You are on page 1of 41

Court File No.

: CV-18-00000629-0000

ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

BETWEEN:

PATRICK BROWN
Plaintiff

- and -

CTV, a division of BELL MEDIA INC., BELL MEDIA INC., WENDY FREEMAN,
LISA LAFLAMME, GLEN McGREGOR, RACHEL AIELLO, JANE OR JOHN DOE
#1 (being the producers of the Defamatory Words), JANE OR JOHN DOE #2
(being the editors of the Defamatory Words), JANE OR JOHN DOE #3 (being the
researchers in respect of the Defamatory Words), JANE OR JOHN DOE #4
(being the fact checkers in respect of the Defamatory Words), CP24, a division of BELL
MEDIA INC., and TRAVIS DHANRAJ

Defendants

STATEMENT OF DEFENCE OF THE NAMED DEFENDANTS

1. The defendants, CTV, a division of Bell Media Inc. (“CTV”), Bell Media Inc.

(“Bell Media”), Wendy Freeman (“Freeman”), Lisa LaFlamme (LaFlamme”), Glen

McGregor (“McGregor”), Rachel Aiello (“Aiello”), CP24, a division of Bell Media Inc.

(“CP24”) and Travis Dhanraj (“Dhanraj”) (collectively, the “Named Defendants”)

substantially admit the allegations contained in paragraph 8, the first sentence of

paragraph 9, paragraph 10, the first sentence of paragraph 11, and the first two sentences

of paragraph 16 of the Statement of Claim. The Named Defendants also substantially

admit the allegations in paragraphs 12 through 15 and 17 of the Statement of Claim but

only to the extent that they identify the positions held with Bell Media by Freeman,

LaFlamme, McGregor, Aiello and Dhanraj, respectively, at the material time.
-2-

2. The Named Defendants have no knowledge or insufficient knowledge of the

allegations contained in paragraphs 2 and 4 of the Statement of Claim.

3. The Named Defendants otherwise deny the allegations contained in the

Statement of Claim unless explicitly admitted herein and put the plaintiff to the strict

proof thereof. Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, the Named Defendants

provide further particularization of their response to some of the specific allegations

made in the Statement of Claim in Schedule “A” to this Statement of Defence. The

Named Defendants also deny that the plaintiff is entitled to the damages and other relief

claimed at paragraphs 1 and 78 of the Statement of Claim

The Named Defendants

4. CTV, a division of Bell Media Inc., is a Canadian broadcast television network

headquartered in Toronto, Ontario, which produces, distributes and broadcasts, among

other programs, CTV National News with Lisa LaFlamme.

5. CP24 is a specialty television channel focussed on local news from the Greater

Toronto Area and southern Ontario owned by Bell Media Inc. that is distributed through

cable in southern Ontario and on satellite nationally.

6. Bell Media Inc. is a federally incorporated corporation headquartered in Toronto,

Ontario that owns and operates CTV and CP24, among other media properties, including

local television stations across Ontario and Canada; CTV News Channel, a specialty

news channel; CTV News GO, an app for iOS and Android mobile devices; and

www.ctvnews.ca, an internet site.
-3-

7. CTV, CP24 and Bell Media engage in broadcasting, as that term is defined, in

s. 1(1) of the Libel and Slander Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.L.12.

8. At all material times, Bell Media employed the following defendants in the

positions indicated:

(a) Wendy Freeman, President, CTV News;

(b) Lisa LaFlamme, Chief News Anchor and Senior Editor, CTV National

News;

(c) Glen McGregor, Senior Political Correspondent, CTV News; and

(d) Rachel Aiello, Ottawa News Bureau Online Producer, CTV News.

(e) Travis Dhanraj, News Anchor and Reporter, CP24.

January 24 Broadcast, Article and Social Media Postings

9. On January 24, 2018, CTV aired the broadcast complained of at sub-paragraph

24(e) of the Statement of Claim, a news story that reported allegations of sexual

misconduct made by two women against the plaintiff, on the nightly television news

program, CTV National News with Lisa LaFlamme (the “January 24 Broadcast”). The

January 24 Broadcast was broadcast on the CTV network and on CTV News Channel,

and it was posted on the website, www.ctvnews.ca.

10. Also on January 24, 2018, CTV published the article complained of at sub-

paragraph 24(f) of the Statement of Claim entitled, “Patrick Brown denies sexual

misconduct allegations from two women”, on www.ctvnews.ca (the “January 24

Article”).
-4-

11. The Named Defendants admit that the social media postings complained of at

sub-paragraphs 24(a) through (d) of the Statement of Claim were published/broadcast on

or about January 24, 2018 (collectively, the “January 24 Social Media Posts”).

January 25 Article, Broadcast and Social Media Postings

12. On January 25, 2018, CTV updated the January 24 Article following the

plaintiff’s announcement that he was resigning as leader of the Progressive Conservative

Party of Ontario (the “PCPO”) (the “January 24 Article (Updated January 25)”).

13. Later on January 25, 2018, CTV aired the first broadcast identified at paragraph

39 of the Statement of Claim, a news story that reported developments since the January

24 Broadcast – including the plaintiff’s resignation as leader of the PCPO, comments

made by the Premier of Ontario, the Prime Minister of Canada, and local citizens in

Barrie, Ontario – on CTV National News with Lisa LaFlamme (the “January 25

Broadcast”). Like the January 24 Broadcast, the January 25 Broadcast was broadcast on

the CTV network and on CTV News Channel, and it was posted on the website,

www.ctvnews.ca.

14. The Named Defendants admit that the social media postings complained of at

sub-paragraphs 24(h) (the “January 25 Dhanraj Tweet”) and (i) (the “January 25 CTV

Tweet”) of the Statement of Claim were published/broadcast on or about January 25,

2018.

February 13 Broadcast, Article and Social Media Posting

15. On February 13, 2018, CTV aired the second broadcast identified at paragraph

39 of the Statement of Claim, a news story that reported that the plaintiff and others had
-5-

called into question the claims made by the two women who had made the allegations of

sexual misconduct, and that the women stood by their claims, on CTV National News

with Lisa LaFlamme (the “February 13 Broadcast”). The February 13 Broadcast was

broadcast on the CTV network and on CTV News Channel, and it was posted on the

website, www.ctvnews.ca.

16. Also on February 13, 2018, CTV published the article complained of at sub-

paragraph 24(j) of the Statement of Claim entitled, “Patrick Brown accusers stand by

allegations”, on www.ctvnews.ca (the “February 13 Article”).

17. The Named Defendants admit that the social media posting complained of at sub-

paragraphs 24(k) of the Statement of Claim was published/broadcast on or about January

25, 2018 (the “February 13 Tweet”).

