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.