Court File No.

: CV-17-573500

ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

B E T W E E N:

TOM KEEFER
Plaintiff

-and-

TWO ROW TIMES/GARLOW MEDIA, JONATHAN GARLOW, DAVID LAFORCE

Defendants

STATEMENT OF CLAIM

TO THE DEFENDANTS:

A LEGAL PROCEEDING HAS BEEN COMMENCED AGAINST YOU by the

plaintiff. The claim made against you is set out in the following pages.

IF YOU WISH TO DEFEND THIS PROCEEDING, you or an Ontario lawyer acting

for you must prepare a statement of defence in Form 18A prescribed by the Rules of Civil
Procedure, serve it on the plaintiffs lawyer or, where the plaintiff does not have a lawyer, serve
it on the plaintiff, and file it, with proof of service, in this court office, WITHIN TWENTY
DAYS after this notice of action is served on you, if you are served in Ontario.

If you are served in another province or territory of Canada or in the United States of
America, the period for serving and filing your statement of defence is forty days. If you are
served outside Canada and the United States of America, the period is sixty days.

Instead of serving and filing a statement of defence, you may serve and file a notice of
intent to defend in Form 18B prescribed by the Rules of Civil Procedure. This will entitle you to
ten more days within which to serve and file your statement of defence.

1
 IF YOU FAIL TO DEFEND THIS PROCEEDING, JUDGEMENT MAY BE GIVEN
AGAINST YOU IN YOUR ABSENCE AND WITHOUT FURTHER NOTICE TO YOU.
IF YOU WISH TO DEFEND THIS PROCEEDING BUT ARE UNABLE TO PAY
LEGAL FEES, LEGAL AID MAY BE AVAILABLE TO YOU BY CONTACTING A
LOCAL LEGAL AID OFFICE.

(Where the claim made is for money only, include the following:)

IF YOU PAY THE PLAINTIFFS CLAIM, and $2,000 for costs, within the time for
serving and filing your statement of defence, you may move to have this proceeding dismissed
by the court. If you believe the amount claimed for costs is excessive, you may pay the plaintiffs
claim and $400 for costs and have the costs assessed by the court.

TAKE NOTICE THIS ACTION WILL AUTOMATICALLY BE DISMISSED if it has

not been set down for trial or terminated by any means within five years after the action was
commenced unless otherwise ordered by the court.

Date: APRIL 18.. Issued .

by
Local registrar

Address SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

Of 393 UNIVERSITY AVE,
Court 10TH FLOOR, TORONTO, ON.
office M5G 1E6

TO: Jonathan Garlow

Two Row Times/Garlow Media
65 Sheridan St.
Brantford,
Ontario, N3T 2R1

David LaForce
1996 Brantford Rd
Vanessa,
Ontario N0E 1V0

2
 THIS ACTION IS BROUGHT AGAINST YOU UNDER THE SIMPLIFIED
PROCEDURE PROVIDED IN RULE 76 OF THE RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE.

The plaintiff intends to claim for:

1. Repayment of loans plus interest in the amount of $30,000;

2. Damages for breach of employment relationship, in the amount of $61,200;
3. Unjust Enrichment;
4. Breach of fiduciary duties;
5. Breach of the Partnership Act;
6. Damages and declaratory relief with respect to wrongful interference with business
relationships.

April 15, 2017 Tom Keefer

180 Indian Rd.
Toronto, On, M6R 2W3

3
 CLAIM

1. The plaintiff claims against the defendants jointly and severally, for:
a. The sum of $20,000 for money lent;
b. the return of personal property and computer equipment valued at $2000;
c. a declaration that the actions of the defendants in barring the plaintiff from the
company's office and removing him from his employment duties as the General
Manager and Editor of the Two Row Times constituted a breach of fiduciary
duties and constructive dismissal;
d. general damages in the amount of $61,200 in unpaid wages;
e. an order requiring the individual defendants to disclose to the plaintiffs the status
of all projects in which Two Row Times/Garlow media is currently involved in
and the status of all negotiations in which it is involved regarding potential
projects;
f. an order requiring the Two Row Times and all individual defendants to provide to
the plaintiff full and complete access to Two Row Times / Garlow Media's
financial books and receipts;
g. an order requiring the Two Row Times / Garlow Media and all individual
defendants to return to the plaintiff all passwords to all social media, website, and
email accounts held by Two Row Times / Garlow Media;
h. damages payable jointly and severally, in an amount to be particularized in
advance of trial for breach of contract, fiduciary and/or equitable duties,
procuring/inducing breach of contract, interference with a contractual relation,
unjust enrichment, conspiracy to defraud injure by unlawful means, deceit,
misrepresentation and/negligence;
i. an order of accounting for the plaintiffs ownership interest in TRT;
j. an order that the defendants and each of them reconstitute the assets which they
hold in trust for the plaintiff and deliver of those assets to the plaintiff;
k. a declaration that the defendants and each of them hold all sums received by them
in fraud of the plaintiff in trust for the plaintiff and that they are liable to account
to the plaintiff for the same and an order that they pay those sums found due on
the taking of the account to the plaintiff;
l. punitive, exemplary and aggravated damages payable jointly and severally in the
amount of $100,000;
m. the appointment of a Receiver and/or Inspector of the corporate and personal
assets of the defendants, and each of them, with power to manage and continue
the corporate businesses of the defendants and/or investigate relevant facts as
directed by this honourable court;

