Patrick Brown v. CTV statement of defence

Court File No.: 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 STATEMENT OF DEFENCE OF THE NAMED DEFENDANTS

1.

The The defe defenda ndant nts, s, CTV, CTV, a div divis isio ion n of Bell Bell Medi Mediaa Inc. Inc. (“CT (“CTV” V”), ), Bell Bell Medi Mediaa Inc Inc..

(“Bell Media”), Wendy Freeman (“Freeman”), Lisa LaFlamme (LaFlamme”), Glen

-2-

2.

The The Nam Named ed Defen Defenda dant ntss hav havee no no know knowle ledge dge or insu insuff ffic icie ient nt know knowle ledg dgee of the the

allegations contained in paragraphs 2 and 4 of the Statement of Claim.

3.

The The Nam Named ed Defen Defenda dants nts othe otherw rwis isee deny deny the alleg allegat atio ions ns conta contain ined ed in the the

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  provide further particularization of their response to some of the specific allegations 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 claimed at paragraphs 1 and 78 of the Statement of Claim

The Named Defendants

4.

CTV, CTV, a divi divisi sion on of of Bel Belll Medi Mediaa Inc Inc., ., is is a Can Canad adian ian broa broadc dcas astt tele televi visi sion on netw networ ork k

headquartered in Toronto, Ontario, which produces, distributes and broadcasts, among other programs, CTV National News with Lisa LaFlamme. LaFlamme.

-3-

7.

CTV, CTV, CP24 CP24 and and Bel Belll Med Media ia engag engagee in broad broadca cast stin ing, g, as that that term term is is defi define ned, d, in

s. 1(1) of the Libel the Libel and Slander Act , R.S.O. 1990, c.L.12.

8.

At all all mat mater eria iall tim times es,, Bell Bell Medi Mediaa empl employ oyed ed the the foll follow owin ing g defe defend ndan ants ts in in the the

 positions indicated: (a)

Wend We ndy y Free Freema man, n, Pres Presid iden ent, t, CTV CTV New News; s;

(b) (b)

Lisa Lisa LaF LaFla lamm mme, e, Chi Chief ef New Newss Anch Anchor or and and Seni Senior or Edi Edito tor, r, CTV CTV Nat Natio iona nall  News;

(c) (c)

Glen Glen McG McGre rego gor, r, Senio Seniorr Poli Politi tica call Corr Corres espo ponde ndent nt,, CTV CTV News News;; and and

(d) (d)

Rach Rachel el Aiel Aiello lo,, Otta Ottawa wa New Newss Bur Burea eau u Onli Online ne Pro Produc ducer er,, CTV CTV News News..

(e) (e)

Trav Travis is Dhan Dhanra raj, j, News News Anc Ancho horr and and Rep Repor orte ter, r, CP24 CP24..

 January 24 Broadcast, Article and Social Media Postings

9.

On Janua January ry 24, 24, 2018 2018,, CTV CTV air aired ed the the broad broadcas castt compl complai aine ned d of of at at subsub-par parag agra raph ph

24(e) of the Statement of Claim, a news story that reported allegations of sexual

-4-

11.

The Named Named Defenda Defendants nts admit admit that that the the social social media media postin postings gs compla complaine ined d of at

sub-paragraphs 24(a) through (d) of the Statement of Claim were published/broadcast on or about January 24, 2018 (collectively, the “January 24 Social Media Posts”).

 January 25 Article, Broadcast and Social Media Postings

12. 12.

On Janua January ry 25, 25, 2018 2018,, CTV upd updat ated ed the the Janu January ary 24 Arti Articl clee foll follow owin ing g the the

 plaintiff’s announcement that he was resigning as leader of the Progressive P rogressive Conservative Party of Ontario (the “PCPO”) (the “January 24 Article (Updated January 25)”).

13.

Later Later on Januar January y 25, 25, 2018, 2018, CTV aired aired the the firs firstt broadc broadcast ast identi identifie fied d at paragra paragraph ph

39 of the Statement of Claim, a news story that reported developments since the January 24 Broadcast – including the plaintiff’s resignation as leader of the PCPO, comments 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

-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  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 Also on Februa February ry 13, 2018, 2018, CTV CTV publis published hed the articl articlee comp complai lained ned of at subsub-

 paragraph 24(j) of the Statement of Claim entitled, “Patrick Brown accusers stand by allegations”, on www.ctvnews.ca (the “February 1 3 Article”).

17.

The Named Named Defen Defendant dantss admit admit that that the the soci social al media media postin posting g compl complain ained ed of of at subsub-

 paragraphs 24(k) of the Statement of Claim was published/broadcast on or about January 25, 2018 (the “February 13 Tweet”).

 Plaintiff’s Claim with Respect to Social Media Postings is Statute-Barred

18.

The Named Named Defe Defenda ndants nts plea plead d that that the the plain plaintif tiff’ f’ss claim claim with with respe respect ct to to each each of the

-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 words complained of.

