1 ORIGINAL wor ane ene 10 1 12 a3 14 15 16 a 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 No. 9301-05666 IN THE COURT OF QUEEN’S BENCH OF ALBERTA JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF CALGARY BETWEEN: EZRA LEVANT, ROB ANDERS and SEAN McKINSLEY Plaintiffs CALGARY, A - ana - ALGARY, A GAUNTLET PUBLICATIONS SOCIETY, SHELAGH PEIRCE, ROBERT BARNETSON, CARY DuGRAY and ARNOLD NOWICKI Defendants Cross-examination on Affidavit of EZRA LEVANT, sworn the Sth day of April, A.D. 1995, taken before Ernest Kuemmel, CSR(A) RPR Examiner, pursuant to Rules 203, 728, 204(1) of the Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta, at the offices of Parlee McLaws, Calgary, Alberta, on the Sth day of September, A.D. 1995. R.N. Billington, Esq. For the Plaintiff (Burstall ward 1800, 800 - 5 Avemue S.W. Calgary, Alberta 234-3326) 8. Watson, Esq. For Gauntlet (Parlee McLaws) Publications, Ms. Peirce, Mr. Barnetson and Mr. DuGray C. 3. Bolton, Esq. For Mr. Nowicki (Bolton, Christopher J.) K. D. Dell, CSR(A) Court Reporter ***AMICUS REPORTING GROUD***Se ewraunewvne 12 13 4 15 16 17 18 19 20 22 22 23 24 25 26 27 EZRA LEVANT, sworn, cross-examined by Mr. Watson: Q. Mr. Levant, youve just taken an oath to tell the truth and that oath is binding on your conscience? A. Yes. Q. Sir, how old are you today? A. 23. @. Are you currently enrolled at the University of Alberta Law School? A. Yes. Q. Is that as a third-year law student? A. Yes, tomorrow I start. @. Sir, do you know Greg Stirling of our office? A. I’ve not met him personally, no. @. Not having met him personally, do you know who he is? A. Yes. @. Where did you gain that information? A. It was confirmed to me once I heard that a recruiter for Parlee’s had made inappropriate questions and comments about me when he was interviewing students. When I heard about this, I investigated. I spoke with my fellow students and I spoke with my lawyer Rick Billington, and I learned more about his identity. Q. But you confirm with me today that you've never met Mr. Stirling, you've never discussed anything with Mr. Stirling directly? A. I don’t think I’ve ever met him. At least not -- We haven't been introduced, to my recollection. We've ***AMICUS REPORTING GROUP**#ewe ne wera 10 12 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 exchanged correspondence via the Law Society, but I don’t believe I’ve written anything to him. I don’t -- it may have been an informal -- I was never introduced to him, in short. Q. Thank you. 1 understand you have no personal knowledge of the conversations that you refer to in your affidavit of -- A. April 25th. Q. Sworn April 24th and filed April 25th. A. I, of course, was not in the rooms where these intexviews took place but -- Q. And you yourself weren’t interviewed, were you? A. Correct. I, however, was quickly notified of what went on. In quick succession, various students came up to me expressing their concern. Q. Let’s return to the question. You don’t have any personal knowledge about the conversations? A. No. Q. You refer to a number of students -- I believe you described them as several? A. M-hm. Q. -- who told you of the incidents that you referred to in your affidavit? A. M-hm. Q. Was one of those students Andrew Haynes? A. Yes. Q. Who were the other students? ***AMICUS REPORTING GROUP***sen ear 4 4 10 1 12 13 14 as 16 17 18 a9 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 A. I don’t have a list of them all. I spoke -- I probably spoke to three or four, and some of them gave me more detail than others. Q. What were their names? A. One’s name was Rachel Colabella. Q. Can you spell that? Can you try and spell that? A. C-O-L-A-B-E-L-L-A. In fact, she expressed deep concern and unease over what had transpired in her interview; and I got on the phone that evening and called other students who had been in interviews with Stirling as well, and they confirmed what Haynes and Colabella had told me. Q. What are the names of those students? A. One that comes to mind is Joe Martini. I can’t recall the other names offhand. Colabella and Haynes, I spoke to in the greatest detail. Q. And I’m correct in understanding that Martini did not offer to discuss this with you? In fact, you initiated contact with him? A. That‘s correct. Once I heard about -- well, once I heard from Haynes and Colabella that this was brought up, I inquired with other students who had been there, and they had confirmed that it was brought up. Q. Now, I’m correct in understanding that you are the only applicant in this present motion? A. I believe so, yes. MR. BILLINGTON: I’m sorry, Mr. Watson, what do you mean by that? ‘***AMICUS REPORTING GROUP***FS woernn 10 a 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 A. I'm the only affiant? MR. WATSON: Applicant MR. BILLINGTON: Well, no. Messrs. Levant, Andrew, and McKinsley are all partners, and this is an application which is brought on behalf of all three of them. Of those three however, Mr. Levant is the only one who has filed an affidavit. Q. MR. WATSON: Am I to understand, then, Mr. Levant, that this Affidavit is filed on behalf of Messrs. Anders and McKinsley, as well? A. The application is -- The affidavit is me, solely. Q. Is it your information, sir, that neither of the remaining Plaintiffs, Anders and McKinsley, were