Jared Pearman 5/1/26 Jared Pearman 5/1/26

Day 28

Cross‑Examination of Mr. Lebrun by Mr. Harrison

Background: January 2019 – Jivraj Identified as the Source

In January 2019, Mr. Lebrun learned that Jivraj was the source of the screenshots circulating on social media.
Thomas Lucaszyk provided Jivraj’s phone number, and Mr. Lebrun called him.
The call was recorded by Lebrun. A transcript provided the following evidence:

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.

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

Note: References to the “Article” are to the March 18 Press Progress article about Caylan. The other key document discussed below is the series of March 18 emails sent by Mr. Lebrun to Caylan (the “March 18 emails”). Copies of those documents can be viewed by clicking the links above and where indicated below.

Background: January 2019 – Jivraj Identified as the Source

In January 2019, Mr. Lebrun learned that Jivraj was the source of the screenshots circulating on social media.
Thomas Lucaszyk provided Jivraj’s phone number, and Mr. Lebrun called him.
The call was recorded by Lebrun. A transcript provided the following evidence:

First Phone Call

Mr. Lebrun told Jivraj he was happy to protect anyone’s identity.
He understood that Jivraj wanted anonymity because he was seeking a Conservative Party nomination.
Mr. Lebrun asked whether it was true that Jivraj had been removed as president of the Mountainview Constituency Association.
Jivraj replied that he had resigned because he was “disgusted.”
Jivraj asked Press Progress not to mention his name; Mr. Lebrun agreed.
Jivraj described Caylan as “an extremely dangerous person” and later as a “sane crazy person … very dangerous. So her feet need to be held to the fire.”
Jivraj said that if the screenshots were published, Jason Kenney would “come after him,” and Kenney was “a very dangerous guy.”

Continued Lebrun Testimony and Evidence

Mr. Lebrun had received emails from “Whistleblower” (Jivraj) on January 14 containing the “terrorist message” and the “pride parade” message.
Press Progress did not publish anything about these messages until March 18 — the day before the writ dropped.
In early March, Jivraj contacted Mr. Lebrun pitching “a super interesting story.”
Mr. Lebrun gave him his phone number.
Jivraj called Lebrun; Lebrun recorded this call without telling Jivraj that he was doing so.

Second Phone Call – Key Statements by Jivraj

Jivraj told Mr. Lebrun:

He had been disqualified from running for the federal Conservative nomination in Calgary‑Centre.
He was not thrilled but said the disqualification “liberates him in a way” because he had “some bones to pick.”
“So whatever you [Press Progress] need about conservative politics in Calgary I will give you whatever you need.”
“The second thing I want to reach out to you about is the Caylan Ford stuff.”
“You guys should do a better job of dividing conservatives among themselves.”
“I think now is the time to release a story about her views on pride. That it’s a celebration of vice and transgression.”
“… it’s a lake of fire moment …”
He suggested pretending there was a rift in the UCP between “progressive centrists and the hardcore religious right.”
“So, what I would suggest is basically casting a huge divide within the conservative party …”
“Um you need to target Caylan Ford, cause she’s the one who said these things. … it needs to be an article about her …”
“Um, it could be devastating.”
He explained that the campaign would be announced March 17 and said he debated whether to give Press Progress the information before or after the writ dropped. He concluded it should be released beforehand so Kenney could still disqualify Caylan.
“I can send you a signed affidavit … attesting to the fact that these screenshots are authentic.”
“I think the signed affidavit does the trick.”
“And this is what I find to be the most damaging. But I would, I would wait. I would do the pride one first. Hit. And then I would wait for a second shot in case he doesn’t disqualify her, ….”
Jivraj was calling for a hit job on Caylan.
“When you release these stories they need to be released in a very heavy fashion. Like they need to be bombshells.”
He asked whether the “residency fraud issue” was still relevant.
He offered to send Press Progress a list of questions that Caylan “will not give you a response” to.
He claimed the UCP had tried to “stab [him] out of the party” by portraying him as “a bizarre creep and harasser,” and that Caylan had called the police on him, which he said led to his disqualification.
He predicted the UCP would try to portray him as “one rogue crazy person who is on all sorts of meds or whatever.”
He added: “… the stupidest thing they could have done was to disqualify me because had I been the federal candidate I would have had to be extremely careful. Um, now I don’t give a shit.”

Lebrun’s Response During the Call

After Jivraj suggested an affidavit “does the trick,” Lebrun replied: “… Yeah I think it does too. Because there’s, you know, that gives us some, uh, qualified privilege.”

Further Evidence from Mr. Lebrun

Jivraj had asked Press Progress not to publish anything about Caylan in January.
By March, he wanted an article published.
Mr. Lebrun never investigated the police report filed against Jivraj.
He testified: “I mean, he wasn’t in jail or anything like that, so I saw no reason to believe there was anything to it.”
He understood that Jivraj wanted anonymity because he could be discredited as a stalker or “rogue crazy person.”
He granted anonymity knowing this.

Events of March 17

Jivraj wrote to Mr. Lebrun: “… you can quote me as a prominent conservative speaking on condition of anonymity.”
By the afternoon of March 17, the Article was written.
Jivraj sent Press Progress the feature photo used in the Article (Caylan with Jason Kenney).
Mr. Lebrun decided to describe Jivraj as a “prominent conservative,” despite knowing:
- He had been suspended from the UCP.
- He had resigned as Mountainview CA president under threat of removal.
- He had been disqualified federally.
In an internal email, Lebrun wrote that identifying him as a “Muslim conservative” would make it “look terrible” for anyone to attack him.
He knew Jivraj wanted Caylan disqualified.

The March 18 Emails

[click HERE to view].

At 3:56 PM EST, Lebrun emailed Katrina Miller (Broadbent Institute): “I’m about to send her an email and give her 3 hours to respond (I expect no response, but will give her an opportunity) ….”
Although the Article had been written on March 17, he did not contact Caylan until the afternoon of March 18.
At 4:49 PM EST, he sent the first email to Caylan;
He sent 7 emails in total; they were all sent in a time span of 3 hours and 20 minutes.
He sent all of those emails so he could say that he had made multiple requests on Caylan to respond.
Caylan was at her campaign launch work party and did not see the first of the series of emails until nearly 4:00 PM MST.
She was given until 6:00 PM MST to respond.
Lebrun claimed he had a “deadline,” though Press Progress had no regular publication deadlines.
The email asked seven pointed questions, each premised on Caylan being a white supremacist or white nationalist.

Lebrun’s Evidence Concerning the Article

Press Progress had possessed the “terrorist message” for months but did not publish earlier.
There was no external deadline.
The publication deadline was set arbitrarily by Mr. Lebrun.
Additional Lebrun evidence is included in my Comment on the Article, below.

Comment – The Article

[click HERE to view]

Headline and Initial Mischaracterizations

The headline — “UCP Candidate Complained ‘White Supremacist Terrorists’ are Treated Unfairly, Leaked Messages Show” — misrepresented Caylan’s comments.
She had not complained that white supremacist terrorists were treated unfairly; she contrasted the treatment of white supremacists with the treatment of Islamists and found the asymmetry “interesting.”
Although the Article quoted her reference to the “perverse moral reasoning” of white supremacists, it omitted her reference to the “odious aspects” of white nationalism.

Misquotation of the “Western Culture” Comment

The Article claimed Caylan suggested “’Western culture’ would collapse if ‘another race’ takes over …”.
She made no such statement.
Her actual words were: “… I think it is unlikely that Western culture will survive without Western peoples. Why would another race want to cast away their own culture to adopt someone else’s on such a massive scale? Some people will, for sure, just as some Westerners have sought to adopt wholesale the customs and languages of other people, but it will always be limited.”
Press Progress removed roughly half the words, altering the meaning.
Her comment did not predict cultural collapse.

Misrepresentation of the Source

The Article stated the messages were obtained “exclusively” by Press Progress.
- In fact, CBC and the Toronto Star also had them.
It described the source as a “long-time Muslim conservative with deep ties to the party.”
- Jivraj had stated he rejected Islam.
- His description as a Muslim had been adopted to insulate him from scrutiny and make anyone who attacked him appear racist.
- See the actual words used by Lebrun and Magusiak in their messages: [click HERE to view]
- Press Progress identified Jivraj as a conservative with deep ties to the party although they knew he had been suspended as president of the Mountainview Constituency Association, had resigned as president under the threat of being removed, and had been disqualified by the federal Conservative party as a candidate in the Calgary-Centre riding because of a police report against him.
- Press Progress also knew that Jivraj had requested anonymity because of his bad reputation; that if his identity was known he would come across as a“bizarre creep and harasser”, or as “one rogue crazy person who … is trying to discredit her, ….”, as Jivraj had acknowledged in the second telephone conversation.

Failure to Disclose the Three‑Hour Deadline

The Article stated Caylan “did not respond to subsequent emails.”
It omitted that:
- She was given only three hours.
- She lacked access to the messages and could neither confirm nor deny.
- She was not provided the full statement nor the surrounding context.
- An explanation was impossible without access to the entirety of the messages.
- She was asked to answer seven pointed questions premised on her being a white supremacist.

Irrelevant and Prejudicial References

The Article referenced the Charlottesville attack, which had happened two years previously and had nothing to do with Caylan.

· It states, “… the Muslim conservative says Ford attempted to engage them in a dialogue over Facebook Messenger in an attempt to find ‘common ground.’”

In reality, Jivraj initiated the discussion, and Caylan called the Charlottesville violence “sickening.”

· If Jivraj made that quoted statement it is another demonstration of his disingenuity; if he didn’t make the statement, it demonstrates Press Progress disingenuity.

It referenced the Christchurch massacre, also unrelated.

False Claim of “Flirting with White Nationalism”

The Article stated the messages showed Caylan “flirting with white nationalism.”
Her actual statements included: “White nationalists believe that race is central to their identity. The preservation of white dominance is their principle political objective. I absolutely do not share those aims and beliefs.”
And: “A white nationalist might say that race is the primary determinant of culture, for instance, and I wouldn’t agree with that.”
Press Progress shamelessly quoted their anonymous source in three separate paragraphs despite knowing he lacked credibility.

Guilt by Association and Additional Misleading Elements

· The ninth paragraph makes the damning insinuation that Caylan is somehow associated with the Christchurch shooter who, two years previously, had gunned down 50 Muslims during peaceful prayer.

The Article repeated the claim that Caylan was “handpicked” by Jason Kenney – another demonstration of Press Progress indifference to truth.
It included her description of white supremacists as “perverse” but omitted her reference to the “odious” aspects of white supremacy.
It conflated demographic replacement (a demographic concept) with the “great replacement” conspiracy theory.
It falsely stated she declared: “I think it is unlikely that Western culture will survive without Western peoples if ‘another race’ becomes dominant.”
- She never said this.
- There was no “if,” no reference to another race becoming dominant, and no prediction of collapse.
The Article referenced disqualified UCP candidates to imply guilt by association.
It quoted Janice Herrington: “A polite racist is still a racist.” – attempting to emblazon a swastika on Caylan’s forehead.
The Article remains live on the Press Progress website.

Jared Pearman 4/30/26 Jared Pearman 4/30/26

Day 27

Cross‑Examination of Luke Lebrun by Mr. Harrison

Mr. Lebrun had testified on direct that Press Progress was editorially independent from the Broadbent Institute and that such separation was required by his labour agreement. On cross‑examination:

He confirmed that the labour agreement only came into effect in 2024, not 2019.
Only after being confronted with his discovery evidence, did Mr. Lebrun acknowledge that Katrina Miller, Program Director of the Broadbent Institute, had final approval over editorial content in 2019.

Cross‑Examination of Luke Lebrun by Mr. Harrison (Caylan’s Counsel)

Mr. Lebrun had testified on direct that Press Progress was editorially independent from the Broadbent Institute and that such separation was required by his labour agreement. On cross‑examination:

He confirmed that the labour agreement only came into effect in 2024, not 2019.
Only after being confronted with his discovery evidence, did Mr. Lebrun acknowledge that Katrina Miller, Program Director of the Broadbent Institute, had final approval over editorial content in 2019.

October 13 Article — “Fraudulent Resident” Letter

Press Progress published an article on October 13 about the “fraudulent resident” letter written by Jivraj. Regarding that article, Mr. Lebrun testified:

He wrote the headline: “UCP Constituency Associating Accuses Jason Kenney’s Handpicked ‘Parachute Candidate’ of breaking Party Rules.”
The first paragraph stated: “Nine UCP constituency association board members say Kenney's party is putting 'parachute candidates' ahead of 'grassroots voices'.”
Magusiak wrote the article; Mr. Lebrun edited and published it.
Press Progress did not call or contact Caylan or the UCP for comment before publishing.
Because Press Progress failed to contact the UCP, they were unaware that the Party had already:
- investigated the letter,
- confirmed the letter misstated Party rules, and
- confirmed that Caylan was a legitimate candidate.
Press Progress did not contact any of the signatories to the letter before publishing.
Mr. Lebrun did not know whether the Mountainview Constituency Association board had anything to do with the letter, yet he wrote “UCP Constituency Associating Accuses …”
The Constituency Association did not make any accusations.
The fraudulent resident letter did not say that “Kenney’s party is putting 'parachute candidates' ahead of 'grassroots voices'.”; Press Progress chose that terminology.
The letter did not accuse Caylan of being a parachute candidate, but the Press Progress article did.
It was Mr. Lebrun who inferred that Caylan was “Kenney’s handpicked parachute candidate.”
Nowhere in the article did Press Progress state that the allegations were unproven.
Mr. Lebrun made no effort to check whether the facts were true.
He acknowledged he was not concerned about the truth of the allegations.
He understood that accusations of fraud and deliberate lying are serious and could harm Caylan’s reputation, yet he published the letter without knowing whether the insinuations were true.
Press Progress never updated the article to reflect that the letter was incorrect, that the UCP had investigated, or that Caylan was confirmed as an eligible candidate.
The October 13 article remains unchanged and online.
It was the first of three Press Progress articles referencing Caylan’s residency status.

December 30 Article — “Bozos, Bigots and Sketchy Characters”

Press Progress published an article on December 30 titled: “Here Are All The Bozos, Bigots and Sketchy Characters Who Created Chaos for Jason Kenney's UCP in 2018.”

A section read: “The UCP parachute candidate who faced a revolt from her own constituency association…”

Mr. Lebrun testified:

The reference to a “sketchy character” was intended to refer to Caylan.
The article described her as an “Ontario resident” in the present tense, even though he knew she had lived in Alberta since February 2018.
He had read in the National Post that Caylan met Jason Kenney at a meet‑and‑greet; he invented the detail that they met at a cocktail party.
Press Progress never contacted Caylan to verify any of the statements.
He asked Magusiak to make the headline “click baity”, and they agreed on “bozos, bigots, and sketchy characters.”

January 9, 2019 Article — “UCP Members Keep Getting Fed Up…”

The article described Caylan as Jason Kenney’s handpicked “Parachute Candidate” and stated:

“When she won the nomination, the board accused her of deliberately misleading the party about her residential history…”

Mr. Lebrun testified:

He had not intentionally falsified the facts but misstated them when he said, “when she won the nomination”; it should have said “before she won the nomination.”
He denied that the article lied when it stated “The board accused …”, even though he knew the board had done nothing.
He denied that the article lied when it described Caylan as Jason Kenney’s handpicked parachute candidate.
The article remains online.

January 12 Email — “paulgmacdonald”

On January 12, Mr. Lebrun received an email from “paulgmacdonald61@gmail.com,”. The identity of paulgmacdonald has not been ascertained, but his email informed Mr. Lebrun that Jivraj:

· Exploited his access to the Mountainview UCP party membership list.

Emailed all party members anonymously using the pseudonym mountainviewconservatives@gmail.com.
Authored the fraudulent resident letter.
Was attempting to smear Caylan.
He had been suspended by the UCP as president of the Mountainview Constituency Association.
Purchased multiple domain names trying to block a candidate [Caylan] from using them.
Was a nomination candidate for the federal Conservative Party.
Was guilty of conduct created a troubling picture for conservatives considering nominating him.

Attached was an email from Kaylee Kent, UCP Constituency Development Coordinator, confirming: “The Executive Board has suspended Mr. Jivraj’s role as president of the Mountainview Constituency Association.”

Court adjourned.

Comment

Continuing Defamation

It is now established beyond doubt that:

· Caylan was a resident of Alberta when she became a nomination candidate.

· The UCP eligibility rules for nomination candidates required only that the candidate be a resident of Alberta.

· The fraudulent resident letter misstated the eligibility rules of the UCP.

· Caylan campaigned hard and decisively won a nomination contest against two credible opponents.

· Caylan was not a “parachute candidate”.

· The Mountainview Constituency Association had nothing to do with the fraudulent resident letter.

· Caylan did not make any misrepresentations to the Party.

· Caylan did not commit fraud.

Notwithstanding the facts as stated above, Press Progress continues to this day to have articles live on its website that:

· Accuse Caylan of being a parachute candidate.

· Insinuate that she misrepresented herself to the Party

· Insinuate that she tried to fraudulently circumvent the Party’s rules.

· Falsely state that the board or the Constituency Association accused Caylan.

· Falsely state the circumstances in which Caylan met Jason Kenney.

Nothing could more clearly demonstrate the willingness of Press Progress to continue the defamation, to perpetuate the harm done to Caylan.

“paulgmacdonald”

The paulgmacdonald email is significant because:

By January 12, Mr. Lebrun knew that Jivraj had acted treacherously in his role as constituency president.
He knew Jivraj was targeting Caylan.
He knew Jivraj had been suspended by the Party.
He knew that Jivraj had purchased domain names to block a candidate
Despite this, Mr. Lebrun continued to collaborate with Jivraj because they shared the objective of damaging Caylan’s career.

