Day 19

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 John Vos by Richard Harrison, Counsel for Caylan

Overview

John Vos, a longtime radio executive with Corus Entertainment and former Regional Program Director for CHQR, resumed his testimony. His earlier evidence (Day 15) had been adjourned after it emerged that Corus had entered into a non‑disclosure agreement with Jivraj.

Continuation of Direct Examination

Decision to Remove the Interview

Mr. Vos testified that:

• Corus removed the Danielle Smith interview of Caylan from its website.

• The interview was taken down because it did not meet CHQR’s editorial standards, which require fair and balanced coverage.

• Petitions and letters denouncing the interview were a factor, though not the primary one.

• Advertiser reactions were also a factor.

• Corus made no effort to investigate the truth of the statements made by Caylan in the interview.

Cross‑Examination

By Mr. Mack, Counsel for Broadbent Institute, Lebrun, Magusiak

• The petition protesting the interview was organized by Progress Alberta, not Press Progress.

• The interview was “found wanting” because Ms. Smith did not question Caylan about the Press Progress article.

By Ms. Cooper (Toronto Star and Ms. McIntosh)

• Ms. Smith posted a tweet acknowledging that criticism of her interview was fair and that her questioning had not been sufficiently rigorous.

• Editorial policy was the primary driver behind the decision to remove the interview.

By Ben Franken (Counsel for Avnish Nanda)

• The interview aired during a provincial election cycle.

• Mr. Vos knew Caylan was a recently resigned UCP candidate.

• The UCP had been experiencing candidate‑selection issues.

• Controversial subjects are routinely discussed on talk radio.

• CHQR considered it important to treat guests in a fair and balanced manner.

Mr. Vos was excused.

Comment

Regarding Corus Entertainment’s decision to remove the CHQR interview:

·      There was an interaction between Jivraj and Corus; Mr. Vos could say no more because of the non-disclosure agreement

·      Corus took down the interview

• Mr. Vos testified that the decision was primarily driven by editorial policy requiring fairness and balance.

• He did not identify what, specifically, was unfair or unbalanced in the interview.

• The interview video can be viewed and assessed directly: [click HERE to view].

• Mr. Vos stated the interview was removed because Ms. Smith was not sufficiently probing of Caylan.

• If the interview had been more probing Caylan would have had more opportunity to tell the story; she had nothing to hide, and her story never changes.

• Ms. Smith had characterized the interview at the outset as an opportunity for Caylan to tell her story.

• The interview fulfilled that purpose; it was not intended to be a cross‑examination.

• Corus capitulated in the face of threats from Jivraj, a person who had no credibility.

• Mr. Vos acknowledged that Corus made no effort to determine whether Caylan’s statements were true.

• Truth and free speech appeared to be of no concern.

• The impression is that principle was abandoned in favour of expedience.