FASKEN
Fasken
Martineau uMoulin
LLP
Barristers
and Solicitors Patent and Trade-mark
Agents 333
Bay
Street,
Suite
24
P.O. Box
2
Toronto, Ontario
M5H
2T5
Canada
T
1
416
366
8381
1
8
268
8424
F
1
416
364
7813
fasken com
October 12,
2018
Peter A Downard
Direct 1
416 865 4369 pdownard@fasken.com www.fasken.com/en/peter-downard
VI EM IL
Mr. Jaren Kerr Canadaland 399-401
Richmond Street
West
Toronto,
Ontario M5V
3A8 Mr. Jesse Brown Canadaland 399-401 Richmond Street West Toronto,
Ontario M5V
3A8
Dear
Mr.
Kerr
and Mr. Brown:
Re:
WE
Charity
Further to my
letter to Mr.
Kerr
of
yesterday's
date,
I
have
not heard
from your
legal
counsel.
I
understand,
however, that publication
of material
on your website regarding WE Charity
may be
imminent. Given these circumstances,
I
wish
to provide you with
concerns
I
have regarding your commitment
to
responsible journalism.
I
have reviewed Mr.
Chapman's
October 10 letter to Mr.
Brown and
1
agree with it. 1 have
also reviewed Mr.
Kerr's
various communications
with
Angie Gurley
of WE
Charity.
It
appears to
me
that Mr.
Kerr's
claims
of
his commitment to principles
of responsible
journalism are hollow, for at
least
two reasons.
First,
responsible journalism
is
not
a
poker game in which cards are held close to the chest.
It
is a
fundamental
principle
of
responsible journalism that where
a
journalist contemplates publishing
a
statement
of
fact which is defamatory
of the
subject
of
the statement, the
subject must be invited
to comment
on
th t st tement
before
it
is published. Mr. Kerr has
been asked by our client many
times
to do
this,
yet
he has
plainly
failed to
do
so.
In
addition,
a fair opportunity to comment
provides
a
reasonable time
within
which to comment. Mr.
Kerr's
extraordinary action of
putting
numerous questions
to our client
after 6:30 p.m.
on
the
Friday
before
a
long
weekend, coupled with
a
request that
they be
answered within one business day, demonstrates
a
complete
lack
of
understanding
of
the importance of this principle, which responsible journalists
understand to
be necessary to promote accuracy and
fairness.
FASKEN
Though repeated
requests for clarification on
any
allegations made against WE
Charity were ignored, WE
Charity has
fully
cooperated at
every
stage
throughout this process and
provided over 100 pages
of
transparent information
in
a
professional maimer.
This
professionalism has
not
been
reciprocated. Despite ignoring principles of responsible journalism,
at
the
last minute you requested
the Co-founders of WE Charity to appear on
your
podcast without
any
information or context
on
the nature of the allegations
or
claims
you
would
be
making.
Second, the
highest standards of verification
are
necessary
in
this case, having
regard to
the
potential harm
that
may be
done
to
WE Charity through the publication
of
false,
misleading
or decontextualized information which
may
damage WE Charity and
the
achievement of
its social
mission.
It
is well
established that the
more
serious
a
defamatory statement, the
more
thorough the
efforts at
verification must
be.
Mr.
Kerr's
communications
with
Ms.
Gurley clearly
demonstrate
a
readiness to
rely
on sources
of
information
who may
obviously have
a
bias
or
axe
to
grind ,
in a
manner that is completely inconsistent with appropriate standards
of
verification.
Mr.
Kerr
also
appears to
be
very ready
to
utilize confidential sources. Responsible joumalists know
that
anonymous sources are only to
be used
as a
last resort, particularly where
harm to a person or
organization defamed
may be
very serious. There
should be no
doubt
that in this
case the damage would
be
enormous.
It
would be reflected in a
court's
award of monetary compensation
to
WE Charity.
WE
Charity's
great
prominence
as
an
enormously successful organization,
the
importance
of
WE
Charity's
reputation
for
the achievement
of
its mission, the extraordinary ubiquity of your
material's
mass
publication through Internet
channels, the disregard of adequate principles
of
verification
and
the
inappropriate
use of biased and anonymous sources would drive
a
very large award of
general,
aggravated, special,
and
very possibly, punitive damages.
Yours
truly,
Peter A. Downard
%