ILLER
THO SON
AVOCATS
LAWYERS
ILLER
THO SON
LLP
SCOTIA
PLAZA
40
K NG
STREET
WEST,
SUITE
5800
P
O
BOX
1011
TORONTO,
ON
5H
3S1
CANADA
T
416
595
0500
F
416
595.0695
lLLERTHO SON.CO
October
10,
2018
gent
John
Chapman
Direct
Line:
416.595.8547
Direct
Fax:
416.595.8695
Mail
and
Email
Canadaland
399-401
Richmond
St.
W.
Toronto,
Ont.
5V
3A8
Attn:
Jesse
Brown
Dear
Sirs:
Re:
P oposed
Publication
on
"WE
Cha ity"
It
is
the
understanding
of
my
clients
that
you
are
the
owner,
publisher
and
controlling
mind
of
the
website
canadalandshow.com
(
“
Canadaland
”
)
and
that
you
are
ultimately
responsible
for
editorial
content
appearing
on
this
website.
It
has
come
to
my
clients
’
attention
that
Canadaland
is
preparing
a
feature
story
about
WE
Charity,
co-founded
by
Craig
and
arc
Kielburger
(the
“
Kielburgers
”
)
In
the
course
of
preparing
a
response
to
inquiries
from
Canadaland
with
respect
to
this
story,
my
clients
recently
learned
that
Canadaland
had,
on
Sept
27,
2017,
published
a
recorded
audio
segment,
titled
HORT
CUT
It
s
Important
To
Kick
These
People
When
They
re
Down
”
(the
“
Podcast
”
)
in
which
you
extensively
discussed
WE
Charity
and
the Kielburgers.
It
is
clear
in
listening
to
the
words
expressed
in
the
Podcast,
and
from
past
reporting
by
Canadaland,
that
Canadaland
and
you
clearly
hold
negative
view
of
WE
Charity
and
its
co
-founders
and
seek
to
do
them
harm.
These
words
and,
past
reporting,
show
clear
malice
towards
my
clients.Further,
Canadaland
has
a
previously
demonstrated
history
of
inaccuracy
with
respect
to
its
statements
about
WE
Charity
and
its
co-founders.
In
your
Podcast,
a
number
of
key
inaccurate
statements
were
made
regarding
WE
Charity
and
the
Kielburgers.
For
example,
at
timecode
0:37
the
Podcast
states,
“
...the
Globe
and
ail's
new
project
to
teach
kids
about
media
manipulation,
through
media
manipulation...
”
The
Podcast
clearly
implies
that
the
Globe
and
ail
and
my
clients
are
at
the
root
of
this
alleged
media
manipulation.
CALGARY
ED ONTON
SASKATOON
REGINA
LONDON
KITCHENER-WATERLOO
GUELPH
TORONTO
VAUGHAN
ARKHA
ONTREAL
Page
2
he
factual
inaccuracies
evident
in
the
Podcast
are
numerous.
Another
example
is
the
inaccurate
statement
that
the
Globe
and
ail
partnered
with
a
“
private
company.
”
The
clear
innuendo
and
claims
of
the
Podcast
are
that
this
“
private
company
”
and
the
Globe
and
ail
partnered
to
enter
into
schools
for
nefarious
purposes.
This
claim
about
a
“
private
company,
”
repeated
in
the
Podcast,
not
once,
but
twice,
is
false.
In
fact,
the
Globe
and
ail
partnered
with
WE
Charity,
a
registered
charity
with
the
Canadian
Revenue
Agency.
WE
Charity
and
the
Globe
and
ail
have
a
well-documented,
properly
administered,
and
well-
regarded
partnership
to
promote
media
literacy.
he
multiple
inaccuracies
in
your
reporting
could
have
been
addressed
by
following
the
established
journalistic
practice
of
seeking
to
verify
facts
with
WE
Charity,
and/or
contacting
W
Charity
in
advance
to
allow
the
organization
the
opportunity
to
comment
on
your
claims.
hat
Canadaland
followed
neither
such
well-established
journalistic
practices
is
further evidence
of
its
disregard
for
accuracy
and
an
intent
to
cause
harm
to
WE
Charity
and
its
founders
by
publishing
inaccurate
and
misleading
content.
Recent
correspondence
to
WE
Charity
from
editorial
staff
affiliated
with
Canadaland
indicates
that
Canadaland
intends
to,
again,
fail
to
ensure
the
accuracy
of
its
facts
and
fail
to
strive
for
fair
and
balanced
reporting.
Your
website
appears
to
be
determined
to
knock
the
organization
down.
When
asked
what
the
angle
for
the
latest
story
is,
the
Canadaland
reporter
replied:
We
don
ye
have
a
focus
of
the
s ory
....
It
seems
that
your
website
publication
is
pre-determined
to
produce
a
negative
story,
and
you
are
simply
shaping
an
article
to
suit
your
bias.
The
above
statement
made
by
your
editorial
staff,
as
well
as
listening
to
the
views
expressed
on
Canadaland
podcast
and
reading
past
reporting
via
the
website,
strongly
indicates
a
bias
against
WE
Charity
and
its
co-founders,
and
that
you
personally
seek
to
do
harm
to
the
charity
and
Craig
Kielburger
and
arc
Kielburger.
