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.