Day 37

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 Theresa Reichart by Mr. Woodley (Counsel for the CBC)

Ms. Theresa Reichart, B.A., C.A., C.B.V., was called by the CBC as an expert witness qualified to give opinion evidence concerning the quantification of damages. Her evidence regarding qualifications included:

• She works in litigation support with a focus on quantifying losses.

• She has worked in the field since 1992.

• She has been qualified as an expert in courts in Alberta, British Columbia, and Ontario, as well as before Alberta tribunals.

• She estimated she has been qualified approximately 50 times.

Mr. Woodley applied to have Ms. Reichart recognized as an expert in loss quantification.

Mr. Harrison opposed the application on the grounds that:

• her report exceeded the proper scope of her expertise,

• she withheld information from the Court and provided it to defence counsel for use in cross‑examining Mr. Devonshire, and

• she demonstrated an adversarial approach.

Justice Harris retired to consider the submissions and returned with her ruling. She recognized Ms. Reichart as an expert in loss quantification, with the limitation that she could not give evidence on certain pension issues.

Ms. Reichart’s report was entered as an exhibit.

Evidence of Ms. Reichart

• She made several corrections to her report and replaced one schedule.

• She confirmed she was engaged by the CBC to:

  • review Mr. Devonshire’s report and sur‑rebuttal report concerning Caylan’s losses, and

  • provide her own calculations of the Plaintiff’s losses.

• She based her calculations on events after the first CBC publication.

• Because Caylan had already resigned before the CBC published, Ms. Reichart recognized that CBC did not cause her resignation.

• She challenged Mr. Devonshire’s assumption that Caylan would retire at age 65.

• Statistics Canada data suggested an earlier retirement age, which would reduce losses.

• She challenged the discount rate used by Mr. Devonshire.

  • He used a single discount rate.

  • She testified he should have used short‑, medium‑, and long‑term rates.

  • Using varying rates would reduce his calculated losses by approximately one‑third.

• She rejected Mr. Devonshire’s Scenario A, which assumed Caylan would have been elected and appointed to cabinet.

• Because Caylan had resigned before the CBC published, Ms. Reichart said it was impossible for her to be elected and appointed to cabinet in that election cycle.

• She assumed that if Caylan returned to Global Affairs, she would not have earned more than she earned in her current employment.

• She concluded that Caylan suffered no loss after 2024, because she now earns more than she would have at Global Affairs.

• Therefore, in her view, Caylan would experience no future loss of income beyond 2024.

Cross‑Examination of Ms. Reichart by Mr. Harrison (Counsel for Caylan)

Mr. Harrison highlighted that:

• Ms. Reichart made numerous mistakes in her report.

• She failed to consider several relevant factors in assessing loss.

• She did not consider the possibility of election and cabinet appointment in a future election.

The major failing in Ms. Reichart’s report is addressed in the comment below.

Comment

The central flaw in Ms. Reichart’s report was her assumption that, absent the defamation, Caylan would not have earned more after 2024 than she actually did earn. She did not consider the possibility—despite Caylan’s age, intellect, education, and history of excelling—that Caylan could have become:

• a cabinet minister,

• a deputy minister,

• a senior manager,

• or the equivalent of such positions, or better.

By artificially limiting Caylan’s future prospects, Ms. Reichart was able to conclude that Caylan would experience no future income loss.

Interesting Differences

Three highly qualified experts provided opinions on Caylan’s income loss due to defamation:

• Mr. Devonshire — for the Plaintiff (Caylan)

• Mr. Aldridge — for the Defendant Broadbent Institute

• Ms. Reichart — for the Defendant CBC

The differences in their assessments are striking.

Past Losses

Mr. Devonshire’s estimates (to June 2025):

• Scenario A: $814,141

• Scenario B: $387,085

• Scenario C: $537,160

• Scenario D: $1,502,265

Mr. Aldridge

• Did not dispute these past loss figures and can be taken to have agreed with them.

Ms. Reichart’s Estimates (to March 2, 2026)

Past Losses

Loss with deduction of disability benefits
	Alternative 1 Global Affairs Canada	Alternative 2 Foreign Service Group
Past loss	$233,140	$133,153
Prejudgment interest	$25,428	$13,402
Total	$258,568	$146,555

Loss without deduction of disability benefits
	Alternative 1 Global Affairs Canada	Alternative 2 Foreign Service Group
Past loss	$324,459	$224,472
Prejudgment interest	$38,361	$26,335
Total	$368,820	$250,807

Future Losses

Mr. Aldridge	Mr. Devonshire	Ms. Reichart
5% deduction – $166,027	Scenario A – $3,115,557	0
10% deduction – $332,055	Scenario B – $2,882,725	0
20% deduction – $664,109	Scenario C – $4,265,060	0

Ms. Reichardt was the last witness to testify on behalf of the CBC.  The Toronto Star will begin with its witnesses on Day 38.