CALGARY — Opening remarks were heard in Caylan Ford’s defamation trial in Calgary on Tuesday.The former UCP candidate’s $7.65-million lawsuit is set to run for roughly three-and-a-half months and will possibly be one of the longest defamation trials on record in Canada. In addition to defamation, Ford is pursuing claims of intrusion upon seclusion — a privacy-related tort — and deliberate infliction of mental suffering.The suit names several defendants including political activist and former Conservative candidate Karim Jivraj, the Broadbent Institute, Press Progress, the CBC, the Toronto Star, among others. Richard E. Harrison, lead counsel for Ford, opened by telling the court the scope of the alleged defamation in Ford’s lawsuit was unlike anything seen in Canada, arguing it far outweighs that which occurred in the infamous Kent v. Martin case.Harrison added that in that case, Kent was compared to a “dud” while Ford was “labeled a white supremacist" in this instance. He said Press Progress was ideologically driven and reckless, arguing it was “yellow journalism” and alleging it lacked proper editorial safeguards at the time the articles he alleges defamed his client were published.He said the publication compared the plaintiff’s comments and ideology to the Christchurch, New Zealand mosque terrorist attacker's..Former UCP candidate Caylan Ford’s defamation trial to begin in Calgary.Ford’s counsel also stated evidence would later be presented in the trial showing the alleged defamation caused lasting psychological harm, devastating effects on her career, and serious damage to her personal life, which caused her marriage and friendships to fall apart and ended "any chance she would ever have to enter civil society again.”Harrison argued the burden at the trial will be for the defendants to prove “every single defamatory sentence in their publications is true." Ford’s counsel told the court that Jivraj was the primary source behind the allegations about her that were later published by several defendants.Harrison argued media outlets relied on selected excerpts of private Facebook Messenger conversations provided by Jivraj, which he said lacked important context and were not independently verified. He also suggested Jivraj had personal motives following a breakdown in his relationship with Ford and said reporters should have treated him as a motivated source whose claims required greater scrutiny.Jivraj was described as “a unique individual in the worst connotation” as well as being “obsessive” and “conniving.” It was claimed the defendant was influenced by the TV show House of Cards and Machiavellian philosophy with regards to his political pursuits.The plaintiff’s counsel also argued Jivraj initially had romantic feelings for Ford that were not reciprocated and that the relationship later deteriorated after Ford discovered he had made allegations about her to another political figure. Harrison suggested Jivraj’s motives later turned malicious and that he sought “power over people,” eventually placing Ford “in his crosshairs.”He also argued Ford was particularly vulnerable because she did not have copies of the private messages Jivraj circulated. Harrison alleged that none of the defendants accurately contextualized Ford’s words and that key reporting relied heavily on material provided by Jivraj consisting of a series of private Facebook Messenger conversations used to portray her as a white supremacist.He added that outlets failed to adequately corroborate the claims before publishing and said only the CBC made any significant updates to its reporting after publication. Ford’s lawyer also argued that the Toronto Star published multiple articles falsely portraying his client as "promoting white supremacy," claims he said were repeated widely online and in print despite never explaining exactly how she supposedly did so..EXCLUSIVE: How a Conservative candidate worked with the NDP to bring down star UCP candidate.He told the court the articles misrepresented Ford’s private messages and omitted context where she denounced white supremacy.Harrison also argued the outlet failed to properly include Ford’s response before publication, and repeated the same allegations across multiple stories in a way he said demonstrated “recklessness” that could amount to “malice.”Harrison further argued that journalist Emma McIntosh and lawyer Avnish Nanda — who wrote a piece for the Edmonton Journal and made multiple social media posts — echoed one another online to amplify defamatory statements about the plaintiff.Regarding McIntosh, it was argued that her comments were driven “by rage,” and regarding Nanda, it was argued there was sheer recklessness in how he operated. Harrison said Nanda had roughly 70 individual social media publications in which he repeatedly called the plaintiff a white supremacist.He added Nanda never spoke to Ford before publishing any of the materials and that Ford asked to meet him for coffee for a dialogue but he declined.Counsel Perry Mack — representing the Broadbent Institute, a think tank whose independent news division is Press Progress — told the court the case centres on a March 18, 2019 Press Progress article that he said accurately quoted Ford’s own words from Facebook messages discussing issues such as immigration and demographic change.The defence argued that “you cannot be defamed by your own words,” stating the excerpts published by Press Progress were not altered, edited, or taken out of context.It was argued that since Ford was running as a UCP candidate at the time of the controversy, the comments were a matter of public interest. The defence also said Ford was given multiple opportunities to respond to Press Progress but declined to do so.Jivraj was also described as a “red herring” for the court and “a conduit” who provided the messages to reporters, and the defence maintained the media had both the right and duty to report on statements by someone seeking public office.Mack argued that if Ford had provided any sort of context to comments that were obtained by Press Progress, the outcome may have been different. The trial is set to continue over the next several months at the Court of King's Bench.
