Court File No.

CV-19-613488-0000

ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
B E T W E E N:

VICTOR FEDELI

Plaintiff

and

PATRICK BROWN, OPTIMUM PUBLISHING INTERNATIONAL,

JF MOORE LITHOGRAPHERS INC. and DEAN BAXENDALE

Defendants

STATEMENT OF DEFENCE

1. The Defendants, Optimum Publishing International (“Optimum”), JF Moore

Lithographers Inc. (“JF Moore”) and Dean Baxendale (“Baxendale”) (collectively, the

“Optimum Defendants”) admit the allegations contained in paragraphs 3 (except that the plaintiff

is a philanthropist and was a business owner and employer in North Bay, of which the Optimum

Defendants have no knowledge), 5-6, 7 (except that Baxendale’s responsibility for Optimum’s

publications, website and social media accounts is in his capacity as officer and director of

Optimum and not in his personal capacity), 8, 9, 31 and 32 of the Statement of Claim.

2. The Optimum Defendants have no knowledge in respect of the allegations contained in

paragraphs 10-13, 21-23, 27-30 of the Statement of Claim and accordingly deny them.

3. Except as expressly admitted hereinafter, the Optimum Defendants deny all other

allegations in the Statement of Claim and put the plaintiff to the strict proof thereof.
 2

The Optimum Defendants

4. JF Moore is an Ontario corporation.

5. Optimum Publishing International is not a corporation but rather the operating name for JF

Moore’s publishing business. Since the 1970s, Optimum has published award-winning books on a

variety of topics of public interest including Canadian and international politics, organized and

corporate crime, and social and political justice.

6. Baxendale is the President and CEO of JF Moore. His career in publishing, printing,

marketing, graphic design and advertising has spanned decades. At all material times he acted

within the scope of his duties for and on behalf of JF Moore, and not in his personal capacity.

The Publication of Takedown

7. On or about November 14, 2018, JF Moore/Optimum published the book Takedown: The

Attempted Political Assassination of Patrick Brown (“Takedown”), authored by the defendant,

Patrick Brown.

8. In short, Takedown sets out Brown’s understanding and description of the events,

circumstances, dealings and individuals that led to an unprecedented and shocking political event:

his forced removal as leader of the Progressive Conservative Party of Ontario (“PCPO”), just 170

days before the provincial election that the PCPO was widely expected to win (and eventually did).

In so doing, Takedown provides an insider’s perspective and reflections on the political

machinations and motivations behind Brown’s ouster and the subsequent jockeying for who would

become the next Premier of Ontario.

 3

The Words Complained Of are not defamatory

9. The Optimum Defendants deny that the Words Complained Of (as defined in the Statement

of Claim and, for further clarity, including those words set out at paragraph 24 of the Statement of

Claim) are defamatory of and concerning the plaintiff, Victor Fedeli (“Fedeli”).

10. The Optimum Defendants deny that the Words Complained Of, taken in their entirety, and

in their plain and ordinary meaning, or by innuendo, bear or were capable of bearing the

defamatory meanings alleged by Fedeli, or any defamatory meaning whatsoever of and concerning

Fedeli.

11. In assessing the meanings of the Words Complained Of set out in Schedule “A” of the

Statement of Claim, and in support of the various defences particularized herein, the Optimum

Defendants rely on the full context of the Words Complained Of (including the full text of

Takedown) and not just those passages or “items” that comprise the Words Complained Of.

12. In the alternative, the Optimum Defendants further plead the defences of justification, fair

comment, responsible journalism and/or qualified privilege, all as particularized below.

13. Takedown, and specifically the Words Complained Of, are expressions relating to matters

of substantial public interest. There is a strong public interest in seeing and understanding how our

political institutions function, including how those in political parties seek to secure and maintain

political power.

14. The specific matters of public interest engaged by the publication of Takedown and the

Words Complained Of include: understanding the events surrounding Brown’s forced removal as

leader of the PCPO and the appointment of a new PCPO leader; the involvement of Fedeli (among
 4

others) in those events; the reasons for the conduct and statements made by Fedeli (among others)

vis-à-vis Brown; and the fact that, in particular, Fedeli’s conduct took place while he was facing

allegations of inappropriate sexual behaviour by a female staffer that had not been proven in court.

15. The Optimum Defendants plead that this Claim was brought with the intention of silencing

the defendants and stifling discussion on those matters of public interest, and to prevent public

scrutiny and criticism of the actions of Fedeli and the PCPO. The effect of this legal action is to

interfere with political discourse and to unduly limit expression and debate on those important

matters of public interest.