20.

In this this pleadi pleading, ng, all of the the word wordss compl complain ained ed of of in in the the State Statemen mentt of Claim Claim will will be

referred to as the “Broadcasts”.

21.

The Named Named Defe Defendan ndants ts will will refer refer to to the the entire entirety ty of the Broadc Broadcast astss at the trial trial of of

this action.

22.

The Named Named Defenda Defendants nts explici explicitly tly deny that the words words compla complaine ined d of of were were

falsely and maliciously broadcast or published as alleged in the Statement of Claim and  put the plaintiff to the strict proof thereof. thereof.

 Reporting Leading to the January 24 24 Broadcast Broadcast The Alleged BOIE Investigation Regarding Brown

-7-

25.

Dhanra Dhanrajj was was later later advise advised d by his source source that, that, as as a cond conditi ition on of of settl settleme ement nt with with the

Parliament Hill staffer, Brown had to provide:

26.

(a) (a)

an admi admiss ssio ion n of of gui guilt lt and and apo apolo logy gy by Brow Brown; n; and and

(b)

a finan nancial contributi ution.

This This info informa rmatio tion n was was sign signifi ificant cant to Dhan Dhanraj raj because because,, at that that time, time, Brown Brown had had

 been: (a) (a)

the the MP in in the the fede federa rall ridi riding ng of of Barr Barrie ie fro from m Janu January ary 23, 23, 2006 2006 thr throug ough h May 13, 2015;

(b)

the leader leader of the Progres Progressiv sivee Cons Conserv ervati ative ve Party Party of Ontari Ontario o sinc sincee May May 9, 2015;

(c) (c)

the the Memb Member er of of Prov Provin inci cial al Par Parli liam amen entt (“MP (“MPP” P”)) for for the the ridi riding ng of of Simc Simcoe oe  North since September 3, 2015; and

(d) (d)

the the Lead Leader er of of the the Oppo Opposi siti tion on in in Onta Ontari rio o sinc sincee Sept Septem embe berr 14, 14, 2015 2015;;

-8-

These allegations gave way to a new broad public awareness of the pervasiveness of  previously unreported sexual harassment and assault endured by women as a result of the actions of men who abused a bused their positions of authority.

30.

These These watersh watershed ed revela revelation tionss led led to many brave brave women women coming coming forwar forward d with with

their stories in what came to be known as the Me Too Movement.

The Allegations Against Brown Resurface

31.

As a resu result, lt, Dhanra Dhanrajj recal recalled led the allege alleged d BOIE BOIE incide incident nt that that one one of his sources sources

had recounted to him, discussed at paragraph 24 of this Statement of Defence.

32.

In Novembe Novemberr 2017, 2017, a diffe differen rentt sourc sourcee also also advi advised sed Dhanra Dhanrajj that that ther theree may may have have

 been an incident on a federal Progressive Conservative Youth Federation (“PCYF”) bus in 1999 that may have led to police involvement. CTV did not report on this incident  because it was unable to verify the allegation.

-9-

First Contact with Accuser 1

34.

These These alleg allegati ations ons led led Dhanr Dhanraj aj to enquir enquiree about about the the possib possibili ility ty of of inves investig tigati ating ng the 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 After making making it it known known that he want wanted ed to to discus discusss the the matt matter er furthe further, r, in in Decem December ber

2017, Dhanraj received a text message directly from Accuser 1. In a subsequent 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 at his house and asked her to perform oral sex on him.

36.

Dhanra Dhanrajj reque requeste sted d that that Accu Accuser ser 1 also also desc describ ribee the the incid incident ent in an emai email, l, whic which h

she did on January 8, 2018.

37.

Dhanra Dhanrajj repor reported ted his teleph telephone one conver conversati sation on and and Accuse Accuserr 1’s 1’s email email to his his

- 10 -

39. 39.

Betw Between een Dece Decemb mber er 2017 2017 and and midmid-Ja Janua nuary ry 2018 2018,, Dhanr Dhanraj aj mad madee a numbe numberr 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 while she was on holiday.

40.

On Dece December mber 6, 2017, 2017, Dhanraj Dhanraj partic participa ipated ted in a confere conference nce call call with with a number number of of

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 this Statement of Defence.

41.

On Janua January ry 20, 2018, 2018, Accus Accuser er 1 advis advised ed Dhan Dhanraj raj that that she she did did not not wish wish to cond conduct uct

a recorded interview. She advised Dhanraj in an email: … I was comfortable telling you my story. I don’t want to be video taped or anything. I hope you get the information you need but I have done all

- 11 -

 National News, is an experienced interviewer who routinely conducts important interviews for the network.

44.