4
 n. such further and other orders as may be necessary to secure the sale and/or
investigation of the corporate and individual assets of the defendants;
o. pre-judgement and post-judgement interest on this amount in accordance with the
agreement between the parties; or in the alternative, pursuant to the Courts of
Justice Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.43;
p. costs of this action on a substantial indemnity basis, together with applicable
Harmonized Sales Tax thereon; and
q. such further and other relief as this honourable court deems just, including all
further necessary or appropriate accounts, inquiries and directions.

Overview

2. The plaintiff is an owner and founder of the company Garlow Media which publishes the
Two Row Times newspaper weekly. The newspaper is distributed in Six Nations of the
Grand River, Caledonia, Hagersville, Brantford, Simcoe and on Native reserves
throughout the Province of Ontario. The Two Row Times and its social media assets are
available online for viewing at www.tworowtimes.com.
3. In May of 2013, the plaintiff was approached by Jim Windle, David LaForce and
Marshall Lank former staff members at the Six Nations community newspaper
Tekawennake News to launch a new weekly newspaper aimed at Indigenous communities
and the surrounding non-native communities in the Bowl with one Spoon region
(Southern Ontario).
4. The plaintiff and former staff members of the Tekawennake News agreed that the plaintiff
would acquire financing for the startup costs of the paper from family and friends, that all
founding partners would be owners of the business, and that the business would operate
on a consensus basis with equality between all partners.
5. The plaintiff suggested that a Six Nations resident be asked to join the group of owners
(none of who were from Six Nations though all had many years of experience in the
community) to serve as the public face of the initiative and to play an equal role as an
owner in the project.
6. In particular, the plaintiff suggested that Jonathan Garlow, a member of the Six Nations
Indian Reserve #40 be approached to join the ownership team. Garlow worked in his
fathers print shop on reserve and is a graphic designer and media maker. The plaintiff
had known Garlow since since 2006, and the two had been creating a podcast entitled
the Two Row Podcast for several months before the founding of the Two Row Times.
7. With the agreement of his other partners, the plaintiff approached Jonathan Garlow and
invited him to join the group of owners in the Two Row Times in July of 2013. Garlow
agreed with the proviso that he be paid $300 a week, and that he never be required to
work more than one day a week for the paper. Consequently, the original owners of the

