You are on page 1of 6

NOTICE PURSUANT TO THE LIBEL AND

SLANDER ACT, R.S.O. 1990, c.L.12

B E T W E E N:

MIKE BULLARD

Plaintiff

- and –

HEATHER MALLICK and TORSTAR CORPORATION


Defendants

NOTICE OF LIBEL

TAKE NOTICE that pursuant to section 5(1) of the Libel and Slander, Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.L.12
(the “Libel and Slander Act”) Mike Bullard complains of and objects to the false, malicious,
irresponsible and defamatory public postings concerning him published on Heather Mallick's
Twitter account (wherein she holds herself out as a Toronto Star staff columnist and provides her
email address hmallick@thestar.ca) on June 1, 2018, which read:

“What an awful ordeal journalist Cynthia Mulligan has been through. Don’t quite
understand how her stalker gets a second chance.” (hereinafter the “Defamatory
Publication”).

And further on or about June 9, 2018 two tweets, each of which read:

“I got a DM from Bullard a year ago about his stalking case. He seemed to think I would
be sympathetic! The amazing self-regard of the stalker endures.” Attached to this
particular tweet was a link to a “victim impact statement” in an unredacted form which
did not reflect the statement the Court permitted to be read into Court record.

“This is what “comic” Mike Bullard did to a prominent TV journalist. Stalkers are
terrifying. They are vipers. Why is this man not in jail?”
The Defamatory tweet and/or publications and any others of which Mike Bullard is currently
unaware, are hereinafter collectively referred to as the “Defamatory Words”.

1
At all material times you were aware that on or about September 21, 2016 a charge of criminal
harassment pursuant to section 264(2) of the Criminal Code (the so called ‘stalker’ legislation)
alleged that the complainant feared “for her personal safety” as a result of Mike Bullard’s
actions. As you knew or ought to have known, that charge was dismissed by the Court on June
1, 2018. The Court found that the complainant’s fears were entirely subjective and not objective.

At all material times you were aware that on or about October 26, 2016 a second charge alleged
that Mr. Bullard had breached a court order by allegedly attending at the complainant’s home.
As you knew or ought to have known, that charge pursuant to section 145 (5.1) of the Criminal
Code was dismissed by the Court on June 1, 2018.

At all material times you were aware that on or about November 7, 2016 one charge of failure to
comply was elevated to obstructing justice pursuant to section 139(2) of the Criminal Code, by
indirectly attempting to have the complainant withdraw her complaint. As you knew or ought to
have known, that charge was dismissed by the Court on June 1, 2018.

At all material times you were aware that 2 new charges of failing to comply with previous bail
conditions was brought on or about May 16, 2018. These were (1) on or about October 16, 2016
Mike Bullard breached section 145(5.1) of the Criminal Code by communicating indirectly with
his complainant; and (2) that between October 26, 2016 and June 23, 2017, Mike Bullard
breached section 145(3) of the Criminal Code by failing without lawful excuse to reside with his
surety. As you are aware, Mike Bullard pled guilty to these charges on June 8, 2018.

At all material times you knew with respect to (1) that Mr. Bullard contacted a mutual friend of
his and the complainant, and relayed the message that he has heard that the charge can drop if the
complainant wished so. That third party forwarded text messages to the complainant that had
been sent to her by Mr. Bullard. Those texts provided a phone number to a Detective and
indicated that she had said that if the complainant called of her own volition, and withdrew the
complaint, the charge would be withdrawn. The complainant instead contacted the police to
report this incident.

At all material times you knew with respect to (2) that Mike Bullard advised the Court that his
lapse was inadvertent, and in part caused by a medical emergency and death of his mother.

At all material times you were aware that Mike Bullard pled guilty to making harassing
telecommunications to the complainant between June 13, 2016 and September 21, 2016 contrary
to section 372(4) of the Criminal Code. As you know these communications were benign in
nature and did not concern the complainant’s fear for safety.

At all material times you knew or ought to have known, that Mr. Bullard was granted a
conditional discharge with 6 month probation; a term that he take the PARS program; have no
contact with the complainant; and keep the peace and be of good behavior.

2
As you knew or ought to have known, in making its findings on June 1, 2018, amongst other
things, the Court stated:

While Bullard’s conduct as alleged could be seen as harassing in that sense, just referred
to, in my view there is no reasonable basis for the fear for Ms. Mulligan’s safety.
Parliament has chosen to differentiate between harassing communications on the one
hand and conduct which gives rise to a reasonable fear for one’s safety. There was
nothing in any of the communications which gives rise to a reasonable inference that her
safety was being threatened. While the communications could be seen as persistent,
unwanted, bothersome, conduct for which he will be committed to trial, nothing in his
past behaviour toward her nor these communications allude to directly or
circumstantially, explicitly or implicitly to any threat to her safety. At most there was an
aggressive email to Tumelty, but the alleged threat to Tumelty, if that’s what it was, was
not what this case was about. It was never even argued. His conduct in my view is
properly covered by the harassing communications count. He’ll be discharged of the
criminal harassment count.

To conclude, he will be committed on the failing to comply for the October 13th text to
Ms. Seatle. The Crown seeks committal on the call and the texts of October 16th when
he was going to the hospital. He will be committed on that. He will be committed on one
count of harassing communications.
None of the communications threatened the complainant. They were unwanted, to be
sure. They were harassing and they amounted to breaches of the undertaking. I cannot
imagine reasonable, responsible counsel being unable to resolve this case in a way that
is consistent with the interests of Mulligan, Bullard and the public interest. In this era
where trials of very serious injuries are stayed for delay, it is perplexing that this has
taken up four days for a preliminary inquiry and will now proceed to a jury trial. This is
not a case, in my view, that should proceed to a jury trial. I hope counsel seriously
reflect on those comments. With that I am happy to sign the committal.