Plaintiff’s Claim with Respect to Social Media Postings is Statute-Barred

18. The Named Defendants plead that the plaintiff’s claim with respect to each of the

social media postings complained of in the Statement of Claim is statute-barred by virtue

of his failure to comply with subsection 5(1) of the Libel and Slander Act, RSO 1990, c.

L.12 in respect of any of them:

(a) the four “January 24 Social Media Posts”;

(b) the “January 25 Dhanraj Tweet”;

(c) the “January 25 CTV Tweet”; and

(d) the “February 13 Tweet”.

19. The Named Defendants admit that the broadcasts, articles and social media

postings complained of contained the words set out at paragraphs 29, 31, 33 and 39 of
-6-

the Statement of Claim, but plead that those words were published with other words not

complained of which explain and provide necessary context and background for the

words complained of.

20. In this pleading, all of the words complained of in the Statement of Claim will be

referred to as the “Broadcasts”.

21. The Named Defendants will refer to the entirety of the Broadcasts at the trial of

this action.

22. The Named Defendants explicitly deny that the words complained of were

falsely and maliciously broadcast or published as alleged in the Statement of Claim and

put the plaintiff to the strict proof thereof.

Reporting Leading to the January 24 Broadcast

The Alleged BOIE Investigation Regarding Brown

23. On July 21, 2017, Dhanraj was contacted by a source who alleged that Brown

had engaged in some sort of sexual misconduct/ harassment against a female Parliament

Hill staffer while he was serving as a federal Member of Parliament (“MP”) for the

riding of Barrie.

24. Dhanraj was advised by his source that the incident had not been reported to the

police, but that the House of Commons’ Board of Internal Economy (“BOIE”) – the

body that presides over administrative and financial matters respecting the House of

Commons, its premises, staff and members – had been made aware of it.
-7-

25. Dhanraj was later advised by his source that, as a condition of settlement with the

Parliament Hill staffer, Brown had to provide:

(a) an admission of guilt and apology by Brown; and

(b) a financial contribution.

26. This information was significant to Dhanraj because, at that time, Brown had

been:

(a) the MP in the federal riding of Barrie from January 23, 2006 through

May 13, 2015;

(b) the leader of the Progressive Conservative Party of Ontario since May 9,

2015;

(c) the Member of Provincial Parliament (“MPP”) for the riding of Simcoe

North since September 3, 2015; and

(d) the Leader of the Opposition in Ontario since September 14, 2015;

27. Dhanraj attempted to further investigate this allegation, but his efforts were

thwarted by virtue of the fact that documents generated in the course of BOIE

proceedings are kept confidential and are not accessible under the Access to Information

Act, RSC, c. A-1.

28. As a result of this roadblock, Dhanraj suspended his research into this possible

story.

The Weinstein Revelations

29. In October 2017, The New York Times and The New Yorker reported on alleged

assaults committed by Harvey Weinstein, a prominent U.S.-based movie producer.
-8-

These allegations gave way to a new broad public awareness of the pervasiveness of

previously unreported sexual harassment and assault endured by women as a result of

the actions of men who abused their positions of authority.

30. These watershed revelations led to many brave women coming forward with

their stories in what came to be known as the Me Too Movement.

The Allegations Against Brown Resurface

31. As a result, Dhanraj recalled the alleged BOIE incident that one of his sources

had recounted to him, discussed at paragraph 24 of this Statement of Defence.

32. In November 2017, a different source also advised Dhanraj that there may have

been an incident on a federal Progressive Conservative Youth Federation (“PCYF”) bus

in 1999 that may have led to police involvement. CTV did not report on this incident

because it was unable to verify the allegation.

33. Also in November 2017, Dhanraj heard about, inter alia:

(a) the allegation that Brown (who does not consume alcohol) was known to

frequent a nightclub in Barrie called “The Bank” (which was said to have

been owned by Brown at one time and is now called “Hooligans”), where

he was observed overly-aggressively pursuing young women; and

(b) an alleged example of this conduct, which allegedly led to a young

woman’s father intervening to request that Brown leave his daughter

alone.
-9-

First Contact with Accuser 1

34. These allegations led Dhanraj to enquire about the possibility of investigating the

story further. In the course of making those enquiries, a colleague advised Dhanraj that

she was aware of a person who had made allegations of a similar nature about Brown

(“Accuser 1”).

35. After making it known that he wanted to discuss the matter further, in December

2017, Dhanraj received a text message directly from Accuser 1. In a subsequent

telephone call, Accuser 1 recounted an incident that had occurred with Brown

approximately ten years earlier where Brown had exposed his penis to her late one night

at his house and asked her to perform oral sex on him.

36. Dhanraj requested that Accuser 1 also describe the incident in an email, which

she did on January 8, 2018.

37. Dhanraj reported his telephone conversation and Accuser 1’s email to his

manager, who encouraged him to secure an interview with Accuser 1. Dhanraj also

prepared a detailed email setting out the information that he had collected to date.

38. As noted above, on January 8, 2018, Dhanraj received an email from Accuser 1

further particularizing her alleged interaction with Brown as follows:

To start, I was the age 17-18 I know I was for sure underage. I was out
one night with my friend [REDACTED] who knows Patrick and we ended
up at his house for some drinks. Patrick brown at the time didn’t drink
alcohol. He asked if he could give me a tour of his house. When we got
to the bedroom he closed the door and pulled out his penis. He told me
to suck it. I remember being very uncomfortable and I sucked it for a
second then realized I needed to leave and it wasn’t a good situation. I
ran down the stairs and immediately got ready to leave and called a cab.
That is my story about Patrick Brown.
Hope it helps.
- 10 -

39. Between December 2017 and mid-January 2018, Dhanraj made a number of

attempts to arrange a recorded interview with Accuser 1, but was unable to do so due to

her work schedule and a vacation that she had planned. To Dhanraj, Accuser 1 seemed

distressed over the matter. She told him that she did not want to have it on her mind

while she was on holiday.

40. On December 6, 2017, Dhanraj participated in a conference call with a number of

staff in CTV’s Ottawa Bureau to discuss this emerging story. One of the people on the

call, Aiello, indicated that she may know of another accuser with a similar story

involving Brown. The parallel investigation into this similar story is discussed later in

this Statement of Defence.

41. On January 20, 2018, Accuser 1 advised Dhanraj that she did not wish to conduct

a recorded interview. She advised Dhanraj in an email:

… I was comfortable telling you my story. I don’t want to be video taped
or anything. I hope you get the information you need but I have done all
that I want to. Sorry. Best of luck.

42. Dhanraj relayed this email to his manager as well as to CTV’s Ottawa Bureau. A

decision was taken that, because the Ottawa Bureau had more appropriate resources to

pursue the story, its journalists would pick up where Dhanraj had left off.