LaFlam LaFlamme me cont contact acted ed Accus Accuser er 1 via via text text messag messagee on January January 22, 2018 2018 to reques requestt

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 disclosed to Dhanraj and specifically advised LaFlamme that: (a) (a)

on the the nig night ht in in ques questi tion on,, she she was was out out in Bar Barri riee with with a chi child ldhoo hood d frie friend nd (who was also friends with Brown) when they met up by chance with Brown;

(b) (b)

Brow Brown n inv invit ited ed them them to his hous housee for for an “aft “after er party party”; ”;

(c) (c)

Accu Accuse serr 1 had had bee been n drin drinki king ng that that even evenin ing; g;

(d) (d)

Brow Brown n was was not not dri drink nkin ing g and and was was “no “nott a dri drink nker er”; ”;

- 12 -

(h) (h)

this this mad madee her her fee feell uncom uncomfo fort rtab able le so so she she beca became me fra frant ntic ic and and ran ran out out of of Brown’s bedroom after five or ten minutes;

(i) (i)

she she met met up with with her her ffri rien end d in in ano anoth ther er room room and told told him him wha whatt had had happened because she had felt so uncomfortable;

(j) (j)

her her fri friend end wasn wasn’t ’t “conc “concer erne ned d about about it” it” beca becaus usee he was was “try “tryin ing g to get get into into  politics”, “he was just trying to be friends with [Brown]”;

(k) (k)

she she then then ran ran out out of of the the house house and and wen wentt to the home home of her best best frien friend d and and told her what happened because it was “so messed up”;

(l) (l)

she she was was “17, “17, 18 [y [years ears old] old]”” and and in high high scho school ol at the the tim time; e;

(m)

she had also also told told some some frie friends nds about about it it the the next next week, week, and they respond responded ed that “a lot of girls in Barrie think he’s a creep and some things have happened to them”;

(n) (n)

she she als also o tol told d her her “fam “famil ily” y” abou aboutt the the inci incide dent nt;;

- 13 -

45.

Accuse Accuserr 1’s 1’s stor story y was was corrob corrobora orated ted by a friend friend to whom whom Accuse Accuserr 1 desc describ ribed ed the the

incident, and later by another friend whose home Accuser 1 went to right after the incident.

The Parallel Investigation by the CTV Ottawa Bureau

46.

Unbekno Unbeknowns wnstt to Dhanra Dhanrajj (who (who was was foll followi owing ng up up on allega allegatio tions ns agai against nst Brown) Brown),,

CTV’s Ottawa Bureau had been aware of o f other, similar allegations about Brown.

47.

Prior Prior to joinin joining g CTV CTV in August August 2017, 2017, Aiell Aiello o had had worke worked d as a repo reporte rterr for for The

 Hill Times, Times, a twice weekly newspaper that covers Parliament, the federal government and federal politics. In the course of reporting for The Hill Times, Times, Aiello became aware of sexual misconduct allegations against Brown, although she never investigated them.

48.

While at The Hill Times, 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

- 14 -

51. 51.

As dis discu cuss ssed ed abov above, e, on on Dece Decemb mber er 6, 6, 2017, 2017, Aie Aiell llo o parti partici cipa pate ted d in a

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 second person with similar complaints against Brown.

52.

On that that day, day, Aiello Aiello contact contacted ed Accus Accuser er 2 and and advis advised ed her that that she she had had receive received d

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 meeting took took place place on Dece December mber 10, 2017 in Otta Ottawa. wa. Aiello Aiello and Accuse Accuserr 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 Janua January ry 4, 2018, 2018, Accuser Accuser 2 conta contacted cted Aiello Aiello to requ request est that that they they meet meet soon soon to to

- 15 -

The Accuser 2 Interviews

56. 56.

On Jan Janua uary ry 18, 18, 201 2018, 8, Acc Accus user er 2 met met wit with h Aiel Aiello lo and and McGr McGreg egor or at at a hote hotell 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) (a)

she she fir first st met met Brow Brown n in in the the autu autumn mn of of 2012, 2012, on a flig flight ht fro from m Otta Ottawa wa to to Toronto. On disembarking from the aircraft, Brown introduced himself as the MP for Barrie, as they left the aircraft and walked together through the airport;

(b) (b)

as they they reac reached hed the the airp airpor ort’ t’ss exit exit are area, a, Bro Brown wn off offer ered ed Acc Accus user er 2 a rid ridee home, but she declined on the basis that her parents were meeting her;

(c) (c)

that that nig night ht,, Brow Brown n dete determ rmin ined ed Acc Accus user er 2’s 2’s Face Faceboo book k acco accoun untt and and added added her as a “friend” on his Facebook account. He also messaged her about

- 16 -

(f) (f)

Brow Brown n resp respond onded ed tha thatt he did did have have such such an oppo opport rtuni unity ty and and arra arrang nged ed a meeting “right away” at his office in Ottawa;

(g) (g)

at the the int inter ervi view ew,, whic which h Accus Accuser er 2 did did not not fee feell was was “tho “thoro roug ugh”, h”, Bro Brown wn 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) (h)