discussed in any of the interviews you refer to in your affidavit? A. I do not believe -- I do not have information about that. I only inguired about whether I was brought up. Q. You refer in paragraph two of your affidavit to certain undertakings. Have you had a chance to confirm with your counsel that you've now received those undertakings? A. Yes. Q. You go on in paragraph three of your affidavit, sir, to refer to interviews for summer positions at the University of Alberta. That information doesn’t come from personal knowledge, does it? A. Can you be more specific, please? Q. Did somebody tell you that February 6th Mr. Stirling was conducting interviews at the University of Alberta? ***AMICUS REPORTING GROUP*+**15 16 a7 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 A. Yes. @. You didn’t have any of those interviews so you don’t have any personal knowledge about that; is that correct? A. I have the knowledge of what Haynes, Colabella, and other students told me at the time, I have Mr. Stirling’s letter to the Law Society that confirms it, and there may have been some correspondence with the law school as to who was interviewing that day. I don’t have that at my instant recall; but as I said before, I have never met Stirling. Q. So you'll appreciate that the information you state in paragraph three comes from sources other than personal knowledge, comes from the individuals you've mentioned? A. That’s correct. Q. Including Mr. Stirling? A. That‘s correct. Q. I'd refer you, in particular, to Mr. Stirling’s letter to the Law Society. AL We'll get there. Q. All right. So you've indicated that several of your law school colleagues advised you -- A. Uh-huh. Q. -- and that includes Colabella, Martini, and Haynes as far as you can recall today? A. Yes. Q. Now, can you tell me exactly what Joe Martini told you about the interview? A. He confirmed to me that I had been brought up in the ***AMICUS REPORTING GROUP***4 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 interview. It seemed to me, though, that Colabella and Haynes had had lengthier discussions about me with Stirling, and so I followed up with them. Q. Can you recall exactly what Martini told you? A. No. Q. How long did your discussion with Mr. Martini last? A. Probably five minutes. Q. Are you a member of the Laissez-faire Club? A. Yes. Q. And is Mr. Martini a member of the Laissez-faire Club? A. I don’t know. I think he has attended some of our events, which is in effect membership, I suppose. Q. Do you know whether Mr. Martini had made reference to the Laissez-faire Club on his application for employment? A. I would -- I do not know, but I would doubt it. Q. Well, I don’t want you to guess, all right? A. Okay, I do not have that information. Q. Would you describe Mr. Martini as your friend? A. Not particularly. Q. He’s an acquaintance of yours? A. Yes. Q. And Rachel Colabella, is she a member of the Laissez-faire Club? A. To my regret, I don’t think she has ever attended an event. Q. Is Rachel Colabella a friend of yours? A. Again, a colleague. I’ve known her for about five ***AMICUS REPORTING GROUP***yaw eone © © 10 a2 12 13 4 1s 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 years. Q. Was Ms. Colabella a student at the University of calgary? A. Yes. Q. And is that where your acquaintance came about? A. I met her -- we were both in the commerce faculty. Q. At U of c? A. Yes. Q. And Andrew Haynes, would you describe him as a friend? A. Yes. Q. He's been a friend for how long? A. Since law school began. Q. Did you know Mr. Haynes before that time? A. I had met him on two occasions. Q. Is Mr. Haynes a member of the Laissez-faire Club? A. Yes. Q. What exactly did Rachel Colabella tell you? A. Well, it was both the substance of what she told me and the tone, and I think the tone was just as important. As I mentioned earlier, it was a great concern and unease that she expressed to me, and surprise, as well. She told me that Stirling had brought my reputation up in the interview with her and had asked her questions that made her feel quite uncomfortable and that she found quite inappropriate. Q. Now, what did she tell you Mr. Stirling said about your reputation? A. If I recall, it was more the probing questions he was ‘***AMICUS REPORTING GROUP***we eraneune 10 a 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 a9 20 22 22 23 24 25 26 27 asking than his statements about me that had caused her quite concern. Q. Okay, what questions did he ask? A. Questions about my reputation, how I’m regarded at the law school, how people perceive me. Q. Did Miss Colabella tell you specifically how those questions related to your reputation? A. Yes. Q. What did she say? A. She said that those questions asked about my reputation. Q. Am I correct, then, in understanding that you do not know the specific questions that Mr. Stirling may or may not have asked Colabella? A. I was not in the room. Q. No, you weren’t in the room; and when you discussed this with Colabella, am I correct in understanding that she did not tell you the exact words or the exact questions used, allegedly or otherwise? A. She told me the type of question and that she found them quite excessive and inappropriate, as I mentioned, inquiring about me at her interview at length about my reputation and how I’m