Document Production and Redaction

Parties must produce all relevant documents in litigation.
When producing its documents, Press Progress redacted the identity of all the third parties with whom they had communicated, including Duncan Kinney, Thomas Lucaszyk, and all the synonyms used by Jivraj.
Jivraj used at least 6 pseudonyms in his communications.
Press Progress denied that they knew the identity of the author of the pseudonymous communications.
In discovery Jivraj admitted that he was the author of the pseudonymous communications.
Even after they were directly communicating with Jivraj, Press Progress continued to redact his name and claimed he was a confidential source.
Reasonable observers could conclude that Press Progress was embarrassed or ashamed to reveal that they had collaborated with Jivraj and relied on him as a source.

Jared Pearman 4/25/26 Jared Pearman 4/25/26

Day 26

The day started with a short testimony of Mr. Devonshire, who testified on Day 18, and was recalled to provide supplemental evidence and explained that recently received information required four changes to his original report damages to Ms. Ford.

This was followed by the first witness for the defence, Luke Lebrun, who was questioned by Mr. Mack (Counsel for the Broadbent Institute and Defendants Lebrun and Magusiak)

Mr. Lebrun identified himself as an investigative journalist and the editor of Press Progress. He held that role in 2019 and continues to do so. He resides in Ottawa and holds a BA and MA in English. He testified for the remainder of the day.

Direct Examination of Mr. Devonshire by Mr. Harrison (Caylan’s Counsel)

Mr. Devonshire is a chartered accountant (CPA, CA) and certified business valuator. He previously testified on Day 18 and was recognized as an expert in valuation and loss quantification. His earlier evidence addressed Caylan’s loss of income resulting from the alleged defamation.

He was recalled to provide supplemental evidence and explained that recently received information required four changes to his original report. These revisions were incorporated into a supplemental report, which was entered as an exhibit.

One of the key changes was the addition of a disability contingency. The supplemental report calculated Caylan’s past and future losses as follows:

  
      Past Loss Damages
    
      Scenario
      Damages (without deduction of long-term disability)
      Damages (with deduction of long-term disability)
    
      Scenario A
      $765,010
      $673,691
    
      Scenario B
      $387,085
      $295,766
    
      Scenario C
      $587,160
      $445,841
    
      Scenario D
      $1,502,265
      $1,410,946
    
      Future Loss Damages
    
      Scenario
      Damages
    
      Scenario A
      $3,052,699
    
      Scenario B
      $2,964,857
    
      Scenario C
      $4,303,429

Past Loss Damages
Scenario A	$765,010	$673,691
Scenario B	$387,085	$295,766
Scenario C	$587,160	$445,841
Scenario D	$1,502,265	$1,410,946

Future Loss Damages
Scenario A	$3,052,699
Scenario B	$2,964,857
Scenario C	$4,303,429

Refer to Day 18 to understand the scenarios postulated by Mr. Devonshire in his calculations.

Mr. Devonshire was briefly cross-examined.

Mr. Devonshire’s evidence concluded and he was excused.

Direct Examination of Luke Lebrun by Mr. Mack (Counsel for the Broadbent Institute and Defendants Lebrun and Magusiak)

He described Press Progress as a news organization focusing on underreported stories relating to social and economic inequality, health, and education.

Mr. Lebrun’s Testimony

The Broadbent Institute founded Press Progress.
Press Progress is editorially independent from the Broadbent Institute.
Press Progress has never endorsed political parties.
Mr. Lebrun had been a member of the NDP on two occasions but was not a member in 2019.
Stephen Magusiak became the Alberta reporter for Press Progress in September 2018.
Press Progress operated a “tip line” advertised on its website.

Document Identification Process

The remainder of the day consisted mostly of Mr. Mack introducing documents to Mr. Lebrun for identification.

Mr. Lebrun would confirm whether he had seen, sent, or received the documents.
Some documents prompted brief comments or answers; others were simply identified and then entered as exhibits.
Because the documents were not visible to the observer, no substantive information could be gleaned from the evidence.

I abandoned my note taking and gave up.

Comment

Two points stood out from Mr. Lebrun’s examination:

Use of Anonymous Tips Mr. Lebrun and Mr. Magusiak appeared willing—if not eager—to rely on tips from individuals whose identities were initially unknown. When identities became known, the tipster was usually Jivraj, though Thomas Lukaszuk also provided tips. Mr. Lukaszuk was a former deputy premier of Alberta, turned anti-conservative activist, then promoter of the Forever Canadian petition.
Extent of Collaboration with Jivraj The level of communication between Jivraj and Mr. Lebrun was striking. By my count, at least 17 emails were exchanged between them on March 17 and 18. The defamatory Press Progress article was published late on March 18.

Jared Pearman 4/25/26 Jared Pearman 4/25/26

Day 25

Direct Examination of Dr. Mandel by Mr. Harrison (Caylan’s Counsel)

Dr. Mandel, BA, MA, PhD, R. Psych, is a clinical and rehabilitation psychologist. His CV is 23 pages.

Mr. Harrison sought to qualify him as an expert in clinical, psychological, and vocational assessment; cognitive functioning; psychological injuries and diagnoses; and the impact of such injuries on employment and employability.

Direct Examination of Dr. Mandel by Mr. Harrison (Caylan’s Counsel)

Dr. Mandel, BA, MA, PhD, R. Psych, is a clinical and rehabilitation psychologist. His CV is 23 pages.

Qualification Evidence

Dr. Mandel obtained an M.A. in Clinical Psychology with Honours and a Ph.D. in Psychology (Clinical/Counselling).
His private practice now focuses primarily on medical‑legal assessments, including psychological, cognitive, and vocational evaluations.
His main practice areas involve personal injury litigation, chronic pain, and rehabilitation.
He previously provided psychotherapy to a broad range of clients with physical and psychiatric disabilities.
His firm holds a contract with the Alberta government to provide psychological assessments for the AISH program across Southern Alberta.
His firm also provides assessments for assisted living and social support programs, including post‑secondary students with learning disabilities.
He conducts assessments for the Workers’ Compensation Board.
His goal in any assessment is to provide as clear a psychological and holistic picture as possible and determine the impact of an injury on future employment capability.
He has testified as an expert witness 33 times.

The Court recognized Dr. Mandel as an expert in the areas requested. His report and sur‑rebuttal report were entered as exhibits.

Expert Testimony

Factors Considered

Ms. Ford was referred for a psycho‑vocational assessment to determine the impact of the alleged defamation on her psychological functioning and employability.
His assessment included a four‑hour interview, 5.5 hours of psychometric testing by his assistant, review of all documents provided by counsel, and vocational research.
His firm administered 20 objective tests of Caylan, extending over two days.
He reviewed 24 documents, including reports from Dr. Bajwa, Dr. Pachet, Dr. Lucido, and Dr. Hashman.
Caylan provided her personal and medical history and stated she had sustained damage to her “moral personality.”
She reported feeling she was no longer as good a person as she once believed; less courageous and resolute; less reliable as a friend and coworker; more insecure; more sensitive to perceived slights; more attuned to negative experiences; unable to let go of negative thoughts; fatigued; less motivated; socially uncomfortable, sad and prone to spontaneous crying.
She had 50 incomplete essays on her laptop and was hyper‑aware of criticism.
Dr. Mandel described her as very intelligent, a deep thinker, introspective, and formerly high‑achieving.

Test Results

Caylan’s IQ of 132 places her in the very superior range, higher than 99% of her age group.
Her FSIQ is consistent with success at the doctoral level and in occupations requiring the highest cognitive complexity.
She demonstrated exceptional verbal comprehension (99.7th percentile), the most important cognitive function for academic and verbally demanding professions (e.g., lawyer, politician, film author, school administrator).
Her working memory score (77th percentile) was a relative weakness and consistent with her reported difficulties concentrating.
Working memory score of 111 represents a major discrepancy from her other index scores.
Processing speed was her second‑lowest score but still in the superior range.
The discrepancy between working memory and her other scores is consistent with trauma; differences of this magnitude occur in only 1.5% of cases.
Working memory, processing speed, and executive functioning are the cognitive domains most affected by depression.
Her working memory score would not be expected in someone with her overall intellect.
Dr. Mandel stated her results were among the highest he had seen in his 35+‑year career. Individuals with IQs like hers can succeed at the highest academic levels and access virtually any career.
Performance validity tests confirmed she was truthful and neither minimizing nor exaggerating symptoms.
Her tests consistently indicated major depressive disorder.
The results objectively confirmed her subjective complaints of reduced cognitive functioning and diminished productivity.

Present Condition

Dr. Mandel concluded that Caylan was forced to resign her candidacy, became a political pariah, endured repeated personal attacks, suffered reputational harm, and developed significant negative psychological reactions—best characterized as major depressive disorder and trauma.
Her marital relationship was severely strained by her depression, and she is now divorced.
She showed signs of post‑traumatic stress; although the original trauma does not meet the criteria for PTSD, she exhibited PTSD‑type symptoms.
Her depression is marked by sadness, loss of interest, and loss of pleasure.
She has become excessively self‑absorbed, unassertive, downhearted, and shy.
She tends to devalue her achievements and fears humiliation and rejection.
She is apprehensive and uncomfortable socially.
She is introspective and self‑conscious, unsure of her identity and self‑worth, and sees herself as markedly and negatively different from others.
She experiences an isolated and distorted sense of self, along with dysphoric and fatalistic thoughts—highly indicative of major depressive disorder.
She feels trapped in ongoing hopelessness, alienation, and self‑criticism.
Depression affects cognitive functioning, particularly executive function, memory, and attention.
There is ample evidence that depression impairs cognitive performance.
In Dr. Mandel’s view, Caylan has never not been depressed since 2019, though her symptoms wax and wane.
Her depression is prolonged and chronic; she has never been in remission.

Effect on Earnings

Caylan reported difficulty paying attention, concentrating, maintaining her train of thought, managing workload, completing tasks on time, and meeting her own expectations at least 50% of the time.
Depression substantially affects cognitive functions such as slowed thinking, concentration, memory, and decision‑making.
These impairments significantly affect day‑to‑day functioning, including employment.
A study of 771 patients found depressive symptom severity correlated with loss of work productivity; even minor symptoms reduced work function.
The study also found that lack of initiative and poor self‑esteem are major barriers to obtaining and maintaining employment.
Another study found that individuals with depression had higher odds of non‑employment, sickness/disability unemployment, home‑care responsibilities, and early retirement.
Depression was associated with reduced weekly hours and lower household income.
Dr. Mandel stated that Caylan experienced loss of opportunity and vocational capital due to the alleged defamation, reputational damage, and resulting psychological harm.
Her ongoing depression and compromised cognitive functioning have reduced her efficiency and productivity.
Absent reputational loss and mental health difficulties, she could have competed for government positions paying $170,000 to $313,000.
He concluded she will suffer a 20–30% lifetime loss of earnings compared to her pre‑2019 potential.
Scientific evidence indicates people with depression retire, on average, 1.5 years earlier.

Dr. Mandel was briefly cross‑examined by counsel for two Defendants.

Dr. Mandel’s testimony concluded and he was excused.

Jared Pearman 4/21/26 Jared Pearman 4/21/26

Day 24

Day 24 was a day of testimony from highly-qualified experts.

Dr. Kaufman negates the accusations that Caylan's quotes were white supremacist, white nationalist, homophobic or Islamophobic.

Doctors Lucido and Hashman testify concerning the tragic effects on Caylan of the events prior to and after March of 2019.

Dr. Kaufmann began by defining key terms to ensure clarity. He provided definitions of white nationalism, white supremacy, racism, ethnic nationalism, civic nationalism, ethnic group, culture, race, nation, demographic replacement, the Great Replacement theory, and scientific racism. Selected definitions appear in the Comment section.

Direct Examination of Dr. Kaufmann by Mr. Harrison (Caylan’s Counsel)

He continued:

Dr. Kaufmann cautioned against the “fallacy of association”: sharing some traits does not establish equivalence; a match of all relevant traits is required.
He illustrated the fallacy of association with an example: Hitler was a Nazi and had a German shepherd; my neighbor has a German shepherd; therefore my neighbor must be a Nazi.
He stated that concern over the ethnic composition of nations is common globally; ethnic conflict is a feature of human societies, and groups worry about their relative positions.
He identified “concept creep” or conceptual stretching, where a term is expanded beyond its intended meaning.
The term “replacement” has been used repeatedly by academic demographers in peer‑reviewed literature.
Caylan’s use of the word “replacement” should not be confused with the Great Replacement Theory.
The fact that white nationalists use the word “replacement” and Caylan used the same word does not mean she is a white nationalist.
Conflating her use of “replacement” with white nationalism is an example of concept creep.
Concern about immigration is not equivalent to being inspired by the Great Replacement Theory.
Caylan’s criticism of perceived double standards in how Canadian media and officials treat white nationalist versus Islamist extremism does not mean she endorses the idea that elites are conspiring to replace whites.
Caylan correctly observed that speech about majority and minority groups is not held to the same moral standard.
There is a legitimate argument about double standards, which opponents are free to contest with logic and evidence.
There is no evidence that Caylan was motivated by ideas of racial superiority or racial hygiene that animate white nationalists and white supremacists.
Her remarks reflect common public concerns about cultural change, identity loss, and Muslim integration.
She echoes the views of the three in four Canadians of all races who believe that “political correctness has gone too far.”
Ultimately, Caylan’s views reflect those of the mainstream, not the white nationalist fringe.

Dr. Kaufmann’s testimony concluded and he was excused.

Comment

Consider Caylan’s quotes in light of the following definitions provided by Dr. Kaufmann:

· “White nationalism” - a form of ethnic nationalism where you must be white to be a full member of the nation. Requires the expulsion of people who are non-white. It’s about ethnic exclusivity within a territory. **It is different from favouring restrictive immigration policies.

· “White supremacy” - believes in the racial supremacy of the white race which entitles white people to dominate or rule over other groups. Sometimes this overlaps with white nationalism, sometimes it is separate (e.g. antebellum south was white supremacist, not white nationalist.) It’s a hierarchical system where one group is superior.

· “Racism” is about hating another group, feeling superior to another group. Racism is about hatred to the outgroup, which is not the same as attachment to one’s in-group, unless that attachment leads to discrimination or demands for race purity.

· “Demographic / population replacement”: where one group in a population grows while another declines in relative numbers. It’s about compositional change in a population.

· “Great Replacement Theory” is a worldview or theory that says whites are being replaced in western societies as part of a deliberate process orchestrated by globalist elites, chiefly by the Jews. This definition necessitates the idea that there is a nefarious intentionality by globalists. The way it’s talked about by the far-right necessarily involves the Jews as orchestrating this.

Caylan’s Quotes (Bolded) and Analysis

“I am somehow saddened by the demographic replacement of white peoples in their homelands, - more in Europe than in America – partly because it’s clear that it will not be a peaceful transition, and partly because the lack of demographic diversity in the human race is sad.

Not white nationalist — she does not advocate ethnic exclusivity or expulsion; she expresses concern about backlash and demographic diversity.
Not white supremacist — no claim of white superiority.
Not racist — no hatred or superiority toward another group.
Many people express concerns about immigration for varied reasons; hers are unrelated to white exclusivity or supremacy.
She also stated: “On whether Canada should remain an essentially white country I’m kind of agnostic; it doesn’t make an awful lot of sense to me given our history as an immigrant nation to insist that one race ought to remain dominant in perpetuity.”
“Demographic replacement” is a legitimate demographic term and unrelated to the Great Replacement Theory.
Her statement is an expression of concern about the effects of immigration and that concern is widely shared.

“Why would one march in pride? I mean they trace their origins to the stonewall riots, then emerged as a celebration of vice and transgression. What are the redeeming values?I’m too prudish for pride. I believe in sexual modesty and unrestrained passion and exuberance is just not my idea of a good time.If there was a gay Haydn concertwhere the conductor and the musicians were all queer I would attend.”

Not a criticism of gay people; it expresses a preference not to participate in Pride parades.
Distaste for sexual excess in Pride parades is understandable.
Preference for sexual modesty is not homophobia.
Willingness to attend a gay concert is inconsistent with homophobia.

“When the perpetrator is an Islamist the denunciations are intermingled with breathless assurances that they do not represent Islam, that Islam is a religion of peace, etc.

When the terrorists are white supremacists that kind of soul-searching or attempts to understand the sources of their radicalization or their perverse moral reasoning is beyond the pale. And anyone who shares even some of their views (e.g., wanting strong orders and immigration control), while rejecting the more odious aspects, is painted with the same brush. All are white supremacists; all should be extricated and denounced and marginalized. You just don’t have the same attempts to separate the violent terrorists from the wider community of belief.”

This is an observation about differing societal and media responses; it reflects concern about double standards.
Caylan advocates equal legal treatment without discrimination.
Nothing in the statement is anti‑Islamic.
She describes white supremacist aspects as “odious” and their moral reasoning as “perverse.”
White nationalists do not self‑identify as odious or perverse.
Equating her criticism of double standards with white supremacy or white nationalism is a fallacy of association.

Conclusion: None of Caylan’s quotes can be objectively considered white supremacist, white nationalist, racist, Islamophobic, or homophobic. She was engaged in an intelligent discussion of controversial issues.

Direct Examination of Dr. Lucido by Mr. Harrison (Caylan’s Counsel)

Dr. Lucido is a psychiatrist with a subspecialty in psychotherapy. She treated Caylan from August 2020 to June 2023.

Her testimony:

She conducted three initial assessment sessions: one two‑hour session and two 53‑minute sessions.
Caylan had been high‑functioning until a 2019 trauma that severely impaired her functioning across all life domains.
She suffered unrelenting grief, hopelessness, and despair.
Symptoms included low mood, low energy, loss of interest, social isolation, nightmares, and PTSD‑type symptoms.
Caylan felt she had suffered a “social death.”
Dr. Bajwa’s report corroborated Dr. Lucido’s understanding.
PTSD requires a life‑threatening trauma, which Caylan did not experience.
Instead, she experienced a character attack causing moral injury.
She was publicly attacked, wrongfully accused, dismissed, and powerless to respond.
She exhibited PTSD‑type symptoms: flashbacks, nightmares, avoidance, hopelessness, foreshortened sense of future, distrust, diminished sense of safety, and employment insecurity.
She experienced suicidal ideation that affected her functioning.
She met criteria for major depressive disorder.
Her hopelessness and despair were more intense than typically seen by Dr. Lucido.
Treatment involved goal‑setting and weekly sessions.
Goals included cultivating self‑compassion and overcoming destructive thought patterns.
Caylan was committed to treatment and attended consistently except when prevented by legal proceedings or vacation.
She was composed but cried frequently.
In November 2021 she called a 24‑hour distress line in the early morning.
Dr. Lucido was concerned about passive suicidal thoughts.
By June 2023 Caylan showed improved functioning and healthier self‑reflection.
She had started a charter school and completed a documentary.
They mutually agreed she had substantially met her therapy goals and ended treatment.
Caylan still had PTSD‑type symptoms and was referred for additional modalities.

