Court File No.

CV-14-497367
ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

BETWEEN: SCOTT MACINTYRE Plaintiff and

ROBERT FORD,PAYMAN ABOODOWLEH, HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN 1N RIGHT OF ONTARIO as represented by THE MINISTER OF CORRECTIONAL SERVICES, and AEDAN PETROS Defendants STATEMENT OF DEFENCE OF ROBERT FORD 1. This Defendant admits the allegations contained in paragraphs 3, (insofar as this Defendant lives in the City of Toronto), 4, 7 (with respect to the Plaintiff being the former common law spouse of Kathy Ford), 8, 9, (insofar as this Defendant is a municipal politician) 16,(insofar as the Plaintiff broke into this Defendant's home on this date) and 18 (with respect to the Plaintiff appearing before the Ontario Court of Justice for sentencing in relation to, among other offences, uttering a threat to a police officer against this Defendant) of the Plaintiffs statement of claim. 2. This Defendant denies the allegations contained in paragraphs 1, 7 (with respect to the Plaintiff being familiar with this Defendant's habits and lifestyle), 11-15, 17, 19-21, 23, 24, 45 (with respect to the correctness of the sentencing Judge's obiter comment based on no evidence whatsoever that the Plaintiff was attacked in jail because he had been a bother to this Defendant or his family), 49, 52, and 55-61 of the Plaintiff's statement of claim.

2 3. This Defendant has no or insufficient knowledge of all other allegations contained in the Plaintiff's statement of claim. THE DEFENDANT 4. This Defendant is the Mayor of the City of Toronto. He was elected Mayor in 2010, and previously was elected as a Toronto City Councillor for Ward 2 for the period 20002010. DEFENDANT DENIES PLAINTIFF'S ALLEGATIONS 5. This Defendant denies that he directly or indirectly conspired with others to either injure the Plaintiff or threaten to cause harm to the Plaintiff in any way and, without limiting the generality of the foregoing, with regard to the alleged incidents set out in the statement of claim. This Defendant puts the Plaintiff to the strict proof thereof. DEFENDANT'S KNOWLEDGE OF THE PLAINTIFF 6. The Plaintiff is known to this Defendant as a result of the Plaintiff's former common law relationship with this Defendant's sister, Kathy Ford ( "Kathy"). (As set out in the transcript of the Plaintiffs most recent sentencing hearing,) the Plaintiff has a lengthy criminal record for which he has served several penitentiary and jail terms. 7. The Plaintiff's first conviction was nearly 30 years ago, and his criminal record includes several convictions for serious offences, notably including conspiracy to traffic in narcotics and several weapons offences. In addition, the Plaintiffls criminal record reflects a consistent contempt of, and refusal to obey orders ofthe Court. 8. The Plaintiff pleaded guilty to uttering a(death) threat against this Defendant in 2012 and was sentenced to 12 months imprisonment and 3 years' probation. Among other things, the probation order requires the Plaintiff to not associate or contact or hold any

3 communication directly or indirectly with this Defendant, his spouse or children and not to associate or contact or hold any communication directly or indirectly with Kathy. THE DEATH THREAT AGAINST THE DEFENDANT 9. On or about January 11, 2012, the Plaintiff broke into this Defendant's home (the "January Incident"). 10. The Plaintiff was agitated and yelling and screaming, and made the following demand: "You owe me money, your sister owes me money. If I don't get it, they will kill me." (emphasis added). This Defendant has no knowledge as to who the Plaintiff may have believed wished to kill him in 2012. By the Plaintiffs own admission, however, persons other than this Defendant apparently wished to cause the Plaintiff physical harm in or about 2012. ll. An argument ensued between the Plaintiff and this Defendant, and upon leaving this Defendant's home, the Plaintiff threatened: "You and your family are going to get it, you are going to pay for it." 12. Subsequent to the January incident, the police were contacted. For three hours they engaged in on and off contact with the Plaintiff by cell phone. During a phone conversation with police, the Plaintiff stated to a police officer that he was going to kill the Defendant, either by decapitating him with a machete or shooting him. This statement to the police officer formed the basis for the Plaintiff's subsequent threatening conviction. 13. The Plaintiff was eventually located at a hotel in Mississauga where, with the assistance ofthe Emergency Task Force, police took the Plaintiff into custody.