regarded by my peers. Q. You keep using the word "reputation". What I’m trying to get you to do is tell me what is the content of those questions. You've told me that Ms. Colabella said they related to your reputation, and you've accepted her word on ‘***RMICUS REPORTING GROUP***20 wears wey 10 a 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 that, I assume? AL M-hm. Q. Now, did you examine the specific and the exact questions and come to your own conclusion about whether they went to your reputation or not? A. I guess what you mean by "examine" -- I did not have a transcript of the interview, and, thus, I did not examine the transcript; but I assessed what Colabella told me. Q. That’s an evasive answer. What did Colabella tell you -- specifically, what questions did she say were asked about you, the exact words? You don’t know them, do you? A. No. Q. Now, in your conversation with Mr. Haynes, what did he say? Did he tell you the exact words? A. No. Again, it was not only the substance that caused me concern, but the fact -- or the particular words that were used, and that seems to be what you’re asking. It was of the fact that on these various occasions that I had been brought up and questions had been put about my reputation. I don’t know if the wording would have been, What is his reputation, or, what do you think his reputation is, or, What do you think of his reputation? Q. But I am correct in my understanding that when you say there were questions raised about your reputation, that is an opinion that has been provided to you by Mr. Haynes and Ms. Colabella that you have accepted; is that correct? A. Yes. ***AMICUS REPORTING GROUP***ce wowane 20 an 12 a3 14 as 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 Q. You say in paragraph three of your affidavit on page two that apparently your name was raised in each of the interviews? A. Yes. Q. Why do you say “apparently"? A. Again, as we've discussed, I was not at the interviews themselves, but the series of students I contacted confirmed that I had been brought up to more or less degree, and as I mentioned earlier, my most detailed discussions were with Haynes and Colabella. Q. Did Mr. Haynes tell you that your name was brought up in the context of a discussion about political correctness and the February Sth Globe and Mail article? A. I don’t believe Haynes was that specific. I think political correctness was an issue but more -- but it wasn’t particulars. It was about that news item. It was about general questions about me and the campus, and what people thought of me and what they thought of my reputation. Q. Again, you're accepting Mr. Haynes’ view of that? A. Yes. Q. Do you have a copy of the February 5th article which appeared in the Globe and Mail? A. Not on my person. Q. No, do you have a copy in your possession? A. I might. Q. Would you undertake to review your file and locate one and produce it to me, please? ***AMICUS REPORTING GROUP***12 we eorIan evn 20 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 A. Iwill. MR. BILLINGTON: We'll do so. UNDERTAKING NO. 1 - TO ATTEMPT TO PROVIDE A COPY OF THE FEBRUARY 5TH ARTICLE WHICH APPEARED IN THE GLOBE AND MAIL. MR. WATSON: Now, you have published a number of articles in a number of newspapers, correct? A. Yes. Q. That would include the sun? A. The Calgary sun. MR. BILLINGTON: I’m sorry, Mr. Watson. As of what time? MR. WATSON: We'll get to that. MR. BILLINGTO! Well, I want to get to it now, because I want the questions to be clear so the answers are clear. MR. WATSON: His answer was clear. He said yes. MR. BILLINGTON: Well, as of today. A. Actually, I’d like to clarify. I began writing for the Calgary Sun only at the -- I believe it was February ‘95, and in the Edmonton Sun in April of ‘95. So, actually, I don’t think I started with the Sun back then. So let me clarify that my recent journalistic endeavours have occurred largely in 1995. In fact, I was not a columnist with any newspaper, especially the Sun. I don’t even think I had ever had a letter to the editor. ‘***RMICUS REPORTING GROUP***123 sw ne ew earan 10 12 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 Q. MR. WATSON: Anyway, you enjoy today a regular spot in the Calgary Sun? A. Yes. Q. Is that every Monday? A. Yes. Q. Is that on a specific page? A. It's on the editorial page. Q. You were interviewed by the Globe and Mail for the February Sth, 1994 article? A. Yes. Q. Did you take issue with any of the comments in that article? A. Well, whenever one is profiled, there are certain things that one likes more than others. He called me -- he said I had lingering baby fat, which is true, but I didn’t want to read it. Q. Ina substantive way, you did not complain about the content to the Globe and Mail, although you may have -- A. Correct. Q. -- had some issue on some little more peripheral descriptions? You also appeared on the CBC, if I recall, the television? A. I’ve been on the CBC a number of times over the years. Maybe you could be more specific. Q. Well, I'm at a slight disadvantage because I wasn’t there, but I believe you appeared early in 1994 in respect of an issue which developed at the U of A Law School? ***AMICUS REPORTING GROUP***14 er ane wwe 10 11 a2 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 A. I think it was early ‘94. Q. Early