Cross‑Examinations of Dr. Lucido

By Ms. Tiessen (Broadbent Institute / Press Progress)

Focused on Caylan’s lack of medication.
Dr. Lucido testified she had suggested antidepressants early on; they discussed risks and benefits; Caylan made an informed decision not to take medication.

By Counsel for Defendant Nanda

Emphasized that Caylan did not experience a life‑threatening trauma.
Dr. Lucido agreed and reiterated she diagnosed PTSD symptoms, not PTSD.
Cross‑examination also addressed Caylan’s ability to return to work in 2021 and later.

By Ms. Layton (CBC)

Dr. Lucido agreed that COVID‑19 could have exacerbated Caylan’s depression and hopelessness.

Re‑Direct by Mr. Harrison

Clarified that Dr. Lucido did not recommend medication upon discharge.
Reiterated that she did not diagnose PTSD, only symptoms.
Noted that Dr. Pachet, an independent neuropsychologist, did diagnose PTSD.

Dr. Lucido was excused.

Direct Examination of Dr. Hashman by Mr. Harrison (Caylan’s Counsel)

Dr. Hashman is Section Head and Academic Chief of Forensic Psychiatry for Alberta Health Services, Medical Lead for Forensic Inpatient Services, Deputy Head of Psychiatry at the University of Calgary, and a Clinical Associate Professor. His CV is 19 pages.

He was qualified as an expert in psychiatry and forensic psychiatry.

He was retained to conduct an independent psychiatric evaluation of Caylan to assess psychological damage caused by the Defendants’ conduct. In 2025 he conducted a 4.5‑hour videoconference interview and reviewed:

Reports from Dr. Bajwa (Oct 2020, May 2023)
Reports from Dr. Lucido (Sept 2020, June 2023)
A report and independent neuropsychological assessment from Dr. Pachet

All clinicians reached substantially similar conclusions.

Dr. Hashman’s Findings

Major Depressive Disorder, single episode, severe — in partial remission.
“Other Specified Trauma and Stressor Related Disorder” and employment‑related problems.
Severe, incapacitating depressive symptoms.
Symptoms included profound grief, despair, tearfulness, hopelessness, amotivation, impaired concentration, weight gain, insomnia, low energy, social avoidance, shame, poor self‑esteem, hopelessness, and passive suicidal ideation.
She felt socially avoided, lacked resilience, felt like a pariah, lost close friends, felt no joy as a parent, avoided thinking about the future, became guarded and suspicious, and had diminished cognitive capacity.
She received appropriate psychotherapy.
She was reluctant to take antidepressants due to viewing her problems as circumstantial and concerns about side effects.
She continues to experience significant depressive symptoms including low energy, reduced endurance, amotivation, and reduced concentration and multitasking ability.
She has not returned to her pre‑2019 baseline.
Prognosis is guarded — between fair and poor.
Individuals with major depressive disorder lasting more than two years have only a 10% chance of full recovery.
Prior to 2019 she had no mental health concerns and was resilient.
The events of March 2019 contributed to the breakup of her marriage.
She continues to present with genuine, persistent symptoms and functional impairment.
No suspicion of malingering; her reports were consistent with clinical observations and psychological testing.
Validity testing showed no over‑ or under‑reporting.

Conclusion of Dr. Hashman

“Although Ms. Ford has benefited from treatment, she continues to present with persistent moderate depressive and trauma‑related symptoms… I therefore conclude that Ms. Ford’s condition and resultant impairments… are causally related to the events leading up to and after 2019… These events both precipitated and have perpetuated her ongoing symptoms and impairment.”

After brief cross‑examinations, Dr. Hashman was excused.

Jared Pearman 4/16/26 Jared Pearman 4/16/26

Day 23

Examination of John von Heyking by Mr. Harrison, Caylan’s Counsel
Mr. von Heyking has a PhD in political science and is a professor at Arizona State University. In 2020 he was a professor and chair of political science at University of Lethbridge.

Examination of Eric Kaufmann by Mr. Harrison, Caylan’s Counsel, regarding Expert Qualification

Mr. Harrison advised the Court that he wished to qualify Dr. Kaufmann as an expert witness qualified to provide the Court with opinion evidence in the fields of sociology, political science and history, with particular expertise in nationalism, ethnic identity, demography, cultural conflict, and elite discourse.

· He first met Caylan in 2019 at a Civitas conference in Toronto.

· Civitas is right-of-centre association of journalists, lawyers, academics who meet annually to discuss political, economic, and social policy.

· Caylan was interested in philosophy and political theory and they shared similar intellectual interests.

· He had read of Caylan’s tribulations.

· He had seen articles about those tribulations by the CBC, Global News, and Press Progress.

· He invited Caylan to give a public lecture at the University of Lethbridge.

· The lecture was scheduled for Friday, March 13 and Caylan was to talk on the documentary she had produced called Letter from Masanjia, and to discuss her experiences with cancel culture.

· The University made a poster entitled Free Inquiry in the Age of Outrage advertising Caylan’s talk.

· The posted was displayed on digital screens around the campus.

· Between March 2 and 13 Professor von Heyking received emails from 33 different individuals in the university community – 30 of the emails expressed opposition to Caylan‘s talk.

· Those opposing Caylan’s talk characterized Caylan as a white supremacist and a homophobe, and expressed the view that people such as Caylan did not deserve a platform at the University.

· Some of those opposing the talk stated that they were in favor of free speech but not for this particular person.

· Professor von Heyking had never experienced such a negative reaction.

· He responded to each of the people opposing Caylan’s talk and invited each of them to meet with him to discuss the issue.

· Only one of the 33 opponents took him up on his invitation to come and talk.

· Some of the opponents sent copies of articles from CBC, Global New, or Press Progress as reasons for their opposition.

· Some faculty members wanted to hold a “teach-in” as a counter-event to take attention away from Caylan’s talk.

· The experience was stressful and unpleasant; the aggregate effect was significant.

· Professor von Heyking did not believe that private messages provide a measure of character.

· He wanted to let Caylan speak her piece and tell her story.

· He also believed that the University should be a forum for robust debates, to provide an understanding of the political world.

· The Provost of the University issues a statement affirming the University’s support for free speech.

· The covid shutdown occurred on March 13 and because of covid Caylan’s talk did not proceed.

After a brief cross-examination by Mr. Mack, the testimony of Professor von Heyking was concluded, and he was excused.

Examination of Eric Kaufmann by Mr. Harrison, Caylan’s Counsel, regarding Expert Qualification

Dr. Kaufmann holds a BA from the University of Western Ontario and a MSc and PhD from London School of Economics and Political Science. He is a Professor of Politics at the University of Buckingham.

Dr. Kaufmann’s curriculum vitae was introduced; it was 65 pages long and provided details of his activities. He is the author of 6 books, has contributed to 45 Refereed Articles, is the recipient of 26 Awards and Research Grants, is affiliated with think tanks, is a public commentator, has been interviewed on CBC and BBC, and often participates in podcasts.

Dr. Kaufmann testified for more than 2 hours concerning his CV, and his work with such subjects as ethnic nationalism, historical sociology, demography, cultural left liberalism, group ethnicity, liberal progressivism, intellectual multiculturalism, WASPs, race, bohemian left liberalism, demographics and religion, ethnic conflict, history, the rise of the social justice left – “wokeism“, postmodernism, and political science.

Dr. Kaufmann is also the vice-president of the Centre for Heterodox Social Sciences which he described as a research-based centre established to address a “crisis of viewpoint identity”

He described himself as an empirical quantitative social scientist.

He has expressed criticism of left illiberalism where “woke” cultural leftism is impinging on freedom of speech.

Cross-Examination of Dr. Kaufmann by Defence Counsel regarding Expert Qualification

Three of the Defendants’ Counsel cross-examined Dr. Kaufmann extensively and made the following points:

· Dr. Kaufmann had been a professor at Birbeck College, University of London,

· He was a critical of wokeism;

· At Birbeck, Dr. Kaufmann had hostility with some of the faculty and students concerning wokeism

· He appeared before a tribunal to defend his views

· Dr. Kaufmann is a free speech advocate and his report advocates free speech

· He described Canada is the first woke nation and said the legitimizing ideology was woke

· Dr. Kaufmann is a fellow with several conservative think tanks

· He sits on the advisory boards for the Free Speech Union (UK and Canada) and University of Austin

· One of his books represents fighting back against wokeism and cancer culture

· He does not approve of human rights tribunals

· He has never before been qualified as an expert in court proceedings

· He does not have a degree in history and no teaching post in history

· He re-tweeted a post by Caylan in which she discussed this litigation

Re-Direct Examination of Dr. Kaufmann by Mr. Harrison

Dr. Kaufmann agreed that white nationalism, white supremacy, and racism exist. He is opposed to all three. But he thinks it important to identify them correctly and differentiate between extremism and mainstream opinions that are important in democratic debate.

Legal Argument

Counsel for the Defendants argued vigorously against recognizing Dr. Kaufmann as an expert witness. The factual basis for the arguments appeared to be that Dr. Kaufmann was associated with right wing thought, was in favor of free speech and opposed to cancel culture.

Comment

News outlets are supposedly advocates for free speech, but in this case the Defendants were tenacious in their efforts to prevent Dr. Kaufmann from testifying because he is a true advocate. The Defendants objections to Dr. Kaufmann were largely based on the contention that only orthodox views should be allowed in court.

Ruling

Madam Justice Harris delivered a judgment on the qualification issue, ruling that Dr. Kaufmann was recognized by the Court as an expert witness qualified to give opinion evidence in the fields of sociology, political science and history, with particular expertise in nationalism, ethnic identity, demography, cultural conflict, and elite discourse.

Jared Pearman 4/15/26 Jared Pearman 4/15/26

Day 22

Continued Cross-Examination of Jivraj by Mr. Harrison

Telephone Conversation Between Jivraj and Defendant Luke Lebrun (Press Progress)

On March 18, 2018, Jivraj had a telephone conversation with Defendant Luke Lebrun, then the editor of Press Progress, working under contract with the Broadbent Institute. Press Progress recorded the call, and the recording was played in court. The following quotations come from the official transcript.

Continued Cross-Examination of Jivraj by Mr. Harrison

Telephone Conversation Between Jivraj and Defendant Luke Lebrun (Press Progress)

Page 1617 of transcript:

“So, uh to give you the news. Um, I was disqualified”
“From running for the federal conservative party nomination Calgary Centre”
“Un, so I’m not thrilled about it. Uh, but it kind of liberates me in a way”
“Because I, I have some, some bones to pick”

Page 1619 of transcript:

“Uh, which is a violation of the provincial rules”
“Huge, huge privacy issue”
“Huge privacy issue. Now truth be told, I was absolutely guilty of all of these transgressions, but I’m not a public figure anymore.”

Page 1628 of transcript:

“Um, you need to target Caylan Ford, cause she’s the one who said these thing. Um, and it need, it needs to be an article about her, about those comments.”
“… because the campaign is gonna be announced on March 17th, so I actually went back and forth, um telling myself, wait, should I, should I give these guys the information once the writ is dropped or beforehand? I actually think this should be released now because he [Jason Kenney] still has the option to disqualify her.”

Page 1630 of transcript:

“Caylan Ford has threatened to sue a whole bunch of people in the past; she never follows through.”

Page 1631 of transcript:

“And this is what I find to be the most damaging. But I would wait. I would do the Pride one first. Hit.”

Page 1634 of transcript:

“Okay, so here’s”
“What I would do”
“I can send you a series of questions to ask her, where she will not give you a response, okay. So instead of asking her to comment on the article.”
“What you should ask are pointed questions.”

Page 1637 of transcript:

“And and, most beautifully, the stupidest thing they could have done was to disqualify me because had I been the federal candidate, I would have had to be extremely careful. Um, now I don’t give a shit.”

Evidence of Jivraj

When asked about his motive for speaking with Lebrun, Jivraj testified: “At the time I wanted a hit piece published on Ms. Ford.”
He could not recall what “transgressions” he was referring to when he said he was “absolutely guilty of all of these transgressions.”
He could not say whether he was aware of the Press Progress article when it was published.
On March 17, using his “Whistleblower” identity, he emailed Press Progress attaching a photo of Caylan and Jason Kenney. See the photo, [click HERE to view]
On March 18, Press Progress published its hit piece on Caylan, featuring the identical photo on the front page. [click HERE to view]
He discussed with Press Progress their proposed description of him as a “conservative Muslim.”

Comment

The telephone conversation and Jivraj’s testimony establish that he:

Had a bone to pick with the conservative movement
Was collaborating with Press Progress
Had been pitching multiple stories about Caylan over several months
Wanted a hit piece published on Caylan
Wanted an article designed to inflict maximum damage
Wanted it published at the moment it would cause the most harm
Suggested that Press Progress ask Caylan pointed questions rather than give her a fair opportunity to comment

Press Progress did publish a hit piece on the day before the writ dropped. Press Progress did ask pointed questions rather than provide Caylan a meaningful opportunity to respond.

Some Defendants argue that Jivraj was merely a conduit for information and that his character is irrelevant. The evidence demonstrates the opposite: Jivraj was not an independent conduit but a partisan actor on a vendetta. His objective was to destroy Caylan, and the Defendants enabled him to do so.

Post–March 18 Conduct

Use of Pseudonyms

Using the pseudonym “Mr. Wilson,” Jivraj published numerous derogatory posts about Caylan.
Using the pseudonym “@serena84,” he published additional derogatory posts.

Interference With Caylan’s Interviews

Caylan gave three interviews after March 18:

Joel Crichton
Andrew Lawton Pollock
Danielle Smith

Jivraj sent letters to all three interviewers threatening litigation.

Joel Crichton initially removed his interview but later reposted it.
Jivraj described the Danielle Smith interview as “awful to endure.”
Regarding his interaction with Corus Entertainment, he testified: “that was settled – written apology, financial settlement, and take down of the interview.”

Interaction With Journalist Graeme Gordon

Graeme Gordon later published A Political Hit Job in the Name of Progress: How UCP Candidate Caylan Ford Fell from Grace.
Before publishing, Gordon interviewed Jivraj and recorded the conversation.
When confronted with statements from the transcript, Jivraj repeatedly said he “could not remember” making them.

His Selection of Screenshots

Jivraj testified that:

He chose screenshots he considered “relevant” and “concerning” to white nationalism.
He selected screenshots relevant to “a potential story on the interplay between race and culture.”
He shared the Pride Parade message because it was, in his view, the most “concerning” to the public.
He did not send subsequent messages that provided clarifying context.

Context He Withheld

He did not provide Caylan’s clarifying statements about Pride, including:

“I am too prudish for pride. I believe in sexual modesty, and unrestrained passion and exuberance is just not my idea of a good time.

If there was a gay Haydn concert where the conductor and the musicians were all queer, I would attend. Can I propose that as an alternative to a parade?”

He also withheld messages in which Caylan rejected white nationalist views, including:

“On whether Canada should remain an essentially white country, I’m kind of agnostic. I doesn’t make a lot of sense to me given our history as an immigrant nation to insist that one race ought to remain dominant in perpetuity.I fear that you attribute to me positions that I don't actually espouse. My interest is in seeking truth, and that entails asking questions and sometimes challenging orthodoxies, and I think that's a vitally important process.A white nationalist might say that race is the primary determinant of culture, for instance, and I wouldn’t agree with that.”

He admitted:

He did not want to send messages that contradicted his narrative that Caylan was a white nationalist.
When asked whether he avoided including messages that contradicted his narrative, he replied: “that seems like a fair assessment.”
He could not recall why he did not send the complete conversations.
He claimed the public had a right to know Caylan’s views, but when asked why the public did not have the right to know all of her views, he said: “Can’t answer the question.”
He added: “I can’t recall what my logic was.”

Cross-Examination by Mr. Mack (Broadbent Institute, Lebrun, Magusiak)

The cross-examination confirmed:

Jivraj communicated with both Lebrun and Magusiak.
He sent an affidavit to Lebrun.
Magusiak met Jivraj for coffee and scrolled through messages on Jivraj’s phone to confirm authenticity.

Further Examination

Jivraj was then briefly examined by:

Mr. Franken (Counsel for Nanda)
Ms. Cooper (Counsel for the Toronto Star)

The examinations concluded, and Jivraj was excused.

Court adjourned.

Jared Pearman 4/12/26 Jared Pearman 4/12/26

Day 21

Examination of Karim Jivraj by Mr. Harrison

At the outset, the Court ruled that Mr. Harrison’s questioning of Mr. Jivraj would begin as a direct examination but would convert to cross‑examination if Jivraj provided testimony inconsistent with his prior sworn evidence. His earlier testimony included:

His examinations for discovery
His testimony at a previous trial
The judgment from that earlier proceeding

Within minutes after starting to testify Jivraj made a statement inconsistent with his prior evidence. Mr. Harrison then applied to have him declared a hostile witness, and the Court granted the application. The remainder of the examination was conducted as a cross‑examination.

Examination of Karim Jivraj by Mr. Harrison

Overview of Examination Format

His examinations for discovery
His testimony at a previous trial
The judgment from that earlier proceeding

Note: Jivraj was compelled to attend by subpoena. His characterization as a hostile witness was an understatement: he repeatedly avoided giving direct answers, frequently claiming, “I can’t recall,” “I’m not sure,” “I don’t know,” “It’s possible,” or “maybe.” He admitted facts only when he knew they could be independently proven and sometimes refused to acknowledge facts that were plainly true—such as whether he received emails addressed to him. The day’s evidence nonetheless provided an accurate portrayal of his credibility and character.