Pleaded Meaning 16(a): Fedeli engaged in workplace sexual harassment

16. The Optimum Defendants deny that items 7, 8 and 15 of the Words Complained Of (as set

out in Schedule “A” to the Statement of Claim) mean and were understood to mean in their plain

and ordinary meaning, or in their express and implied meanings, or by innuendo, that Fedeli

engaged in workplace sexual harassment as pled at paragraph 16(a) of the Statement of Claim.

17. Rather, items 7, 8 and 15 of the Words Complained Of, read in their full and proper

context, meant and were understood to mean in their plain and ordinary meaning, and in their

express and implied meanings, and by innuendo, that a complaint was made by a woman who

worked for the Progressive Conservative party that Fedeli had engaged in inappropriate sexual

behaviour, but that this complaint had not been adequately investigated or proven in court.

18. In relation to the meaning pled at paragraph 17 of this Statement of Defence, the Optimum

Defendants plead that:

 5

(a) items 7, 8 and 15 of the Words Complained Of were true, in substance and in fact.

In particular, but without limitation, the Optimum Defendants rely on the facts set

out at paragraph 19 of this Statement of Defence, below; and

(b) in the further alternative, insofar as items 7, 8 and 15 of the Words Complained Of

were statements of fact, they were true in substance and in fact, and insofar as they

were expressions of opinion, they were fair comment, recognisable as such, made

in good faith and without malice on a matter of public interest. The opinion was

fairly made on the basis of the facts, including those set out at paragraph 19 of this

Statement of Defence, below.

19. The Optimum Defendants rely on the following facts, without limitation, all of which are

known to Fedeli:

(a) In or around December 2017, Brown received a hand-written note from a woman

(the “Complainant”) who worked for PC Caucus Services. (As far as the Optimum

Defendants are aware, the Complainant wishes to remain anonymous at this time,

but her identity is known to Fedeli).

(b) The note from the Complainant alleged that Fedeli engaged in inappropriate

behaviour of a sexual nature with her.

(c) Brown believed that the Complainant’s allegations against Fedeli were out of

character for Fedeli.

(d) Fedeli was made aware of the Complainant’s allegations.

 6

(e) Soon after Fedeli became interim leader of the PCPO in January 2018, the

Complainant was let go from her regular duties.

(f) The Complainant continued to be compensated for several months after being let

go, as part of a settlement relating to her dismissal.

(g) On January 30, 2018, the Complainant’s legal counsel wrote an email to a member

of a news media organization, advising that she has “a client that is prepared to

make a public statement in respect of conduct amounting to workplace sexual

harassment and misconduct by Vic Fedeli”, and attaching a draft press release titled

“Sexual Harassment and Misconduct Accusations against Current Ontario PC

Interim Leader Vic Fedeli”.

(h) The draft press release stated that:

(i) “incidents of sexual harassment and misconduct occurred numerous times

over the past 12 months at the Female’s workplace, Queens Park”;

(ii) according to the Complainant, “Vic Fedeli would greet me and then

proceed to kiss and hug me. Upon releasing me from the embrace he would

glide his hand against the side of my breasts”;

(iii) Fedeli would stare at the Complainant’s breasts and say, “That sweater

brings out your eyes”; and

(iv) Fedeli stared at the Complainant’s buttocks and said, “Nobody else could

wear those pants quite like you.”

 7

(i) The January 30, 2018 email (with draft press release) was reported on in the press;

(j) The January 30, 2018 email (with draft press release) was available online through

social media on or about February 18, 2018. (For further clarity, the Optimum

Defendants played no role in making this information available online.)

(k) At least two mainstream media outlets independently confirmed that a sexual

misconduct complaint had been made against Fedeli.

(l) The allegations made by the Complainant impacted Fedeli’s decision not to run for

leader of the PCPO.

(m) The Complainant also raised her sexual harassment complaint with John Sinclair,

who was the head of PC Caucus Services at the relevant time.

(n) The issue of the Complainant’s complaint against Fedeli was brought up at a PCPO

caucus meeting.

20. In the alternative, in relation to the meaning pled at paragraph 16(a) of the Statement of

Claim, the Optimum Defendants plead that:

(a) items 7, 8 and 15 of the Words Complained Of were true, in substance and in fact.

In particular, but without limitation, the Optimum Defendants rely on the facts set

out at paragraph 19 of this Statement of Defence; and

(b) in the further alternative, insofar as items 7, 8 and 15 of the Words Complained Of

were statements of fact, they were true in substance and in fact, and insofar as they

were expressions of opinion, they were fair comment, recognisable as such, made
 8

in good faith and without malice on a matter of public interest. The opinion was

fairly made on the basis of the facts, including those set out at paragraph 19 of this

Statement of Defence.