in the school year ‘94, fall of ‘94, I assume? A. No. Q. Was it earlier than that? A. No, it was later than that. Oh, sorry, ‘94? Q. Yes. A. I’m sorry, with regards to political correctness? Q. Yes. A. That would have been early ‘94. Q. So at least since early of '94, you were publicly expressing your views on political correctness? A. Yes. Q. And you did so at the U of A through the Cannons of Construction, the law school? A. Yes. Q. And would you agree with my characterization that that created a controversy and furor, at least within the U of A Law School? A. In some quarters. Oh, certainly in some maybe they didn’t read it all, I don’t know, but there was a fairly rampant and active exchange of viewpoints which made its way through the Cannons of Construction. Oh, that’s true. It’s funny you mentioned that. I recall a discussion I had with a professor of mine where I asked him what his fellow professors thought of my writing, and he mentioned that it doesn’t come up at all, which -- Q. I don’t know what can be made of that. ‘***AMICUS REPORTING GROUP*#*as we eranewne 10 a 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 A. So I thought I would relate that to you. Q. You indicated you've appeared on the CBC a number of times. Do you recall the very first occasion which you appeared on the CBC? We'll start with television. A. No. I would -- Q. 1993? A. Earlier, I'm sure. Q. Would you have a diary which would list those dates? A. No. Q. You don’t have any documents available to you to refresh your memory? A. Maybe I should mention that -- maybe I should ask you to pinpoint. Are you referring to about issues of political correctness or issues in general? Q. Well, let’s start with issues in general. You seem to indicate that your reputation has been discussed at large, and since you’re unable to tell me what the questions exactly related to, we better stay with the general rather than get the specifics. A. Well, I’ve been a member of several political parties, and over the course of years I have appeared on CBC quite often. Q. 20 times? A. That might be a little -- Q. A little high? A. A little high, but I’ve been on -- Q. 15? ‘***RMICUS REPORTING GROUP***16 a ea 10 a. 12 a3 14 as 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 A. Ranging from little sound bites to full interviews, probably. Q. Im fact, you were on the CBC Radio within the last three months? A. Yes, I did a commentary on national radio about political correctness. Q. Now, when you gave me that figure about somewhere between 10 and less than 20 -- A. It's an estimate. I Q. That’s fine, that’s fine. I’m not going to hold you to it. Was that in reference only to CBC television? A. Perhaps. I really don’t keep a close count of these things. I get called by the media, not quite on a regular basis, but frequently. I think so. Q. Do you know how many times you've had items that you've authored or interviews of you published in the Globe and Mail? A. I’ve never had anything -- oh, I've had -- in recent months, I’ve had several columns that I’ve written for the Sun picked up by the Globe. I wrote them for the Sun, but they were picked up by the Globe and Mail. Q. Now, are there any other TV stations that have covered interviews or debates of any kind in which you've expressed your views publicly? A. Now, I’m answering in -- throughout the years here -- Q. Right. A. Okay, and that includes ‘95, for example, and the ***AMICUS REPORTING GROUP*##17 Se Gy me ns 10 a 12 13 14 15 16 a7 18 19 20 a1 22 23 24 25 26 27 answer would be yes. Q. And would those be local stations, CFCN? A. Those would include the local stations in Calgary, at least one station in Edmonton, CBC News World, CBC TV. Those would be the TV stations that I can recall. Q. You would agree with me that you have a public profile and public presence -- A. Yes. Q. -- as a result of the publicity? A. Yes, and I believe that that public profile has been growing over the years; and I’m not sure exactly what you're trying to probe, and that’s why I’m clarifying by noting that much of that publicity has been due to other political issues I’ve been involved with; and, of course, as I mentioned, my recent post with the Edmonton and Calgary Suns. Q. In paragraph three of your affidavit you refer to a distinction between character and reputation. Is it your understanding that those terms refer to different things or the same thing? A. I think they’re generally bundled, but I think they are different. Q. And I’m correct in understanding that you're not able today to tell me the questions that were asked about your character? A. Ag I’ve told you several times, I was not present and so I did not hear. ***AMICUS REPORTING GROUP**#*18 sauewn © 10 a2 12 13 14 as 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 Q. Fair enough, and you did not discuss the specific questions about your character with the people you've named? A. My discussions were that the -- I was basically told by my colleagues that these questions were put forward by Mr. Stirling and that they regarded me -- I mean, if you want to use the word "character" or "reputation" or "integrity" or -- Q. Well, I want to know the word you use. You say character and reputation. I want to know which questions referred to character and which questions referred