Contempt of Court and Unpaid Costs

Jivraj acknowledged or did not dispute that:

He had been found in contempt of court on three prior occasions and had not purged his contempt in two of them.
He had been ordered to pay Caylan multiple costs awards, most of which remained unpaid.
He had not paid the $10,000 penalty imposed by Justice Graeser for contempt of court.

Conduct in Ontario Prior to Moving to Alberta

Jivraj’s evidence concerning his Ontario activities was marked by extensive memory lapses, despite prior sworn admissions:

He said it was “possible” he wrote a derogatory email about a political candidate, attached her photo, and compiled a distribution list, but he “couldn’t recall.”
He claimed he could not remember circulating malicious rumours alleging that Sue Liu was in an intimate relationship with a senior political figure.
He had previously admitted under oath that he circulated those rumours.
He claimed he could not recall receiving emails—even those addressed to him.
He could not recall whether he had provided a particular list of contacts
When confronted with his earlier sworn evidence, he acknowledged that he had provided the particular list of contacts.
He claimed he could not remember publishing derogatory emails under the pseudonym teamblue2018.
He had previously sworn that he authored those pseudonymous emails.

Justice Graeser, in another lawsuit between the parties, wrote:

“Mr. Jivraj acknowledged that he owned and operated the site ‘Teamblue’ while in Ontario… he feels stupid about that and is ‘not particularly thrilled about that fact.’ He testified that using anonymous email accounts was something he stopped doing…”

Additional findings from that decision:

When it was discovered that he authored the defamatory teamblue2018 emails, he was in “big trouble” in Ontario.
A senior party official told him he would not have a political career in Ontario.
Days later, he flew to Calgary.

Events After Moving to Calgary

Jivraj admitted that Caylan helped him find accommodation and employment at a law firm. His employment there was terminated.
He later obtained employment at another firm; that employment was also terminated.

The Phil Shuman Incident

Jivraj admitted:

He told Phil Shuman that Caylan had accused Phil of making “inappropriate advances on her.”
A chain of text messages independently confirmed this.
This occurred during the height of the Me Too movement.
He acknowledged that a woman’s career would be destroyed if she was known to have made false allegations of sexual harassment.
Caylan confronted him about the false accusation.
He later met with Caylan and Phil; he acknowledged that when he met with them he may have been inebriated.
He asked everyone to place their phones on the table so the conversation would not be recorded.
He admitted that Caylan had not accused Phil of inappropriate conduct.
He apologized to both Caylan and Phil.
He said alcohol “possibly” played a role and that he was experiencing substance‑abuse issues.

Purchase of Domain Names

Jivraj admitted:

He purchased caylanford.ca after learning Caylan was seeking the Mountainview nomination.
He claimed he could not recall why he purchased it.

Justice Graeser previously wrote:

“Mr. Jivraj acknowledged that he had purchased the domain name ‘Caylanford’. He testified that it was a ‘stupid idea…’ when he feared Ms. Ford would harm his political aspirations.”

Additional admissions:

He relinquished the domain only after Caylan initiated arbitration.
He knew she had to pay $1,000 to begin the process.
He said it was “possible” he threatened to sue her if she proceeded.
He later said he did not know why he made the threat and described it as an “empty threat.”
He also purchased domain names associated with Licia Corbella when he believed she might seek a federal nomination.

Invitation to His Campaign Launch,

He invited Caylan to attend. See Tab 104, [click HERE to view]

The invitation included his admission that he had been “an asshole.”
He wrote that Caylan had been “one of the few kind people in [his] life.”
In testimony, he said about the invitation that he was “not sure if [he] was being disingenuous,” adding, “I suspect a part of it was true…”

The October 1 “Fraudulent Resident” Letter

· See the letter, Tab 56 [click HERE to view]

Key points established through testimony and prior sworn evidence:

Jivraj initially claimed he “can’t recall what part he played or who else was involved.”
When confronted with his prior testimony, he acknowledged he was the principal author although Hlady was also involved.
He was then the president of the Mountainview Constituency Association and was required to remain neutral in the candidate nomination contest.
He collaborated with Hlady, who was running against Caylan in the candidate nomination contest.
He solicited signatures from board members, telling them he had evidence supporting the allegations.
He did not sign the letter himself.
The letter accused Caylan of “deliberately misleading” the Party and attempting to “fraudulently circumvent” Party rules.
He could not identify any valid basis for these allegations.
He did not know what representations Caylan had made to the Party.
He did not know how Caylan’s representations were misleading.
There was no board resolution authorizing the letter (9 of 26 members signed).
He knew Caylan was born and raised in Calgary and had a Calgary home in 2017.
The letter was sent Press Progress on October 11 as an attachment to an email; the name of the sender of the email was redacted.
Jivraj testified it was “possible” he sent the email to Press Progress.
When confronted with prior sworn evidence, he admitted he did send the email to Press Progress attaching a copy of the "fraudulent resident" letter.
Jivraj said he didn’t recall circulating the letter to others inside and outside the Party.
When confronted with his former sworn testimony, Jivraj admitted that he had sent the letter to others inside and outside the Party
Jivraj first stated that he understood Press Progress to be a left‑leaning outlet.
He later admitted he knew Press Progress was NDP‑affiliated.

Party Response

Caylan filed a complaint with UCP HQ.
Executive Director Janice Harrington wrote to the board confirming:
- A candidate need only be a resident of Alberta.
- Caylan met all requirements.
- The complaint had been leaked to Press Progress, “an NDP proxy attack site.”
Jivraj claimed only a “vague” recollection of receiving the Harrington email.
Mr. Savelrud, Rules Committee Chair, emailed confirming Caylan was a legitimate candidate.
Jivraj claimed he did not recall receiving the Savelrud email.

Jivraj’s October 13 Email to the Board

He wrote to “Fellow Board Members,” stating:

“It appears there has been a complaint filed…”
The complaint “was not filed on behalf of the Board” but by “individuals who happen to be Board members.”
“No internal party correspondence should be shared outside of the Board.”
Board members had a “fiduciary duty” to protect Party interests.
He asked members to send him information “privately.”

This email is addressed in the Comment section below.

The November 25 “Too Good” Letter

See the letter, Tab 57 [click HERE to view]

The letter alleged:

Caylan made “evasive and misleading statements” about her background.
She had been “deceptive and evasive.”
She refused to be “honest and transparent.”

Additional findings:

It purports to have been written by “Mountainview Grass Roots Conservatives.”
Jivraj admitted he alone was mountainviewconservatives@gmail.com and that he sent the letter on November 25.
It included a fabricated quote attributed to Caylan.
Jivraj admitted that “it’s entirely possible” he fabricated the quote he attributed to Caylan.
Later in his evidence he admitted that Caylan had not made the statement attributed to her.

· Jivraj testified that he didn’t remember who he sent the letter to or where he obtained their addresses

He sent the letter to 1,400 Party members using a confidential membership list available to him only because he was president.
Press Progress also published the letter.

Internal Response

Board member Chris Muldoon investigated and identified Jivraj as the source of the letter.
Muldoon wrote to the other board members stating:

“Karim has outstayed his welcome on this board and has abused his resources (access to email membership list). He is clearly not capable of acting in the best interests of the constituency and definitely not the party. He has been biased since day one, and because of his own personal issues with a candidate, he is in whatever way possible attempting to derail the nomination process by mailing the membership from an account that he created to sound official.

I have growing concerns about our boards ability to operate in an unobstructed and unbiased manner due to Mr. Jivraj’s continued underhanded tactics”

CFO Justin Charbonneau wrote to UCP HQ expressing “serious concerns” about Jivraj’s “underhanded tactics.”
Jivraj acknowledged that multiple board members asked him to resign.
The UCP suspended him as president.
Board member Savelrud wrote to Jivraj:

“Given the recent events and your suspension as president of the Mountainview Constituency Association it would be appropriate if you were to submit your resignation as President and Director”

“If you have not resigned by the end of this week we intend to circulate a motion to the board members for your removal ….”

Jivraj resigned.

Court Adjourned.

Comment

Nothing illustrates the treachery and duplicity of Jivraj more clearly than his October 13 email to the board regarding the October 1 letter. Tab 56 [click HERE to view]

He:

Authored the “fraudulent resident” letter
Solicited signatures
Leaked it to Press Progress and other media
Circulated it further inside and outside the Party

That conduct by the president of the Constituency Association of the UCP was a treacherous betrayal: of the Constituency Association, of the UCP and of candidate Caylan.

In his October 13 email Jivraj wrote as though the letter had appeared from nowhere, stating:

“It appears there has been a complaint filed…”

That statement was a thinly disguised lie about the source of the letter.

Jivraj went on in his email to state that:

“This was a private complaint filed by individuals who happen to be Board members.”

He falsely implied:

He was not involved
The signatories acted independently
The leak was someone else’s doing

The board members who had signed the letter intended it to be a private complaint; it was Jivraj who made it public.

The signatories to the letter didn’t just “happen to be” board members; they were solicited by Jivraj because they were board members.

Although the board members who signed intended the letter to be a private complaint Jivraj had other, nefarious plans, and those other plans involved Press Progress.

The board members who had signed the letter had been deceived into believing that Jivraj would sign the letter and that it was a private Party matter.

Jivraj continued, saying,

“This complaint was leaked to media sources ….”

The letter was indeed leaked to media sources – by Jivraj.

He sent it to Press Progress, which he knew was an organ of the NDP.

Jivraj was again lying by feigning ignorance.

He went on to chastise board members by emphasizing that:

“No internal party correspondence should be shared outside of the Board …”

A peculiar statement coming from Jivraj, who was the author of both the "fraudulent resident" letter and the “Too Good” letter, and who did his best to see that both were widely circulated.

Then, to put a legalistic touch to his sanctimony, Jivraj warned that:

“you have all committed to a fiduciary duty to protect the Board’s and the Party’s interests by accepting elected [sic]the mandate entrusted to you.”

Clearly, Jivraj knew that he had breached his fiduciary duty. It demonstrates that he has no moral compass.

Then, to emphasize that he knew nothing about the letter, and to show that he was intending to investigate, Jivraj stated:

“If anyone has information related to this concern, I would ask that you send me a private email.”

Jivraj didn’t need more information; he needed to confess his guilt.

The most peculiar thing about Jivraj is that he does not appear to recognize that he did anything wrong.

Jared Pearman 4/7/26 Jared Pearman 4/7/26

Day 20

Direct Examination of Michelle Traxel by Richard Harrison

Ms. Traxel was called as a witness by the Plaintiff, Caylan.

She creates videos to promote “social and political awareness” from a left‑wing perspective.

Statements About Caylan

She described Caylan as someone who had to quit the UCP because of “absolutely heinous” and “white supremacist” comments.

Her source for these views was a March 19 CBC article linking Caylan to white supremacy.

Testimony of Michelle Traxel

Direct Examination of Michelle Traxel by Richard Harrison

Ms. Traxel was called as a witness by the Plaintiff, Caylan.

Ms. Traxel identified herself as “a disabled stay‑at‑home mom” who creates online videos.

Background and Social Media Activity

On TikTok, she is known as “knittyknits.”
As of March 2025, she had approximately 100,000 followers on TikTok.
On Instagram, she uses the handle “The real knitty.”
She earns some income from advertisers of underwear and sex toys but testified that social‑media activity is not a meaningful source of income.
She creates videos to promote “social and political awareness” from a left‑wing perspective.
She has no post‑secondary education.
She ran as a federal NDP candidate in 2021.

Videos Concerning the Canada Strong & Free Conference

In March 2025, she created a video discussing all speakers at an upcoming Canada Strong & Free Conference.
She described the conference as a “who’s who of right‑wing hate.”
The video went through the list of speakers, offering commentary on each.

Statements About Caylan

She described Caylan as someone who had to quit the UCP because of “absolutely heinous” and “white supremacist” comments.
Her source for these views was a March 19 CBC article linking Caylan to white supremacy.
She testified that the CBC article affirmed her pre‑existing opinions about Caylan’s ideology, particularly regarding “white replacement.”
She acknowledged she was already biased against Caylan because Caylan was associated with the UCP; the articles she read confirmed her bias.
She did not reach out to Caylan before publishing the video.

Court Playback and Reaction

An excerpt of her first video—the portion discussing Caylan—was played in court.
In the excerpt, Ms. Traxel was flippant and contemptuous, describing Caylan as a heinous white supremacist.

Events Following Publication

Caylan sent a cease‑and‑desist letter requesting an apology.
Ms. Traxel did not comply; instead, she doubled down by publishing a second video.
In the second video, she attacked Caylan’s lawyer, Richard Harrison.
She deleted the Caylan portion of her first video but left Caylan’s photo and name in the remaining content.
She reiterated that her information came from CBC and Toronto Star articles characterizing Caylan as a white supremacist.
Those articles remained live on the CBC and Toronto Star websites in 2025.
After Caylan threatened a defamation lawsuit, Ms. Traxel eventually removed the entire video and issued an apology.

Apology

Her apology video was played in court.
She retracted all statements about Caylan and stated explicitly that Caylan is not a white supremacist.
She acknowledged that her statements were made from pettiness and spite.
She asked her viewers to stop contacting Caylan.
She stated that she made the apology “under duress” because she feared being sued.

Cross‑Examination of Ms. Traxel by Mr. Woodley (Counsel for the CBC)

Ms. Traxel believed Caylan had a conservative bias.
Caylan threatened her with a lawsuit seeking $200,000 in damages.
She believed Caylan’s problems were of her own making.
The portion of her video discussing Caylan was 17 seconds within a 10‑minute video.
She believed that because Caylan used the word “replacement,” she must be a white supremacist.
She had only skimmed a Toronto Star article about Caylan, and that was the basis of her views.

The testimony of Ms. Traxel concluded and she was excused.

Comment

The main point of calling Ms. Traxel was to establish that in 2025 – 6 years after Caylan had resigned -- CBC and Toronto Star still had live articles on their websites describing Caylan as a white supremacist. Their defamation continued for years.

Ms. Traxel’s apology was not sincere; she obviously did not understand that she had wronged Caylan.
She was unhappy to be appearing as a witness for Caylan; she had been subpoenaed.
She was an NDP partisan and had nothing good to say about Caylan.
With over 100,000 viewers, her videos provide a platform capable of mobilizing online hostility.
The CBC and the Toronto Star provided the fuel with which to ignite that hostility.

Additional Proceedings

Lengthy legal argument followed concerning the procedure to be applied when Jivraj is called as a witness.

Court adjourned.

Jared Pearman 4/7/26 Jared Pearman 4/7/26

Day 19

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

Direct Examination of John Vos by Richard Harrison, Counsel for Caylan

Overview

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.

Jared Pearman 4/7/26 Jared Pearman 4/7/26

Day 18

Michaela Frey testified on behalf of the Plaintiff, Caylan. She was elected as the UCP MLA for Brooks–Medicine Hat in 2019, resigned in 2022, and subsequently served as Senior Advisor and Chief of Staff in Premier Danielle Smith’s office.

Mr. Devonshire was retained by Caylan to quantify the financial loss she suffered because of her defamation, and to testify as an expert witness concerning that loss.

Mr. Devonshire is a Chartered Accountant (CPA, CA) and a Chartered Business Valuator (CBV), and currently serves as CFO of Petwin Private Equity.

Chartered Business Valuators specialize in valuation and loss quantification.

Day 18 – Direct Examination of Michaela Frey by Richard Harrison

Overview

Key Evidence from Ms. Frey

Relationship with Caylan

She first met Caylan in 2019 at a UCP candidate retreat, when Caylan already had a high profile as a candidate.
She was impressed by Caylan, describing her as well‑spoken and running in a hotly contested riding (Calgary‑Mountain View) the UCP believed it could win.
Ms. Frey was elected under the name Michaela Glasgo; she married in 2021 and changed her surname to Frey.

Twitter Activity and Aftermath

She used Twitter extensively during her political career to shape narrative and messaging.
Caylan resigned on March 18.
Shortly afterward, Caylan posted a tweet stating that the NDP “will gleefully destroy people’s lives” to get a member elected.
Ms. Frey “liked” the tweet. Significant backlash followed.

Online Condemnation

An individual named Mohamed, the Broadbent Institute, Press Progress, and the Defendant Nanda extensively denounced Ms. Frey for liking the tweet
Each of them characterized Caylan as a white supremacist.

· Mohamed also issued a series of tweets calling on Ms. Frey to remove her “like,” which she eventually did.

Party Direction

The UCP instructed Ms. Frey not to associate with Caylan in any way.

Conclusion of Testimony

There was no cross‑examination. Ms. Frey was excused.

Comment

Ms. Frey’s evidence illustrated the severity of the reputational damage to Caylan.
Ms. Frey was publicly attacked by all the usual suspects for merely “liking” one of Caylan’s posts.
The UCP, the party for which Caylan had been a candidate, completely distanced itself from her and directed its members to do the same.
The defamation had rendered Caylan politically toxic.

Direct Examination of Michael Devonshire by Richard Harrison

Overview

Mr. Devonshire is a Chartered Accountant (CPA, CA) and a Chartered Business Valuator (CBV), and currently serves as CFO of Petwin Private Equity.

Chartered Business Valuators specialize in valuation and loss quantification

Mr. Devonshire was retained by Caylan to quantify the financial loss she suffered because of her defamation, and to testify as an expert witness concerning that loss.

Note:

Before giving evidence as an expert, a witness must be recognized by the court as an expert in the field, qualified to give opinion evidence. To obtain that recognition the witness must provide the court with particulars of his/her credentials and experience and must convince the presiding Justice that he/she is an expert in the field.

Expert Qualifications

Before giving expert opinion evidence, Mr. Devonshire testified regarding his credentials and experience.