Brow Brown n then then off offer ered ed her her a sum summe merr job job in his his Con Const stit itue uency ncy Offi Office ce in in Barrie;

(i) (i)

Accu Accuse serr 2’s 2’s impr impres essi sion on fro from m the the proce process ss was was tha thatt she she was was hire hired d “for “for her looks”;

(j) (j)

Accu Accuse serr 2’s 2’s job job in Bro Brown wn’s ’s const constit itue uency ncy offi office ce incl includ uded ed,, among among othe otherr things, helping to organize the 2013 Hockey Night in Barrie (“HNIB”) event which was followed by an after party at The Bank;

(k)

after after starti starting ng in her new role, role, Accuse Accuserr 2 Brown Brown engage engaged d in in “fli “flirta rtatio tious us

- 17 -

alcoholic beverages than she “could count”. Some of the drinks were  brought to her personally by Brown; (n) (n)

when when the the aft after er par party ty conc conclu luded ded,, Brow Brown n advi advise sed d Accus Accuser er 2 that that he was 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 others to his home in order to attend;

(o) (o)

when when they they arr arriv ived ed,, the party party was was “ver “very y crow crowded ded”. ”. Accu Accuse serr 2 cont contin inue ued d drinking red wine and began to “feel sick”. She believes that her drunkenness would have been obvious to anyone who spoke to her;

(p) (p)

Accu Accuse serr 2 reca recall lled ed that, that, at arou around nd 3:00 3:00 am am or 4:00 4:00 am, am, she she had had a discussion with Brown and a friend of his. In that discussion, Brown recounted a story of a trip that he had taken to Thailand where he had taken some photographs of himself with some tigers;

- 18 -

drop of alcohol all night”. She was uncertain on what to do about her  predicament; (t) (t)

by this this point point,, Accu Accuse serr 2 and and Bro Brown wn wer weree sit sitti ting ng side side by by sid sidee at the the foot foot of of Brown’s bed, when he began kissing Accuser 2. She “froze up”;

(u) (u)

Brow Brown n the then n laid laid Accu Accuse serr 2 on on the the bed bed and and cli climbe mbed d on top top of her; her;

(v) (v)

Accu Accuse serr 2 recal recalls ls maki making ng a cons consci ciou ouss effo effort rt not not to to move move her her mou mouth th.. 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 difficulties with her back);

(w)

Accuse Accuserr 2 emphas emphasized ized that that she she had had a “vivid “vivid memory memory of that that”, ”, as as her her “adrenaline was pumping”;

(x) (x)

Accu Accuse serr 2 fel feltt the the adva advanc nces es by by Brow Brown n were were “sexua “sexual” l”.. She She coul could d fee feell Brown’s erection on her legs while he was on top of her. It was her

- 19 -

(aa) (aa)

Accuse Accuserr 2 alleg alleged ed that that “that “that moment moment crys crystal talliz lized ed the the power power dynam dynamic ic that that was present in the situation”;

(bb) (bb)

being being concer concerned ned that that “the “the worst” worst” would would happen, happen, whil whilee Brown Brown was was stil stilll on top of her, Accuser 2 told Brown that she had a boyfriend and asked that she be taken home;

(cc) (cc)

Brown Brown then then drove drove Accuser Accuser 2 home. home. The journey journey was silent silent,, but but for for Brown asking Accuser 2 if she still “felt guilty about [her] boyfriend”;

(dd) (dd)

despit despitee signif significa icant nt apprehe apprehensi nsion on about about retur returnin ning g to work work the next next day, day, and after “lying in bed having a bit of a panic attack” and feeling overwhelmed and helpless, she did return to undertake her duties;

(ee) (ee)

Brown Brown call called ed her her the the next next day day to to enqui enquire re as as to whethe whetherr Accuse Accuserr 2 had “recovered” from her hangover;

(ff) (ff)

in the weeks weeks that that follow followed, ed, Accuse Accuserr 2 came came to the feeling feeling that that she she was was the

- 20 -

(iii (iii))

she she pref prefer erre red d to “ha “handl ndle” e” the the mat matte terr on her own, own, now now tha thatt she she knew that Brown “was willing to do this”. She simply decided that she would be more careful around him;

(hh) (hh)

Accuse Accuserr 2 had had felt felt “overw “overwhel helmed med”, ”, sayin saying, g, “I felt felt like like I was was in in over over my head and that I didn’t have the tools to handle the situation in any way. I felt pretty helpless and ... at a loss of what to do really”;

(ii) (ii)

approx approxima imatel tely y a week or two later, later, Brown Brown increas increased ed Accuser Accuser 2’s salary salary and asked her if she would accompany him (all expenses paid) to India in September. He remarked that she would “look really good on an elephant”;

(jj) (jj)

she report reported ed this this offer offer to to her her fath father er and, after after doin doing g so, so, brok brokee down down in tears and told him about the events of August 15/16, 2013 at the after after party;

- 21 -

he wished he could “find someone like [her] who was 26 or older to marry him”.