The Accuser 1 Interview

43. Once it was determined that the story was to be investigated by CTV’s Ottawa

Bureau, it was agreed that LaFlamme was most appropriate to follow up with Accuser 1

on the basis that LaFlamme, as the Senior Editor and Chief News Anchor of the CTV
- 11 -

National News, is an experienced interviewer who routinely conducts important

interviews for the network.

44. LaFlamme contacted Accuser 1 via text message on January 22, 2018 to request

an interview. Accuser 1, who was out of the country on vacation at the time, later called

LaFlamme and undertook the interview that had been sought by Dhanraj. In the course

of that interview, Accuser 1 provided more details about the incident previously

disclosed to Dhanraj and specifically advised LaFlamme that:

(a) on the night in question, she was out in Barrie with a childhood friend

(who was also friends with Brown) when they met up by chance with

Brown;

(b) Brown invited them to his house for an “after party”;

(c) Accuser 1 had been drinking that evening;

(d) Brown was not drinking and was “not a drinker”;

(e) when they arrived at Brown’s house, she continued drinking and Brown

offered Accuser 1 a tour, which she accepted;

(f) when the tour arrived at Brown’s bedroom, he shut the door and “started

making moves”, dropped his pants and told her to “suck his ‘penis’ or

‘dick’” as well as to “put this in your mouth” – which she did “for a quick

minute or two.” She felt she had to comply;

(g) she remembered “not being able to leave” and that it was “a controlling

thing”;
- 12 -

(h) this made her feel uncomfortable so she became frantic and ran out of

Brown’s bedroom after five or ten minutes;

(i) she met up with her friend in another room and told him what had

happened because she had felt so uncomfortable;

(j) her friend wasn’t “concerned about it” because he was “trying to get into

politics”, “he was just trying to be friends with [Brown]”;

(k) she then ran out of the house and went to the home of her best friend and

told her what happened because it was “so messed up”;

(l) she was “17, 18 [years old]” and in high school at the time;

(m) she had also told some friends about it the next week, and they responded

that “a lot of girls in Barrie think he’s a creep and some things have

happened to them”;

(n) she also told her “family” about the incident;

(o) she was aware that Brown was “high up” and “had some pull” in politics;

(p) she knew that Brown was running for Premier of Ontario, but she “does

not follow politics” and, in any event, now lives in western Canada and,

as a result, was not eligible to vote in Ontario’s provincial elections

anyway; and

(q) she summarized the interaction as “a sad guy taking advantage of a young

girl” and that “he’s just a sad human being who needed to do that to make

himself feel he’s somebody … old single politician preying on young

girls. He’s a sad person”.
- 13 -

45. Accuser 1’s story was corroborated by a friend to whom Accuser 1 described the

incident, and later by another friend whose home Accuser 1 went to right after the

incident.

The Parallel Investigation by the CTV Ottawa Bureau

46. Unbeknownst to Dhanraj (who was following up on allegations against Brown),

CTV’s Ottawa Bureau had been aware of other, similar allegations about Brown.

47. Prior to joining CTV in August 2017, Aiello had worked as a reporter for The

Hill Times, a twice weekly newspaper that covers Parliament, the federal government

and federal politics. In the course of reporting for The Hill Times, Aiello became aware

of sexual misconduct allegations against Brown, although she never investigated them.

48. While at The Hill Times, Aiello was advised by a source (“Accuser 2”) about

some troubling allegations of sexual misconduct by Brown towards Accuser 2 who had

been a university student working in his office when Brown was a federal Conservative

MP.

49. In late November 2017, by which time Aiello had secured employment with

CTV, Aiello read a profile published in the November 25, 2017 of the Toronto Star

entitled “Who is Patrick Brown?: The Ontario PC leader opens up about life, love and

his new haircut as a June election looms”.

50. Because the portrayal of Brown in that article was incongruous with the story

previously reported to her by Accuser 2, Aiello believed the differing accounts of

Brown’s lifestyle merited some journalistic investigation.
- 14 -

51. As discussed above, on December 6, 2017, Aiello participated in a

teleconference with Dhanraj and other CTV staff about the efforts Dhanraj had been

making to pursue the story of Accuser 1. This caused Aiello to recall the story told to her

by Accuser 2. She advised the other participants on that call that she was aware of a

second person with similar complaints against Brown.

52. On that day, Aiello contacted Accuser 2 and advised her that she had received

information that there may be a similar set of allegations relating to a different incident

from another person. Aiello suggested that they meet for a coffee to discuss the matter

further.

53. The meeting took place on December 10, 2017 in Ottawa. Aiello and Accuser 2

discussed the possibility of Accuser 2 coming forward publicly with her allegations.

Accuser 2 advised Aiello that she would deliberate on it over the holidays.

54. On January 4, 2018, Accuser 2 contacted Aiello to request that they meet soon to

discuss the matter further.

55. This meeting took place on January 11, 2018 in Ottawa. In the course of that

meeting, Accuser 2 confirmed that she was prepared to come forward with her

allegations. They agreed to convene a time to conduct a formal interview with Accuser 2

by McGregor, who as CTV’s Senior Political Correspondent would be the lead reporter

on the story.
- 15 -

The Accuser 2 Interviews

56. On January 18, 2018, Accuser 2 met with Aiello and McGregor at a hotel in

Ottawa to discuss the allegations she had made against Brown. The following day,

McGregor interviewed Accuser 2 on video in such a manner that Accuser 2 was only

visible in silhouette form. This was a condition of the interview, as Accuser 2 wished to

keep her identity confidential. In the course of that interview, Accuser 2 stated that:

(a) she first met Brown in the autumn of 2012, on a flight from Ottawa to

Toronto. On disembarking from the aircraft, Brown introduced himself as

the MP for Barrie, as they left the aircraft and walked together through

the airport;

(b) as they reached the airport’s exit area, Brown offered Accuser 2 a ride

home, but she declined on the basis that her parents were meeting her;

(c) that night, Brown determined Accuser 2’s Facebook account and added

her as a “friend” on his Facebook account. He also messaged her about

possibly meeting him that night and offered to help her get into bars in

Barrie;

(d) Accuser 2 found the unsolicited Facebook contact to be “odd” and

reported it to her father, who laughed it off as “an older man hitting on

[her]”;

(e) in March 2013, Accuser 2 was looking for a summer job in politics and,

at the suggestion of her parents, sent Brown a message on Facebook

enquiring as to whether he was aware of any opportunities in that regard;
- 16 -

(f) Brown responded that he did have such an opportunity and arranged a

meeting “right away” at his office in Ottawa;