Bachelor of Commerce from McGill University; obtained CA designation in 2007.
Employment history with Deloitte, Catalyst LLP, and BDO Canada.
Completed extensive study and met high professional standards to obtain the CBV designation in 2010.
Has practised in valuation and loss quantification since 2010.
Previously qualified as an expert seven times in court and arbitration proceedings.
Testified in a Nova Scotia court proceeding.
Focuses on valuation of assets and quantification of loss.
Understands his duty to provide fair, objective, and independent opinion evidence.

Mr. Harrison sought to have the court recognize Mr. Devonshire as an expert in valuation and loss quantification.

Cross‑Examination on Qualifications by Matthew Woodley, for the CBC

Mr. Woodley questioned aspects of Mr. Devonshire’s expert background:

Most of his expert‑witness experience involved companies rather than individuals.
In the Nova Scotia case:
- The court noted his report did not account for certain factors.
- The court expressed concerns about omissions.
- The court rejected his report and accepted the opposing expert’s report.

Ruling: Madam Justice Harris declared Mr. Devonshire qualified to give expert evidence on valuation and loss quantification.

Continuation of Direct Examination by Richard Harrison

Overview of Reports

Mr. Devonshire’s primary report and sur‑rebuttal report were entered as exhibits.
The primary report, including appendices, is 27 pages.
He personally prepared the report.
His engagement letter directed him to quantify Caylan’s economic damages, primarily lost employment income.
The report was prepared in accordance with CBV professional standards.
His fees are time‑based and not contingent on the report’s conclusions.
The report identifies all sources of information relied upon.
It considers mortality rates, bond yields, inflation, employment compensation, and pension plans.
It incorporates conclusions from Dr. Mandel, another expert for the Plaintiff.

Loss Periods and Scenarios

The report quantifies losses in two periods:

· Past losses – are those sustained during the period from March 2019 to June 2025

· Future losses – are those sustained from June 2025 until Caylan’s retirement at age 65

Past Losses

Mr. Devonshire postulated 4 scenarios for Caylan’s career during the past loss period had she not been defamed:

Scenario A: Caylan was successful in 2019 election; appointed to Cabinet
Scenario B: Caylan was successful in 2019 election; not appointed to Cabinet
Scenario C: Caylan was unsuccessful in 2019 election; returns to Global Affairs
Scenario D: Caylan was unsuccessful in 2019 election; appointed Deputy Minister

· The report concludes that Caylan’s Past Loss Damages are as follows:

o Scenario A – $814, 141

o Scenario B – $387,085

o Scenario C – $537, 160

o Scenario D – $1,502,265

Future Losses

Mr. Devonshire postulated three scenarios for Caylan’s career during the future loss period had she not been defamed:

Scenario A: Caylan was elected and served two‑terms an MLA, Cabinet, then senior Alberta government role
Scenario B: Two‑term MLA, then return to Global Affairs
Scenario C: Unsuccessful in 2019 election; appointed Deputy Minister; continues in similar roles to retirement

Future Loss Calculations:

· The report concludes that Caylan’s Future Loss Damages are as follows:

o Scenario A – $3,115,557

o Scenario B – $2,882,725

o Scenario C – $4,265,060

Note:

On day 26, Mr. Devonshire was recalled to give supplemental evidence concerning the evidence he had formerly provided. Mr. Devonshire stated that recently received information had required 4 changes to his original report and those changes were incorporated into his supplemental report, which was introduced into evidence and marked as an exhibit.

Among the changes incorporated in the supplemental report was the addition of an allowance for a disability contingency. The supplemental report calculated Caylan’s past and future losses as follows:

  
      Past Loss Damages
    
      Scenario
      Damages (without deduction of long-term disability)
      Damages (with deduction of long-term disability)
    
      Scenario A
      $765,010
      $673,691
    
      Scenario B
      $387,085
      $295,766
    
      Scenario C
      $587,160
      $445,841
    
      Scenario D
      $1,502,265
      $1,410,946
    
      Future Loss Damages
    
      Scenario
      Damages
    
      Scenario A
      $3,052,699
    
      Scenario B
      $2,964,857
    
      Scenario C
      $4,303,429

Past Loss Damages
Scenario A	$765,010	$673,691
Scenario B	$387,085	$295,766
Scenario C	$587,160	$445,841
Scenario D	$1,502,265	$1,410,946

Future Loss Damages
Scenario A	$3,052,699
Scenario B	$2,964,857
Scenario C	$4,303,429

Sur‑Rebuttal Report

His sur‑rebuttal was a critique of the Defendants’ experts’ reports.

Cross‑Examination on Report Content by Mr. Woodley

Mr. Woodley challenged several assumptions and methodological choices:

Relied on Dr. Mandel’s report.
Discussed potential career paths with Caylan and created scenarios accordingly.
Did not consider additional alternative scenarios.
Did not account for potential disability or unemployment.
Assumed Caylan was in the growth phase of her career.
Did not review her actual Global Affairs income from 2012–2018.
Assumed reputational and mental‑health impacts would continue indefinitely.
Assumed full‑time work to retirement.
When discounting to present values, Mr. Devonshire used the nominal rate method of interest calculation rather than the effective rate method.

He acknowledged:

Using the effective rate method would reduce the calculated losses.
Accounting for disability would also reduce the losses.

By Ms. Cooper

He assumed Caylan was past child‑bearing.
He did not consider the possibility of her returning to school.

Mr. Devonshire was excused.

Comment

The CBV designation is the gold standard in Canada for loss‑quantification expertise.
Experts must select a limited number of plausible scenarios; the test is whether they are reasonable and whether any other plausible alternatives should have been considered.
Each scenario chosen by Mr. Devonshire was possible and could reasonably have been followed by Caylan.
Notably, he did not include any scenario with greater upside for Caylan—she could have achieved even more.

Jared Pearman 4/7/26 Jared Pearman 4/7/26

Day 17

Shuvaloy Majumdar testified on behalf of the Plaintiff, Caylan.

He is currently a Member of Parliament representing the constituency of Calgary-Heritage.

Mr. Majumdar has an extensive background in Canadian conservative politics, including work with Preston Manning, General David Petraeus, former Prime Minister Stephen Harper, the Macdonald‑Laurier Institute, and informal advisory work for Jason Kenney.

Direct Examination of Shuvaloy Majumdar by Richard Harrison

Overview

Shuvaloy Majumdar testified on behalf of the Plaintiff, Caylan.

He is currently a Member of Parliament representing the constituency of Calgary-Heritage.

Relationship with Caylan

He first met Caylan in a Calgary coffee shop in 2018.
Prior to meeting her, he had heard she had a “quirky” reputation and had produced human‑rights‑focused documentaries.
He found her intelligent, thoughtful, and someone with whom he shared a deep interest in conservative philosophy and policy.
He enjoyed her company and valued their wide‑ranging discussions, from ancient history to contemporary politics.

Interactions with Mr. Jivraj

He met Jivraj in 2018 when both he and Jivraj were considering running for the Conservative nomination in Calgary‑Centre.
Jivraj attempted to dissuade him from running.
He found Jivraj manipulative, conniving, and obsessive, and Mr. Majumdar decided to disassociate from Jivraj.

Reaction to the March 18 Press Progress Article

He was horrified when he saw the Press Progress article about Caylan, describing it as a “character assassination”.
He saw Press Progress as an organization that presents itself as a press outlet but functions as a propaganda arm of the NDP.
He believed Jivraj was the source of the article.
He was particularly troubled by Press Progress describing Jivraj as “a long‑time Muslim Conservative with deep ties to the party.”
He knew that Jivraj had been denounced by the UCP.
The article did not change his opinion of Caylan.

Impact on Caylan

He testified that Caylan’s alleged white‑supremacist views were widely denounced and she was maligned within conservative circles.
He defended her consistently whenever her name arose, feeling strongly that people were making assumptions without knowledge.
He believed Press Progress had inflicted such severe reputational damage that helping Caylan seemed impossible.

Support for Caylan

He agreed to appear in Caylan’s documentary When The Mob Came because others were reluctant to participate.
The Conservative Party initially expressed concern about his involvement, but those concerns dissipated after the documentary was viewed.
He spent time with Caylan after her resignation, wanting to support her and help her emerge from her shock and grief.
He encouraged her to write about cancel culture or human rights, believing she was a gifted writer.
He wanted to help her reclaim her reputation and rebuild her life.
Caylan was beyond help; the depth of her depression and despair made her inconsolable.

Cross‑Examination

There was no cross‑examination. Mr. Majumdar was excused.

Court adjourned.

Comment

The reputational harm to Caylan was so severe that she was denounced by conservatives across Canada.
She remained mired in deep depression.

Jared Pearman 4/1/26 Jared Pearman 4/1/26

Day 16

Day 16 focused on evidence relating to the personal, professional, and reputational consequences Ms. Ford experienced following the publication of the March 18 Press Progress article. Three witnesses—her mother, her former husband, and a senior professional recruiter—provided testimony illustrating the profound impact on Ms. Ford’s mental health, family life, social relationships, and employment prospects. In addition, testimony from a prominent constitutional‑rights advocate highlighted the extent to which Ms. Ford’s reputation rendered her “toxic” even within organizations ideologically aligned with her prior work.

Overview of Day 16

The day’s evidence collectively emphasized:

the long‑term emotional and psychological toll on Ms. Ford and her family
the collapse of her social and community relationships
the professional doors that closed to her because of online allegations
the broader reputational harm that persisted years after her resignation

No cross‑examinations occurred for two of the witnesses, and the testimony proceeded efficiently, building a cumulative picture of reputational damage and its real‑world consequences.

Day 16

Direct Examination of Cynthia Mackenzie

By Richard Harrison, Counsel for the Plaintiff

Ms. Cynthia Mackenzie testified on behalf of her daughter, Ms. Ford. She is a Calgary real estate agent.

Background and Early Life

Ms. Ford was born and raised in Calgary.
Ms. Mackenzie and her husband separated when Ms. Ford was 13; Ms. Ford lived with her mother thereafter.
At age 14, while still in junior high, Ms. Ford learned about Calgary’s alternative high school and wished to attend, though it only admitted high‑school students.
She independently approached the principal to request admission.
The principal agreed to accept her if she met certain academic objectives and if students and staff approved.
Ms. Ford met the objectives, was accepted by the school community, and enrolled.

Human Rights Interests

While attending the alternative high school, Ms. Ford developed a strong interest in human rights issues and became a practitioner of Falun Gong.
She focused on Chinese human rights concerns and taught herself Mandarin using a computer‑based program.
Her advocacy centered on assisting prisoners of conscience in China.
During her undergraduate studies at the University of Calgary, she frequently communicated with individuals overseas at all hours.

Education, Early Adulthood, and Return to Calgary

Ms. Ford lived in the Sunnyside district during her undergraduate years.
After completing her first Master’s degree and marrying, she lived and worked in Ottawa and Toronto.
In 2016, she and her husband began considering a return to Calgary.
They purchased a home in July 2017, took possession in November, renovated it, and moved in February 2018.

Political Involvement and Aftermath

In 2018, Ms. Ford sought the UCP nomination in the Mountainview riding.
She worked extremely hard, door‑knocking through winter while pregnant or nursing.
Ms. Mackenzie described her as honest, attentive, and persuasive, winning supporters one at a time.
After Ms. Ford’s resignation, she fell into a deep depression.
Ms. Mackenzie testified that Ms. Ford “lost herself,” and nothing seemed to help.
The sudden rise and fall was difficult to explain to friends.
Ms. Mackenzie lost one of her closest friends due to online information about Ms. Ford.
People still avoid discussing Ms. Ford with her.

There was no cross‑examination. Ms. Mackenzie was excused.

Direct Examination of Andrew Crooks

By Richard Harrison, Counsel for the Plaintiff

Mr. Andrew Crooks testified on behalf of Ms. Ford. He is a retired lawyer active in philanthropic, cultural, and political organizations, a former member of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation, and currently Chair of the Canadian Constitution Foundation (CCF).

Background and Impressions of Ms. Ford

In 2019 and today, Mr. Crooks serves as Chair of the CCF, a non‑partisan national charity focused on constitutional rights, government accountability, and public education.
The CCF oversees the Runnymede Society, which promotes rule‑of‑law debates among law students and lawyers.
Its membership includes former attorneys general, judges, professors, and politicians.
After Ms. Ford resigned as a candidate, Mr. Crooks met her at a Civitas Canada conference.
He formed a highly favorable impression of her: strong academic credentials, effective committee and board contributor, and experienced fundraiser.

Attempt to Nominate Ms. Ford to the CCF Board

Mr. Crooks proposed Ms. Ford as a potential board member.
The Foundation’s manager “recoiled in horror” at the suggestion.
Mr. Crooks informally raised the idea at a board meeting; it was “shot down in flames” with an enthusiastic negative response.
He testified that Ms. Ford was considered “toxic” due to reputational damage.
The Foundation could not risk the reputational consequences of associating with her.

Cross‑Examination by Ben Franken, Counsel for Avnish Nanda

Mr. Crooks was involved with Canada Strong and Free.
He had delivered a land acknowledgement but generally objects to land acknowledgements.
He maintains a website and blog, including a post about “Wokeness.”

Mr. Crooks was excused.

Direct Examination of Jared Pearman

By Richard Harrison, Counsel for the Plaintiff

Mr. Jared Pearman, Ms. Ford’s former husband and father of their two daughters, testified on her behalf. He is a writer, producer, and video‑game designer.

The Rise and Fall

Mr. Pearman met Ms. Ford while working in Washington, D.C. as a producer for National Geographic. He encouraged her to complete her undergraduate degree in Washington, which she did.
They married in 2008 and divorced in 2024.
They have two daughters, now aged 8 and 10.
When Ms. Ford sought the UCP nomination in Mountainview, the family went “all in.”
Mr. Pearman became the primary caregiver, largely giving up his career; they lived on an inheritance from his father.
Ms. Ford worked intensely on her campaign, including door‑knocking while nursing.

Impact of the Press Progress Article

When the March 18 Press Progress article was published, Mr. Pearman believed all allegations were false.
He expected people to defend Ms. Ford, but they did not.
As public hostility grew, Ms. Ford became severely depressed.
She spent afternoons alone in her bedroom crying; her only joy came from their children.
Their eldest daughter, Everen, noticed her mother’s distress and tried to comfort her.
Parents at Everen’s preschool became aware of allegations that Ms. Ford was a white supremacist; the family was shunned.
Their social life collapsed, and they became isolated.
For Ms. Ford’s September birthday, Mr. Pearman and Mr. Valliani attempted to organize a party, but no one would attend.
Mr. Pearman wrote a poem, To Know the Mobs of Modern Days, to lift her spirits.

March 18 and the Aftermath

When Ms. Ford returned home after resigning, Mr. Pearman was angry and wanted her to fight.
Ms. Ford remained dignified and stoic, believing she could not win.
Their hopes and dreams, invested in her political future, were shattered in one night.
Mr. Pearman deleted his social media due to the volume of negative posts.
Ms. Ford’s depression deepened as redemption seemed impossible.
She was disappointed that Mr. Pearman had no career to fall back on and no solution to offer.
He wished he had done better; he tried but felt he failed.
Living with someone experiencing acute depression was extremely difficult.
Their relationship deteriorated; Mr. Pearman became depressed, began drinking, gained weight, and accumulated credit‑card debt.

Attempts at Redemption

Ms. Ford wrote and directed a two‑hour autobiographical documentary, When The Mob Came, which Mr. Pearman co‑produced.
He attempted to market it, but no one would engage due to Ms. Ford’s reputational damage.
The theatre scheduled to host the premiere cancelled for the same reason.
Ms. Ford later founded the Calgary Classical Academy charter school and became its Chief Development Officer in 2023.
Mr. Pearman described it as “the best school in Canada.”

About Ms. Ford

Her credo is “truth, compassion, and tolerance.”
She never made derisive comments about anyone.
She was neither homophobic nor Islamophobic; their best friend, Mr. Valliani, is Muslim.

Cross‑Examination by Amy Cooper, Counsel for the Toronto Star and Ms. McIntosh

Mr. Pearman met Jivraj only once; when he arrived at a lunch between Ms. Ford and Jivraj, Jivraj left.
He did not know about the extensive Facebook messages between Ms. Ford and Jivraj.
He did not know Ms. Ford had deleted the messages.
Although divorced, he and Ms. Ford cooperate well in raising their daughters. He made their breakfast, took them to school that day, and cares for them while Ms. Ford attends court.

Mr. Pearman was excused.

Direct Examination of Susan Besler

By Richard Harrison, Counsel for the Plaintiff

Ms. Susan Besler testified on behalf of Ms. Ford. She holds a B.Comm., has been a chartered nurse and registered accountant, and is now a senior consultant at Amrop Rosin, an executive search firm.

The Calgary Chamber of Commerce Recruitment

In 2019, Ms. Besler was assisting the Calgary Chamber of Commerce in hiring a Director of Communications—a senior policy and government‑relations role.
Her research identified Ms. Ford as a strong candidate, particularly due to her experience as a senior policy advisor with Foreign Affairs.
Ms. Ford warned that her recent history might impede her candidacy.
A Google search by Ms. Besler revealed allegations that Ms. Ford was a white supremacist, had made controversial statements, and had resigned as a candidate.
Based on this, the Chamber eliminated Ms. Ford from consideration.
Ms. Besler informed Ms. Ford that they could not proceed due to her controversial history.

There was no cross‑examination. Ms. Besler was excused.

Comment

Ms. Ford’s reputational damage prevented her from joining a prestigious national board.
It also prevented her from securing employment commensurate with her qualifications and experience.
Mr. Pearman’s poem To Know the Mobs of Modern Days used a distinctive structure: eight stanzas, each with eight lines of eight syllables. [click HERE to view]

Jared Pearman 4/1/26 Jared Pearman 4/1/26

Day 15

Direct Examination of Graeme Gordon By Richard Harrison, Counsel for the Plaintiff

Mr. Graeme Gordon testified on behalf of Ms. Ford.

Background and Article Preparation

Mr. Gordon has written for both left‑leaning and right‑leaning publications and considers himself non‑partisan.
In 2019, he published A political hit job in the name of progress: how UCP candidate Caylan Ford fell from grace in The Post Millennial,

Direct Examination of Graeme Gordon

By Richard Harrison, Counsel for the Plaintiff

Mr. Graeme Gordon testified on behalf of Ms. Ford.