57.

Follow Following ing her video video inte intervi rview ew with with McGreg McGregor, or, Accuse Accuserr 2 prov provide ided d a seri series es of of

emails/messages from Brown corroborating: (a) (a)

her her init initia iall enc encou ount nter er with with Brow Brown n in in the the autu autumn mn of 2012 2012;;

(b) (b)

her her foll follow ow up up mess messag ages es wher wherei ein n she soug sought ht ass assis ista tanc ncee from from Brow Brown n with with respect to employment during the summer of 2013;

(c) (c)

the the fact fact tha thatt Accu Accuse serr 2 was, was, inde indeed ed,, empl employ oyed ed by Brow Brown n and and that that she she was was working on the HNIB event;

(d)

Brown own att atten ende ded d the the HNI HNIB af after ter par party ty;;

(e) (e)

Brow Brown n sen sentt ema email ilss iden identi tify fying ing Accus Accuser er 2 as as a “st “star ar”; ”;

(f) (f)

Brow Brown n engag engaged ed in in a flir flirta tati tious ous emai emaill exch exchan ange ge wit with h Accu Accuse serr 2 whe where rein in he he concludes the string by writing: “You know you are my favourite :) even

- 22 -

(b) (b)

thei theirr accou account ntss of what what Acc Accus user er 2 tol told d them them wer weree cons consis iste tent nt wit with h the the information provided by Accuser 2 to McGregor and Aiello in their interviews with her earlier in January 2018.

59. 59.

In addi additi tion, on, McGr McGrego egorr and and Aie Aiell llo o wer weree able able to confi confirm rm:: (a) (a)

Brow Brown n had had serv served ed as as an an MP for for Bar Barri riee for for the the perio period d Jan Janua uary ry 23, 23, 2006 2006 to May 13, 2015;

(b) (b)

Brow Brown n firs firstt made made con conta tact ct wit with h Accus Accuser er 2 by Face Facebo book ok on on Novem Novembe berr 2, 2012 @ 11:21 pm;

(c) (c)

Accu Accuse serr 2 sent sent a fol follo low w up Face Facebo book ok mes messag sagee to to Brow Brown n on Marc March h 5, 2013 seeking work opportunities;

(d) (d)

Accu Accuse serr 2’s 2’s unive univers rsity ity enrol enrollm lmen entt det detai ails ls in 2013; 2013;

(e) (e)

Accu Accuse serr 2’s 2’s empl employ oyme ment nt for for Bro Brown wn in the the sum summer mer of 2013; 2013;

- 23 -

(l) (l)

ther theree was was an aft after er aft after er par party ty at at Brow Brown’ n’ss hous housee foll follow owin ing g the the afte afterr party party at The Bank; and

(m)

four four peopl peoplee had had confi confirme rmed d that that Accu Accuser ser 2 had had told told them them about about the the events events of the after after party in the early morning ho urs of August 16, 2013.

60.

In the course course of underta undertakin king g thei theirr foll follow ow up up to the interv interview iew with with Accus Accuser er 2, 2,

McGregor and Aiello followed up with her by telephone, at least twice, to verify details that were coming out, including: (a) (a)

the the loca locati tion on of of Bro Brown wn’s ’s hom home, e, whi which ch mat match ched ed tha thatt of a home home tha thatt was was owned by Brown’s holding company in 2013 and had a mortgage registered against it by Brown;

(b) (b)

conf confir irmi ming ng tha thatt Accu Accuse serr 2 was not not pol polit itic ical ally ly acti active ve,, nor was was anyon anyonee in her family;

(c) (c)

conf confir irmi ming ng tha thatt she she did did not have have a cri crimi minal nal reco record rd (wh (whic ich h was was also also

- 24 -

62. 62.

On Janu January ary 24, 24, 2018, 2018, McG McGreg regor or dra draft fted ed an an emai emaill for for deli delive very ry to to Brow Brown n

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 that Brown participate in an on-camera interview.

63.

Given Given the sensit sensitive ive nature nature of the email, email, McGrego McGregorr sent sent it only to Brow Brown’s n’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 email on to Brown and his Chief of Staff, Alykhan Velshi.

The Response to the McGregor Email

64.

Later Later that that day, day, Jonat Jonathan han Lisu Lisus, s, counse counsell for for Patrick Patrick Brown, Brown, wrote wrote to to McGr McGrego egorr

indicating that Brown “categorically denies these false and defamatory allegations”.

- 25 -

 A couple of hours ago, I learned about troubling allegations about my conduct and character and I am here tonight to address them. First, I want to say these allegations are false. Categorically untrue, every one of them. I will defend myself as hard as I can with all means at my disposal. It’s never okay, it’s never okay for anyone to feel they have been a victim of sexual harassment or feel threatened in any way. Let me make this clear: A safe and respectful society is what we expect and deserve. And no one appreciates that more than I do. I’ve got two younger sisters who are my best friends and I have grown up in a family that has taught me good values. My values and beliefs are those that we need to move forward to eradicate sexual violence across the province, across the country, everywhere. I know the court of public opinion moves fast. I’ve instructed my attorneys to ensure that these allegations are addressed where they should be: in the court of law. In short, I reject these accusations in the strongest possible terms. It’s not my values. It’s not how I raised (sic). It’s not who I am.