5
 business were constituted as Tom Keefer, Jonathan Garlow, Jim Windle, David LaForce
and Marshall Lank.
8. In order to open a bank account, a business license was required. On July 23rd, Jonathan
Garlow registered the business Garlow Media (number 230738429) as a sole
proprietorship for the purposes of opening the companys bank account. While registered
according to Canadian Law as a sole proprietorship, Jonathan Garlow, Tom Keefer,
David Laforce, Marshall Lank and Jim Windle signed an agreement stating that together
they were equal owners of Garlow Media which published the Two Row Times.
9. The Two Row Times was headquartered out of a building on the property of the plaintiffs
brother, Christopher Keefer, located at 237 River Rd, in Brant County, adjacent to the Six
Nations reserve. The plaintiff lived at this location with his brother from July of 2013
until December 2015.
10. The mailing address for the Two Row Times was listed as 657 Mohawk Rd, in Six
Nations the home of Andrew Garlow, father of Jonathan Garlow.
11. The Two Row Times newspaper began publishing on August 14, 2013, and has appeared
on newsstands every Wednesday morning since then.
12. Upon the launching of the Two Row Times newspaper, the plaintiff was responsible for a
wide range of different kinds of managerial work for the paper and carried the titles and
job descriptions of General Manager and Editor.
13. As General Manager, the Plaintiff co-ordinated distribution, liaised with the website
designer, supervised the advertising department, served on hiring committees, maintained
the archives, made payroll, chaired owners meetings, and carried out a wide variety of
miscellaneous tasks.
14. As Editor of the Two Row Times, the plaintiff chaired editorial meetings, solicited content
from over 100 freelance writers, wrote editorial content, managed editorial staff, edited
every single article (save one) that was published the papers first 87 issues, (August 14
to April 15 2015), proofread during production, and handled communications with the
printer.
15. As an owner of the paper, the plaintiff met with the other owners on a regular basis
(usually weekly) to make decisions about the direction of the company.
16. The plaintiff regularly put in 60 hour weeks working on the business and was a central
part of all decision making regarding to Garlow Media / Two Row Times.
17. The parents of the plaintiff, Dr. Michael Keefer and Dr. Janice Kulyk Keefer became
investors in the Two Row Times, lending over $55,000 to the paper in its start-up phase.
The plaintiff also raised funds for the paper by approaching family friends to encourage
them to invest in the paper. Family friends Paul and Susan McArthur invested $40,000 in
the paper.
18. The plaintiff lent the Two Row Times $20,000 by using his personal credit card and line
of credit to cover shortfalls in the printing costs of the paper.

6
19. On October 3rd 2013 the original 5 owners (Jonathan Garlow, Tom Keefer, David
Laforce, Marshall Lank and Jim Windle) signed a document to split their 20% ownership
into 6 equal shares of 15% each, and transferred the remaining 15% share to Kelly
MacNaughton, a Mohawk business woman from Six Nations who was the papers first
major advertiser. This left a 10% share of the paper open for possible future sale.
20. As the financial situation at the Two Row Times worsened, Marshall Lank quit the Two
Row Times on October 10th, 2013 and went to work for the rival community newspaper
Turtle Island News.
21. On January 21st 2014, owners Jonathan Garlow, Tom Keefer, David Laforce, Kelly
MacNaughton and Jim Windle signed the Two Row Times Statement of Principles, a
document defining the business structures and decision making processes. Under this
framework all partners became equal holders of a share in Garlow Media and agreed to
use consensus decision making and the principles of the Two Row Wampum, the Great
Law, and the Dish with One Spoon as their guide to making decisions in the business.
22. On May 8th 2014, a memorandum of agreement was signed between all owners releasing
Jim Windle from his position as a principal/owner in the Two Row Times and absolving
him of all debts and liability. In return, Jim was guaranteed employment as the senior
news writer and a pay of $700 a week for at least two years.
23. In the spring of 2014 conflicts developed between Nahnda Garlow, the wife of Jonathan
Garlow and a columnist for the Two Row Times and owner Kelly MacNaughton. Nahnda
was increasingly stepping outside of her responsibilities as a writer and columnist and
was trying to influence decisions that are the purview of the owners. Nahnda worked to
undermine Kelly MacNaughtons authority and position within the business.
24. In May of 2014, Nahnda Garlow organized a group of staff members at the Two Row
Times to condemn Kelly MacNaughton for unspecified and unsubstantiated abusive
behaviours towards them. At a staff meeting on May 29th at which Kelly was not present,
Nahnda spoke on behalf of the group of staff people which had threatened to quit the
paper en masse if the other owners didn't do something about Kelly.
25. The day after this meeting, on May 30th, 2014, Kelly MacNaughton informed the
plaintiff in a meeting at her house that her doctor had told her that she should go on
immediate leave due to serious medical complications that threatened her life and well
being. Kellys medical condition was greatly aggravated by the conflict with Nahnda, and
so the plaintiff chose not to discuss the issue of what had happened at the staff meeting
the day before with Kelly.
26. On June 4th 2014, Jonathan Garlow, Tom Keefer and David Laforce wrote a letter to
Kelly MacNaughton insisting that she go on a temporary health leave from the paper for
her own benefit.
27. Kelly MacNaughton responded by employing lawyer Aaron Detlor to act on her behalf.
A number of meetings were held and letters were exchanged, culminating in Kelly

