You are on page 1of 7
O'DONNELL, ROBERTSON & PARTNERS BARRISTERS & SOLICITORS MM. o>Dowvens 5M. Rovenrson ‘bk Sine East 1AGur [AT-Awroniov Sunesio S.6.Canro D.C Rctiaansow Texesen Oras MSC Mw. Banner 38 Mucus ‘Teron 06 24-0606 F.C.Canuso CL Fostan cst (6) 216-0605, KE. McDemors- Bruyn DOUGLAS RICHARDSON Dave Ta s16)216-0286, DRicuanosonGORPLAwrens.con November 12, 2018 By Email and Fax Mr. Peter Downard Fasken 333 Bay Street, Suite 2400 PO Box 20 Toronto, ON MSH 276 Dear Mr. Downard: RE: Canadaland re: WE Charity Our File No. 761-212 We are counsel to Canadaland. Your letter of November 6, 2018, has been referred to us. Our client has carefully reviewed the lengthy complaint set out in your letter. You claim on page 7 of your letter that that “predominate sting” of the article and podcast is that the WE Charity and related parties “have lied to the public regarding their commitment to ending child and slave labour and that they will tolerate, secretly consent to and promote the use of child labour by WE’s corporate partners”. We disagree that a reasonable reader would interpret the article or podcast complained of in this manner. The article and podcast do not contain any statements or allegations that WE has lied, Further, in discussing the connections between WE and partners that use child labour, the article and the podcast go to great lengths to set out WE’s position which includes its stated commitment to end child labour. The reality is that a reasonable reader would not interpret the article or podcast as stating or implying that WE is lying. Instead, as the headline of the article clearly sets out, a reader ‘would understand the thrust of the items complained of to be that WE is associated with certain corporations that have used child labour in their supply chain. This fact is admitted by your client and is completely defensible as such. Further, the article and podcast go to great lengths to present WE’s position regarding its association with corporations that have used child labour in their supply chain. In particular, the article includes the following: O'DONNELL, ROBERTSON ‘& PARTNERS. WE Charity's commitment to ending child labour is evident and beyond reproach.” WE says that they conduct “a rigorous and thorough vetting process” that includes reviewing the findings of UN agencies and other third parties when selecting corporate partners, “Although no company is perfect, we carefully select companies with a proven commitment to continuously strive for progress and social-responsibility,” they say ina statement. Ina statement to CANADALAND, Hershey's does not deny that there is child labour in its supply chain, Hershey's tells CANADALAND they are committed to only using sustainable cocoa sources by 2020. Chris Besse, a member of the WE Charity board, says in a prepared statement that the charity “engaged with the company on important conversations to help support their cocoa sustainability strategies.” CANADALAND asked WE whether or not the use of child labour by a potential partner would disqualify them from consideration. In a document they later provided, they wrote that “almost every large company involved in global sourcing may have or had child labour in some element at some point of time in their supply chain.” They say the organization's role is “to eliminate the poverty that fuels child labour by generating support for WE Charity and its global development programs.” They added: “WE Charity’s commitment to ending child labour is evident and beyond reproach based on more than 20 years of dedication to working with the poorest children and families around the world.” WE Charity claims the opposite, and tells CANADALAND that they have an extensive vetting process, wherein they “apply five lenses to assess potential partners.” “We recognize that no company is ‘perfect,’ but we take a 360-analysis to determine the overall socially responsible practices of the business,” WE tells CANADALAND. “We take our vetting process seriously and have frequently declined/halted pursuit of partnerships because they do not align with our values... We are dedicated to adhering to ‘our strict vetting process, even in cases where the opportunity cost has been millions of dollars. O'DONNELL, ROBERTSON & PARTNERS ‘The above provides the reader with an explanation of your client's position as it relates to the issue of child labour. The article specifically says that WE did not deny that some of its corporate partners have used child labour and then presents WE as a company that says it is dealing with the problem head on by engaging with a partner to assist it in its efforts to “help support their cocoa sustainability strategie: Similarly, during the podcast, a letter from the Executive Director of WE is read in its entirety. This letter sets out WE's stated commitment and efforts to ending child labour. As a consequence, it cannot reasonably be said that a reader understands Canadaland to be saying or suggesting your client has lied about the fact that some of its partners have used child labour in their supply chains. The statements you rely on to support an allegation that the items complained of were understood to mean that WE had lied concern questions that arise in relation to the association of the “ME to We” logo with Kellogg’s and Hershey’s. These questions are raised in light of the statements given by WE in response to Canadaland’s questions. In each case, WE’s statements are accurately reported. For example, prior to publication, Canadaland advised your client that it was aware of reports that Hershey's had used child labour to source cocoa and asked your client to advise whether it had a partnership with Hershey's. Your client responded by indicating that the WE Charity did in fact have a partnership with Hershey’s. Our client, exercising due diligence, then went back to WE and asked whether ME to We also had a partnership with Hershey's. When your client responded that no such partnership existed, Canadaland went back to WE yet again asking WE to explain how it was that the “ME to WE” logo had come to be associated with Hershey’s in light of WE’s denial of any partnership. In responding, WE referred to its partnership with Walgreens but did not explain how it was that the ME to WE logo was associated with Hershey's. Canadaland accurately reflected your client's position in the article and podcast yet WE now complains that by publishing WE’s statements, Canadaland has made it out to be deceitful. As I think you will appreciate, Canadaland had a duty to include WE"s position in the piece and it is certain that WE would have complained if Canadatand had not. In the end, although the items complained of raise questions as to the precise relationship between ME to WE and certain entities, a reader would not understand the published items to mean that WE is denying that certain partners or corporations it is associated with have used child labour or that it is lying about its commitment to ending child labour, Below, we have addressed other issues raised in your letter. Allegation Of Manufactured Evidence You claim Canadaland “manufactured evidence” by presenting a photo of a Kellogg’s box with a ME to WE logo on it. As you know, Canadaland did not create the image. As explained, the image was provided by a credible source. Further the article and podcast fully set out WE’s position regarding the Kellogg’s box, including WE’s contention that it was created for apitch and did not exist in the market place, Consequently, a reader or listener understands that there are questions regarding the use of the cereal box.