to reputation; and what I'm saying to you, and what I think you'll agree with, is that today you can’t tell me which questions went to character and which went to reputation, because you weren’t there and you didn’t discuss the specific questions with either Haynes, Colabella, or Martini, correct? A. I inquired as to what was asked of Colabella, Martini, Haynes and others, and the students themselves were not precise in their wording. As I mentioned, no one took a transcript, but I was advised by these students that a series of questions had been put about my reputation, what people at the law school thought about me. Q. I don’t want to rehash the transcript. You've already indicated you don’t know the specific question, right? A. The specific questions, correct. Q. So am I correct, then, in understanding that the ***AMICUS REPORTING GROUP***19 ” we erannee 10 1 12 a3 14 1s 16 17 18 a9 20 a1 22 23 24 25 26 27 questions that were asked, you can’t delineate about which ones were asked about your character and which ones were asked about your reputation because you don’t know about the specific questions? A. I think that the very fact that I was brought up in a series of interviews rings an alarm bell for me. Q. Well, it might do that, Mr. Levant -- A. And then when I heard that it wasn’t just a political chant but, rather, pointed questions that were enough to make these people -- I guess really what was the warning light for me was how these people felt so uneasy about what had gone on. Q. That’s fine. Do you want me to re-read the question? It was a fairly specific question which I thought you would agree with. You don’t know what the specific content of the questions were, so you're not able today to tell me whether they were about your character or they were about your reputation in any specific way? A. I know what the content was from what these people told me. It was about this -- It was about me and how people thought of me. Now, I do not know if was 60 percent reputation and 40 percent character -- Q. No, no. Okay, how do you know that, then? A. Because that’s what Haynes, Colabella et al told me. Q. What did they tell you specifically about the questions? A. That they found them inappropriate and that they were ***AMICUS REPORTING GROUP*#*#*20 wow © eran es 10 a 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 probing my character and reputation. Q. But no one told you that this specific question went to your character or that this specific question went to your xeputation? You didn’t get that information from any of those three, did you? A. I think that your question is detached from how people speak. People, in my opinion -- Q. I just want an answer. A. Your question is framed such that I must answer no, because your question is -- I don’t think people, for example, would say, The next two questions shall be about character, the next three shall be about reputation. Q. I’m not interested in any of that. I want you to answer my question. MR. BILLINGTON: Well, Mr. Levant is answering your question, Mr. Watson. MR. WATSON: He's giving me an evasive answer. MR. BILLINGTON: Mr. Watson, you're asking him cute questions right now, and if you're going to -- MR. WATSON: Don’t patronize me. It’s not. a cute question. It’s a question that goes directly to the words used in his paragraph three. MR. BILLINGTO! Mr. Levant’s answers are directly responding to that. MR. WATSON: Well, we have a profound disagreement. Let me ask the question again. ***RMICUS REPORTING GROUP***21 au ew 2 10 a 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 22 22 23 24 25 26 27 Q. Do you know which question goes to character? A. I did not know which of the particular questions asked by Mr. Stirling would be put in your pigeon hole called character as opposed to reputation. Q. Well, it’s not my pigeon hole, sir. You used the two words "character" and "reputation", and you tell me they’re different, so that’s why I’m asking. A. As I’ve suggested-- MR. BILLINGTON: Well, Mr. Levant, wait. Mr. Levant has not told you entirely that they are different. He said they are part of the same bundle, as well, so that’s an incorrect summary of the evidence so far. MR. WATSON: Well, the transcript will speak for itself. Q. MR. WATSON: Now, you go on to say in your final three lines of paragraph three that you believe that " The questions were focussed, in part, on publicity surrounding me which arose out of the Gauntlet item". Now, what publicity are you referring to that arose from the Gauntlet item? A. I'm speaking of several. First of all, an article in the Calgary Herald that made reference to our suit. Q. Do you have a copy of that article? A. No, I don’t. Q. Do you know the date of it? A. I believe it would have been September or October ‘93, just going into the federal election. I remember it was ‘***RMICUS REPORTING GROUP***22 we eran 10 a a2 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 actually quite a prominent article in the Herald, probably about a foot long. I know, as well, that the suit was mentioned in Alberta Report magazine. I know that a lot of people had been discussing the suit; people at the U of C, people at the Gauntlet. Q. That lawsuit was initiated at your instructions, I assume? A. This whole action. Q. This whole action? in