67.

Brown Brown then left left the the podiu podium m with without out taking taking any questi questions ons and, and, just just before before

10:00 pm, released a statement similar to the remarks made at his press conference.

The Resignation of Brown’s Campaign Team

68. 68.

At app appro roxim ximat ately ely the the same same time time as as Brown Brown’s ’s pre press ss conf confer eren ence, ce, And Andre rew w

Boddington (Campaign Manager), Alykhan Velshi (Chief of Staff) and Dan Robertson (Deputy Campaign Manager (Strategy)) issued a joint statement, as follows: Earlier today, all three of us became aware of allegations about Patrick

- 26 -

 Brown’s Early Morning Resignation of January 25, 2018

70.

Follow Following ing the resigna resignatio tion n of his core core campa campaign ign team, team, at at appro approxima ximatel tely y 1:20 1:20 am

on January 25, 2018, Brown released a public statement stating that he had “decided to step down as Leader of the Ontario PC Party”.

 Events After After the January 24 24 Broadcast Broadcast  Additional Reports by Others about Brown’s Conduct

71.

Once Once the the alleg allegati ations ons of Accu Accuser ser 1 and and Accus Accuser er 2 became became public, public, a sign signifi ificant cant

amount of information come to the fore about other alleged past conduct of Brown.

72. 72.

One One of the the devel developm opmen ents ts invo involv lved ed Lis Lisaa MacL MacLeo eod, d, then then the the PC PC MPP for for Nepe Nepean an--

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 P CPO handles allegations of this nature.

- 27 -

The Impact of the Reports on the Accusers and their Responses

75.

Follow Following ing the January January Broadc Broadcast asts, s, Accuser Accuserss 1 and 2 endur endured ed a signif significa icant nt

 backlash as a result of coming c oming forward. Attempts were made to discredit them, confirm their identities and publicize their names online through various conventional and social media channels.

76.

To addr address ess this this backl backlash ash,, on Februa February ry 13, 13, 2018, 2018, Accuse Accuserr 1 releas released ed a statem statement ent

stating as follows: I stand absolutely by the truth of what I said to CTV. 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 made about me on social media were demeaning, victimblaming and misogynistic. My privacy was invaded, my character was assassinated, and I was subjected to gratuitous slurs about my private life and relationships.

- 28 -

77.

At the the same same time, time, in in respo response nse to Accus Accuser er 1 subseq subsequent uently ly real realizin izing g that that she was

over 18 years old at the time of the incident involving her, Accuser 1’s lawyer, David Butt, released the following statement: 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.

78. 78.

Accu Accuse serr 2 rele releas ased ed a stat statem emen entt on on the the same same day stati stating ng:: Having read the statements made by Patrick Brown to Postmedia and in his Facebook post over the weekend, I continue to stand by the detailed account of these events that I have previously provided to CTV.

Words Complained of Are Not Defamatory

79.

The Named Named Defe Defendan ndants ts stat statee that that the the word wordss compl complain ained ed of of did did not and were were not not

capable of bearing and could not be understood to bear the defamatory meanings complained of or any defamatory meanings.

 Justification of Lesser Meaning

- 29 -

(b) Brown had engaged in or attempted to engage in sexual relations relations with Accuser 1 and Accuser 2, women several years younger than he was, when they were inebriated and in positions subordinate to his; and/or

(c) Brown Brown was known by several people people in the Barrie community community to have had sexual relations with and/or to have romantically pursued women many years younger than he was and that in such meanings the Broadcasts are true, or substantially true, in substance and in fact, and the expressions exp ressions of opinion, if any, are subject to fair comment.

Fair Comment

81.

The Named Named Defend Defendants ants plead plead that that comme comments nts in the Articl Articles es consti constitut tutee vali valid d

 political commentary on investigative news reporting on matters of significant public 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,

- 30 -

complained of to the public, who had a corresponding interest in receiving the information contained in the Broadcasts.

 Responsible Communication

83.