7
 MacNaughton taking legal action against the Two Row Times, Tom Keefer, Chris Keefer,
Jonathan Garlow, Jim Windle, Marshall Lank and David Laforce on August 21st 2014.
This court action has not been resolved, though Kelly MacNaughton has dropped Tom
Keefer and Chris Keefer from her lawsuit and refiled it with a new lawyer.
28. On June 30th 2014 Marshall Lank returned to work at the Two Row Times after quitting
the Turtle Island News. He returned as an employee for weekly payment of $550 against
a commission of 20%, and a guarantee of work for two years, with a weekly sales target
of $2500. In exchange, Lank agreed to formally relinquish any claim to be an owner or
principal of the Two Row Times/Garlow Media.
29. In the summer of 2014, the plaintiffs brother Christopher Keefer decided to sell the farm
where the paper was housed. Consequently, Jonathan Garlow, Tom Keefer and David
Laforce acting as owners of the paper, decided to temporarily move the offices of the
Two Row Times to 657 Mohawk Rd, the home of Andrew Garlow, the father of Jonathan
Garlow. The Two Row Times moved its office into Andrew Garlows home in November
of 2014.
30. Once the paper was settled down in its new space, Jonathan Garlow and his wife Nahnda
Garlow began usurping the roles of other owners, and started behaving as though the Two
Row Times was their private family business. Nahnda declared that she was the Garlow
matriarch and that because the paper was in the Garlow family home, it had to follow
Garlow rules. For his part, Jonathan Garlow studiously avoided attending ownership
meetings and without the consent or agreement of the other owners delegated his
responsibilities as owner to Nahnda.
31. Without the permission or even knowledge of the other owners, Jonathan Garlow,
Nahnda Garlow, and Josh Bean (the advertising co-ordinator at the paper) acted
nepotistically by hiring Laura Hill (Nahnda Garlows sister and Josh Beans wife) as a
full time worker at the paper. They also spent company money on buying new laptops for
themselves without approval from owners David Laforce, Kelly MacNaughton, and the
plaintiff.
32. As Nahnda Garlow consolidated her control over the operations of the business, she made
death threats and threats of physical violence against the plaintiff on multiple occasions.
On February 17th, 2015 she physically assaulted the plaintiff by striking him with an
iPhone charger cord and then slapping him in the face because she disagreed with the
way an editorial investigation by writer Jim Windle into the Haudenosaunee
Development Institute was proceeding.
33. In March of 2015 Nahnda Garlow demanded of her husband and brother in law that a
new employee of the paper be sidelined from work and removed from her duties because
she had allegedly flirted with Jonathan Garlow at work. The plaintiff did not agree with
this assessment and nor did he consider Nahndas intervention to be appropriate, holding

8
 instead that any matter of disciplining, and laying off employees should be discussed at a
meeting of the owners.
34. Jonathan Garlow had been avoiding owners meetings after the newspaper moved into his
fathers home, and no owners meeting had been held since Nahnda had physically
assaulted the plaintiff on February 17th.
35. In the absence of an owners meeting to resolve the matter, the plaintiff sent an email to
Jonathan Garlow and David Laforce clarifying his position on the matter concerning the
employee Nahnda wished to remove and requesting that the owners meet to discuss a
whole number of unresolved issues relating to this that need to be discussed at the
ownership level.
36. Shortly after the plaintiff sent his email, Nahnda wrote her own email to Jonathan
Garlow, Tom Keefer, David Laforce and Josh Bean, stating that she was at a loss in how
to initiate a successful working relationship with Tom, that she tried to talk to him
about it but he said that he is afraid of me and feels unsafe being in the office with me
and working with me at all. She added that I respectfully request that an official
meeting is organized - without the involvement of Tom and I - where these issues can be
resolved for the long term.
37. In requesting that an unbiased and official meeting be convened to resolve the issues
between herself and the plaintiff, Nahnda said that she would be presenting a formal list
of grievances with proposed solutions. I request that Tom also bring a formal list of
grievances that can be shared and his suggested solutions.
38. Rather than agreeing to either the owners meeting that the plaintiff had suggested or the
mediation process that his wife had suggested, the very next morning, without any notice
or discussion with the other owners, Jonathan Garlow gathered up all the office staff
around the plaintiffs desk and then threw a white pine branch on the floor in front of the
plaintiff.
39. Claiming his authority derived from the Great Law, Jonathan Garlow stated that he was
like a Chief in the Two Row Times, and that the plaintiff was being given a second
warning for not following his and his wifes direction. He threatened that if the plaintiff
did not heed him, he would gather up a group of men and physically remove the plaintiff
from the office and the reserve.
40. Jonathan Garlow then informed the plaintiff and the assembled staff that Nahnda was
now pregnant, and that if anything were to happen to her baby, he would hold the
plaintiff personally responsible for its fate.
41. Jonathan further stated that if the plaintiff picked up the white pine branch, that we could
again have peace and our friendship would be as it was before. If the plaintiff did not
pick it up, Garlow stated that the plaintiff would be considered an enemy and he would
then act accordingly.