xen. Q. And the publicity, then, is what? What is in the public eye? A. Publicity is, again, a general term that would mean everything that the public hears, or sees, or talks about or reads. Q. I’m trying to get an idea of what it is that is in the public eye by reason of the Gauntlet publication which attracted this focus you talk about in this paragraph? A. What -- could you please -- Q. Let's attack it from a different direction. Why do you believe that the questions were focussed, in part, on publicity surrounding the Gauntlet publication? A. Because until I was referred to in such a defamatory manner by the Gauntlet, my reputation had never been challenged before. My character, my reputation, all these words that you try and splinter, I had never before in public been criticized for my character or my integrity. ***AMICUS REPORTING GROUP***on { 23 eer anne eon 10 11 12 23 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 22 22 23 24 25 26 27 The first that ever happened was when your clients wrote that fateful article, and so never before had someone gone trawling about for information about my character and reputation, until the Gauntlet did what they did. Q. And the someone who’s trawling, you believe, is Mr. Stirling? A. That's correct. Q. Are you able today to isolate any particular question or portion of a question which focussed on the publicity? A. What do you mean by "isolate"? Q. You seem to suggest in the phrase that I’ve read to you, which begins "I believe that those questions were focussed at least in part on publicity" - A. M-hm. Q. TI assume, then, that you were able to determine that there's a part of the questions that weren’t focusing on that kind of publicity in order to make the distinction? A. You're right. For example, as we've discussed earlier, I have a public profile for a whole range of issues, including political correctness, but unfortunately, I have a public profile, as well, because the Gauntlet chose to call me some nasty names. The Calgary Herald, for example, discussed this defamation action. I have a public profile in the Calgary Herald for other things, for my politics; but not until the Herald referred to the Gauntlet was my character brought into question. ‘***AMICUS REPORTING GROUP***24 we erane von 10 an 12 123 14 1s 16 a7 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 Q. What public profile, then, did the Gauntlet publication create? A. The Gauntlet -- the incident that the suit is over, or in general, my association with the Gauntlet. Q. The incident the suit is over? A. Well, as you saw -- I’m sure you've seen the offending article. It’s quite an abusive headline that was designed, in fact, to cause quite a stir. Q. Well, let me ask a question along these lines. The Gauntlet article didn’t refer to political correctness, did it? A. I don’t think the words “political correctness" were in there, but it did. Q. So insofar as you've got other political views, religious views, political affiliations, views about political correctness, whatever, equalities, inequalities of a variety of kind, those would have gone into the public xealm through your other publications? A. Yes. Q. So the publicity you're talking about is, perhaps, general publicity? A. You asked me earlier about the distinction between publicity caused by this action at the Gauntlet and other publicity. I have other publicity that you've referred to and that we've discussed -- TV, radio, et cetera -- but unfortunately, I also have publicity based on this Gauntlet headline and article. That is the distinction, and I think ‘***RMICUS REPORTING GROUP***25 aur one . 10 ad) 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 that distinction became manifest when a lawyer at Parlee’s asked my classmates about my reputation. I’ve been active, as I’ve mentioned, in parties in politics and the issue of politics, but never before has anyone asked about my character or reputation. They’ve taken me -- it was a new chapter, 80 to speak. Q. Okay, so what portion of the question focussed on the publicity surrounding the Gauntlet publication? A. What portion of which question, I’m sorry? Q. Well, you say those questions, so maybe we will deal them in general terms, those questions. A. I would suggest that -- for example, by taking on the University of Alberta for political correctness, my reputation is not really in issue, but when someone says I spread hate, for example, as the Gauntlet headline implied, well then it is very much a matter of character and integrity and reputation. I don’t think -- and I’ve had a lot of debates. I don’t think that before this Gauntlet matter people -- I mean, of course the fact that I had a public profile outside of this Gauntlet matter was a factor, and thus, I say in my affidavit that it was at least in part based on the publicity of this action. Q. I’m correct in my understanding that in your view cU had a public profile at that time and participated in debates and the like; is that fair? A. Yes. ***AMICUS REPORTING GROUP***26 wears ne wn 10 a 12 a3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 2s 26 27 Q. Asa matter of fact, you wrote or had something published in the Gauntlet from time to time? A. Yes. Q. In paragraph four of your affidavit you express the opinion that Mr. Stirling is