Pleaded Meaning 16(b): Fedeli is a hypocrite, with a “holier-than-thou” and

sanctimonious attitude

21. The Optimum Defendants deny that the meanings pled at paragraphs 16(b) of the

Statement of Claim are defamatory.

22. In the alternative, insofar as items 1, 2, 7 and 18 of the Words Complained Of were

statements of fact, they were true in substance and in fact, and insofar as the Words Complained Of

were expressions of opinion, they were fair comment, recognisable as such, made in good faith and

without malice on a matter of public interest. In particular, items 1, 2, 7 and 18 of the Words

Complained Of consisted of the following opinions:

(a) Fedeli had a “holier-than-thou” attitude;

(b) Fedeli appeared sanctimonious; and

(c) Fedeli was hypocritical.

23. The above opinions were fairly made on the basis of the facts set out at paragraph 19 of this

Statement of Defence, as well as other facts, all of which are known to Fedeli, including the

following.

(a) In and around March 2016, Fedeli was an enthusiastic supporter of a carbon pricing

policy.

(b) Fedeli has since changed his position and is now against any carbon pricing policy.
 9

(c) While Brown was in office, Fedeli strongly supported the decision to appeal the

‘anti-SLAPP’ decision in the Karahalios case and did not agree with the lower court

judgment.

(d) Soon after Brown left office, Fedeli supported abandoning the appeal of the

decision in the Karahalios case and settling with Karahalios on the question of the

legal fees of the anti-SLAPP motion (in which Karahalios was seeking $143,500).

(e) After Brown left office, Fedeli spoke out about the lawsuits in which the PCPO was

involved and the legal fees incurred during Brown’s tenure, despite having

supported the lawsuit against Karahalios.

(f) Despite the facts set out at paragraph 19 of this Statement of Defence, Fedeli, in his

role as interim PCPO leader, publicly stated on or about January 26, 2018 that he

“believed the women”, and that Brown would be removed from caucus over

unverified allegations of sexual harassment.

(g) The Complainant contacted Brown and was furious at Fedeli’s public statement

that he “believed the women”, in light of the Complainant’s own experience with

Fedeli.

24. In the further alternative, insofar as items 1, 2, 7 and 18 of the Words Complained Of refer

to the plaintiff, the Words Complained Of were true in substance and in fact. In particular, but

without limitation, the Optimum Defendants rely on the facts set out in paragraphs 19 and 23 of

this Statement of Defence, all of which are known to Fedeli.

 10

Pleaded Meanings 16(c) and 16(m): Fedeli used his power as interim leader to remove
Complainant from her job and pay her off, and misused public funds for personal
purposes

25. The Optimum Defendants deny that items 7 and 8 of the Words Complained Of mean and

were understood to mean in their plain and ordinary meaning, or in their express and implied

meanings, or by innuendo, that Fedeli abused his power as interim leader of the PCPO to have the

Complainant removed from her job and improperly paid off the Complainant from public funds to

silence her, as pled at paragraphs 16(c) and 16(m) of the Statement of Claim.

26. In the alternative, the Optimum Defendants plead that:

(a) items 7 and 8 of the Words Complained Of were true, in substance and in fact. In

particular, but without limitation, the Optimum Defendants rely on the facts set out

at paragraph 19 of this Statement of Defence, all of which are known to Fedeli; and

(b) in the further alternative, insofar as items 7 and 8 of the Words Complained Of

were statements of fact, they were true in substance and in fact, and insofar as they

were expressions of opinion, they were fair comment, recognisable as such, made

in good faith and without malice on a matter of public interest. The opinion was

fairly made on the basis of the facts, including those set out at paragraph 19 of this

Statement of Defence, all of which are known to Fedeli.

Pleaded Meaning 16(d): Fedeli is dishonest

27. The Optimum Defendants deny that the items 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 9, 18 and 19 of the Words

Complained Of mean and were understood to mean in their plain and ordinary meaning, or in their

express and implied meanings, or by innuendo, that Fedeli was dishonest, as pled in paragraph

16(d) of the Statement of Claim.

 11

28. Further, the Optimum Defendants deny that the meaning set out at paragraph 16(d) of the

Statement of Claim is defamatory.

29. In the alternative, in relation to the meaning set out at paragraph 16(d) of Statement of

Claim, the Optimum Defendants plead that items 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 9, 18 and 19 of the Words

Complained Of were true in substance and in fact. In particular, but without limitation, the

Optimum Defendants rely on the facts set out at paragraphs 19, 23 and 33 of this Statement of

Defence, all of which are known to Fedeli.

30. In the further alternative, insofar as items 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 9, 18 and 19 of the Words

Complained Of were statements of fact, they were true in substance and in fact, and expressions of

opinion, they were fair comment, recognisable as such, made in good faith and without malice on a

matter of public interest. The opinion was fairly made on the basis of the facts, including those set

out at paragraphs 19, 23 and 33 of this Statement of Defence, all of which are known to Fedeli.

