apologized.
He confessed to alcoholism.
He consumed six or seven drinks; Mr. Schuman had soda; Ms. Ford does not drink.
When the bill arrived (approximately $75), Jivraj claimed he forgot his wallet.
An argument and scuffle ensued, broken up by staff.
There was no cross‑examination. Mr. Schuman was excused.
Court adjourned for the day.