going to give testimony on issues of liability. Is it your view that Mr. Stirling has evidence that is relevant to the publication of the Gauntlet article? A. I think he has information which is relevant to the defining as to what damage that article happened -- your question -- Q. We're talking about liability. We'll get to damages because you talk about both liability and damages. A. Your question, I think, referred to the publication of the article. Q. Right. A. Again, I have no information firsthand, but I would assume that Mr. Stirling was not privy to those decisions going on in the Gauntlet editorial office the day that was written. So I believe your question was did he know it was being published? Very few people knew it was being published until it hit the streets the next day. Q. You're not saying that Mr. Stirling is going to give evidence about the publication of the Gauntlet? A. No, I’m saying the effects of the publication. Q. And you're not saying that the drafting of that particular piece, the article of February 1eth, ‘93 -- the ***AMICUS REPORTING GROUP***27 10 a 12 13 14 as 16 17 18 19 20 22 22 23 24 25 26 27 letter, I think it’s probably described as -- Mr. Stirling participated in that in any way? You’re not saying that either? A. Correct. Q. So its content, the words chosen, the fact that it xeferred to you, have nothing to do with Mr. Stirling? A. No. Its creation and mind of the letter writer, the decision on that fateful day, Stirling had nothing to do with. Q. Perfect. Now, you're not saying that during the course of these discussions, or alleged discussions, with the three individuals you mentioned -- A. And other individuals, as well. Q. And who were they? A. TI can’t recall their names offhand, but I would like to clarify -- and I think I mentioned earlier -- that there were a number of students. Q. I believe you indicated three or four. Is there more than that? A. As I say, I focussed only on those who had the most egregious experience, but I would like to clarify that it was -- I think in your question you said two or three. Q. So I apologize. It was three or four, I think is the number you gave. I want to put closure on that issue. Is there anything you can consult to tell me who the other parties were? A. I made some notes that evening. ***RMICUS REPORTING GROUP***28 wera ew 10 wn 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 22 22 23 24 25 26 27 Q. Would you review your notes? A. I'd like to, yes. Q. And would you produce the notes, please? A. Iwill. UNDERTAKING NO. 2: TO PRODUCE NOTES MADE AFTER DISCUSSIONS WITH STUDENTS A. dust to put closure on it, as you say, my process when I heard about this from Haynes and Colabella, was to find out who else had had a meeting with Stirling that day and to contact them if I could. I spoke briefly with some of them, such as Martini; spoke at greater depth with others, like Colabella and Haynes, but I would like to emphasize that I checked with a number of students who had been with Stirling that day, and they had confirmed that this was Stirling's procedure at those other meetings, too. Q. MR. WATSON: Well, I’d like you to undertake to tell me who those people are. Be twill UNDERTAKING NO. 3: TO PROVIDE NAMES OF INTERVIEWED STUDENTS MR. LEVANT TALKED TO MR. WATSON: You can confirm with me today, however, that these alleged questions or actual questions that were asked by Mr. Stirling did not amount to re-publication of the Gauntlet article? A. Well, of course, in the narrow sense he did not re-publish, but he -- again, we've used the word “publicity” and "public" and "publish". I think he was sowing seeds ***AMICUS REPORTING GROUP***29 wane une © @ 10 1 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 22 22 23 24 25 26 27 there. He was scoping and scouting and reconnaissance but Q. Reconnaissance? A. -- I think he was panning for a nugget, perhaps. He was probing. He was asked questions. But, like I say, it wasn’t just that; and the tone of my classmates was not just, you know, a report of something neutral that happened, but a feeling of offence or that something unethical had happened, and thus I say not only was it a recon mission by Mr. Stirling -- Q. On behalf of who? A. I would suggest -- I don’t know. I don’t know who because, like I say, I’ve never spoken with Mr. stirling, but I find it rather inappropriate -- I don’t know if T would use the word "unprofessional" -- that a member of the firm of the Gauntlet is using his position as a recruiter for summer students to spread unease about me. Q. You say in the last sentence of paragraph four that this circumstance is somehow going to establish your reputation. A. I think -- I think it is quite -- the word used, probative. Not just probative but interesting, because I want to know -- I want to know a lot of things from Mr. Stirling, including why he thought it was of significant importance to query my classmates about my reputation. What was driving it? I want to know for various reasons -- if my ***AMICUS REPORTING GROUP***30 we eranneuvne 10 12 12 13 14 15 16 a7 18 19 20 22 22 23 24 25 26 27 reputation is indeed that large, I want to know the amount of damage done to it by this offending article in the Gauntlet. I want to know also the amount of damage done by Stirling. I want to know -- I