(g) at the interview, which Accuser 2 did not feel was “thorough”, Brown

asked few questions, including “what are you taking in school” and “do

you have any experience in politics” (she answered that she did not);

(h) Brown then offered her a summer job in his Constituency Office in

Barrie;

(i) Accuser 2’s impression from the process was that she was hired “for her

looks”;

(j) Accuser 2’s job in Brown’s constituency office included, among other

things, helping to organize the 2013 Hockey Night in Barrie (“HNIB”)

event which was followed by an after party at The Bank;

(k) after starting in her new role, Accuser 2 Brown engaged in “flirtatious

banter” with her and sent texts or emails where he repeatedly called her a

“star” or a “rockstar” and also “his favourite”. Initially, Accuser 2 did not

find this behaviour threatening;

(l) on the night of the HNIB after party (August 15, 2013), Brown’s political

staffers, including Accuser 2, were invited to consume alcoholic

beverages at The Bank;

(m) Accuser 2 was at The Bank from 10:00 pm or 10:30 pm until closing time

at 2:00 am. During the course of the evening, she consumed more
- 17 -

alcoholic beverages than she “could count”. Some of the drinks were

brought to her personally by Brown;

(n) when the after party concluded, Brown advised Accuser 2 that he was

holding an “after after party” (as was the custom) at his house and that

guests would normally stay until 8:00 am. Brown drove Accuser 2 and

others to his home in order to attend;

(o) when they arrived, the party was “very crowded”. Accuser 2 continued

drinking red wine and began to “feel sick”. She believes that her

drunkenness would have been obvious to anyone who spoke to her;

(p) Accuser 2 recalled that, at around 3:00 am or 4:00 am, she had a

discussion with Brown and a friend of his. In that discussion, Brown

recounted a story of a trip that he had taken to Thailand where he had

taken some photographs of himself with some tigers;

(q) Accuser 2 then went with Brown and his friend to see the photographs in

Brown’s bedroom as they were stored on an iPad that was in that

location;

(r) Accuser 2, Brown and his friend sat on the edge of the bed looking at the

photographs, when Brown’s friend left the room. This resulted in Accuser

2 experiencing a “bad feeling” about being alone in Brown’s room with

him. She began to feel “tense”;

(s) Accuser 2 felt she was in an intimidating and vulnerable situation being

alone in her “boss’” bedroom in an inebriated state when he hadn’t had “a
- 18 -

drop of alcohol all night”. She was uncertain on what to do about her

predicament;

(t) by this point, Accuser 2 and Brown were sitting side by side at the foot of

Brown’s bed, when he began kissing Accuser 2. She “froze up”;

(u) Brown then laid Accuser 2 on the bed and climbed on top of her;

(v) Accuser 2 recalls making a conscious effort not to move her mouth. As

she lay on the bed, Brown continued to kiss her and then asked if he was

hurting her back. (She had advised him in the past that she suffered from

difficulties with her back);

(w) Accuser 2 emphasized that she had a “vivid memory of that”, as her

“adrenaline was pumping”;

(x) Accuser 2 felt the advances by Brown were “sexual”. She could feel

Brown’s erection on her legs while he was on top of her. It was her

perception that he would attempt sexual intercourse if she did not take

action to stop him;

(y) a few minutes passed with Accuser 2 lying “stiffened-up”, unresponsive

and motionless on Brown’s bed with her mind “reeling with all of the

ways that if I rejected him, all of the ways that he could ruin my

reputation, or hold this over me in some way”;

(z) she was concerned about “what the ramifications would be of me saying

no and rejecting him in some way” as she was a young person who had

aspirations of working in politics;
- 19 -

(aa) Accuser 2 alleged that “that moment crystallized the power dynamic that

was present in the situation”;

(bb) being concerned that “the worst” would happen, while Brown was still on

top of her, Accuser 2 told Brown that she had a boyfriend and asked that

she be taken home;

(cc) Brown then drove Accuser 2 home. The journey was silent, but for

Brown asking Accuser 2 if she still “felt guilty about [her] boyfriend”;

(dd) despite significant apprehension about returning to work the next day, and

after “lying in bed having a bit of a panic attack” and feeling

overwhelmed and helpless, she did return to undertake her duties;

(ee) Brown called her the next day to enquire as to whether Accuser 2 had

“recovered” from her hangover;

(ff) in the weeks that followed, Accuser 2 came to the feeling that she was the

victim of a sexual assault, given:

(i) she had been significantly impaired by alcohol;

(ii) her ability to give consent had been completely compromised;

(iii) there was a significant power dynamic at play because she was his

employee;

(gg) She did not report the matter to the Barrie police because:

(i) she didn’t believe her complaint would be taken seriously;

(ii) she understood that Brown was well regarded by the Barrie police,

so making the report would be difficult; and
- 20 -

(iii) she preferred to “handle” the matter on her own, now that she

knew that Brown “was willing to do this”. She simply decided

that she would be more careful around him;

(hh) Accuser 2 had felt “overwhelmed”, saying, “I felt like I was in over my

head and that I didn’t have the tools to handle the situation in any way. I

felt pretty helpless and ... at a loss of what to do really”;

(ii) approximately a week or two later, Brown increased Accuser 2’s salary

and asked her if she would accompany him (all expenses paid) to India in

September. He remarked that she would “look really good on an

elephant”;

(jj) she reported this offer to her father and, after doing so, broke down in

tears and told him about the events of August 15/16, 2013 at the after

after party;

(kk) she sanitized her description somewhat, preferring not to be so explicit

with her father. She told him only that Brown had “come on” to her. She

determined that she would not go to India with Brown;

(ll) while working for Brown in the summer of 2014, Accuser 2 was required

to drive Brown to various events and, in the course of doing so, Brown

made numerous inappropriate comments about sexual relations he had

had with other women; and

(mm) Brown remarked to Accuser 2 that he believed it would be difficult to run

for leadership of the party without a wife and kids. He told Accuser 2 that
- 21 -

he wished he could “find someone like [her] who was 26 or older to

marry him”.

57. Following her video interview with McGregor, Accuser 2 provided a series of

emails/messages from Brown corroborating:

(a) her initial encounter with Brown in the autumn of 2012;

(b) her follow up messages wherein she sought assistance from Brown with

respect to employment during the summer of 2013;

(c) the fact that Accuser 2 was, indeed, employed by Brown and that she was

working on the HNIB event;

(d) Brown attended the HNIB after party;

(e) Brown sent emails identifying Accuser 2 as a “star”;

(f) Brown engaged in a flirtatious email exchange with Accuser 2 wherein he

concludes the string by writing: “You know you are my favourite :) even

if you think I am fat in the winter”; and

(g) Brown had offered to make arrangement for Accuser 2 to enter “any bar

in Barrie without cover or line up”.