In
short,
you
have
shown
a
clear
pattern
of
acting
with
malicious
intent.Regarding
the
latest
article
Canadaland
is
planning,
my
clients
and
the
executive
of
WE
Charity
and
E
to
WE
have
provided
your
journalist
with
answers
to
every
question
posed,
in
detail,
supported
by
facts.
hey
have
provided
more
than
100+
pages
of
detailed
information
to
your
reporter
about
the
charity
and
its
work.
Included
in
these
documents
is
detailed
information
on
its
activities,
policies,
HR
practices,
the
accurate
nature
of
its
corporate
partnerships,
as
well
as
the
significant
actions
it
takes
to
ensure
the
protection
and
safety
of
the
hundreds
of
thousands
young
people
across
Canada
who
WE
Charity
is
proud
to
empower
through
the
programs
the
charity
offers.
Our
specific
concerns
regarding
the
newest
website
article
you
are
planning
rest
on
the
specific
issues
below:
1.
y
clients
have
now
asked
five
times
for
what
specific
claim(s)
will
be
made
in
the
article
without
a
proper
answer.
The
e-mail
of
your
journalist
on
October
5
has
shared
that
this
is
the
la e
of
ques ions
for
this
ar icle.
”
Clearly
stating
a
claim
is
journalistic
best
practice,
as
it
allows
the
organization
the
opportunity
to
respond,
including
correcting
any
inaccurate
facts
or
statements.
If
you
were
truly
interested
in
Page
3
an
accurate
article,
you
would
fo ow
this
journa ist
best
practice,
and
the
norm
of
any publication
that
holds
itself
to
responsible
journalism.
2.
In
the
limited
interactions
with
my
clients,
based
on
the
questions
of
your
journalist,
he
has
already
stated
half
a
dozen
errors
in
his
understanding
of
the
“
facts
”
(They
are
highlighted
in
the
detailed
response
which
has
been
recently
submitted
to
your
journa ist
on
October
10
th
)
Our
concern
is
that
if
so
many
mistakes
can
be
made
through
a
series
of
basic
questions,
we
are
concerned
that
the
article
itself
will
be,
once
again,
riddled
with
inaccuracies.
Facts
and
accuracy
of
information
are
both
critical
elements
of
responsible
journalism.
y
clients
have
now
provided
your
journa ist
with
accurate
data
and
information
on
a
variety
of
topics.
However,
we
are
concerned
about
the
consistent
lack
of
attention
to
detail
of
your
journa ist
and
your
website
in
your
collection
and
use
of
facts.
There
are,
for
example,
serval
glaring
errors
in
his
questions
that
show
that
your
journa ist
lacks
basic
understanding
or,
at
the
very
least,
a
lack
of
attention
to
important
details.
An
inaccurate
reporting
of
“
facts
”
could
result
in
significant
damage
and
cause
irreparable
harm
to
the
good
works
of
my
c ients
’
organization
and
the
millions
of
young
people
we
have
the
privilege
to
serve
in
Canada
and
around
the
world.
3.
y
clients
have
also
taken
the
step
to
provide
your
journa ist
detailed
quotes
and
contact
details
of
key
people
who
are
fami iar
with
their
work.
y
clients
previously
requested
if
your
journa ist
wanted
to
have
any
interviews
set
up
for
him,
providing
a
balanced
perspective
on
important
issues,
and
your
journa ist
did
accept
this
offer.
y
clients
have,
as
a
result,
now
pro-actively
provided
your
journa ist
with
this
information,
in
the
hopes
that
Canadaland
will
seek
to
either
quote
and/or
contact
these
sources
to
have
a
fair
and
balanced
article.
True
and
fair
journa ism
would
be
done
without
bias
or
malice,
in
the
spirit
of
wanting
to
collect
as
much
information
as
possible,
attention
to
detail
on
facts,
and
allowing
fair
opportunity
for
comment.
Allow
us
to
reiterate
the
following
requests:
A.
Request
for
the
basis
of
claim(s)
by
your
publication,
your
journa ist
and/or
others:
It
is
the
right
of
my
clients
to
know,
understand
and
given
an
opportunity
to
respond
to
the
exact
nature
of
any
claim(s).
In
the
interest
of
fair
and
balanced
reporting,
Canadaland
needs
to
provide
the
specific
claims
beingmade
by
either
your
publication
and/or
your
journa ist
and/or
others
associated
with
the
article
and
my
clients
need
to
have
the
opportunity
to
respond
appropriately.
It
is
reasonable
to
provide
my
clients
with
a
72-hour
window
of
time
to
answer
any
claims.
oreover,
they
are
provided
with
adequate
context
and
basis
to
these
claims
or
accusations,
and
that
any
claim
is
c ear
whereby
they
are
not
shrouded
in
innuendo.
Refusal
shows
a
lack
of
journa istic
integrity
and
that
your
website
has
little
interest
in
the
truth.
It
further
shows
that
you
and
your
team
are
acting
with
malice.