Day 18

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 Michaela Frey by Richard Harrison

Overview

Michaela Frey testified on behalf of the Plaintiff, Caylan. She was elected as the UCP MLA for Brooks–Medicine Hat in 2019, resigned in 2022, and subsequently served as Senior Advisor and Chief of Staff in Premier Danielle Smith’s office.

Key Evidence from Ms. Frey

Relationship with Caylan

• She first met Caylan in 2019 at a UCP candidate retreat, when Caylan already had a high profile as a candidate.

• She was impressed by Caylan, describing her as well‑spoken and running in a hotly-contested riding (Calgary‑Mountain View) the UCP believed it could win.

• Ms. Frey was elected under the name Michaela Glasgo; she married in 2021 and changed her surname to Frey.

Twitter Activity and Aftermath

• She used Twitter extensively during her political career to shape narrative and messaging.

• Caylan resigned on March 18.

• Shortly afterward, Caylan posted a tweet stating that the NDP “will gleefully destroy people’s lives” to get a member elected.

• Ms. Frey “liked” the tweet. Significant backlash followed.

Online Condemnation

• An individual named Mohamed, the Broadbent Institute, Press Progress, and the Defendant Nanda extensively denounced Ms. Frey for liking the tweet

• Each of them characterized Caylan as a white supremacist:

Mohamed also issued a series of tweets calling on Ms. Frey to remove her “like,” which she eventually did.

Party Direction

• The UCP instructed Ms. Frey not to associate with Caylan in any way.

Conclusion of Testimony

• There was no cross‑examination. Ms. Frey was excused.

Comment

• Ms. Frey’s evidence illustrated the severity of the reputational damage to Caylan.

• Ms. Frey was publicly attacked by all the usual suspects for merely “liking” one of Caylan’s posts.

• The UCP, the party for which Caylan had been a candidate, completely distanced itself from her and directed its members to do the same.

• The defamation had rendered Caylan politically toxic.

Direct Examination of Michael Devonshire by Richard Harrison

Overview

Mr. Devonshire is a Chartered Accountant (CPA, CA) and a Chartered Business Valuator (CBV), and currently serves as CFO of Petwin Private Equity.

Chartered Business Valuators specialize in valuation and loss quantification

Mr. Devonshire was retained by Caylan to quantify the financial loss she suffered because of her defamation, and to testify as an expert witness concerning that loss.

Note:

Before giving evidence as an expert a witness must be recognized by the court as an expert in the field, qualified to give opinion evidence.  To obtain that recognition the witness must provide the court with particulars of his/her credentials and experience and must convince the presiding Justice that he/she is an expert in the field. 

Expert Qualifications

Before giving expert opinion evidence, Mr. Devonshire testified regarding his credentials and experience.

• Bachelor of Commerce from McGill University; obtained CA designation in 2007.

• Employment history with Deloitte, Catalyst LLP, and BDO Canada.

• Completed extensive study and met high professional standards to obtain the CBV designation in 2010.

• Has practised in valuation and loss quantification since 2010.

• Previously qualified as an expert seven times in court and arbitration proceedings.

• Testified in a Nova Scotia court proceeding.

• Focuses on valuation of assets and quantification of loss.

• Understands his duty to provide fair, objective, and independent opinion evidence.

Mr. Harrison sought to have the court recognize Mr. Devonshire as an expert in valuation and loss quantification.

Cross‑Examination on Qualifications by Matthew Woodley, for the CBC

Mr. Woodley questioned aspects of Mr. Devonshire’s expert background:

• Most of his expert‑witness experience involved companies rather than individuals.

• In the Nova Scotia case:

  • The court noted his report did not account for certain factors.

  • The court expressed concerns about omissions.

  • The court rejected his report and accepted the opposing expert’s report.

Ruling: Madam Justice Harris declared Mr. Devonshire qualified to give expert evidence on valuation and loss quantification.

Continuation of Direct Examination by Richard Harrison

Overview of Reports

• Mr. Devonshire’s primary report and sur‑rebuttal report were entered as exhibits.

• The primary report, including appendices, is 27 pages.

• He personally prepared the report.

• His engagement letter directed him to quantify Caylan’s economic damages, primarily lost employment income.

• The report was prepared in accordance with CBV professional standards.

• His fees are time‑based and not contingent on the report’s conclusions.

• The report identifies all sources of information relied upon.

• It considers mortality rates, bond yields, inflation, employment compensation, and pension plans.

• It incorporates conclusions from Dr. Mandel, another expert for the Plaintiff.

Loss Periods and Scenarios

The report quantifies losses in two periods:

·      Past losses – are those sustained during the period from March 2019 to June 2025

·      Future  losses – are those sustained from June 2025 until Caylan’s retirement at age 65

Past Losses

Mr. Devonshire postulated 4 scenarios for Caylan’s career during the past loss period had she not been defamed:

• Scenario A: Caylan was successful in 2019 election; appointed to Cabinet

• Scenario B: Caylan was successful in 2019 election; not appointed to Cabinet

• Scenario C: Caylan was unsuccessful in 2019 election; returns to Global Affairs

• Scenario D: Caylan was unsuccessful in 2019 election; appointed Deputy Minister

Mr. Devonshire determined the losses sustained by Caylan in each scenario:

• Scenario A – $814,141

• Scenario B – $387,085

• Scenario C – $537,160

• Scenario D – $1,502,265

Future Losses

Mr. Devonshire postulated three scenarios for Caylan’s career during the future loss period had she not been defamed:

• Scenario A: Caylan was elected and served two‑terms an MLA, Cabinet, then senior Alberta government role

• Scenario B: Two‑term MLA, then return to Global Affairs

• Scenario C: Unsuccessful in 2019 election; appointed Deputy Minister; continues in similar roles to retirement

Future Loss Calculations:

• Scenario A – $3,115,557

• Scenario B – $2,882,725

• Scenario C – $4,265,060

Sur‑Rebuttal Report

• His sur‑rebuttal was a critique of the Defendants’ experts reports.

Cross‑Examination on Report Content by Mr. Woodley

Mr. Woodley challenged several assumptions and methodological choices:

• Relied on Dr. Mandel’s report.

• Discussed potential career paths with Caylan and created scenarios accordingly.

• Did not consider additional alternative scenarios.

• Did not account for potential disability or unemployment.

• Assumed Caylan was in the growth phase of her career.

• Did not review her actual Global Affairs income from 2012–2018.

• Assumed reputational and mental‑health impacts would continue indefinitely.

• Assumed full‑time work to retirement.

• When discounting to present values, Mr. Devonshire used the nominal rate method of interest calculation rather than the effective rate method.

He acknowledged:

• Using the effective rate method would reduce the calculated losses.

• Accounting for disability would also reduce the losses.

By Ms. Cooper

• He assumed Caylan was past child‑bearing.

• He did not consider the possibility of her returning to school.

Mr. Devonshire was excused.

Comment

• The CBV designation is the gold standard in Canada for loss‑quantification expertise.

• Experts must select a limited number of plausible scenarios; the test is whether they are reasonable and whether any other plausible alternatives should have been considered.

• Each scenario chosen by Mr. Devonshire was possible and could reasonably have been followed by Caylan.

• Notably, he did not include any scenario with greater upside for Caylan—she could have achieved even more.