Pleaded Meanings 16(e), 16(f), 16(g), 16(j) and 16(l): Fedeli is duplicitous, a “suck-up”,
disloyal and unfaithful, “anti-democratic” and power hungry

31. The Optimum Defendants deny that the meanings pled at paragraphs 16(e), 16(f), 16(g),

16(j) and 16(l) of the Statement of Claim are defamatory.

32. In the alternative, insofar as items 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18 and 19 of

the Words Complained Of were statements of fact, they were true in substance and in fact, and

insofar as the Words Complained Of were expressions of opinion, they were fair comment,

recognisable as such, made in good faith and without malice on a matter of public interest. In

particular, items 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18 and 19 of the Words Complained

Of consisted of the following opinions:

 12

(a) Fedeli was duplicitous;

(b) Fedeli was a “suck up” to Brown;

(c) Fedeli was not faithful or loyal to Brown;

(d) Fedeli acted undemocratically vis-à-vis the PCPO leadership race; and

(e) Fedeli was hungry for power.

33. The above opinions were fairly made on the basis of the facts set out at paragraphs 19 and

23 of this Statement of Defence, as well as other facts, all of which are known to Fedeli, including

the following.

(a) On January 24, 2018 – the same night that Brown had a news conference to address

sexual misconduct allegations against him – Fedeli was having discussions with

individuals about becoming PCPO party leader and/or interim party leader.

(b) On a conference call on or about January 24, 2018, Fedeli stated that if Brown was

going to resign, then the PCPO caucus had to show it was decisive.

(c) Prior to January 24, 2018, Fedeli had given Brown frequent compliments,

including statements such as “You’re the best leader we ever had”, “So proud of the

work you’re doing in Northern Ontario” and “You inspire me”.

(d) Prior to January 24, 2018, Fedeli had expressed to Brown’s friends that Fedeli

wanted to be finance minister in a government led by Brown, should the PCPO win

the election.
 13

(e) Although he had not decided who might be finance minister, Brown recruited two

high-profile candidates with the experience and knowledge to be finance ministers

in any PCPO government. The recruitment of these candidates made Fedeli upset,

as he believed it would hurt his chance to be finance minister.

(f) After January 24, 2018, Fedeli took steps to force Brown’s removal as PCPO

leader, as well as to remove him from the PCPO caucus.

(g) After January 24, 2018, Fedeli spoke openly and critically about Brown in public

and to the media.

(h) Fedeli benefited directly from Brown’s departure by becoming interim PCPO

leader.

(i) Lisa MacLeod supported Fedeli as interim PCPO leader.

(j) Brown was advised that Fedeli and Lisa MacLeod had discussions about Fedeli

becoming permanent PCPO leader and MacLeod supporting Fedeli, as well as

MacLeod gaining a role as a senior PCPO critic and, if the PCPO won the election,

a cabinet post.

(k) After assuming the interim PCPO leader position, Fedeli and his staff fought hard

against a party leadership race being held before the provincial election.

(l) Instead, Fedeli wanted to continue on as PCPO leader during the provincial

election, without giving party members a chance to vote on their preferred leader in

advance of the election. If Fedeli had been able to stay on as leader during the
 14

election and the PCPO won the election (as it did), Fedeli very likely would have

won any leadership contest.

(m) Individuals on the PCPO party executive, including party President, Rick Dykstra,

strongly resisted the idea of a leadership race being held after the provincial

election.

(n) After members of the PCPO party executive made their resistance known, Fedeli

began speaking of a “rot in the party” that needed to be rooted out. Around this

same time, in late January 2018, news leaked of sexual allegations against Rick

Dykstra from years prior while he was a Member of Parliament. The leak

ultimately led Dykstra to resign as PCPO president.

(o) Alykhan Velshi, Fedeli’s Chief of Staff, stated that Dykstra would be finished

politically if he interfered with Fedeli’s plans to stay on as interim leader during the

election.

(p) Velshi was responsible for orchestrating the leak of the past sexual allegations

against Dykstra.

(q) Fedeli’s desire to run for the PCPO leadership runs against the tradition of interim

leaders not running for the leadership because they enjoy an unfair advantage.

(r) The Complainant’s January 30, 2018 disclosure (via her counsel) was intended to

signal to Fedeli that if he chose to run for the PCPO leadership, then the

Complainant may take further steps in regard to her allegations.

 15

(s) On February 16, 2018, Fedeli kicked Brown out of the PCPO caucus without telling

him directly, leaving Brown to find out through a live news report.