think that’s basically why I’m so interested in this, because you can imagine as a first year student, when you hear that a recruiter from a firm in Calgary is casting about fishing for facts, you want to know what his angle is, you want to know what he’s up to. Q. Fair enough. Let’s return to the question. You're going to say that you've got a reputation. Somewhere along the chain of this litigation, you'll stand up in court and say this is my reputation? A. And I think the fact that Stirling would inquire into it demonstrates that. Q. Well, just bear with me for a minute. The reputation you've got arises from a number of things, I suppose, and my question is how is what Mr. Stirling is going to say going to establish your reputation? A. I think it will in several ways. It will allow me to check how much he -- I mean, he was asking questions about the nature of my character. I want to know where that came from. I want to know if that came from the Gauntlet publication itself. I want to know if it came from the Gauntlet, your client. I want to know -- Q. So is it your position right now that you don’t know that and you want to make the inquiry? A, As I mentioned to you, I've never met Mr. Stirling. ***AMICUS REPORTING GROUP***31 SS ctl oy) une ioe 10 a 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 Q. Right. AL But -- Q. And you've never discussed this with him? A. No. But what I want to do, and why I think it’s so important that we examine Stirling, is to find out why he would think that I am of such notoriety that he’s got to ask my colleagues about my reputation, and I want to know what damage he did, and I want to know what he thinks about this. I want to know where these ideas came from, if it came from the Gauntlet article, if it came from your clients. Q. Well, all right, so you want to know those things, but as of today’s date you don’t know them? A. I’ve never spoken with the man. Q. Right. So the answer to that question is you don’t know them today? A. I don’t know them in a transcript button down -- Q. Well, personal knowledge way, something very firm? A. Correct. Q. Would you agree with me that someone who may have read a number of your publications could possibly form an opinion about you? A. I think first they would -- they would form an opinion about me, of course. ‘That opinion would be, he’s left wing, he’s right wing, he’s out to lunch, he’s on the money, whatever. I don’t think, though, that based on what I’ve said and the way I’ve conducted myself in public affairs, ‘***AMICUS REPORTING GROUP***32 we eran ew ne 10 a a2 123 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 22 22 23 24 25 26 27 that one would say that Levant‘s character or reputation or integrity is in disrepute. I don’t think so. Q. Perhaps. I mean, it’s speculation at some point what people would think or not, but it seems to be less speculative, wouldn’t you agree, that someone who was an avid follower of Ezra Levant and the Sun, or whatever, would eventually develop an opinion of you? A. again I/1l clarify that I didn’t start with the Sun until recently. Q. Fair enough. A. Well, I think they would, but -- of course they would develop an opinion, but it’s the nature of their opinion. 1 have a opinion of many public figures, but my opinion is more political than personal. I don’t talk about personal stories in any of my media. Q. And you don’t know what Mr. Stirling’s opinion of you is, correct? A. Well, again, I’ve never met the man, but based on the fact that he’s probing about my integrity, he must have some doubts as to my character, for this is the first occasion in my life that someone has done this kind of investigation. Q. I don’t want you to speculate, or whatever. I’m simply asking do you know what opinion Mr. Stirling may have of you? A. I have no firsthand dealings with the man. Based on my secondhand information, that is, his admission, in fact, in the letter to the Law Society that he did indeed discuss me, ***AMICUS REPORTING GROUP***33 pene wera 10 wa a2 13 14 15 16 ay 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 that he must have some interest in me. Q. Well, and isn’t that, in fact, flattering to you? as someone who pursues a public profile, you want people to discuss your views, follow your views, adopt your views? A. Sir, I have not complained about him discussing my views. I’ve complained about him discussing my character. Q. Yes, I realize that. You don’t know what Greg Stirling knows about your reputation? Not having ever met the man, discussed it with him, you don’t know; is that fair? A. That’s correct. @. You refer in paragraph eleven of your affidavit to the report to the Law Society. A. A letter I had reported to the Law Society? Yes. Q. I believe you may want to take this opportunity to correct something on the record. A. Oh, yes. The word "altered" should be "authored" instead, on the second line. Q. Did you receive a letter from the Law Society concerning your complaint? A. I believe I did. Q. Do you have that with you today? A. I received several letters. Are you referring -- Q. Would you produce all the letters that you received from the Law Society? You would have received a copy of Mr. Stirling’s reply? A. Yes. Q. You also received a letter from Mr. Roman dismissing ***AMICUS REPORTING GROUP***