PLAINTIFF WRITES LETTER TO KATHY FORD 14. While incarcerated, pending trial on the charges arising from the January incident the Plaintiff wrote a letter to Kathy which was intercepted by staff at the Toronto West Detention Centre (the "TWDC"). In this letter the Plaintiff, among other things, states: "Well, well, here I sit in the can because your Brother(THE RAT)picked up the phone + LIED! I never threatened him AT ALL!" In that letter, the Plaintiff threatened to release a "shit storm" on, inter alia, this Defendant.. The Plaintiff further threatened this Defendant with specious claims including that if the charges against him were not dropped, he would go to the media with exaggerated, embellished, fictitious or fabricated claims about this Defendant. As such letter was intercepted by prison authorities, it was never received or reviewed by this Defendant or its intended recipient, Kathy. 15. A second letter to the Toronto Star from the Plaintiff was also intercepted by staff at the TWDC. While this letter is not in the possession of this Defendant, it is understood from Court transcribed records that the Plaintiff requested to speak to a reporter. The Plaintiff apparently made numerous attempts to contact the media and was in communication with the media, both before and after his arrest in an attempt to harass this Defendant and, indirectly, his ex-spouse, Kathy. If the Plaintiff was attempting to extort this Defendant from proceeding with charges against him as set out in his intercepted letter to Kathy (which belief the Plaintiff himself later admitted at his sentencing hearing was wholly without foundation in fact or reality) then he had already made good on his threats (such as they were) long before the events set out in the Statement of Claiin. In any event, this Defendant had no control over the Crown's prosecution of the Plaintiff for his crimes. As

5 set out above, the basis for the threatening charge was the Plaintiff s statement to a police officer and not the statements made by the Plaintiff to this Defendant. PLAINTIFF PLEADS GUILTY TO UTTERING THREAT 16. With respect to the January Incident, the Plaintiff was charged with the following: (a) Without lawful excuse disobey the lawful order made by a justice at the Ontario Court of Justice, contrary to the Criminal Code; (b) unlawful possession of the derivative alkaloid and salts, including Diacetylmorphine heroine, contrary to The Controlled Drugs and Subtances Act; and (c) by word of mouth, knowingly uttered a threat to cause death to the Defendant, contrary to the Criminal Code. 17. The Plaintiff pleaded guilty to these three charges. The Plaintiff admitted to all of the facts underlying the offences as set out herein. The Plaintiff admitted in the criminal proceeding that his intercepted letter to Kathy Ford was(amongst other things) inaccurate and misguided as the threatening charge was not based on anything the Plaintiff had said to this Defendant but rather his death threat against this Defendant which the Plaintiff had made to a police officer. DEFENDANT SHOWS COMPASSION TO THE PLAINTIFF 18. On or about June 13, 2012, the Plaintiff was sentenced in relation to his guilty plea. At the time, the Defendant provided a Victim Impact statement. Transcribed Court records show that, among other things, the Defendant advised the Court that he had no safety concerns with respect to the Plaintiff and that he did not want the Plaintiff to go to jail. Contrary to the specious allegations in the statement of claim that this Defendant wished harm upon the Plaintiff, this Defendant asked the Court to show leniency on the Plaintiff.

6 PLAINTIFF DOES NOT ACCUSE DEFENDANT IN MEDIA 19. Despite the Plaintiff's allegations now contained in his statement of claim, to which the Defendant holds the Plaintiff to the strictest proof, alleging that he was somehow fearful of this Defendant, the Plaintiff immediately following his release from jail, posted the following message on Facebook, despite having pleaded guilty to uttering a threat to kill the Defendant: "I learned a VERY valuable lesson back in January! No matter if you are 100% innocent and have broken NO LAWS you can still be put in JAIL for daring to challenge people who are CONNECTED with the POLITICAL MACHINE! !!!!!" 20. In July 2013, (after the events alleged in the statement of claim but before the commencement of this litigation) the Plaintiff also communicated with Toronto Star reporter Robyn Doolittle with respect to this Defendant. Contrary to the allegations he now makes in the within claim, the Plaintiff praised this Defendant, saying: "The Fords as a whole family treated me like one of their own and for the things that I did to them they were more than fair and it would be remiss for me to say any different...I paid my debt to society and have put all this behind me and wish you and all other media would do the same. Why don't you do a story on what a great job Rob has done as Mayor of this City. And the money he has saved the taxpayer!!!" 21. The full. extent of the Plaintiffs communications with the Toronto Star and other media are not known to this Defendant but are fully known to the Plaintiff.

7 22. At no point prior to this proceeding did the Plaintiff accuse this Defendant of having conspired to cause him injury or to threaten him while incarcerated. The Plaintiff purportedly could not identify who assaulted him at the material time. The Plaintiff has now further admitted in response to a demand for particulars in this proceeding that he had difficulties with and was allegedly threatened by numerous fellow prisoners while he was incarcerated, who he describes in a response to demand for particulars only as "African-Canadian" but allegedly cannot further identify. This Defendant has no knowledge of the identity of the numerous fellow prisoners with whom the Plaintiff had personal conflicts and issues. PURPORTED VIDEO DOES NOT DEPICT THREAT AGAINST PLAINTIFF 23. The Defendant denies that the purported surreptitious video (the "Video") pled by the Plaintiff evidences either directly or indirectly a conspiracy to threaten or cause harm to the Plaintiff, and holds the Plaintiff to the strict proofthereof. 24. The Plaintiff pleads no facts as to who recorded the Video, and this Defendant holds the Plaintiff to the strict proof thereof. This Defendant has no personal knowledge of who recorded the surreptitious video. 25. The Video also appears to be edited by a person or persons unidentified by the Plaintiff. This Defendant holds the Plaintiff to the strict proof thereof. This Defendant has no knowledge of the editing or other modifications done to the surreptitiously and secretly recorded video. 26. At no time was the Defendant aware the Video vvas being recorded and at no time was the Defendant's consent obtained to such recording, which was a breach of the Defendant's right to privacy.