(t) The timing of Fedeli’s decision to kick Brown out of the PCPO caucus coincided

with Fedeli’s (incorrect) belief that Brown was planning to run again for the PCPO

leadership. Fedeli believed that if Brown was not in the caucus, then Brown could

not run for that position, thereby depriving PCPO members of the opportunity to

vote for Brown.

(u) Fedeli’s decision to kick Brown out of caucus was meant to ensure Brown could

not run for the PCPO leadership.

(v) Prior to Brown’s eventual, last-minute decision to run for the PCPO leadership,

Fedeli and Velshi filed documents stating that Brown could not run as a candidate

because he had been kicked out of caucus.

(w) Before Brown was removed as PCPO leader, Fedeli repeatedly went after Premier

Wynne during Question Period for approximately one week on a deal involving a

company called Great Canadian Gaming. All of a sudden, Velshi advised Brown to

stop going against Great Canadian Gaming. Fedeli went silent on the issue of Great

Canadian Gaming inside the Legislature.

34. In the further alternative, items 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18 and 19 of

the Words Complained Of were true in substance and in fact. In particular, but without limitation,

the Optimum Defendants rely on the facts set out in paragraphs 19, 23 and 33 of this Statement of

Defence, all of which are known to Fedeli.

 16

Pleaded Meaning 16(h): Fedeli is a political opportunist and a schemer, who employed
“henchmen” to do his dirty bidding

35. Brown denies that the meanings pled at paragraph 16(h) of the Statement of Claim are

defamatory.

36. In the alternative, insofar as items 5, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19 and 20 of the

Words Complained Of were statements of fact, they were true in substance and in fact, and insofar

as the Words Complained Of were expressions of opinion, they were fair comment, recognisable

as such, made in good faith and without malice on a matter of public interest. In particular, items

5, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19 and 20 of the Words Complained Of consisted of the

following opinions:

(a) Fedeli was an opportunist;

(b) Fedeli schemed to gain power; and

(c) Some members of Fedeli’s staff were his “henchmen”.

37. The above opinions were fairly made on the basis of the facts set out at paragraph 33 of this

Statement of Defence, as well as other facts, all of which are known to Fedeli, including the

following.

(a) Fedeli hired Alykhan Velshi – Brown’s former chief of staff – as his own chief of

staff.

(b) After joining Fedeli’s team, Velshi had arranged for the PCPO ‘war room’ to carry

out opposition research on Brown.

 17

(c) Velshi directed PCPO staffers to find and leak whatever “dirt” they could relating

to Brown.

(d) Velshi directed PCPO staffers to find “dirt” on Brown’s family and his friends.

(e) Velshi advised a friend of Brown’s that if Brown attempted to take any further steps

to defend himself or if Brown attempted to enter the leadership race, there would be

a negative story about Brown’s house mortgage.

(f) Velshi leaked inaccurate information about Brown to the press, including a

February 20, 2018 story in the Toronto Star.

38. In the further alternative, items 5, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19 and 20 of the

Words Complained Of were true in substance and in fact. In particular, but without limitation, the

Optimum Defendants rely on the facts set out in paragraphs 33 and 37 of this Statement of

Defence, all of which are known to Fedeli.

Pleaded Meaning 16(k): Fedeli is motivated by petty jealousy

39. The Optimum Defendants deny that the items 5, 6, 15 and 17 of the Words Complained Of

mean and were understood to mean in their plain and ordinary meaning, or in their express and

implied meanings, or by innuendo, that Fedeli was motivated by petty jealousy as pled in

paragraph 16(k) of the Statement of Claim.

40. Further, the Optimum Defendants deny that the meaning pled in paragraph 16(k) of the

Statement of Claim is defamatory.

41. In the alternative, the Optimum Defendants plead that items 5, 6, 15 and 17 of the Words

Complained Of were true, in substance and in fact. In particular, but without limitation, the
 18

Optimum Defendants rely on the facts set out at paragraphs 33 and 37, all of which are known to

Fedeli.

42. In the further alternative, insofar as items 5, 6, 15 and 17 of the Words Complained Of were

statements of fact, they were true in substance and in fact, and insofar as they were expressions of

opinion, they were fair comment, recognisable as such, made in good faith and without malice on a

matter of public interest. The opinion was fairly made on the basis of the facts, including those set

out at paragraphs 33 and 37, all of which are known to Fedeli.

Pleaded Meaning 16(i): Fedeli is “toxic”

43. The Optimum Defendants deny that the item 20 of the Words Complained Of mean and

were understood to mean in their plain and ordinary meaning, or in their express and implied

meanings, or by innuendo, that Fedeli was “toxic” as alleged in paragraph 16(i) of the Statement of

Claim.