Background and Article Preparation

Mr. Gordon has written for both left‑leaning and right‑leaning publications and considers himself non‑partisan.
In 2019, he published A political hit job in the name of progress: how UCP candidate Caylan Ford fell from grace in The Post Millennial, Tab 105, [click HERE to view].
He spent approximately two weeks preparing the article, interviewing 12 sources, reviewing emails, social media posts, and documents, and reading prior Press Progress publications.
He conducted four or five interviews with Jivraj (the first two lasting several hours), two interviews with Ms. Ford, wrote to Press Progress, and spoke with knowledgeable individuals, most off the record.

Assessment of the Press Progress Article

He read the March 18 Press Progress article and considered it damaging and defamatory.
He believed Press Progress had a reputation for “shoddy work.”
He testified that Ms. Ford resigned because of the article and that he sensed “intrigue” behind the story.
He described Ms. Ford as a “star candidate” with a strong résumé.

Specific Criticisms of the March 18 Article

Mr. Gordon testified that the article:

defamed Ms. Ford by portraying her as a white supremacist
lacked a byline, which he considered inappropriate for a story of such seriousness
referenced the Christchurch terrorist attack, which he viewed as irrelevant and prejudicial
provided anonymity to Jivraj despite his lack of credibility, noting he had renounced Islam, been disgraced by the UCP, and was not involved in UCP politics
allowed Ms. Ford only three hours to respond despite allegedly working on the story for months
would have contacted Ms. Ford earlier if truth‑seeking had been the goal

Political Context

His article examined connections between Press Progress, the Broadbent Institute, and the NDP.
He testified that Press Progress was widely known to be partisan and to publish articles targeting conservatives.

Backstory and Jivraj’s Conduct

His article recounted Ms. Ford’s past friendship with Jivraj, her assistance to him, the rupture of their relationship, and his email apologizing for his conduct.
He sought to understand why Jivraj would disclose private communications.
He testified that Jivraj had a reputation in Ontario as a political “hatchet man,” had fallen out with the Ontario PC Party, had a history of pseudonymous or anonymous attacks, and changed his story when confronted with contradictory facts.

Media Handling of Jivraj’s Material

CBC and the Toronto Star received material from Jivraj in January but did not investigate him.
By March, both outlets knew he was the sole source of the material they published.
Mr. Gordon testified that Jivraj had previously attempted to harm Ms. Ford, including in the Phil Schuman incident.
He identified Jivraj as the author of the “fraudulent resident” letter and the “Too Good” letter, both containing falsehoods intended to sabotage Ms. Ford’s candidacy.
Jivraj leaked both letters to Press Progress.

Verification Concerns

Mr. Gordon emphasized that responsible reporting requires verifying authenticity and that one anonymous source is insufficient.
He stated that both Press Progress and CBC should have obtained the full Facebook message thread, which neither did.
He explained that Ms. Ford’s reference to “demographic replacement” was a term used by demographers and distinct from the “Great Replacement” conspiracy theory.
He described Ms. Ford’s fall from leading candidate to resignation as typical of “cancel culture.”
He noted that Ms. McIntosh of the Toronto Star repeatedly referred to Ms. Ford as a white supremacist on social media.

Cross‑Examination of Mr. Gordon

By Mr. Mack (Broadbent Institute), Mr. Lebrun, and Mr. Magusiak

Mr. Gordon acknowledged he already held a negative view of Press Progress.
He considered Press Progress tied to the NDP and biased.
He could not recall the source for his statement that Press Progress had worked on the story for two months.
Press Progress did not answer his inquiry about the timeline.
He confirmed he did not know how long they worked on the story.
He spoke with Ms. Ford for three to four hours during his investigation.
He recorded his interviews with both Ms. Ford and Jivraj.
He discussed the context of the messages and the Press Progress quotes with Ms. Ford.
He read Ms. Ford’s Apologia before publishing.
He discussed the UCP’s decision not to respond to Press Progress, summarized as: “If you are explaining, you are losing.”

By Ms. Layton (CBC)

Mr. Gordon did not recall whether Ms. Ford told him the UCP instructed her to resign.
His article did not address CBC contacting Ms. Ford after her resignation, CBC publishing part of her resignation letter, CBC publishing after she resigned, or CBC asking about the Pride Parade message.
His article focused on Press Progress, not CBC.
He did not know how long CBC had the information, why they delayed publication, or what they had received from Jivraj.

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

Mr. Gordon began writing shortly after March 18; the article was published April 15.
He and his editor spent two days editing and shortening it.
Publication occurred shortly before Alberta’s election day.
He did not contact Ms. McIntosh or the Toronto Star before publishing.
His article quoted only one statement from Ms. McIntosh and focused on Press Progress.

Mr. Gordon was excused.

Direct Examination of John Vos

By Richard Harrison, Counsel for the Plaintiff

Mr. John Vos, a longtime radio executive with Corus Entertainment and former Regional Program Director for CHQR, testified on behalf of Ms. Ford.

The CHQR Interview and Aftermath

Danielle Smith, then a CHQR employee, reported to Mr. Vos.
Mr. Vos authorized her to interview Ms. Ford.
The interview aired live and was posted on the Corus website on March 29, Tab ?, [click HERE to view].
After airing, a coordinated campaign emerged encouraging complaints against CHQR and Ms. Smith.
A form petition was circulated to facilitate complaints.
Mr. Vos testified that Press Progress orchestrated the campaign and “fomented concern.”
An exhibit of petition emails was entered: 366 pages, representing more than 500 complaints.
Corus and Ms. Smith reviewed whether airing the interview had been appropriate and considered apologizing if they had erred.
Ms. Smith issued a “clarification,” acknowledging she had not been sufficiently probing.
Communications occurred between Corus and Jivraj or his lawyers, but these were subject to a non‑disclosure agreement.

The examination was adjourned pending resolution of NDA issues.

Direct Examination of Philip Schuman

By Richard Harrison, Counsel for the Plaintiff

Mr. Philip Schuman testified on behalf of Ms. Ford. In 2018, he was a candidate for the UCP nomination in Calgary‑Glenmore.

The False Allegation Incident

Mr. Schuman met Ms. Ford and Jivraj at a 2018 UCP fundraising event.
He recalled a memorable conversation with Ms. Ford.
He found Jivraj lively, boastful, and claiming powerful connections.
He later received a text from Jivraj claiming Ms. Ford accused him of sexual misconduct.
The allegation terrified him due to his political ambitions and relationship.
He testified that Jivraj sowed “seeds of chaos.”
After consulting friends, he met Ms. Ford, who denied the allegation.
He became certain Jivraj fabricated it.
He confronted Jivraj, who proposed a three‑person meeting.

The Meeting

They met at a restaurant; Jivraj arrived late and inebriated.
Jivraj admitted fabricating the allegation and apologized.
He confessed to alcoholism.
He consumed six or seven drinks; Mr. Schuman had soda; Ms. Ford does not drink.
When the bill arrived (approximately $75), Jivraj claimed he forgot his wallet.
An argument and scuffle ensued, broken up by staff.

There was no cross‑examination. Mr. Schuman was excused.

Court adjourned for the day.

Jared Pearman 3/31/26 Jared Pearman 3/31/26

Day 14

STUART THOMPSON

Background and Role

Parliamentary Bureau Chief at the National Post, based in Ottawa.
Has written thousands of articles; currently writes two columns per week.
Understood that Caylan met Mr. Kenney at a political meet‑and‑greet in Calgary.
Was impressed when he first met Caylan; they discussed political philosophy; he believed she was rising through the political ranks.
Published a favourable article about Caylan in the National Post in September 2018.

STUART THOMPSON

Background and Role

Parliamentary Bureau Chief at the National Post, based in Ottawa.
Has written thousands of articles; currently writes two columns per week.
Understood that Caylan met Mr. Kenney at a political meet‑and‑greet in Calgary.
Was impressed when he first met Caylan; they discussed political philosophy; he believed she was rising through the political ranks.
Published a favourable article about Caylan in the National Post in September 2018, Tab 105, [click HERE to view].

Reaction to the March 18 Press Progress Article

Press Progress published its damaging and defamatory article about Caylan on March 18.
Mr. Thompson knew Press Progress was funded by the Broadbent Institute; he often read it but was sceptical of its content.
The defamatory article contained material at odds with Caylan’s philosophy as he understood it.
He called Caylan because his instinct told him there was more to the story.

Information Provided by Caylan

After speaking with her, he knew his instinct had been correct.
Caylan told him about the campaign of political harassment Jivraj had conducted against her.
She told him Jivraj was the source of the Press Progress article; that she had deleted her copies of the Facebook messages and could neither confirm nor deny the quotes attributed to her.
She provided him with emails and documents relating to Jivraj showing his cunning and treacherous nature.

Mr. Thompson’s Investigation

He wanted to write another article to give the full story.
Spent about a month interviewing people to get both sides.
Interviewed Mr. Kenney, Caylan, and Jivraj; sent an inquiring email to Press Progress.
Spoke to knowledgeable political actors, particularly senior UCP officials.
All senior UCP personnel insisted on speaking off the record because Caylan had become toxic to the Party.
Conducted about six off‑the‑record interviews.
Mr. Kenney told him politics is not always fair; the Party could not spend days defending Caylan; getting elected was the most important thing.

Correspondence with Press Progress

Mr. Thompson wrote probing questions to Press Progress about their defamatory article.
The exhibit shows his email at the bottom and the Press Progress response at the top: Tab 1000253.pdf, [click HERE to view].
Press Progress did not answer any of his questions.
Instead, they falsely stated: “… there is no context in which the statement that one is ‘saddened by the demographic replacement of white people in their homelands’ is not self evidently racist.”
Press Progress claimed the quotes were matters of public interest and had been independently verified.

Outcome

He interviewed Jivraj on the record and recorded the conversation.
Wrote a rough draft of a column giving the other side of the story.
The National Post did not publish it because they required more authentication; they did not have the Facebook messages, and good journalism required verification.
He listened to Caylan’s interview with Danielle Smith, enjoyed it, and was surprised by the blowback and venom on social media.

Cross‑Examination by Mr. Mack (Broadbent Institute)

Before joining the National Post, he was editor‑in‑chief of The Hub, a centre‑right outlet.
Thought Caylan was smart and interesting and invited her to write; The Hub published two of her articles.
His intended story would have profiled Caylan and the “crazy situation” she found herself in; Press Progress and Jivraj would have been included, but Caylan would have been the feature.

Cross‑Examination by Ms. Cooper (Toronto Star)

Not every drafted story is published.
He considered his intended piece an investigative feature.
Jivraj would have been part of the story, and he was not a public figure.

Mr. Thompson was excused.

LICIA CORBELLA

Background and Role

Long‑time journalist who worked in Vancouver, Toronto, and Calgary; winner of many awards.
Most recently editor of the editorial page at the Calgary Herald; retired in 2022.

Her Article About Caylan

A movie critic friend told her about a documentary titled Letter from Masanjia.
The film was about a Chinese dissident and won an award at the Calgary International Film Festival.
She watched the film and learned that Caylan was a co‑writer and co‑producer.
Learned that Caylan had studied at Oxford and was deeply concerned about human rights.
Learned that Caylan was interested in politics — making her a strong subject for a profile.
Interviewed Caylan for about two hours at her home.
The interview covered the film, Caylan’s education, political personalities, and her nomination campaign.
She wrote a glowing article about Caylan, published in the Calgary Herald: Tab 37, [click HERE to view].

Events Surrounding the “Fraudulent Resident” Letter

She became aware of the “fraudulent resident” letter written by Jivraj: Tab 56, [click HERE to view].
The letter was published by Press Progress on the same day her article appeared.
She was not interested in writing about political backstabbing or ugly machinations.

Whistleblower Tweet and Jivraj

A tweet by “Whistleblower” claimed her article was a puff piece written at the request of the UCP.
Whistleblower was in fact Jivraj, and the statements were false.
She first came to know of Jivraj when he was living in Toronto; he described himself as a lawyer.
She later learned he was not a lawyer.

Interaction with Press Progress

In January 2018, she received a phone call from Defendant Magusiak of Press Progress.
Magusiak was angry and aggressive, accused her of becoming a federal nomination candidate, and told her Jivraj had purchased domain names including liciacorbella.com and liciacorbella.ca.
The next day, by coincidence, she encountered Magusiak at a press conference.

Reaction to the March 18 Article

She felt sick when she saw the defamatory March 18 article; she considered it character assassination.
She thought the article was false because “white supremacists don’t write and co‑produce movies about Chinese dissidents.”
Postmedia prohibited her from writing about Caylan.

Cross‑Examination by Mr. Mack

She was a member of the UCP when she wrote the favourable article.
Her membership was a reason Postmedia prohibited her from writing about Caylan.
Some of her columns were removed from the Herald because she was a UCP member.
The phone call she received was from someone who identified himself as Magusiak.
The person she met the next day also identified himself as Magusiak.

Re‑Direct Examination

She had joined the Conservative Party of Alberta to vote in the “Unite the Right” campaign.
When the Conservative and Wildrose parties amalgamated, she automatically became a UCP member; she had not purchased a UCP membership.
She was suspended from writing about politics for two months when Postmedia learned she was a UCP member.

Ms. Corbella was excused.

ALAN HALLMAN

Background and Role

Extensive experience in Alberta politics at both municipal and provincial levels.
His company, Alan Hallman & Associates, is in the government relations business.
Considered a power broker in the UCP.
Called to give evidence on behalf of Caylan.

Relationship with Mr. Kenney and Early Interactions

In 2017, he encouraged Mr. Kenney to come to Alberta, unite the right, and become leader of the amalgamated party.
Mr. Kenney became leader of the UCP and then Premier in 2019.
Mr. Hallman met Caylan at a political function in 2018 and invited her, Jivraj, and Phil Shuman to an after‑party at his house.
At the party, Jivraj was drinking heavily.

The Phil Shuman Incident

The next morning, Phil called Mr. Hallman, concerned about information Jivraj had given him.
Jivraj told Phil that Caylan had accused him of sexual impropriety.
Mr. Hallman suggested Phil call Caylan; Phil learned the allegation was fabricated by Jivraj.
Mr. Hallman confronted Jivraj, berated him, and told him never to return to his house.

Caylan as a Candidate

Mr. Hallman worked closely with Mr. Kenney in 2018 looking for outstanding candidates.
Both he and Mr. Kenney saw Caylan as a potential outstanding candidate and wanted her to win a nomination.
He helped with her nomination campaign, though the Party did not intervene.
He considered her a tremendous candidate, one of the strongest in all 87 constituencies.
He said her interaction with people was excellent and that she was bound for a cabinet position if elected.

Events Leading to March 18

Caylan brought the “fraudulent resident” letter to his attention; he believed the directors who signed it had been hoodwinked.
Two of her nomination opponents were credible candidates.
Hlady was also a candidate, but Mr. Kenney instructed Mr. Hallman to tell Hlady the Party would not accept him; Hlady was disqualified.
There was innuendo circulating about inappropriate conduct by Hlady.

The March 18 Article and Aftermath

The defamatory March 18 article was published by Press Progress.
Mr. Hallman was not initially alarmed because “everyone knew Press Progress was NDP propaganda.”
He said Press Progress deceived the public by presenting propaganda as news.
He knew Jivraj was the source of the article, although Press Progress granted him anonymity.
He knew Jivraj was not “a long‑time conservative Muslim with deep ties to the Party,” as alleged.
By March 2018, Jivraj had no role in the UCP; he had been asked to resign as president of the Mountain View constituency association.
Mr. Hallman understood Jivraj had been “run out of Ontario” and moved to Alberta.
Caylan was “thrown under the bus” by the UCP and resigned.
After her resignation, she was treated very poorly by the Party.

Later Interactions

At Mr. Hallman’s 2018 annual BBQ, attended by hundreds, both Mr. Kenney and Caylan were present.
Mr. Hallman asked Mr. Kenney to speak to Caylan; Mr. Kenney did not and left the event.
The treatment of Caylan strained the friendship between Mr. Hallman and Mr. Kenney.

Cross‑Examination by Mr. Mack

Mr. Hallman had been involved in a social media controversy in 2017.
He supported Mr. Kenney for UCP leader, but Party bosses supported another candidate.
He made derogatory comments about that candidate and was suspended from the Party for a year.

Mr. Hallman’s evidence concluded and he was excused.

Comment

It is unfortunate that the article Mr. Thompson intended to write was never published; he had done the research and understood what had happened, and the article could have spared Caylan much agony and misery.
Caylan was considered cabinet material by both Mr. Kenney and Mr. Hallman.

Jared Pearman 3/31/26 Jared Pearman 3/31/26

Day 13

Day 13 featured testimony from three witnesses called by Caylan: The Honourable Jason Kenney, Matthew Solberg, and John Reid.
Their evidence addressed Caylan’s political trajectory, the falsity and impact of the Press Progress article, the conduct and credibility of Jivraj, the UCP’s internal response on March 18, and the consequences for Caylan’s campaign and future within the party.

Overview

Day 13 featured testimony from three witnesses called by Caylan: The Honourable Jason Kenney, Matthew Solberg, and John Reid.
Their evidence addressed Caylan’s political trajectory, the falsity and impact of the Press Progress article, the conduct and credibility of Jivraj, the UCP’s internal response on March 18, and the consequences for Caylan’s campaign and future within the party.

The Honourable Jason Kenney

Background and Relationship with Caylan

Mr. Kenney described his extensive political career, including several federal ministries and serving as Premier of Alberta.
He first met Caylan at a political meet‑and‑greet in Calgary in 2017.
Caylan showed interest in Alberta politics and Mr. Kenney was impressed with her.
He was seeking young, intelligent, well‑spoken candidates, preferably female, who believed in conservative principles; Caylan fit the bill perfectly.
He described her as well‑read, articulate, and possessing a deep intellectual background with thoughtful views on human rights.
He considered her a star candidate and testified that he viewed her as cabinet material, with the education ministry specifically in mind for her.

