Day 39

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.

Toronto Star Witnesses Continue to Testify

Direct Examination of Kieran Leavitt by Ms. Cooper, (Counsel for the Toronto Star and Ms. McIntosh)

Mr. Leavitt was the Provincial Affairs reporter for Star Edmonton in 2019. His evidence:

• He reported to Alex Boyd.

• He became aware of Caylan around late 2018 or early 2019.

• He knew she was running to become an MLA in Calgary–Mountain View.

• On January 6, he received a nine‑page email from “Whistleblower” making scurrilous statements about Caylan, Jason Kenney, Licia Corbella, the UCP, and others. The statements included:

  • Allegations of fraud and corruption in the Calgary–Mountain View UCP nomination;

  • Jason Kenney breaching the grassroots guarantee by parachuting in a candidate from Ontario;

  • The nomination being plagued by “dirty tricks”;

  • A systemic, deliberate, organized strategy to breach Party rules;

  • A candidate fraudulently purchasing a membership;

  • The UCP taking the unprecedented step of authorizing a candidacy without investigating residential history;

  • The UCP collaborating with Licia Corbella to publish a flattering puff piece on Caylan;

  • The Party disqualifying Mark Hlady, “the only serious competitor.”

• Mr. Leavitt did not know the identity of Whistleblower at that time.

• He replied the next day asking whether there was any hard evidence of collaboration between Licia Corbella and the UCP.

• He brought the email to the attention of Alex Boyd.

• He did not ask for Whistleblower’s identity because he was not working on a story.

• He later learned Whistleblower’s identity when Jivraj called him.

• On January 16, Jivraj sent him an email attaching an affidavit sworn by Jivraj attesting to the authenticity of screenshots attached as exhibits.

• Mr. Leavitt forwarded the affidavit to Alex Boyd and Trevor Howell.

• He told Jivraj he needed to see the original messages, understand the context, and know why they were sent.

• Jivraj said he would be comfortable with a Calgary reporter reviewing the messages on his phone.

• No Toronto Star reporter ever looked at the screenshots on Jivraj’s phone.

• Mr. Leavitt wanted to review the messages himself, but Jivraj would not allow it.

• Jivraj also insisted on anonymity in any published story.

• Mr. Leavitt was not prepared to write a story because he needed:

  • Verification of authenticity;

  • Context;

  • Information about Jivraj;

  • And because Jivraj insisted on anonymity.

• He expressed these concerns to his editor, Ms. Boyd, who agreed.

• He became frustrated with Jivraj and concluded there was not enough authentic information to write a story.

• He did not recall any further conversations with Jivraj after January 17.

• He did nothing with the material until March 19.

• He became aware of the March 18 Press Progress article.

• He learned that Mr. Maiman was covering Caylan’s resignation for the Toronto Star.

• He gave Mr. Maiman Jivraj’s phone number, email address, and the affidavit.

• He saw Caylan’s resignation statement referencing an obsessive campaign of intimidation, harassment, and defamation by Jivraj.

• He did not investigate Caylan’s allegations.

• He had no information about the relationship between Caylan and Jivraj.

Cross‑Examination of Mr. Leavitt (by Mr. Harrison, Counsel for Caylan)

Mr. Harrison’s cross‑examination made clear that Mr. Leavitt declined to pursue a story based on Jivraj’s material because:

• Jivraj refused to let him see the messages;

• He needed to know the context;

• Jivraj insisted on anonymity;

• He had reason to doubt Jivraj’s credibility and motivations.

It was also clear that he shared his concerns with Ms. Boyd, who agreed with his assessment.

Comment

Mr. Leavitt exercised sound judgment in suspecting both Jivraj and the story he was attempting to sell. His editor, Ms. Boyd, agreed with him—until March 19, when that judgment was abandoned.

Direct Examination of Madeline Smith (by Ms. Cooper)

Ms. Smith appeared by video. She is now employed by the CBC but in 2019 was a reporter‑photographer for Star Metro Calgary. Her evidence:

• She worked with Trevor Howell and Ms. McIntosh in the Calgary newsroom and reported to Ms. Boyd.

• She became aware of Caylan when the Press Progress article was published on March 18.

• She wrote an article published on March 23 in which she described Caylan as promoting “white supremacist talking points.”

• She wrote another article in April titled “What’s At Play Behind UCP ‘Bozo Eruptions’”.

  • The article named Caylan as a candidate who had to answer or dodge “questions about messages with racist, Islamophobic, or anti‑LGBTQ sentiment.”

• Ms. Smith testified that the reference to “racist” in the article was directed at Caylan.

• She said that concern about the replacement of white people is racist, and that Caylan’s messages constituted a “bozo eruption.”

• A second April article reported that Caylan “stepped down when reports emerged about white supremacist rhetoric she expressed …”.

• Ms. Smith listened to the Danielle Smith interview of Caylan but did not write about it.

Cross‑Examination of Ms. Smith (by Mr. Harrison)

• Ms. Smith summarized prior Toronto Star reporting by referring to Caylan as racist.

• She chose to quote a third party describing UCP candidates as coming from a “garbage pool” expressing “hateful views.”

• Her April articles were written after she had listened to the Danielle Smith interview.

• She testified that she did not need to contact Caylan for comment before writing about her.

Ms. Smith’s testimony concluded and she was excused.

Comment

Ms. Smith listed to the Danielle Smith interview of Caylan   After listening to that interview a serious reporter would want to at least interview Caylan before writing more about her.  But Ms. Smith blithely went on to describe Caylan as a racist and a bozo.  Her reporting demonstrates an agenda that was indifferent to the facts.