Professional Documents
Culture Documents
: 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
1. The defendants, CTV, a division of Bell Media Inc. (“CTV”), Bell Media Inc.
McGregor (“McGregor”), Rachel Aiello (“Aiello”), CP24, a division of Bell Media Inc.
paragraph 9, paragraph 10, the first sentence of paragraph 11, and the first two sentences
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,
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
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
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
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
7. CTV, CP24 and Bell Media engage in broadcasting, as that term is defined, in
8. At all material times, Bell Media employed the following defendants in the
positions indicated:
(b) Lisa LaFlamme, Chief News Anchor and Senior Editor, CTV National
News;
(d) Rachel Aiello, Ottawa News Bureau Online Producer, CTV News.
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,
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
Article”).
-4-
11. The Named Defendants admit that the social media postings complained of at
or about January 24, 2018 (collectively, the “January 24 Social Media Posts”).
12. On January 25, 2018, CTV updated the January 24 Article following the
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
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
2018.
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
17. The Named Defendants admit that the social media posting complained of at sub-
18. The Named Defendants plead that the plaintiff’s claim with respect to each of the
of his failure to comply with subsection 5(1) of the Libel and Slander Act, RSO 1990, c.
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
20. In this pleading, all of the words complained of in the Statement of Claim will be
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
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
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
(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
(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
28. As a result of this roadblock, Dhanraj suspended his research into this possible
story.
29. In October 2017, The New York Times and The New Yorker reported on alleged
These allegations gave way to a new broad public awareness of the pervasiveness of
30. These watershed revelations led to many brave women coming forward with
31. As a result, Dhanraj recalled the alleged BOIE incident that one of his sources
32. In November 2017, a different source also advised Dhanraj that there may have
in 1999 that may have led to police involvement. CTV did not report on this incident
(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
alone.
-9-
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
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
36. Dhanraj requested that Accuser 1 also describe the incident in an email, which
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
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
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
41. On January 20, 2018, Accuser 1 advised Dhanraj that she did not wish to conduct
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.
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 -
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
(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;
(e) when they arrived at Brown’s house, she continued drinking and Brown
(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
(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
(i) she met up with her friend in another room and told him what had
(j) her friend wasn’t “concerned about it” because he was “trying to get into
(k) she then ran out of the house and went to the home of her best friend and
(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”;
(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,
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
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.
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
50. Because the portrayal of Brown in that article was incongruous with the story
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
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
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 -
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
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
possibly meeting him that night and offered to help her get into bars in
Barrie;
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,
(f) Brown responded that he did have such an opportunity and arranged a
(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
(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
(l) on the night of the HNIB after party (August 15, 2013), Brown’s political
(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
(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
(o) when they arrived, the party was “very crowded”. Accuser 2 continued
drinking red wine and began to “feel sick”. She believes that her
(p) Accuser 2 recalled that, at around 3:00 am or 4:00 am, she had a
(q) Accuser 2 then went with Brown and his friend to see the photographs in
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
(s) Accuser 2 felt she was in an intimidating and vulnerable situation being
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
(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
(w) Accuser 2 emphasized that she had a “vivid memory of that”, as her
(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
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
(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
(aa) Accuser 2 alleged that “that moment crystallized the power dynamic that
(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
(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
(ee) Brown called her the next day to enquire as to whether Accuser 2 had
(ff) in the weeks that followed, Accuser 2 came to the feeling that she was the
(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:
(ii) she understood that Brown was well regarded by the Barrie police,
(iii) she preferred to “handle” the matter on her own, now that she
(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
(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
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;
with her father. She told him only that Brown had “come on” to her. She
(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
for leadership of the party without a wife and kids. He told Accuser 2 that
- 21 -
marry him”.
57. Following her video interview with McGregor, Accuser 2 provided a series of
(b) her follow up messages wherein she sought assistance from Brown with
(c) the fact that Accuser 2 was, indeed, employed by Brown and that she was
concludes the string by writing: “You know you are my favourite :) even
(g) Brown had offered to make arrangement for Accuser 2 to enter “any bar
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
(a) Brown had served as an MP for Barrie for the period January 23, 2006 to
(f) Brown had sent emails to Accuser 2, calling her “a star” and “his
(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;
(j) there was an after party following the HNIB event at The Bank on the
(l) there was an after after party at Brown’s house following the after party at
(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
(a) the location of Brown’s home, which matched that of a home that was
(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
(d) confirming the circumstances of her departure from Brown’s home on the
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
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
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
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
66. At just after the scheduled time of 9:45 pm, Brown gave a press conference at
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.
Boddington (Campaign Manager), Alykhan Velshi (Chief of Staff) and Dan Robertson
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 -
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
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
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
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:
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 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.
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
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.
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
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
(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
(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
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
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.
82. In the alternative, the Named Defendants plead that, in answer to the whole 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,
plaintiff. As such, the Named Defendants had a duty to communicate the words
- 30 -
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
in 2009. In particular:
(a) the conduct and character of a politician seeking to become the premier of
(b) over the course of many weeks, different Bell Media reporters were
(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 -
Broadcasts;
(e) the Named Defendants put detailed questions to the plaintiff prior to any
(f) the plaintiff did not agree to an interview with the Named Defendants,
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
outlets;
(g) the plaintiff’s side of the story was accurately and fairly reported,
allegations and stated that they were false and defamatory, and by
(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
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
Broadcasts.
85. Further, the Named Defendants deny that they have acted in a manner which
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
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
88. The Named Defendants also state that on July 3, 2018, Brown announced that he
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
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
for the PCPO while Brown was the PCPO’s leader, and gifts of travel,
early February 2018 and a subsequent complaint lodged with the Integrity
(c) after being approved to run for the leadership of the PCPO, Brown’s
leadership, which came within hours after the Toronto Star reported about
(d) the Integrity Commissioner’s finding that Brown had failed to properly
disclose rental income and the mortgage loan and recommendation that
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
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
93. The Named Defendants rely on the Libel and Slander Act, supra, including,
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
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 -
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
STATEMENT OF DEFENCE OF
THE NAMED DEFENDANTS