Press Progress and Other False Narratives

Press Progress published an article claiming: • they met at a cocktail party • they met in Ontario • Caylan was a parachute candidate
Mr. Kenney testified that all three particulars were false.
He stated that Press Progress, the Toronto Star, and Mark Hlady each published false stories about the origins of his political relationship with Caylan.
Several promotional campaign videos were made featuring Caylan and Mr. Kenney.

Evidence Concerning Jivraj

In October 2017, Caylan told Mr. Kenney she had been friends with Jivraj, shared intellectual interests, and had exchanged extensive Facebook messages.
She also told him that Jivraj had begun acting irrationally, making threats, and behaving in a hostile manner.
Mr. Kenney first met Jivraj in 2015 when Jivraj became a federal Conservative candidate; he was initially impressed.
After Jivraj moved to Calgary, Mr. Kenney encountered him several times and recognized that Jivraj had a drinking problem and became loud and aggressive when inebriated.
He knew that Jivraj had been president of the Mountain View Riding Association and had been asked to resign.

March 18 and the Decision to Remove Caylan

Mr. Kenney recalled the damaging Press Progress article published on the night of March 18.
He knew Press Progress was a creation of the Broadbent Institute and the NDP.
His first reaction to the allegations was that they were ridiculous; he knew Caylan was deeply committed to human rights and human dignity.
He testified that it was transparently absurd to accuse her of racism.
The article gained political momentum: • the NDP issued a press release • Mayor Nenshi commented adversely • the Canadian Council of Muslims also commented
Mr. Kenney saw the attack as highly organized and was concerned further attacks would follow.
Caylan told Party HQ she could neither confirm nor deny the quotes because she had deleted her copies of the messages.
It was impossible for her to provide an explanation of her true beliefs in the time available.
There was a high risk of destabilizing the entire UCP campaign and Mr. Kenney was not prepared to jeopardize other candidates.
He made a very bitter decision and decided it was prudent to ask Caylan to step aside.
His decision was communicated to her by campaign staff.
Less than four hours elapsed between publication of the Press Progress article and Caylan’s resignation.

Aftermath

The UCP won the election and Mr. Kenney became Premier.
When the new government was formed, about 125 political staffing positions were available.
Campaign volunteers and unsuccessful candidates were often chosen for such positions.
Jeremy Wong, who replaced Caylan as the candidate and lost the election, was appointed to a government post.
Caylan was never considered for any position; she had become toxic to the party.

Cross‑Examination by Mr. Mack (Broadbent Institute)

Mr. Kenney did not read the quotes attributed to Caylan; staff read them to him.
He could not recall what defamatory material he personally reviewed.
He never spoke directly to Caylan on March 18.
He considered the attributed quotes contentious but not extreme.
He believed Caylan was a person of good faith with no hatred in her heart, devoted to human rights and religious freedom.
He did not believe she was a white supremacist or racist.
He compelled her resignation because of the prospect of further leaks and the inability to assess political risk.
Cabinet ministers can be shuffled or dismissed at any time for any number of reasons.
He condemned the remarks attributed to Caylan; he did not condemn Caylan.

Cross‑Examination by Ms. Cooper (Toronto Star)

The UCP never made Hlady’s nefarious conduct public.
At a press conference, Mr. Kenney said Caylan resigned because she did not want to become a distraction to the party.
He added: “Let me be clear I condemn the remarks.”

Re‑Direct Examination

Mr. Harison established that five or six unsuccessful UCP candidates or activists were appointed to senior political staff positions in the new government.
Mr. Kenney was excused.

Matthew Solberg

Background and Role

Mr. Solberg is a partner in a public affairs firm in Calgary.
He was the Director of Communications and spokesperson for the UCP in the 2019 election.
He first met Caylan in December 2018 after she won the nomination.
He learned that she was young, multilingual, and had strong philosophical and political views.
She was a star candidate representing the face the party wanted to present.
The Party produced several promotional videos featuring Caylan and Mr. Kenney.
Mountain View was a target seat for the UCP; they believed Caylan was the right candidate with the right message.

Evidence Concerning Jivraj

Caylan told Mr. Solberg about her long series of Facebook messages with Jivraj and that she had deleted her copies.
Mr. Solberg knew of: • the “fraudulent resident” letter • Jivraj’s unauthorized use of a private Party mailing list • his spurious accusations • his purchase of Caylan’s domain name • his attack ads • the anonymous “Too Good” letter sent to the entire Mountain View membership

The Toronto Star

Mr. Solberg had a good relationship with Toronto Star reporter Kieran Leavitt.
In early 2019 he told Kieran that Jivraj was not credible, had a history of spreading false stories about Caylan, was obsessed with her, and that she had deleted her copies of the messages.

March 18

In the late afternoon, Caylan texted Mr. Solberg advising that Press Progress was publishing an article containing quotes from the messages and that she could neither confirm nor deny them.
She wanted to respond; he told her not to.
By late evening, the Party recognized she could not continue.
She was asked to resign and prepared her resignation letter.
After her resignation, she became a pariah within the UCP—“radioactive”—and no one in the party or government could associate with her, even on social media.
After brief cross‑examination, Mr. Solberg was excused.

John Reid

Background and Role

Mr. Reid started a fibre‑optics company in Calgary in 2016; it was acquired by Bell in 2018. He now runs an advertising business.
He lived in Mountain View and was not involved in politics until 2017.
He was impressed by Caylan’s website, met her for coffee, and became involved in her campaign.
He was originally the volunteer coordinator and became campaign manager after she won the nomination.
He door‑knocked five days per week through the winter.
He learned during the nomination contest that there was a contentious history between Caylan and Jivraj.

The 2019 Campaign and March 18

Caylan won the nomination handily.
The 2019 campaign was exciting; they had strong fundraising, good name recognition, and confidence in electoral success.
On the night of March 18, Mr. Reid had organized volunteers to go door‑knocking.
Caylan pulled him aside and said a negative problem had arisen.
He believed she could weather any adversity because of the campaign’s momentum.
Upon returning to headquarters, he learned the Press Progress article had been published and the political damage was escalating.
He recalled Caylan receiving a call from UCP HQ and resigning.
Everyone was in shock.
Mr. Reid testified that Caylan never supported white nationalism, terrorism, or white supremacy.
The impact of her resignation created a pervasive feeling of helpless melancholy.
Mr. Reid never worked in politics again; he lost trust in journalism, politicians, and politics.
He recognized “why good people don’t go into politics.”

Comment

Mr. Kenney’s testimony made clear that Caylan would have been a cabinet minister had she been elected, and that he had the education ministry in mind for her.
He also highlighted Jivraj’s drinking problem and the seriousness of concerns about his conduct.
His decision to ask Caylan to resign was politically necessary, and she was sacrificed in the interests of the UCP.
Mr. Solberg’s evidence established that Toronto Star reporter Kieran Leavitt knew in early 2019 that Jivraj was a liar, obsessed with Caylan, and had a history of spreading false stories about her, and that she had deleted her copies of the messages.
Every derogatory story published by the Toronto Star after March 18 was published with knowledge of Jivraj’s character.
Mr. Reid’s evidence established that Caylan would have been elected but for Press Progress and Jivraj.
His statement that “good people don’t go into politics” is a saddening comment about the state of politics today.

Jared Pearman 3/29/26 Jared Pearman 3/29/26

Day 12

Direct Examination of Janice Herrington

By Caylan’s Counsel, Richard Harrison

In 2019, Ms. Herrington was the Executive Director of the UCP, a position she had held since the Party’s formation in 2017.

She testified on behalf of the Plaintiff, Caylan.

Mr. Kenney asked Ms. Herrington to manage the UCP when it was formed.
She first met Caylan at a political event and was impressed by her.

Direct Examination of Janice Herrington

By Caylan’s Counsel, Richard Harrison

In 2019, Ms. Herrington was the Executive Director of the UCP, a position she had held since the Party’s formation in 2017.

She testified on behalf of the Plaintiff, Caylan.

Mr. Kenney asked Ms. Herrington to manage the UCP when it was formed.
She first met Caylan at a political event and was impressed by her.
At the time, Caylan was a candidate in the Mountainview nomination contest.
Caylan told Ms. Herrington about difficulties she was experiencing because Jivraj, as president of the Constituency Association, was attempting to prevent her from becoming the candidate.
The “fraudulent resident” letter, written by Jivraj and signed by nine directors, accused Caylan of misrepresenting herself and committing deliberate fraud to become a nomination candidate.
Jivraj had “leaked” the letter to Press Progress and had also purchased Caylan’s domain name.
Press Progress published the letter.
Caylan filed a formal complaint with the UCP and requested an investigation.
Ms. Herrington investigated and asked Jivraj to respond to the complaint.
Jivraj did not provide a reasonable response; his reply was aggressive and litigious.
The investigation concluded that Caylan was a legitimate candidate.
Caylan had been thoroughly vetted by the Party before her application was approved.
The Constituency Association Board, under Jivraj’s presidency, was not proceeding with the nomination process.
Hlady was also a candidate for the nomination.
Ms. Herrington discouraged Hlady from running because she personally knew he had engaged in inappropriate sexual behaviour when he had been an MLA.
Press Progress published the damaging and defamatory article about Caylan on March 18, and Caylan resigned.
After resigning, Caylan told Ms. Herrington that the quotes in the Press Progress article had been taken out of context.

Direct Examination of Sadiq Valliani

Witness for the Plaintiff

Mr. Valliani has extensive political experience at local, provincial, and federal levels. He provides high‑level managerial and consulting services, including war‑room operations, and owns a voter‑survey company.

Caylan and Her Campaign

Mr. Valliani met Caylan at a UCP function in 2017. He described her as brilliant, knowledgeable, passionate about public service; the right person for the right reasons. He believed she would have a successful political career.
He volunteered on her campaign and became the manager responsible for every aspect of her nomination campaign.
Caylan had her own style and views; when door‑knocking, she often spent 10–20 minutes speaking with voters and could discuss a wide range of topics knowledgeably.
She worked extraordinarily hard; she was nursing her baby and scheduled door‑knocking around breastfeeding.
She faced two very capable opponents in the nomination contest.
Caylan won the nomination by a large margin.

About Jivraj

Caylan told Mr. Valliani she had experienced “weird interactions” with Jivraj and feared he would interfere in her campaign.
Jivraj had purchased her campaign domain name, forcing her into a dispute‑resolution process to recover it.
Mr. Valliani had prior experience with Jivraj:
- As chair of the nomination committee in Calgary‑Centre, he was approached by Jivraj, who sought his help to become the chosen candidate.
- Mr. Valliani, a neutral chairman, refused; Jivraj became angry and aggressive.
Mr. Valliani stated that “weird things happened around Jivraj”; at one point, Jivraj threatened to sue him.

Projecting Election Results

Working with a data‑collection company, Mr. Valliani’s firm developed a sophisticated system for analyzing voter intentions.
The campaign had lists of all Party members in the riding.
The data‑collection company conducted repeated phone and text surveys and provided the results to Mr. Valliani’s firm.
His firm combined that data with information collected by door‑knockers and entered everything into spreadsheets
Reliable election results could be predicted from the spreadsheets.
The system is used for both nomination contests and elections; similar systems are used by all competent political campaigns.
Each Party member or voter was surveyed multiple times; 15,000–20,000 calls were made during Caylan’s nomination contest.
The process cost tens of thousands of dollars but was highly accurate.
The system’s prediction for the nomination contest was within 3% of the actual result.
The same surveys were conducted for the general election after Caylan’s nomination.
The system predicted that Caylan would likely win the Mountainview riding.

Events of March 18

Late on March 18, Caylan called Mr. Valliani seeking help and advice.
He was managing three other campaigns but immediately drove to Caylan’s campaign HQ.
Caylan showed him the emails from Mr. Lebrun at Press Progress (Tab TB1000144), [click HERE to view].
They both knew Jivraj had planted the story and that Press Progress would publish it regardless.
Because Caylan did not have her copies of the Facebook messages with Jivraj, she could neither confirm nor deny the quotes attributed to her.
In a state of anxiety, they contacted other candidates and Party officials.
Press Progress published the article only 2–3 hours after Caylan received the Lebrun emails.
Caylan was called by two different CBC journalists asking for comment and posing loaded questions.
Mr. Valliani reviewed the personal social‑media accounts of the two CBC journalists and saw posts showing bias against Caylan.
CBC invited her to be a guest and be interviewed on the Eye Opener program the next morning.
Caylan and Mr. Valliani knew the interview would be an ambush, not a genuine interview.
Mr. Valliani advised Caylan not to respond to the loaded questions and not to appear on the Eye Opener.
Caylan did not respond and she did not appear.
The UCP offered Caylan the chance to resign, and she wrote a resignation letter.
Mr. Valliani posted the resignation letter on the campaign website.

Effect on Caylan

After writing her resignation letter, Caylan was quiet, solemn, sad, deeply hurt, but stoic.
Over time, she became deeply depressed; she was a “broken shell,” afraid of being recognized, and stopped going out. People went out of their way to hurt her.
Mr. Valliani recognized her hurt and depression and called her every night for about 18 months.
Even after her resignation, Jivraj continued to pursue her, attempting to further damage her life.

Calgary Classical Academy (“the School”)

In 2021, while Mr. Valliani was working in Ottawa, Caylan called him and said she wanted to start a charter school and needed his help.
He returned to Calgary.
When the School opened, he became CFO and secretary‑treasurer.

Cross‑Examination of Mr. Valliani by Mr. Mack, Counsel for the Broadbent Institute and the Defendants Magusiak and Lebrun

He confirmed he was not a professional pollster.
He conducted voter surveys, which differ from polls.
Data was collected from 4,615 people who answered the phone; every number on the voter list was called 2–3 times.
The data‑collection company made the calls and provided the results to his firm.
His firm combined that data with door‑knocking data to predict outcomes.
His firm received about $5,000 for the survey; the data‑collection company received about $20,000.
He understood that both candidates opposing Caylan in the election were strong.

Next Witness: Chad Hallman (“Chad”)

Richard conducted the direct examination of Chad, who testified on behalf of Caylan.

Chad has worked in politics for a decade in both junior and senior roles, including in Premier Kenney’s office as a special advisor and later as a ministerial assistant.

Experience with Jivraj

Chad met Jivraj in 2015 at Conservative Party functions in Toronto.
In 2017, he saw Jivraj at a Calgary BBQ; Jivraj said he had moved to Calgary to enter federal politics.
Chad later recruited him as a volunteer in a municipal campaign.
Jivraj was unreliable; on one occasion he was late and inebriated. Chad stopped asking him to volunteer.
Chad knew of Jivraj’s sordid political activity in Toronto and that he had been effectively black‑listed in Ontario politics.
Jivraj demonstrated strange behaviour and abused alcohol.

Experience with Caylan

Chad met Caylan in 2018 and was tremendously impressed with her.
He believed she could positively change the UCP’s image.
He volunteered during her nomination campaign and became very active after she was nominated.
He became aware of derogatory posts about Caylan made by Jivraj.
He confronted Jivraj, told him he knew about his deceit and treachery, and told him to leave town.

After March 18

It was common for campaign volunteers and unsuccessful candidates to be hired by a new government, sometimes in senior roles.
The UCP did not communicate with Caylan after her resignation.
The Party wanted no association with her, and political staff understood they must not associate with her.
Chad “liked” an online post by Caylan.
He was severely reprimanded by a senior Party member and told his career could be threatened.
Chad appeared in Caylan’s documentary When The Mob Came but later asked to be removed due to concerns about his political career.
Nobody in the UCP believed Caylan was a white supremacist, but Party politics made any association with her impossible.

Court adjourned.

Comment

· Mr. Valliani’s system for analyzing voter intentions and projecting election results was highly accurate.

· The system projected a likely win for Caylan prior to March 18.

· Caylan suffered deep and acute depression after her resignation.

· The UCP completely disassociated from Caylan after her resignation.

Jared Pearman 3/29/26 Jared Pearman 3/29/26

Day 11

Caylan’s lawyer, Richard Harison, conducted the direct examination of Justin Charlebois. Mr. Charlebois is a partner and advisor with a financial firm and holds several financial accreditations. He gave evidence on behalf of the Plaintiff, Caylan.

The 2018 Mountainview UCP Constituency Association Annual General Meeting

Mr. Charlebois was a resident of Mountainview in 2018 and attended the AGM.

Caylan’s lawyer, Richard Harison, conducted the direct examination of Justin Charbonneau. Mr. Charbonneau is a partner and advisor with a financial firm and holds several financial accreditations. He gave evidence on behalf of the Plaintiff, Caylan.

The 2018 Mountainview UCP Constituency Association Annual General Meeting

Mr. Charbonneau was a resident of Mountainview in 2018 and attended the AGM.
He met Jivraj at the meeting; he thought Jivraj knew many people and was charismatic.
Mr. Charbonneau was elected to the Board of Directors (the “Board”) and appointed treasurer of the Association.
A president was to be elected, and Jivraj nominated himself.
Jivraj appeared to have many supporters; in hindsight, Mr. Charbonneau realized that Jivraj had “stacked” the meeting.
Jivraj was elected president of the Constituency Association.