58. In addition, Accuser 2 provided contact information to a number of people close

to her (including her father) who could confirm that she had advised them of the incident

in the past. McGregor and Aiello followed up with these persons and were told that:

(a) Accuser 2 had advised them of the events of August 15/16, 2013; and
- 22 -

(b) their accounts of what Accuser 2 told them were consistent with the

information provided by Accuser 2 to McGregor and Aiello in their

interviews with her earlier in January 2018.

59. In addition, McGregor and Aiello were able to confirm:

(a) Brown had served as an MP for Barrie for the period January 23, 2006 to

May 13, 2015;

(b) Brown first made contact with Accuser 2 by Facebook on November 2,

2012 @ 11:21 pm;

(c) Accuser 2 sent a follow up Facebook message to Brown on March 5,

2013 seeking work opportunities;

(d) Accuser 2’s university enrollment details in 2013;

(e) Accuser 2’s employment for Brown in the summer of 2013;

(f) Brown had sent emails to Accuser 2, calling her “a star” and “his

favourite”, while she was working for him;

(g) Accuser 2 was 19 years old at the time of the HNIB event;

(h) Accuser 2’s role in organizing the HNIB event of August 15, 2013;

(i) the HNIB event proceeded on August 15, 2013;

(j) there was an after party following the HNIB event at The Bank on the

night of August 15, 2013;

(k) Accuser 2 attended the after party at HNIB;
- 23 -

(l) there was an after after party at Brown’s house following the after party at

The Bank; and

(m) four people had confirmed that Accuser 2 had told them about the events

of the after after party in the early morning hours of August 16, 2013.

60. In the course of undertaking their follow up to the interview with Accuser 2,

McGregor and Aiello followed up with her by telephone, at least twice, to verify details

that were coming out, including:

(a) the location of Brown’s home, which matched that of a home that was

owned by Brown’s holding company in 2013 and had a mortgage

registered against it by Brown;

(b) confirming that Accuser 2 was not politically active, nor was anyone in

her family;

(c) confirming that she did not have a criminal record (which was also

corroborated through a search with the Court); and

(d) confirming the circumstances of her departure from Brown’s home on the

morning of August 16, 2013.

The Request for Response to Allegations by Brown

61. As it became apparent that the stories of Accusers 1 and 2 were corroborated by

multiple other sources, CTV prepared an email to send to Brown in order to secure his

response to the allegations, and to include his version of events in any reporting.
- 24 -

62. On January 24, 2018, McGregor drafted an email for delivery to Brown

indicating that CTV National News was preparing a report on allegations against Brown

of sexual misconduct made by two women. The email included detailed questions

recounting the nature of the allegations that had been made about him by Accuser 1 and

Accuser 2, with specific requests for his comment. In that email, McGregor requested

that Brown participate in an on-camera interview.

63. Given the sensitive nature of the email, McGregor sent it only to Brown’s

Communications Advisor, Sarah Letersky – as he was not aware of who had access to

Brown’s public-facing email account. McGregor asked Ms. Letersky to urgently pass the

email on to Brown and his Chief of Staff, Alykhan Velshi.

The Response to the McGregor Email

64. Later that day, Jonathan Lisus, counsel for Patrick Brown, wrote to McGregor

indicating that Brown “categorically denies these false and defamatory allegations”.

Lisus did not indicate that Brown was prepared to participate in an on-camera interview,

request more time to respond to McGregor’s email or indicate that any further

communication would be forthcoming.

65. By approximately 8:45pm on January 24, 2018 it had been announced that

Brown would be holding a news conference at Queen’s Park at 9:45pm that night. This

announcement was widely circulated on social media, beginning at 8:47 pm when Mike

Crawley, a journalist with CBC, tweeted about it.

66. At just after the scheduled time of 9:45 pm, Brown gave a press conference at

Queen’s Park where he stated that:
- 25 -

A couple of hours ago, I learned about troubling allegations about my
conduct and character and I am here tonight to address them. First, I
want to say these allegations are false. Categorically untrue, every one
of them. I will defend myself as hard as I can with all means at my
disposal. It’s never okay, it’s never okay for anyone to feel they have
been a victim of sexual harassment or feel threatened in any way. Let
me make this clear: A safe and respectful society is what we expect and
deserve. And no one appreciates that more than I do. I’ve got two
younger sisters who are my best friends and I have grown up in a family
that has taught me good values. My values and beliefs are those that we
need to move forward to eradicate sexual violence across the province,
across the country, everywhere. I know the court of public opinion moves
fast. I’ve instructed my attorneys to ensure that these allegations are
addressed where they should be: in the court of law. In short, I reject
these accusations in the strongest possible terms. It’s not my values. It’s
not how I raised (sic). It’s not who I am.

67. Brown then left the podium without taking any questions and, just before

10:00 pm, released a statement similar to the remarks made at his press conference.

The Resignation of Brown’s Campaign Team

68. At approximately the same time as Brown’s press conference, Andrew

Boddington (Campaign Manager), Alykhan Velshi (Chief of Staff) and Dan Robertson

(Deputy Campaign Manager (Strategy)) issued a joint statement, as follows:

Earlier today, all three of us became aware of allegations about Patrick
Brown. After speaking with him, our advice was that he should resign as
PC leader. He did not accept that advice.

Since our view is that this advice was in the best interest of the PC Party,
we have therefore resigned our positions as, respectively, Campaign
Manager, Chief of Staff, and Deputy Campaign Manager (Strategy).

69. Later that evening, Nick Bergamini (PC Party Press Secretary), Joshua Workman

(Deputy Press Secretary) and Ken Boessenkool (PC Party staffer) also resigned from

their posts.
- 26 -

Brown’s Early Morning Resignation of January 25, 2018

70. Following the resignation of his core campaign team, at approximately 1:20 am

on January 25, 2018, Brown released a public statement stating that he had “decided to

step down as Leader of the Ontario PC Party”.

Events After the January 24 Broadcast

Additional Reports by Others about Brown’s Conduct

71. Once the allegations of Accuser 1 and Accuser 2 became public, a significant

amount of information come to the fore about other alleged past conduct of Brown.

72. One of the developments involved Lisa MacLeod, then the PC MPP for Nepean-

Carleton, who stated publicly that she had flagged rumours, including allegations of

“inappropriate touching”, about Brown “two or three times” in the weeks before his

resignation. MacLeod said that she was told that the allegations were unfounded. This

incident raised serious questions about how the PCPO handles allegations of this nature.

73. In the weeks following the news reports of January 24/25, 2018, a number of

people came forward with allegations of other discreditable conduct by Brown, which

were followed up by CTV.