8 27. According to the media, the secretly recorded, surreptitious Video (taken without this Defendant' knowledge or consent on an occasion where this Defendant had a reasonable expectation of privacy) was purchased by the Toronto Star for $5,000 from an unnamed source. The Toronto Star used the Video to generate revenue and profits for itself through newspaper and other sales. The exact particulars and timing of the financial arrangement between the Toronto Star and whoever made/copied and/or edited the Video are unknown to this Defendant. 28. To the best of this Defendant's knowledge the Video depicts snippets of a private social gathering in a private residence and relates to a private, jocular discussion in the supposed privacy of a friend's home where this Defendant was discussing and imitating, as a joke, the pre-match rant of a professional wrestler. This was in anticipation of a charity event which was contemplated in 2013 (long after the events in issue in the statement of claim) wherein this Defendant was to engage in a contest to raise money for charity with a well known, retired professional wrestler. The Defendant is mimicking for the purpose of joking with friends at a private gathering (admittedly poorly) that professional wrestler in the portions of the Video referenced by the Plaintiff and incorporated into the statement of claim. This was at a time when this Defendant had a complete and reasonable expectation of privacy. The content of the Video has no relationship to the Plaintiff or the matters alleged in the statement of claim whatsoever PLAINTIFF'S CLAIM LACKS MERIT 29. The Plaintiff's claim against this Defendant knowingly lacks merit, is frivolous and vexatious, is an abuse of the process of this Honourable Court, and is utterly irresponsible being designed for the collateral and improper purpose of maximizing publicity and

notoriety. The baseless allegations of criminal conduct as against this Defendant are reprehensible and deserving of this Honourable Court's sanction. 30. Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, the allegations in the statement of claim of a purported conspiracy somehow orchestrated by this Defendant, involving not only the other personal defendants but also numerous unknown administrative personnel of a correctional facility, and that this Defendant was somehow capable of manipulating the operation of such correctional facility to the extent alleged in the statement of claim, is beyond any rational possibility or air of reality. The allegations in the statement of claim

are patently absurd on their face. 31. In the alternative, this Defendant pleads that the Plaintiffs damages are exaggerated and too remote and that the Plaintiff has failed to reasonably mitigate against such damages. 32. The Defendant asks that the Plaintiff's claim be dismissed, with costs on a full indemnity basis payable by the Plaintiff or such other person as this Honourable Court may direct.

Date: March 18, 2014

GARDINER ROBERTS LLP Lawyers Suite 3100, Scotia Plaza 40 King Street West Toronto, Ontario MSH 3Y2 Gavin J. Tighe(LSUC No. 34496Q) Tel No:(416)865-6664 Fa~c No:(416)865-6636 Lawyers for the Defendant, Robert Ford

TO:

DEWART GLEASON LLP Lawyers Suite 102-366 Adelaide Street West Toronto, ON MS V 1 R9

10

Sean Dewart(LSUC # 26708B) Tim Gleason(LSUC #43927A) Tel:(416)971-8000 Fax:(416)971-8001 Lawyers for the Plaintiff AND TO: Her Majesty in Right of Ontario as represented by the Minister of Correctional Services c/o Crown Law Office 720 Bay Street Toronto, ON M7A 2S9 Rita Bambers Tel:(416)212-5642 Fax:(416)326-41S 1 AND "TO: Aedan Petros 365 Grandravine Drive Toronto, ON M3N 1J7 Defendant AND TO: Anthony Marchetti Barrister &Solicitor King Law Chambers 620 King St. W., 3`d Floor Toronto, ON MSV 1M6 Tel:(647)680-0632 Fax:(416)364-9705 Lawyers for the Defendant, Payman Aboodowleh

Court File No.: CV-14-497367 SCOTT MACINTYRE - and Plaintiff

ROBERT FORD et al.

Defendants

ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

Proceeding commenced at Toronto

STATEMENT OF DEFENCE OF ROBERT FORD

GARDINER ROSERTS LLP Lawyers Suite 3100, Scotia Plaza 40 King Street West Toronto, Ontario MSH 3Y2 Gavin J. Tighe LSUC#34496Q Tel:(416)865-6664 Fax:(416)865-6636

Lawyers for the Defendant, Robert Ford