44. Further, the Optimum Defendants deny that the meaning pled in paragraph 16(i) of the

Statement of Claim is defamatory.

45. In the alternative, in relation to the meaning pled in paragraph 16(i) of the Statement of

Claim, insofar as the Words Complained Of in item 20 were statements of fact, they were true in

substance and in fact, and insofar as they were expressions of opinion, they were fair comment,

recognisable as such, made in good faith and without malice on a matter of public interest. The

opinion was fairly made on the basis of the facts, including those set out herein, all of which are

known to Fedeli.
 19

Pleaded Meaning 16(n): Fedeli is not fit for office

46. The Optimum Defendants deny that the items 1 through 20 of the Words Complained Of

mean and were understood to mean in their plain and ordinary meaning, or in their express and

implied meanings, or by innuendo, that Fedeli was not fit for office as alleged in paragraph 16(n)

of the Statement of Claim.

47. Further, the Optimum Defendants deny that the meaning pled in paragraph 16(n) of the

Statement of Claim is defamatory.

48. In the alternative, insofar as items 1 through 20 of the Words Complained Of were

statements of fact, they were true in substance and in fact, and insofar as they were expressions of

opinion, they were fair comment, recognisable as such, made in good faith and without malice on a

matter of public interest. The opinion was fairly made on the basis of the facts, including those set

out at paragraphs 19, 23, 33 and 37 of this Statement of Defence, all of which are known to Fedeli.

49. In the further alternative, in relation to the meaning pled in paragraph 16(n) of the

Statement of Claim, items 1 through 20 of the Words Complained Of were true in substance and in

fact. In particular, but without limitation, the Optimum Defendants rely on the facts set out in

paragraphs 19, 23, 33 and 37 of this Statement of Defence, all of which are known to Fedeli.

The November 17 Blog Post

50. The Optimum Defendants deny that the November 17 Blog Post (as defined in the

Statement of Claim) is defamatory of and concerning Fedeli.

51. The Optimum Defendants deny that they are liable, as publishers or otherwise, for the

contents of the video hyperlinked in the November 17 Blog Post. Further, and in any event, the
 20

Optimum Defendants deny that the video is defamatory of Fedeli as it is simply 20 minutes of

uncut footage from a press conference given by Fedeli.

52. The Optimum Defendants deny that the meanings pled in paragraphs 16(d) and 16(n) of the

Statement of Claim are defamatory.

53. The Optimum Defendants deny that the November 17 Blog Post meant and was understood

to mean in its plain and ordinary meaning, or in its express and implied meanings, or by innuendo,

that Fedeli engaged in workplace sexual harassment; that Fedeli is a hypocrite with a

“holier-than-thou” and sanctimonious attitude; that Fedeli abused his power as interim leader of

the PCPO to have a sexual-harassment complainant removed from her job and improperly paid off

the sexual harassment complainant from public funds to silence her; that Fedeli is not fit for office;

that Fedeli ducked allegations that he should have answered and is therefore dishonest and

cowardly, and should be subject to investigation, as pled at paragraphs 16(a), 16(c), 16(d), 16(n)

and 25 of the Statement of Claim.

54. In the alternative, insofar as the November 17 Blog Post is comprised of statements of fact,

they were true in substance and in fact, and insofar as it is comprised of expressions of opinion,

they were fair comment, recognisable as such, made in good faith and without malice on a matter

of public interest. The opinion was fairly made on the basis of the facts set out at paragraphs 19,

23, 33 and 37 of this Statement of Defence, and additional facts, all of which are known to Fedeli,

including the following.

(a) At his November 15, 2018 press conference, Fedeli repeatedly refused to answer

questions from members of the media on issues including:

 21

(i) whether the Complainant was “fired and kept on the payroll”;

(ii) whether there was any internal investigation of the Complainant’s

allegations;

(iii) why Fedeli would not step down while an investigation of the

Complainant’s allegations was taking place; and

(iv) whether the Complainant signed a non-disclosure agreement.

(b) The PCPO government purportedly had a stated “zero tolerance” approach to

sexual misconduct allegations.

(c) The PCPO had investigated sexual misconduct allegations against Jim Wilson,

after which Premier Ford asked Wilson for his resignation.

55. In the further alternative, the Optimum Defendants plead that the November 17 Blog Post

is true, in substance and in fact. In particular, but without limitation, the Optimum Defendants rely

on the facts set out at paragraphs 19, 23, 33 and 37 above, all of which are known to Fedeli.