In addi additio tion n to the plea plea of qualif qualified ied privil privilege ege set out in in the preced preceding ing paragr paragraph aph,,

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 the defence of responsible communication as affirmed by the Supreme Court of Canada in 2009. In particular:

(a) (a)

the the cond conduc uctt and and char charac acter ter of a pol polit itic icia ian n seek seeking ing to beco become me the the prem premie ierr of Canada’s largest province is a matter of significant public importance;

(b) (b)

over over the the cou cours rsee of many many week weeks, s, dif diffe fere rent nt Bel Belll Medi Mediaa repo report rter erss were were independently advised of serious allegations of sexual misconduct on the

- 31 -

credibility were thoroughly verified and corroborated prior to any of the Broadcasts;

(e)

the Named Named Defe Defendan ndants ts put detail detailed ed questi questions ons to the plaint plaintiff iff prior prior to any of the Broadcasts, which included particulars of the allegations made by Accuser 1 and Accuser 2;

(f) (f)

the the plai plaint ntif ifff did did not not agre agreee to an an inte interv rvie iew w with with the the Nam Named ed Def Defen endan dants ts,,  provide a substantive response to their questions and allegations, or 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 January 24 Broadcast, and, subsequently, gave interviews to other media outlets;

(g)

the plaint plaintiff iff’s ’s side side of of the the story story was accura accuratel tely y and fairly fairly report reported, ed, including by prominently reporting that he categorically denied the

- 32 -

woman who felt that he had used his position of power over them to  pressure them into sexual relationships or acts.

 Proper Exercise of Journalistic Practice

84.

The Named Named Defe Defendan ndants ts deny deny all allega allegatio tions ns of of malic malicee and, and, with without out limiti limiting ng the

generality of the foregoing, state that they employed proper and accepted journalistic  practices and conducted themselves as responsible communicators in publishing the Broadcasts.

85.

Furthe Further, r, the Named Named Defenda Defendants nts deny that that they they have acted acted in in a manner manner which which

would attract punitive and/or aggravated damages or costs on a substantial indemnity  basis, as pled in the Statement of Claim, and put the plaintiff to the strict proof thereof. thereof.

 Damages

86.

The Named Named Defe Defendan ndants ts deny that that the the plaint plaintiff iff has suffer suffered ed any damage damagess as

alleged in the Statement of Claim as a result of the Broadcasts and put the plaintiff to the

- 33 -

89.

In the the alter alternat native ive,, if the plai plainti ntiff ff has has suff suffere ered d any damages damages as alleg alleged ed (whic (which h is

expressly denied) such damages are not due to any publication of the Broadcasts and in any event are excessive and too remote or both.

90.

In the furthe furtherr alter alternati native, ve, the Named Named Defe Defenda ndants nts state state that that any harm 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) (a)

Brow Brown’ n’ss Feb Febru ruary ary 15, 2018 2018 sta state teme ment nt tha thatt his his Janua January ry 25, 25, 2018 2018 resignation had been released without his permission;

(b) (b)

Onta Ontari rio’ o’ss

Integ Integri rity ty

Comm Commis issi sion oner er’s ’s

ann announ ounce ceme ment nt

tha thatt

he

was was

commencing an investigation into Brown’s alleged failure to disclose rental income, a mortgage loan given to him by a candidate to be an MPP

- 34 -

(d)

the Integr Integrity ity Commis Commissio sioner ner’s ’s finding finding that that Brow Brown n had had failed failed to proper properly ly disclose rental income and the mortgage loan and recommendation that he be reprimanded for these failures, while clearing him of an allegation that he had failed to disclose gifts of travel.

Failure to Mitigate

91.

In the the furt further her alte alterna rnativ tive, e, the the Name Named d Defen Defendant dantss state state that that the the plain plaintif tifff was was able able

to and failed to mitigate any damages which he may have suffered (such damages being expressly denied by the Named Defendants).

Charter Protected Right to Freedom of Expression

92. 92.

The The Name Named d Def Defen endan dants ts plea plead d and and rely rely on sec secti tion on 2(b 2(b)) of the the Charter of Rights

and Freedoms 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 form of political commentary in the public interest.

- 35 -

SCHEDULE "A"

 S/C  Para.  No.

7

Fact / Allegation

Response

“… the defendants’ … reporting has subverted the democratic process in Ontario and has altered, for the foreseeable future, the political landscape and governance of Ontario.”

The Named Defendants disagree entirely. They have, in fact, exercised their section 2(b) Charter   right to freedom of expression by reporting on responsibly obtained information 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 manner that conceals LaFlamme’s role in any on-tape or other interviews with Accuser 1 and Accuser 2 in an attempt to, among other things, lead viewers to believe that LaFlamme was more independent in relation to her reporting on Mr. Brown than in fact she was.”

This is a perplexing assertion. There is nothing inappropriate about LaFlamme directing or participating in any aspect of the reporting for or production of CTV broadcasts or web postings. In fact, this is a normal part of LaFlamme’s job as Senior News Editor and Chief News Anchor of CTV National News.

14

“The January 24 Broadcast was edited in a manner that suggests that only McGregor conducted on-tape interviews of Accuser 1 and Accuser 2.”

McGregor was, indeed, involved in the on-tape interview of Accuser 2. In fact, he was the main interviewer. There is nothing in the Broadcast that suggests the same was true for Accuser 1.

22

“The defendants, alone and together, falsely, falsel y, maliciously, unfairly and irresponsibly broadcast and  published the Defamatory Words.”