As you know, the complainant’s victim statement that was posted online, was different from the
one she was allowed to read in Court. The one she read in Court was redacted by the judge to
delete unproven allegations, amongst other things. In particular you knew or ought to have
known that the Court struck:

“Your abuse”

“And you left me voicemail messages, horking and spitting at me”

3
“Even after your arrest your harassment didn’t stop. It continued on Twitter, with veiled
threats, comments and denials. And then a private investigator showed up at my house
on a Sunday morning four months ago and tried to bully and intimidate. He also went to
my former husband’s home and called a colleague, saying if I didn’t drop the charges he
would release dirt on me and destroy my career. There is no dirt and you know it.
Fortunately there is a recording. That PI is now facing charges as well.”

“I was told that 80 percent of women give up after 6 or 8 months because they can’t take
the pressure as time goes on and there is no end in sight. That’s not justice. That’s an
overburdened system.”

“What is troubling is you have never taken responsibility for your actions. You think in a
twisted way you were justified. You weren’t. You are alone responsible for being here in
this courtroom. I hope you get help. You need it. Go to therapy and when you are done,
get more therapy and then get some more.”

“But I will always wonder who around Mr. Bullard stood up to tell him what he was
doing was wrong. Who spoke out? And how many were passive witnesses? I’m told a
friend of his said “all he did was love her.” That wasn’t love. It was abuse. There is
still such a long way to go.”

You also knew or ought to have known of Mike Bullard’s on record position at Court on June 8,
2018 that he disagreed with the bulk of the complainant’s victim statement that was read in
Court.

And despite being aware of all of the aforementioned things, you went ahead with the
publication of the Defamatory Words. The Defamatory Words were published with express
malice, the defendants intending or knowing, that the Defamatory Words and the innuendo
arising from them were false and defamatory or with careless and reckless disregard for the truth
and their publication was calculated by the defendants to disparage and injure the reputation of
Mike Bullard personally and in the way of his profession, trade and calling.
Further, the defendants published the Defamatory Words intending or knowing, that the
Defamatory Words would be republished or rebroadcast, in whole or in part, by others and
accordingly the defendants are jointly and severally liable for all such republication or
rebroadcast.

Mike Bullard intends to rely on the entirety of the Defamatory Words including all
accompanying headlines, texts and/or images, in support of his intended action, and all earlier
and subsequent versions of the Defamatory Words published or republished, in any form
whatsoever, in whole or in part, by the defendants and/or others.

4
The Defamatory Words in their natural and ordinary meaning and/or by inference or innuendo,
are false, malicious and defamatory of Mike Bullard, have subjected him to humiliating personal
attacks, hatred and contempt and have caused and will continue to cause damage to his
reputation personally and in the way of his profession, trade and calling.

Mike Bullard states that the Defamatory Words in their natural and ordinary meaning, and by
innuendo, falsely and maliciously meant and were understood to mean that:

a) he was guilty of criminal stalking despite the charge having been


dismissed by the Court;
b) the allegations against him, as described by his complainant, are
true, despite being dismissed by the Court;
c) by virtue of the above, he is unfit for employment and/or intimate
relationships.

The full extent of the damages suffered by Mike Bullard is unknown.

To mitigate his damages, Mike Bullard requires that you immediately publish in print in the
Toronsto Star newspaper, and on the @HeatherMallick Twitter website
https://twitter.com/search?q=heather%20mallick&src=typd, an apology and retraction, in a form
first approved by Mike Bullard, in respect of the Defamatory Words, in a manner at least as
prominent as the original publication of the Defamatory Words, and that you immediately
remove the Defamatory Words from the @HeatherMallick Twitter website
https://twitter.com/search?q=heather%20mallick&src=typd and take all steps necessary to ensure
that no archived versions remain on the internet, in whole or in part.

Please be advised that you are named in this Notice of Libel in that you caused, participated in,
authorized, permitted or condoned the publication of the Defamatory Words and are, as a result,
jointly and severally liable for the damages flowing therefrom.

It is hereby demanded that you retain in safekeeping all drafts of the Defamatory Words, all
notes and tapes of all interviews and all other notes, documents, computer documents, tapes,
emails, any other materials, documents and records relevant to the Defamatory Words, and all
comments or reaction, in any form, received by the defendants in respect to the publication of the
Defamatory Words.

Mike Bullard intends to commence an action against you in respect of the Defamatory Words
and reserves all rights in this regard. He hereby gives notice pursuant to the Courts of Justice
Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.C.43 that he will be claiming pre-judgment interest from the date of this
Notice to the date of judgment.

5
July 11, 2018 ZUBER & COMPANY LLP
Litigation Counsel
100 Simcoe Street
Suite 500
Toronto, ON
M5H 3G2

Joshua J. A. Henderson (56389K)

Tel: (416) 362-5005


Fax: (416) 362-5289

Lawyers for Mike Bullard

TO: TORSTAR Corporation


1 Yonge Street
Toronto, ON M5E 1E6

AND TO: Heather Mallick


1 Yonge Street
Toronto, ON M5E 1E6