56. On or about January 8, 2019, after receiving a Notice of Libel from Fedeli’s counsel, the

Optimum Defendants changed the text of the November 17 Blog Post to read: “Finance Minister

Addresses Questions. Watch Finance Minister answer questions here” (together with a hyperlink

to the video). The Optimum Defendants made those changes in a good faith effort to respond to

the concerns raised by the Notice of Libel, without prejudice to the Optimum Defendants’ position

that nothing in the November 17 Blog Post was defamatory of and concerning Fedeli.
 22

The Mulligan Interview Blog Post

57. The Optimum Defendants deny that the Mulligan Interview Blog Post (as defined in the

Statement of Claim) is defamatory of and concerning Fedeli.

58. The Optimum Defendants further deny that they are liable, as publishers or otherwise, for

the contents of the video hyperlinked in the Mulligan Interview Blog Post and, in any event, deny

that the video is defamatory of Fedeli.

59. The Optimum Defendants deny that the Mulligan Interview Blog Post meant and was

understood to mean in its plain and ordinary meaning, or in its express and implied meanings, or

by innuendo, the meanings pled at paragraphs 16(a) through 16(e), 16(g), 16(j) and 16(k) through

16(m) of the Statement of Claim.

60. In the alternative, the Optimum Defendants plead that the Mulligan Interview Blog Post

was true, in substance and in fact. In particular, but without limitation, the Optimum Defendants

rely on the facts set out at paragraphs 19, 23, 33 and 37 of this Statement of Defence, all of which

are known to Fedeli.

61. In the further alternative, insofar as the Mulligan Blog Post was comprised of statements of

fact, they were true in substance and in fact, and insofar it consisted of expressions of opinion, they

were fair comment, recognisable as such, made in good faith and without malice on a matter of

public interest. The opinion was fairly made on the basis of the facts, including those set out at

paragraphs 19, 23, 33 and 37 of this Statement of Defence, all of which are known to Fedeli.
 23

Responsible communication on matters of public interest

62. Further, or in the alternative, the Optimum Defendants state that the Words Complained Of

constitute responsible communication on matters of public interest, including the events

surrounding Brown’s forced removal as leader of the PCPO and the appointment of a new PCPO

leader, Fedeli’s involvement in those events, the reasons for Fedeli’s conduct and statements

vis-à-vis Brown, and the fact that Fedeli’s conduct took place while he was facing his own prior

sexual misconduct allegations that had not been proven in court.

63. The Optimum Defendants were responsible in publishing the Words Complained Of,

including the fact that they (and Brown) took reasonable steps to verify the Words Complained Of,

including obtaining relevant documents and speaking with multiple sources.

64. Items 7 and 8 of the Words Complained Of (and similar statements made in the videos

linked in the November 17 Blog Post and the Mulligan Interview Blog Post) do not adopt

allegations made by others regarding Fedeli, and make it plain that the truth of those allegations

has not been verified in court or by way of a workplace investigation. In the context set out by the

Words Complained Of, and Takedown more broadly, there is a public interest in what was

published.

Qualified privilege

65. The Optimum Defendants state that they had an interest in publishing Takedown to those

who had an interest in receiving it, and as such Takedown was published on an occasion or in

circumstances of qualified privilege. In particular, and without limitation, the Optimum

Defendants rely on the fact that Takedown was published in response to public statements made by
 24

Fedeli (and others) to the media attacking Brown’s reputation, including Fedeli’s statement that he

believes Brown committed sexual misconduct.

Good faith and no malice

66. The Optimum Defendants published Takedown in good faith, without malice, with the

Optimum Defendants believing in the truth of the facts contained in Takedown and having an

honest belief in the opinions expressed therein. The statements made about Fedeli and Takedown

as pled at paragraph 34 of the Statement of Claim and further particularized in the plaintiff’s

Response to the Demand for Particulars of the Optimum Defendants were also published in good

faith, without malice, with the Optimum Defendants believing in the truth of the facts contained

those statements and in Takedown and having an honest belief in the comments expressed therein.

67. With respect to Fedeli’s allegation at paragraph 18 of the Statement of Claim, the Optimum

Defendants deny that Takedown was published deliberately to coincide with the timing of Fedeli’s

delivery of the Fall Economic Statement. The timing of publication was originally set for

November 1, 2018, but was delayed due to a round of revisions to the book manuscript. The

delayed eventual publication date was set based on the time required for those revisions to be

completed and for the books to be printed and bound for distribution.

68. With respect to Fedeli’s allegation at paragraph 34 of the Statement of Claim, the Optimum

Defendants deny leaking Fedeli’s Notice of Libel, or the fact of it, to any member of the media.

No damages

69. The Optimum Defendants state that to the extent any of the Words Complained Of are

defamatory, which is not admitted but denied, Fedeli suffered no actual injury or damage to his
 25

reputation as a result thereof and the Optimum Defendants put Fedeli to the strict proof thereof.