There are no facts to suggest that the defendants acted in this manner – and no such particulars are pleaded in this respect. The Named Defendants will put Brown to the strict proof of this allegation at trial.

- 36 -

 S/C  Para.  No.

Fact / Allegation

Response

49

“… the defendants knew or ought to have known that the Defamatory Words would subvert the democratic  process in Ontario.” Ontario.”

See response to paragraph 7 of the Statement of Claim.

50

“The defendants showed Accuser 1’s and Accuser 2’s faces in shadow, warned viewers of graphic content, and in respect of Accuser 2, cut to McGregor as interviewer, nodding with a serious expression on his face, all of which cast Mr. Brown in the worst possible light to viewers.”

Accuser 1’s face was not depicted at all. Accuser 2’s face was shown in silhouette format because she would only agree to be interviewed on-camera if her privacy was respected. This is not an unusual or unreasonable request for someone who claims to have been the victim of sexual 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 mere hours before the scheduled January 24 Broadcast, requesting a last-minute on-camera interview …

Brown was able to provide his response through his counsel, Jonathan Lisus – who denied the allegations on behalf of his 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 comprehensively in the broadcasts and in the online stories.

54

“The defendants placed Mr. Brown in a position of obvious unfairness, guaranteeing that he only had time

Although Brown’s lawyer was able to respond to McGregor’s email detailing the allegations brought forward by Accuser 1

- 37 -

 S/C  Para.  No.

Fact / Allegation

to issue a blanket denial of the false and defamatory allegations.”

Response

and Accuser 2, at no time did Brown request additional time to 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 time to respond, would have been able to advise the defendants that the day after the alleged event Accuser 2 was smiling and giggly as she told a co-worker friend that she had kissed Mr. Brown and that she was adamant that nothing else happened.

See response to paragraph 54 of the Statement of Claim.

56

“… by referencing Mr. Brown’s blanket denial in the January 24 Broadcast, the defendants created the impression that the Defamatory Words and the innuendo arising from them are true and that Mr. Brown was, in fact, given a reasonable opportunity to respond, but was unwilling or unable to.”

A blanket denial was the only response provided by Brown to the allegations by (a) his counsel, Jonathan Lisus; and (b) Brown himself in the press conferences that he convened on January 24 and 25, 2018.

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

Moreover, there has never been an assertion by anyone that Accuser 2 was “smiling and giggly” on reporting to a co-worker that she had kissed Brown and that “nothing else happened”. This is in complete contradiction to all of the information that the Named Defendants have been made aware of.

- 38 -

 S/C  Para.  No.

Fact / Allegation

Response

specific details of his version of the same incident. 58

“The defendants … proceeded with the January 24 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.”

See response to paragraph 54 of the Statement of Claim.

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 … 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 deliverin g 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 eyedefendants 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 independently confirmed details from: o interviews with witnesses, o contemporaneous social media postings, and

See response to paragraph 54 of the Statement of Claim.



 

- 39 -

 S/C  Para.  No.

Fact / Allegation

Response o

71

72(a)

 public records. records.

“... There was no urgency in broadcasting broadcastin g and The Named Defendants had verified the allegations to the point  publishing the Defamatory Words 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. “[The defendants failed to disclose that] Aiello and Accuser 2 were co-workers at The Hill Times, a  politics and government 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 …”

The Named Defendants cannot comment on discussions with confidential confidential sources.

- 40 -

July 6, 2018

BERSENAS JACOBSEN CHOUEST THOMSON BLACKBURN LLP

Barristers, Solicitors 33 Yonge Street, Suite 201 Toronto, Ontario M5E 1G4 Peter M. Jacobsen LSO#: 17803P Tel: 416-982-3804 Fax: 416-982-3801 Email: [email protected] Email: [email protected] Carlos P. Martins Martins LSO#: 37916B Tel: 416-982-3808 Fax: 416-982-3801 Email: [email protected] Lawyers for the Named Defendants TO:

JULIAN PORTER, Q.C.

Suite 1600, 1 First Canadian Place 100 King Street West Toronto, ON M5X 1G5 Julian Porter LSO# 10104E Tel: 416-862-4297 Fax: 416-862-7661 Email: [email protected] Email: [email protected]

BROWN Plaintiff 

and

CTV. a division of BELL MEDIA INC., et al. Defendants

Court File No.: CV-18-00000629-0000

ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

Proceeding commenced at BARRIE

STATEMENT OF DEFENCE OF THE NAMED DEFENDANTS

BERSENAS JACOBSEN CHOUEST THOMSON BLACKBURN LLP

Barristers, Solicitors 33 Yonge Street, Suite 201 Toronto, Ontario M5E 1G4 Peter M. Jacobsen Jacobsen LSO#: 17803P 17803P Carlos P. Martins Martins LSO#: 37916B 37916B Tel: 416-982-3800 Fax: 416-982-3801 Lawyers for the Named Defendants