9
42. The plaintiff asked Jonathan Garlow why the issues and concerns were not being
addressed through the person previously designated as the Two Row Times
Ombudsperson in case of disputes between staff. Jonathan denied there was an
Ombudsperson, and made no effort to consider the method of mediation his wife had
proposed only the day before.
43. Faced with this uncomfortable and unanticipated situation, the plaintiff picked up the
pine branch and was told by Jonathan that our friendship was now as good as new and
that we could move forwards together as friends and allies.
44. Later that night, being unable to sleep and pondering what had happened, the plaintiff
wrote Jonathan and David Laforce a letter stating that given that Jonathan was holding
the plaintiff responsible for the health of his unborn baby, the plaintiff wanted to have no
engagement or interaction with Nahnda whatsoever, and did not want to be in a position
of relating to her as an employee of the Two Row Times. The plaintiff suggested that
Nahnda be very well recompensed for doing freelance writing for the paper so as not to
lose her income, but that she cease doing any managerial work whatsoever.
45. Although Jonathan Garlow acknowledged receipt of the letter, he made no comment or
response to it. He also continued to avoid attending ownership meetings, insisting that the
business should pay him $100 per meeting since his time was so valuable and he was so
busy.
46. Over the next three weeks, Nahnda stepped back from the paper and did not come into
work, write her column, or do any other work for the Two Row Times.
47. On Thursday, April 16th 2015, at a weekly Two Row Times editorial meeting, with David
Laforce present, Jonathan Garlow abruptly stated that he had recently become aware of
serious allegations that the plaintiff had a history of abusing women psychologically
and emotionally. As a result, Garlow stated that an investigation needed to take place,
that the plaintiff wasnt welcome in the Two Row Times office in his family home while
this was taking place, and that the plaintiff should be on paid leave while the
investigation was taking place.
48. The plaintiff agreed to the paid leave, assumed that due process would be followed, and
insisted that in whatever investigation took place he have a chance to respond to any
charges made against him.
49. The plaintiff left the office in a respectful fashion, and believing in the mission of the
Two Row Times, took no action against the paper or its staff to disrupt it in any way.
50. No allegations were ever made available to the plaintiff, and the plaintiff was never asked
for his input or to respond to any of the allegations made against him by Nahnda and
Jonathan Garlow or any of his anonymous accusers.
51. After two weeks, the plaintiff ceased to receive the $600 in weekly pay that he had been
promised, and that he needed to help support his partner and three children (aged at that
time, 10, 6 and 1 years old).

10
52. No criminal charges were filed against the plaintiff about anything to do with the
allegations raised against him.
53. The plaintiff was threatened with physical violence if he returned to the reservation by
Adam Hill, the brother of Nahnda Garlow. The plaintiff was also repeatedly libelled in a
number of Facebook posts made by Nahnda and Jonathan Garlow and their friends and
family members.
54. The plaintiff, in concert with owner Kelly MacNaughton has made repeated requests to
meet with Jonathan Garlow and David Laforce with third party mediators to resolve this
matter.
55. On May 9th, 2015 in correspondence with the plaintiffs father, Michael Keefer, Jonathan
Garlow wrote in my eyes he [Tom Keefer] is still a part owner in the paper but has been
released for general manager position and not welcome at the Garlow property due to
violations against the dignity and human rights of women 4 of which are from six nations
who he has labelled as emotional and crazy. He [Tom] is still technically an owner and
I have every intention of paying back all investors and will be reaffirming that.
56. Despite this statement Jonathan Garlow and David Laforce have refused multiple offers
to meet with the plaintiff and fellow owner Kelly MacNaughton to resolve any of these
matters, including through the mediation of third parties.
57. In the spring of 2017 the plaintiff and Kelly MacNaughton contacted all investors in the
Two Row Times and called for a meeting with all owners to pay back the more than
$120,000 borrowed to establish the paper. Jonathan Garlow and David Laforce declined
to attend the meeting.
58. The Two Row Times as a business has continued to prosper, over the past two years
regularly printing 36 page issues, with an advertising revenue estimated by the plaintiff at
approximately $15,000 a week on expenses of about $10,000 a week.

11