CALGARY — Closing arguments in former UCP candidate Caylan Ford’s $7.65-million defamation lawsuit against the CBC, PressProgress, the Toronto Star, and other defendants wrapped up on Friday, with counsel for the outlets arguing that their clients’ reporting was protected under Canadian defamation law and that Ford’s political party played a significant role in her resignation.In 2019, Ford — who was nominated to run for the UCP in the riding of Calgary-Mountain View — was the subject of a campaign that used private Facebook Messenger conversations between her and another defendant, former political strategist Karim Jivraj. .Opening statements heard in Caylan Ford defamation trial against CBC, Press Progress, Toronto Star, others.Ford alleges the conversations were selectively presented and taken out of context, resulting in her being portrayed as a “white supremacist” and as holding “racist” views.Following the publication of the articles, Ford resigned her candidacy and has since said the debacle destroyed her political career and severely damaged her personal and professional life.However, in their closing arguments, legal counsel for PressProgress, the CBC, and the Toronto Star told presiding Justice Lorena Harris that the defendants’ reporting concerned matters of legitimate public interest and was protected by defences that include justification, fair comment, and responsible communication..'OUTRIGHT LIES': Caylan Ford tells court Jivraj spread false claims during UCP race, later alleged assault .Perry Mack, counsel for the Broadbent Institute, whose news division is PressProgress, argued the case was fundamentally about politics and the consequences of Ford’s own actions and statements.He added that the UCP’s decision to distance itself from Ford after her messages with Jivraj became public, rather than defend her, prevented an “academic political discussion” about the meaning of Ford’s remarks.“It’s not the job of the courts to make politics nice,” Mack said, adding that PressProgress’ publications had accurately reproduced Ford’s own words.“The true source of the article(s) is Caylan Ford herself,” Mack argued.“We published an article that says, ‘these are her words and this is what she said.’ That’s what we said.”.Kenney denies Caylan Ford was 'handpicked', says racism claims were ‘completely absurd’.The defence also pointed out that the UCP had a practice of avoiding contact with PressProgress, arguing that Ford and her campaign had opportunities to respond to the allegations.Ford’s lead counsel, Richard E. Harrison, has previously argued before the court that Jivraj deliberately selected excerpts from the conversations to place Ford under scrutiny and create a damaging political narrative before giving them to former PressProgress editor-in-chief Luke LeBrun.LeBrun had also previously told the court that he had never personally asked Jivraj for the full conversation between himself and Ford, although he maintained that his publication had verified the authenticity of the messages before reporting them..Former UCP insider crafted 'bombshell' stories, selected evidence for 'devastating' impact on Caylan Ford.Ford’s legal team has maintained that PressProgress and the other media outlets failed to adequately scrutinize Jivraj’s motivations despite a large amount of evidence pointing to a personal dispute between him and Ford, and the selective publication of excerpts from the conversations creating a distinct misrepresentation of Ford’s beliefs. Counsel for the CBC put forward a defence based in part on the distinction between statements of fact and expressions of opinion, adding that the contested descriptions should be understood as editorial opinions.The public broadcaster also relied on the legal defence of fair comment, under which opinions on matters of public interest can receive protection even when expressed in strong or exaggerated language.On Thursday, Ford, who was live-tweeting the proceedings, claimed that CBC counsel had acknowledged that several statements made about her — some of which were news headlines — were not true.These included “Star UCP candidate who resigned over white supremacist comments also questioned value of Pride parades,” “Ford lamented that white supremacist terrorists face a double standard compared to Islamic terrorists,” and “White supremacist and homophobic posts force UCP candidates out,” among others..“CBC now says that their assertions about me were actually just comments or expressions of opinions, rather than objectively true facts,” Ford said.“They say that readers would understand that the statements and news headlines in question are actually editorial opinions, rather than factual reporting.”On Friday, Justin Manoryk, counsel for the Star, argued that the publication’s coverage was mainly about Ford’s resignation and developments during the 2019 Alberta provincial election, rather than an investigation into her personal beliefs or political ideology.Manoryk stated that the Star distinguished between describing Ford’s statements as promoting “white supremacist” ideas and labelling Ford herself a “white supremacist.”.EXCLUSIVE: Lukaszuk named as early source for NDP-linked outlet in Caylan Ford trial.He then told Justice Harris that Ford had declined opportunities to provide additional commentary on her statements and instead directed journalists to her public resignation letter or offered to answer their questions in writing.It was also put to the court that the Star was not required to review months of private correspondence between Ford and Jivraj before reporting on Ford’s unexpected resignation as a prominent political candidate.On the topic of damages, the Star’s legal team argued that even if the publication or Emma McIntosh — a journalist formerly employed by the Star — were found liable for defamation, any financial award should be “nominal.”Amy Cooper, a member of the Star’s legal team, also said that Ford’s claimed loss of future political income couldn’t be attributed to the Star or McIntosh because Ford had already resigned as a UCP candidate before either had published the statements in question.“Whether she chose to or she was forced to, she resigned, and that had nothing to do with either the Star or McIntosh,” Cooper told Justice Harris..EXCLUSIVE: Press Progress editor admits he didn’t verify full messages in Caylan Ford saga.Cooper also argued that the social media posts in question, made by McIntosh, had not been authorized by the Star and had been published voluntarily on McIntosh's personal account.Cooper added that Ford had failed to establish malice or justify punitive damages against either the Star or McIntosh and argued that the claims against her clients should be dismissed entirely.However, in rebuttal, Ford's legal team rejected the argument that the damage caused by the publications could be divided among the defendants, maintaining that each article contributed to the destruction of her reputation.Ford’s team also pointed to the absence of retractions by the defendants, arguing that the court should consider the seriousness of the allegations, the extent of their publication and the lasting effect on Ford's reputation when assessing damages.Justice Harris is now expected to deliver judgment at an unspecified time.