Functioning of the Board

At the outset, the Board appeared to function normally.
Over time, the Board became chaotic and dysfunctional.
Jivraj invited Mr. Charbonneau for coffee and presented him with the “fraudulent resident” letter, Tab 56, [click HERE to view]
Jivraj claimed he had evidence about Caylan and persuaded Mr. Charbonneau to sign the letter.
Unsuspecting, Mr. Charbonneau signed, assuming Jivraj would also sign.
Jivraj never signed the “fraudulent resident” letter.
Mr. Charbonneau believed the letter was confidential and would be sent to UCP HQ.
Instead, the letter was “leaked” to Press Progress by Jivraj.
When Mr. Charbonneau learned that Jivraj had not signed the letter, a “shit storm” erupted.
He was livid about Jivraj’s conduct.
He contacted Caylan, who clarified the residency issue, told him about the domain name appropriation, and described Jivraj’s other nefarious conduct.
Mr. Charbonneau concluded that Jivraj was a liar, dishonest, corrupt, and had a vendetta against Caylan.
He made an official complaint to Ms. Herrington, Executive Director of the UCP, Tab 106.
In his complaint letter, he wrote: “I have growing concerns about our boards ability to operate in an unobstructed manner due to Jivraj’s continued underhanded tactics.”
The Party investigated Jivraj and the “fraudulent resident” letter.
The Party exonerated Caylan and confirmed she was a legitimate nomination candidate.
The Party described Press Progress as “an NDP attack site.”
Mr. Charbonneau confronted Jivraj and accused him of deceit.
At the next Board meeting, Jivraj “threw the signers of the letter under the bus” and renounced the letter.
At a subsequent meeting, Jivraj admitted writing the letter, persuading members to sign, and leaking it to Press Progress.
Mr. Charbonneau realized Jivraj was stonewalling the nomination process and attempting to eliminate Caylan from the contest.
Although supposed to be neutral, Jivraj was backing Hlady as a nomination candidate.
Mr. Charbonneau knew Jivraj was behind the attacks on Caylan.
Board members told Jivraj he could resign as president or be forced out.
Jivraj resigned.

Caylan’s Election

Caylan was elected as the Mountainview candidate in a fair and equitable nomination process.
Mr. Charbonneau considered her a strong, well‑spoken candidate with solid conservative views and socially liberal positions.
She seemed like the right candidate.
He headed fundraising for Caylan and raised a record amount.

The Fatal Publication

The March 18 Press Progress article about Caylan was published.
Caylan resigned as a candidate.
Mr. Charbonneau resigned from the Board.
He had never experienced corruption comparable to that demonstrated by Jivraj.
He never formed the opinion that Caylan was a white supremacist or homophobic.

Cross‑Examination by Mr. Mack, Counsel for the Broadbent Institute, Mr. Magusiak and Mr. Lebrun

Mr. Charbonneau became involved in politics because he believed Alberta politics were headed in the wrong direction under the NDP.
He and several Board members were involved in forcing Jivraj’s resignation.
He spent about an hour with Jivraj at the café before signing the “fraudulent resident” letter.
He could not recall whether other signatures were already on the letter.
When he signed, he knew nothing about Caylan.
He understood he was making serious allegations, including fraud.
He did not ask Jivraj for evidence; he relied on Jivraj’s representations and was too trusting.
He did not know how many Board members would be solicited or would sign.

Cross‑Examination by Amy Cooper (Toronto Star)

When they first met, Jivraj told Mr. Charbonneau he was a lawyer.
Jivraj was a good salesperson.

Direct Examination of David Savelrud

Mr. Savelrud is a retired lawyer with extensive corporate governance experience. He gave evidence on behalf of Caylan.

He joined the Board at Hlady’s request and became chair of the Rules Committee.
Jivraj was elected president of the Constituency Association.
Jivraj chaired the LCNC (Local Candidate Nomination Committee).
The LCNC accomplished nothing under his chairmanship.
As LCNC chair, Jivraj asked Mr. Savelrud to investigate Caylan but provided no reason or evidence.
The “fraudulent resident” letter was published by Press Progress, accusing Caylan of misrepresentation and deliberate fraud.
Mr. Savelrud reviewed UCP rules and confirmed Caylan was a legitimate nomination candidate.
He was incensed that 9 of 26 Board members had signed the letter, falsely representing it as a Board decision.
He found it egregious that Jivraj used the Board’s private membership list to circulate the letter.
Jivraj did not seem to accept or respect UCP rules and bylaws.
The Party investigated the letter and suspended Jivraj as a Party member.
Jivraj continued to represent himself as president after suspension.
The Board became increasingly dissatisfied with his conduct.
Jivraj was given the option to resign or be forced out; he resigned.
Caylan won the nomination contest.
Mr. Savelrud became president after Jivraj’s resignation.
The Board then became cohesive and focused, and Caylan’s campaign progressed well.

Direct Examination of Christopher Muldoon

Mr. Muldoon is a director of investment banking and a Mountainview resident. He gave evidence for Caylan.

He was elected to the Board.
He had never been involved in politics before or since.
He became involved in 2018 because the NDP had created challenging conditions for the oil and gas industry.
Hlady, his neighbour, asked him to join the Board.
He did not attend the first meeting but learned Jivraj had been elected president.
He did not know Jivraj.
Hlady later visited his home and alleged Caylan was a parachute candidate, persuading him to sign the “fraudulent resident” letter.
Mr. Muldoon believed the letter was a private Party matter and assumed Jivraj would sign.
He learned Jivraj had not signed only after Press Progress published the letter.
He was embarrassed because his signature was visible in the article and regretted signing.
Hlady told him the letter was Jivraj’s work; Mr. Muldoon distanced himself from Jivraj.
Hlady’s breach of trust damaged their acquaintance.
Mr. Muldoon became more engaged in Board work after the letter.
He recognized that bad actors were at work in the Association.
He was angry at Hlady, Jivraj, and Press Progress.
He received the official UCP letter confirming Caylan was a legitimate candidate.
Initially, Jivraj denied writing and leaking the letter, pretending rogue directors were responsible; in fact, he had written and leaked it.

Direct Examination of Harrison Fleming

Mr. Fleming has extensive senior political experience, including work in the Harper administration and as director of communications for the Kenney government. He gave evidence on behalf of Caylan.

In 2019, he was in the UCP “war room,” where Party decisions were made.
He became aware of Caylan and was impressed.
The Party was seeking young, capable candidates, ideally female.
Caylan broke the mould and broadened the Party’s appeal.
He considered her a star candidate and front‑row cabinet material.
Press Progress published its defamatory March 18 article.
The article made Caylan disreputable and required senior‑level consideration.
Her reputational damage threatened the Party and its campaign.
The Party decided Caylan must resign or be terminated; she was given the option to resign.
She resigned, and the Party lost a star candidate.
Political parties must operate on news that becomes part of the narrative, whether true or false.
Caylan had become toxic, and for expedient political reasons the Party had to abandon her.
As director of communications, Mr. Fleming convened daily meetings with 40–50 chiefs of staff.
He made it clear that no Party member or operative could be seen supporting or associating with Caylan.
The message was clear, and no one thereafter had anything to do with her.

Cross‑Examination of Mr. Fleming

On the night of March 18, senior campaign members were in the war room.
After the article was published, the war room was flooded with media inquiries nationwide.
When Mr. Fleming read the quotes attributed to Caylan, he thought they resembled an academic discussion of public issues.
Press Progress posed charged questions of the “Why did you beat your dog” type.
He knew Press Progress was not seeking a credible response but a panic response.
The war room knew Caylan wanted to respond but instructed her not to.
Mr. Fleming stated that political reality trumps truth and that engaging with Press Progress was pointless.
He said that when truth, narrative, and electoral needs conflict, the Party must choose the latter.
He was controlling the message in the Party’s interest, not Caylan’s.
Jason Kenney made the decision that Caylan had to resign.
Caylan “fell on her sword.”

Re‑Direct Examination of Mr. Fleming

Media outlets across Canada contacted the UCP war room after the article: Canadian Press, CBC, the Toronto Star, radio stations, and TV shows.
Mountainview shifted from a riding the UCP expected to win to one they assumed they would lose.
The Party stopped allocating resources to the riding.
Had Caylan run and lost, she would have secured a senior staff position in government.

Court adjourned.

Comment

· The testimony of Mr. Charbonneau and Mr. Savelrud highlighted the duplicitous character of Jivraj.

· Mr. Muldoon’s evidence highlighted the collaboration between Jivraj, Hlady, and Press Progress, all of them intent on destroying Caylan.

· Mr. Fleming’s evidence made it clear that Caylan would have been in cabinet had she been elected.

· Mr. Fleming also confirmed that after her resignation Caylan was deemed toxic by the UCP Party and all association with her ceased.

Jared Pearman 3/25/26 Jared Pearman 3/25/26

Day 10

Continued Cross‑Examination of Caylan by Matthew Woodley, Counsel for the CBC

· Canadian Press, the Globe & Mail, Post Media, and the Calgary Sun all published defamatory articles about Caylan

· She did not sue those publications

· Caylan obtained a court restraining order against Jivraj in 2023

Continued Cross‑Examination of Caylan by Matthew Woodley, Counsel for the CBC

· Canadian Press, the Globe & Mail, Post Media, and the Calgary Sun all published defamatory articles about Caylan

· She did not sue those publications

· Caylan obtained a court restraining order against Jivraj in 2023

· The CBC published an article about the restraining order and about a fine given to Jivraj for contempt of court

· While an employee of Foreign Affairs, Caylan progressed through different employment categories but never became categorized as a permanent employee of Foreign Affairs

· Caylan’s current annual income from her school is $135,000

Cross‑Examination of Caylan by Amy Cooper, Counsel for the Toronto Star

Concerning the Toronto Star:

· A defamation notice is a notice given to newspapers advising that they may be sued for a defamatory publication; it is a necessary preliminary step before suing

· Post Media and the Calgary Sun were among the many that published articles derogatory of Caylan

· Caylan gave defamation notices to 8 parties, but did not sue all the parties given notice

· she did not sue Post Media or the Calgary Sun

· Caylan confirmed that a reporter from Star Edmonton (a free handout publication of Toronto Star) had emailed her asking to speak to Caylan that afternoon;

· Caylan referred him to her resignation letter; they did not talk;

· Caylan told the reporter that if he had questions to email them to her; she did not receive any emails from him;

· In an article published on March 19 the Toronto Star included a reference to Caylan’s resignation letter and quoted some of the exculpatory statements made in that letter;

· Kevin Leaman, a Toronto Star reporter, reached out to talk to Caylan on March 25;

· Caylan advised him that she could not speak on that day but would be happy to talk 2 days later;

· Caylan received no further communication from Leaman;

· Caylan was questioned about the fact that she never sent information to the Toronto Star;

· Caylan made the point that she did not have investigative obligations; that she was not the journalist, they were;

· In April 2019, Caylan published Apologia (described in Glossary)

· She did not send a copy of that essay to Toronto Star, although she did send it to other news media;

· Toronto Star published quotes from Mark Hlady [identified in Glossary] claiming that Caylan was hand picked b Kenney to run as a candidate and that he Hlady could have beaten her in the nomination contest if he had not been unfairly disqualified;

· Emma McIntosh, a Toronto Star reporter, wrote many defamatory columns about Caylan;

Concerning Caylan’s relationship with Jivraj:

· Caylan suspected as early as March, 2017 that Jivraj was a sketchy character;

· By 2018 she knew he was cunning, deceitful and treacherous, had a drinking problem and was intent on destroying her ;

· in January 2018, Caylan told the UCP communications director about the FB Messages she had exchanged with Jivraj, and that Jivraj was posting derogatory messages about her;

· The UCP party retained a lawyer to write a cease-and-desist letter to Jivraj;

Cross‑Examination of Caylan by Ben Franken, Counsel for Defendant Avnish Nanda:

The cross-examination largely involved questions and answers about exhibits I could not see. Because I did not know anything about the subject of the Q and A, I can not summarize it well. The following is the best I could do:

· Nanda wrote op-eds and tweets derogatory of Caylan;

· Nanda and a person named Mohamed made defamatory statements about Caylan;

· Nanda also communicated with Emma McIntosh of the Toronto Star making defamatory statements about Caylan;

About Caylan publicity after resigning:

· Caylan did a podcast with Joel Chrichton in March;

· She was a podcast guest on True North in Sep 2019;

· She was scheduled for a talk at the University of Lethbridge but the event never happened;

· She and Barbara Kay (a National Post columnist) were speakers at a public meeting in Calgary;

· In July 2020, Caylan launched a podcast named, “Worst Thing Ever”; did 3 podcasts;

· Caylan was twice interviewed by Cory Morgan;

· Caylan did a podcast interview with a Harvard professor; the podcast was entitled "Lapidation and Cancel Culture”

· Caylan published several times in The Hub, an online magazine;

· She also published a piece called They Can’t Cancel your Soul for The American Mind

· She was a panelist in a seminar at a Britania Fellowship conference in the UK

· Caylan was on a podcast called Truth Exists

· She was a guest and spoke at a Civitas conference on 2 occasions

· She published more articles on genocide in communist China

· Caylan finished her documentary entitled When the Mob Came in 2023

Re-Direct Examination of Caylan by her Counsel, Richard Harrison:

Concerning Caylan’s productive abilities:

· Caylan now has a more limited capacity for work than she formerly had; her productive ability is impaired

· Because of her reduced endurance, Caylan now needs days off, suffers social anxiety and finds it mentally taxing to deal with people

About pharmaceutical medications:

· Caylan and Dr. Lucido discussed different medications for the treatment of Caylan’s depression

· They discussed the side effects of the medications and the mechanisms by which they work

· Dr. Lucido was sceptical about the use of pharmaceutical medications unless all alternatives had failed

· Caylan chose not to take the medications because science does not understand the mechanisms by which they work

· Caylan was concerned about long-term side effects

Comment:

· The fact that Caylan did not sue every organization that defamed her does not detract from the defamations by the Defendants who were sued.

· If the sued Defendants thought other media organizations should bear some of the defamation damages, they could bring those other organizations into the lawsuit, seeking contribution to the damages

· The legal procedure by which those other organizations could be brought into the lawsuit is called a Third Party Notice

· Some Defendants appear to be contending that because Caylan was not completely crushed their defamation was harmless.

Jared Pearman 3/25/26 Jared Pearman 3/25/26

Day 9

Cross‑Examination of Caylan by Mr. Mack, Counsel for the Broadbent Institute

Philosophical and Political Concepts

Cross‑Examination of Caylan by Mr. Mack, Counsel for the Broadbent Institute

Philosophical and Political Concepts

• Q&A covered racial identitarianism, identity politics, metaphysics, genocide, racial identity, feminized society, toxic masculinity, demographic replacement, culture, white nationalism, and white supremacy
• Caylan provided definitions and intellectual explanations of these concepts
• She denied being a white supremacist or white nationalist

Accuracy of the Press Progress Article

• She agreed some quotes were accurate but selectively bolded and underlined
• One quote omitted her statement, “I would reject that appellation”
• Another omitted her words to the effect of, “but who agrees with you, I think is unlikely”
• She testified that the final quotes were “not reproduced with fidelity”
• She explained how the omissions altered the meaning of the quotes

Cross‑Examination by Mylene Tiessen, Second Counsel for the Broadbent Institute

Calgary Classical Academy (the “School”)

• the charter school was Caylan’s idea and her creation; she applied for a charter in 2021, and it was approved in January 2022
• The application required extensive work: drafting the charter, determining student numbers, explaining the School’s uniqueness, preparing a budget, obtaining 100 parent signatures, drafting bylaws, creating a website, and identifying potential locations
• She completed most of the work herself
• Initial enrollment was 300; current enrollment is approximately 1500

Medical Treatment

• Her family doctor referred her to Dr. Lucido
• She received psychodynamic therapy in summer 2023
• Pharmacological options were discussed during intake
• She declined medication because she believed science does not understand the mechanisms by which such drugs work
• Dr. Lucido advised that severe depression can impair brain function
• She believed her depression was situational and medication was not the solution

Cross‑Examination by Matthew Woodley, Counsel for CBC

Background Context

• Caylan understood that a politician’s conduct is a matter of public interest
• She was aware of 2019 debates about gay‑straight alliances and related LGBTQ issues
• Jivraj provided CBC the same defamatory material he gave Press Progress regarding the October 1 “fraudulent resident” letter
• CBC contacted her but did not publish anything about that material
• By late 2018 she feared Jivraj would not stop attempting to destroy her
• She did not inform CBC of her concerns

Events of March 18

Lebrun Email

• Defendant Lebrun emailed Caylan stating Press Progress would publish quotes attributed to her within two hours
• The email caused a crisis because she had deleted her copies of the FB Messages and could not confirm or deny the quotes
• She knew Press Progress was collaborating with Jivraj

CBC Contact During the Crisis

• Two CBC journalists repeatedly called during the crisis
• Ms. Ward discussed whether their call should be recorded and whether it was “off the record”; Caylan agreed to have it recorded
• CBC sought a full oral interview for broadcast the next day
• She declined due to the ongoing crisis
• She told CBC that Press Progress was not credible, was collaborating with Jivraj, and had refused to correct past false statements
• She explained that she lacked the FB Messages and could not verify the quotes
• She told Ms. Ward the quotes sounded “odd” and she doubted she had said them

Eye Opener Invitations

• CBC invited her to appear on the Eye Opener the next morning
• She asked about CBC’s purpose and the intended line of questioning
• A CBC journalist referenced an alleged quote about gay pride parades
• Ms. Ward said the Eye Opener would need to address the racism allegation
• Caylan feared the interview would be framed as “why did you say these things”
• Uncertain of CBC’s intentions, she declined the invitations
• The invitations were repeated several times
• She felt the journalists’ questions were loaded and did not answer them

Source of the Quotes

• She told CBC that Jivraj was the source of the quotes
• She described him as reviled in Alberta politics despite having lived in Calgary only two years

CBC’s Position vs. Caylan’s Position

• CBC maintains it could not publish her comments about Press Progress and Jivraj because the call was “off the record”
• Caylan maintains she informed CBC about Jivraj and that they should have investigated further

CBC Publication

• She understood CBC would not publish anything based on the Press Progress Article until she had an opportunity to comment
• CBC published its first article seven hours later without obtaining her comment
• On March 20 CBC emailed saying they remained open to hearing from her
• She named persons who CBC could contact to learn more about Press Progress and Jivraj

Questions on Pride Parades and Gay Marriage

• She explained that attendance at pride parades should be voluntary and that people should not be condemned for not attending
• She stated she prefers sexual modesty
• She explained that gay marriage redefined the term “marriage”
• She also said gay unions should have official recognition and rights

Comment

• The events of March 18 destroyed Caylan’s political career
• the CBC offered Caylan the opportunity of an oral interview and several times offered an appearance on Eye Opener
• she suspected CBC would not treat her fairly in an interview or on the Eye Opener
• Subsequent CBC conduct confirmed those suspicions