74. As an example, one woman came forward with a detailed account of Brown’s

conduct dating back to his time as a leader of the federal Progressive Conservative

Youth Federation. However, after conducting some due diligence, CTV decided not to

report the third accuser’s account in part because it was determined that she was a

supporter of the Ontario Liberal Party.
- 27 -

The Impact of the Reports on the Accusers and their Responses

75. Following the January Broadcasts, Accusers 1 and 2 endured a significant

backlash as a result of coming forward. Attempts were made to discredit them, confirm

their identities and publicize their names online through various conventional and social

media channels.

76. To address this backlash, on February 13, 2018, Accuser 1 released a statement

stating as follows:

I stand absolutely by the truth of what I said to CTV.

There is nothing in what Patrick Brown alleges that undermines the core
truth of what I have experienced with him.

I am not prepared to engage in a tit for tat in the media about the precise
details of how I was victimized, beyond what I already disclosed to CTV.

I can say that going public with this incident has exposed me to verbal
abuse that no human being deserves.

The comments made about me on social media were demeaning, victim-
blaming and misogynistic. My privacy was invaded, my character was
assassinated, and I was subjected to gratuitous slurs about my private
life and relationships.

The comments that I have been subjected to ignore altogether the abuse
of power by an older sober man over a young intoxicated woman in this
case. The comments construct a false, discriminatory and cruel
misrepresentation of the truly debilitating stress the women who are
subjected to sexualized abuses of power have to endure.

I made my experience public because I wanted to help other women feel
safe in coming forward themselves. Instead, what I have experienced is
cruel, uninformed backlash. This demonstrates that if we are to attain
true gender equality, we still have a long way to go. As Canadian [sic] I
am saddened with the reactions of far too many people on social media.

There are many, many people who still stand behind me, and I want to
say thank you to them. This whole experience has been tremendously
difficult for me. It is now time for me to focus on moving beyond this
painful ordeal surrounded by those that care for me.
- 28 -

77. At the same time, in response to Accuser 1 subsequently realizing that she was

over 18 years old at the time of the incident involving her, Accuser 1’s lawyer, David

Butt, released the following statement:

These are the sorts of collateral details that inevitably fade over time.
Equally importantly, collateral detail witnesses themselves often have the
same frailties of faded memory and/or their own reasons for giving
answers that distance themselves from controversy. These sorts of
issues arise routinely in historical cases and cannot be blamed on
survivors, because coming forward is such a difficult act for which it often
takes years to gather the strength and courage.

78. Accuser 2 released a statement on the same day stating:

Having read the statements made by Patrick Brown to Postmedia and in
his Facebook post over the weekend, I continue to stand by the detailed
account of these events that I have previously provided to CTV.

Words Complained of Are Not Defamatory

79. The Named Defendants state that the words complained of did not and were not

capable of bearing and could not be understood to bear the defamatory meanings

complained of or any defamatory meanings.

Justification of Lesser Meaning

80. In the alternative, the Named Defendants state that the Broadcasts, viewed in

their entirety, and/or cumulatively, in their natural and ordinary meaning, and by

innuendo, in relation to the plaintiff meant and were understood to mean, inter alia, that:

(a) each of Accuser 1 and Accuser 2 felt that Brown had used his position of

power over them and/or their vulnerability to pressure them into sexual

relationships or to engage in sexual activities with him;
- 29 -

(b) Brown had engaged in or attempted to engage in sexual relations with Accuser

1 and Accuser 2, women several years younger than he was, when they were

inebriated and in positions subordinate to his; and/or

(c) Brown was known by several people in the Barrie community to have had

sexual relations with and/or to have romantically pursued women many years

younger than he was

and that in such meanings the Broadcasts are true, or substantially true, in substance and

in fact, and the expressions of opinion, if any, are subject to fair comment.

Fair Comment

81. The Named Defendants plead that comments in the Articles constitute valid

political commentary on investigative news reporting on matters of significant public

interest, namely allegations of sexual misconduct made against the plaintiff, then the

Leader of the Official Opposition in the Legislative Assembly of Ontario, and, as such,

the comments in the Broadcasts are protected by the defence of fair comment.

Qualified ‘duty-and-interest’ Privilege

82. In the alternative, the Named Defendants plead that, in answer to the whole of

the Statement of Claim, the words complained of were published on an occasion of

qualified privilege, on the basis that they were published in good faith and in the honest

belief that the words complained of were fair and accurate and related to matters of

significant public interest to Canadians and, most critically, the citizens of Ontario,

whose interests are required to be represented in the provincial legislature by the

plaintiff. As such, the Named Defendants had a duty to communicate the words
- 30 -

complained of to the public, who had a corresponding interest in receiving the

information contained in the Broadcasts.

Responsible Communication

83. In addition to the plea of qualified privilege set out in the preceding paragraph,

the Named Defendants state in the further alternative that the Broadcasts complained of

are in respect of matters of public interest and that in researching, writing and

broadcasting them, they have acted responsibly and that the Broadcasts are protected by

the defence of responsible communication as affirmed by the Supreme Court of Canada

in 2009. In particular:

(a) the conduct and character of a politician seeking to become the premier of

Canada’s largest province is a matter of significant public importance;

(b) over the course of many weeks, different Bell Media reporters were

independently advised of serious allegations of sexual misconduct on the

part of Brown by different, independent sources;

(c) the main sources of the allegations were credible and well placed, with

direct knowledge and without bias, and key aspects of their information

were corroborated by other sources, who were also credible and without

bias;

(d) though the identities of Accuser 1 and Accuser 2 were concealed in the

Broadcasts due to their fear of repercussions and request for privacy, their

identities were known to the Named Defendants and their allegations and
- 31 -

credibility were thoroughly verified and corroborated prior to any of the

Broadcasts;

(e) the Named Defendants put detailed questions to the plaintiff prior to any

of the Broadcasts, which included particulars of the allegations made by

Accuser 1 and Accuser 2;

(f) the plaintiff did not agree to an interview with the Named Defendants,

provide a substantive response to their questions and allegations, or

request more time to respond, but instead had his lawyer issue a statement

and held a press conference to provide his side of the story prior to the

January 24 Broadcast, and, subsequently, gave interviews to other media

outlets;

(g) the plaintiff’s side of the story was accurately and fairly reported,

including by prominently reporting that he categorically denied the

allegations and stated that they were false and defamatory, and by

broadcasting his press conferences and excerpts from other public

statements he made regarding the allegations;

(h) the tone of the Broadcasts was professional and balanced, including

Brown’s perspective on, and response to, the issues raised; and

(i) the public interest lay in the fact that credible allegations of sexual

misconduct on the part of Brown were being made by more than one
- 32 -

woman who felt that he had used his position of power over them to

pressure them into sexual relationships or acts.