Fedeli remains Ontario’s Finance Minister as part the PCPO government, holding one of the most

powerful positions for any elected representative in the province.

70. The Optimum Defendants state that any harm done Fedeli’s reputation, which is not

admitted but denied, is a result of Fedeli’s own conduct and that he has failed to mitigate same.

71. In any event, the Optimum Defendants state that the damages claimed by Fedeli are

excessive and remote, and that Fedeli has failed to mitigate those damages.

72. The Optimum Defendants deny that they have engaged in any conduct that would give rise

to a claim for aggravated, exemplary or punitive damages, and puts the plaintiff to the strict proof

thereof. The Optimum Defendants acted at all times in good faith and without malice.

73. At paragraph 34 of the Statement of Claim, Fedeli alleges by way of aggravating damages

that Baxendale made “additional defamatory statements of and concerning Fedeli” (“Baxendale

Statements”). In his response to a Demand for Particulars from the Optimum Defendants, Fedeli

particularized the Baxendale Statements as follows.

(a) A statement made by Baxendale to CP24 News on or about January 9, 2018, where

Baxendale responded to questions about Fedeli’s demands that certain passages in

Takedown be removed by stating: “We’re simply stating facts, we’re telling a

story, and I don’t think we’re at a point where we should retract anything.”

(b) A statement made by Baxendale to CBC News on or about January 9, 2018, where

Baxendale responded to questions about Fedeli’s demands that certain passages in

Takedown be removed by stating: “We’re not alleging anything against Mr. Fedeli
 26

in the book and simply provided an anecdotal story that is illustrative of the

author’s perceived hypocrisy at Queen’s Park.”

74. The Optimum Defendants deny that the Baxendale Statements, taken in their entirety, and

in their plain and ordinary meaning, or by innuendo, bear or were capable of bearing any

defamatory meaning whatsoever of and concerning Fedeli. The Optimum Defendants further

deny that the Baxendale Statements give rise to aggravated damages, or damages of any kind, in

favour of Fedeli.

75. The Optimum Defendants state that this action was brought by Fedeli for the purposes of

silencing the Optimum Defendants in relation to the matters of public interest described in

paragraphs 13 and 14 above and for political purposes and gain rather than for the bona fide

purpose of recovery damages for loss of reputation, which is denied.

76. The Optimum Defendants plead and rely upon sections 22, 23 and 24 of the Libel and

Slander Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. L.12.

77. The Optimum Defendants state that Fedeli is not entitled to the relief sought at paragraphs

1 and 41of the Statement of Claim and ask that this action be dismissed with costs.
 27

March 11, 2019 STOCKWOODS LLP

Barristers
Toronto-Dominion Centre
TD North Tower, Box 140
77 King Street West, Suite 4130
Toronto ON M5K 1H1

Andrea Gonsalves (52532E)

Tel: 416-593-3497
andreag@stockwoods.ca

Justin Safayeni (58427U)

Tel: 416-593-3494
justins@stockwoods.ca

Tel: 416-593-7200
Fax: 416-593-9345

Lawyers for the Defendants

Optimum Publishing International, JF Moore
Lithographers Inc. and Dean Baxendale
TO: CHERNOS FLAHERTY SVONKIN LLP
220 Bay Street
Suite 700
Toronto ON M5J 2W4

Patrick Flaherty (34661L)

Tel: 416-855-0403

Tycho Manson (38339C)

Tel: 416-855-0406

Tel: 416-855-0401
Fax: 647-725-5440

Lawyers for the Plaintiff

AND TO: WINKLER DISPUTE RESOLUTION

39 Glenayr Road
Toronto ON M5P 3B9

Howard W. Winkler (23943N)

Tel: 416-519-2344
Fax: 416-915-6325
hwinkler@winklerlawllp.com

Lawyer for the Defendant

Patrick Brown
VICTOR FEDELI and PATRICK BROWN et al. Court File No. CV-19-613488-0000
Plaintiff Defendants

ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

Proceeding commenced at TORONTO

STATEMENT OF DEFENCE OF
OPTIMUM PUBLISHING INTERNATIONAL,
JF MOORE LITHOGRAPHERS INC. and
DEAN BAXENDALE

STOCKWOODS LLP
Barristers
Toronto-Dominion Centre
TD North Tower, Box 140
77 King Street West, Suite 4130
Toronto ON M5K 1H1

Andrea Gonsalves (52532E)

Tel: 416-593-3497
andreag@stockwoods.ca

Justin Safayeni (58427U)

Tel: 416-593-3494
justins@stockwoods.ca

Tel: 416-593-7200
Fax: 416-593-9345

Lawyers for the Defendants

Optimum Publishing International, JF Moore Lithographers Inc.
and Dean Baxendale