Proper Exercise of Journalistic Practice

84. The Named Defendants deny all allegations of malice and, without limiting the

generality of the foregoing, state that they employed proper and accepted journalistic

practices and conducted themselves as responsible communicators in publishing the

Broadcasts.

85. Further, the Named Defendants deny that they have acted in a manner which

would attract punitive and/or aggravated damages or costs on a substantial indemnity

basis, as pled in the Statement of Claim, and put the plaintiff to the strict proof thereof.

Damages

86. The Named Defendants deny that the plaintiff has suffered any damages as

alleged in the Statement of Claim as a result of the Broadcasts and put the plaintiff to the

strict proof thereof.

87. The Named Defendants state that in February 2018 Brown, along with four

others, was approved to run to be PCPO leader, the position he had resigned on

January 25, 2018. Brown subsequently pulled out of the race after various allegations

relating to his personal finances were brought forward and within hours of a report that

he appeared to have been involved in a PCPO candidate nomination process that the

Hamilton police had begun to investigate.

88. The Named Defendants also state that on July 3, 2018, Brown announced that he

was entering the race to be elected chair of Peel Region.
- 33 -

89. In the alternative, if the plaintiff has suffered any damages as alleged (which is

expressly denied) such damages are not due to any publication of the Broadcasts and in

any event are excessive and too remote or both.

90. In the further alternative, the Named Defendants state that any harm to the

plaintiff’s reputation, which is not admitted but denied, was caused by the publication

and/or broadcast of stories by numerous other media outlets, including the CBC, Global

News, the Toronto Star, The Globe and Mail, the Toronto Sun and the National Post,

relating to:

(a) Brown’s February 15, 2018 statement that his January 25, 2018

resignation had been released without his permission;

(b) Ontario’s Integrity Commissioner’s announcement that he was

commencing an investigation into Brown’s alleged failure to disclose

rental income, a mortgage loan given to him by a candidate to be an MPP

for the PCPO while Brown was the PCPO’s leader, and gifts of travel,

contrary to the Members’ Integrity Act, which followed news reports in

early February 2018 and a subsequent complaint lodged with the Integrity

Commissioner by PCPO MPP Randy Hillier;

(c) after being approved to run for the leadership of the PCPO, Brown’s

subsequent announcement that he was no longer running for the PCPO

leadership, which came within hours after the Toronto Star reported about

his apparent involvement in a PCPO candidate nomination that Hamilton

police had begun to investigate;
- 34 -

(d) the Integrity Commissioner’s finding that Brown had failed to properly

disclose rental income and the mortgage loan and recommendation that

he be reprimanded for these failures, while clearing him of an allegation

that he had failed to disclose gifts of travel.

Failure to Mitigate

91. In the further alternative, the Named Defendants state that the plaintiff was able

to and failed to mitigate any damages which he may have suffered (such damages being

expressly denied by the Named Defendants).

Charter Protected Right to Freedom of Expression

92. The Named Defendants plead and rely on section 2(b) of the Charter of Rights

and Freedoms and section 52(1) of the Constitution Act, 1982 which guarantee freedom

of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and plead they

are not liable to the plaintiff for the Broadcasts which constitute fair comment in the

form of political commentary in the public interest.

93. The Named Defendants rely on the Libel and Slander Act, supra, including,

without limitation, sections 1(1), 3, 5(1), 21, 23 and 24.

94. The Named Defendants therefore request that this action be dismissed with costs

on a substantial indemnity basis such that the Named Defendants are completely

indemnified for the costs of defending this action.
- 35 -

SCHEDULE "A"

S/C
Para. Fact / Allegation Response
No.
7 “… the defendants’ … reporting has subverted the The Named Defendants disagree entirely. They have, in fact,
democratic process in Ontario and has altered, for the exercised their section 2(b) Charter right to freedom of
foreseeable future, the political landscape and expression by reporting on responsibly obtained information
governance of Ontario.” relating to questions raised about a candidate for the
Premiership of Ontario.
It is in the public interest for the electorate to be aware of the
allegations – which were published alongside Brown’s denials.
Knowing of the allegations before publication, Brown chose to
deliver his response through a press conference without
squarely addressing the allegations made against him.
13 “… the January 24 Broadcast … was edited in a This is a perplexing assertion. There is nothing inappropriate
manner that conceals LaFlamme’s role in any on-tape about LaFlamme directing or participating in any aspect of the
or other interviews with Accuser 1 and Accuser 2 in an reporting for or production of CTV broadcasts or web postings.
attempt to, among other things, lead viewers to believe In fact, this is a normal part of LaFlamme’s job as Senior News
that LaFlamme was more independent in relation to her Editor and Chief News Anchor of CTV National News.
reporting on Mr. Brown than in fact she was.”
14 “The January 24 Broadcast was edited in a manner that McGregor was, indeed, involved in the on-tape interview of
suggests that only McGregor conducted on-tape Accuser 2. In fact, he was the main interviewer. There is
interviews of Accuser 1 and Accuser 2.” nothing in the Broadcast that suggests the same was true for
Accuser 1.
22 “The defendants, alone and together, falsely, There are no facts to suggest that the defendants acted in this
maliciously, unfairly and irresponsibly broadcast and manner – and no such particulars are pleaded in this respect.
published the Defamatory Words.” The Named Defendants will put Brown to the strict proof of
this allegation at trial.
- 36 -

S/C
Para. Fact / Allegation Response
No.
49 “… the defendants knew or ought to have known that See response to paragraph 7 of the Statement of Claim.
the Defamatory Words would subvert the democratic
process in Ontario.”
50 “The defendants showed Accuser 1’s and Accuser 2’s Accuser 1’s face was not depicted at all.
faces in shadow, warned viewers of graphic content, Accuser 2’s face was shown in silhouette format because she
and in respect of Accuser 2, cut to McGregor as would only agree to be interviewed on-camera if her privacy
interviewer, nodding with a serious expression on his was respected. This is not an unusual or unreasonable request
face, all of which cast Mr. Brown in the worst possible for someone who claims to have been the victim of sexual
light to viewers.” misconduct.
McGregor had a serious expression on his face during the
interview with Accuser 2 because the subject matter was
serious. It would not have been appropriate to have any other
expression.
54 “… the defendants ambushed Mr. Brown by email Brown was able to provide his response through his counsel,
mere hours before the scheduled January 24 Broadcast, Jonathan Lisus – who denied the allegations on behalf of his
requesting a last-minute on-camera interview … client.
These denials were reproduced verbatim on the reporting of the
story – including in the headlines and the social media postings.
In addition, rather than accept an invitation to an on-camera
interview to respond to the allegations, Brown decided to
address them independently by convening a press conference.
Brown’s remarks, including the denials, were reported
comprehensively in the broadcasts and in the online stories.
54 “The defendants placed Mr. Brown in a position of Although Brown’s lawyer was able to respond to McGregor’s
obvious unfairness, guaranteeing that he only had time email detailing the allegations brought forward by Accuser 1
- 37 -

S/C
Para. Fact / Allegation Response
No.
to issue a blanket denial of the false and defamatory and Accuser 2, at no time did Brown request additional time to
allegations.” respond to the allegations – not through his communications
team (who received the pre-broadcast list of questions), nor
through his lawyer.
In addition, Brown and his communications team announced
and planned a press conference to occur prior to the January 24
Broadcast.

55 “Mr. Brown, with the benefit of a reasonable period of See response to paragraph 54 of the Statement of Claim.
time to respond, would have been able to advise the Moreover, there has never been an assertion by anyone that
defendants that the day after the alleged event Accuser Accuser 2 was “smiling and giggly” on reporting to a co-worker
2 was smiling and giggly as she told a co-worker friend that she had kissed Brown and that “nothing else happened”.
that she had kissed Mr. Brown and that she was This is in complete contradiction to all of the information that
adamant that nothing else happened. the Named Defendants have been made aware of.
56 “… by referencing Mr. Brown’s blanket denial in the A blanket denial was the only response provided by Brown to
January 24 Broadcast, the defendants created the the allegations by (a) his counsel, Jonathan Lisus; and (b)
impression that the Defamatory Words and the Brown himself in the press conferences that he convened on
innuendo arising from them are true and that Mr. January 24 and 25, 2018.
Brown was, in fact, given a reasonable opportunity to
respond, but was unwilling or unable to.”
57 “McGregor misled Mr. Brown, claiming that the first At the time McGregor sent his list of questions to Brown on
incident involved an underage high school girl … “ January 24, 2018, all indications were that Accuser 1 was an 18
year old high school student. It appears that Brown knew
clearly who Accuser 1 was. In an interview granted to Carolyn
Jervis of Global News on in early February 2018, he provide
- 38 -

S/C
Para. Fact / Allegation Response
No.
specific details of his version of the same incident.
58 “The defendants … proceeded with the January 24 See response to paragraph 54 of the Statement of Claim.
Broadcast and the January 24 Article, intending to
deny Mr. Brown a reasonable opportunity to respond,
and knowing they had failed to provide Mr. Brown
with a reasonable opportunity to respond.”
59 “…CTV had determined to run the January 24 The Named Defendants deny this. The fact is that Brown did
Broadcast regardless of any response from Mr. Brown not request additional time to address the allegations in detail –
and the attempt to obtain a response from Mr. Brown but rather chose instead to issue blanket denials through his
was transparent lip service to the obligation of lawyer and by convening press conferences.
responsibility and good faith.”
63 “…counsel to Mr. Brown advised McGregor that … See response to paragraph 54 of the Statement of Claim.
Mr. Brown denied the … allegations and putting
McGregor on notice that … the last-minute request for
an on-camera interview hours before broadcast was an
attempt at an ambush.”
70 “… the defendants gave the appearance of delivering a The Named Defendants presented the facts as they were aware
fully researched exposé of a pattern of abusive and of them. Such facts came from:
predatory conduct by Mr. Brown. In fact, the Accuser 1 and Accuser 2 directly (being the only eye-
defendants crafted a distorted and false narrative, witnesses other than Brown), whose stories were
omitting facts counter to the narrative and failing to recorded
verify the accuracy of others that would alter the documentary evidence provided by the complainants;
narrative …” independently confirmed details from:
o interviews with witnesses,
o contemporaneous social media postings, and
- 39 -

S/C
Para. Fact / Allegation Response
No.
o public records.
71 “... There was no urgency in broadcasting and The Named Defendants had verified the allegations to the point
publishing the Defamatory Words on January 24, 2018 that they were ready for publication. Extensive investigatory
that would justify failing to fully investigate and verify work had been completed by the publication date and the
the facts as reported.” plaintiff’s only response was to provide a blanket denial
through his counsel. In addition, in calling and holding a press
conference before the January 24 Broadcast aired, the plaintiff
amplified the urgency of the matter.
72(a) “[The defendants failed to disclose that] Aiello and The Named Defendants cannot comment on discussions with
Accuser 2 were co-workers at The Hill Times, a confidential sources.
politics and government newsweekly based in Ottawa;
co-authored one or more Hill Times articles; and
appeared in one or more pictures together at Hill Times
events beside each other and smiling …”
- 40 -

July 6, 2018 BERSENAS JACOBSEN CHOUEST
THOMSON BLACKBURN LLP
Barristers, Solicitors
33 Yonge Street, Suite 201
Toronto, Ontario M5E 1G4

Peter M. Jacobsen LSO#: 17803P
Tel: 416-982-3804
Fax: 416-982-3801
Email: pjacobsen@lexcanada.com

Carlos P. Martins LSO#: 37916B
Tel: 416-982-3808
Fax: 416-982-3801
Email: cmartins@lexcanada.com

Lawyers for the Named Defendants

TO: JULIAN PORTER, Q.C.
Suite 1600, 1 First Canadian Place
100 King Street West
Toronto, ON M5X 1G5

Julian Porter LSO# 10104E
Tel: 416-862-4297
Fax: 416-862-7661
Email: julian.porter@julianporterqc.com

Lawyer for the Plaintiff

AND TO: WINKLER DISPUTE RESOLUTION
39 Glenayr Road
Toronto, ON M5P 3B9

Howard Winkler LSO#: 23943N
Tel: 416-519-2344
Fax: 416-915-6325
Email: hwinkler@winklerlawllp.com

Eryn Pond LSO# 44013I
Tel: 416-519-2344
Fax: 416-915-6325
Email: epond@winklerlawllp.com
epond@winklerlawllp.com

Lawyers for the Plaintiff
BROWN and CTV. a division of BELL MEDIA INC., et al. Court File No.: CV-18-00000629-0000
Plaintiff Defendants

ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

Proceeding commenced at BARRIE

STATEMENT OF DEFENCE OF
THE NAMED DEFENDANTS

BERSENAS JACOBSEN CHOUEST
THOMSON BLACKBURN LLP
Barristers, Solicitors
33 Yonge Street, Suite 201
Toronto, Ontario M5E 1G4

Peter M. Jacobsen LSO#: 17803P
Carlos P. Martins LSO#: 37916B
Tel: 416-982-3800
Fax: 416-982-3801

Lawyers for the Named Defendants

Related Interests