NOTICE PURSUANT TO THE LIBEL AND

SLANDER ACT, R.S.O. 1990, c.L.12

B E T W E E N:

MIKE BULLARD

Plaintiff

- and –

ROGERS MEDIA INC., SARAH BOESVELD, JANE OR JOHN DOE #1 (being the editor of
the Defamatory Words)
Defendants

NOTICE OF LIBEL

TAKE NOTICE that pursuant to section 5(1) of the Libel and Slander, Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.L.12
(the “Libel and Slander Act”) Mike Bullard complains of and objects to the false, malicious,
irresponsible and defamatory online magazine posting concerning him at
https://www.chatelaine.com/news/cynthia-mulligan-mike-bullard-qa/ which was posted on,
and/or updated on, June 13, 2018, entitled ‘He Was Like Two Different People’: Cynthia
Mulligan On Mike Bullard’s Harassment And His Guilty Plea’. The Defamatory publication and
any others of which Mike Bullard is currently unaware, are hereinafter collectively referred to as
the “Defamatory Words”.

The Defamatory words included the title as well as:

“after being charged with criminal harassment, obstruction of justice and breaching
conditions to stay away from Mulligan, who feared for her safety”

“Her victim impact statement…made her message clear…”

“In an exclusive interview at her Toronto home, which is still protected by security
cameras and an alarm…”

1
 “You still have security cameras outside your house and in fall 2016, police actually
suggested you find somewhere else to live temporarily, for your own safety.”

“If I worked late, security would walk with me.”

“Yet I did feel threatened…”

“The toughest part was when I came home from the police station after Bullard’s arrest
to tell my daughters that police suggested we should move.”

“I wasn’t letting them know at that point that I was getting scared…When we had to
move out of our house, that was devastating to me.”

“There are more plea deals and more people walking away…It’s justice by attrition and
that is not justice.”

“I’ve received many emails from other women since I’ve released my victim impact
statement and it’s so sad because they’re telling me the same thing. We’re victimized the
first time and then again by the courts.”

“The criminal case ended Friday with Bullard’s guilty plea and conviction, ordering him
to serve six months probation and take a domestic violence course.”

“I don’t think he will admit even to himself that he did these things.”

At all material times you were aware that on or about September 21, 2016 a charge of criminal
harassment pursuant to section 264(2) of the Criminal Code (the so called ‘stalker’ legislation)
alleged that the complainant feared “for her personal safety” as a result of Mike Bullard’s
actions. As you knew or ought to have known, that charge was dismissed by the Court on June
1, 2018. The Court found that the complainant’s fears were entirely subjective and not objective.

At all material times you were aware that on or about October 26, 2016 a second charge alleged
that Mr. Bullard had breached a court order by allegedly attending at the complainant’s home.
As you knew or ought to have known, that charge pursuant to section 145 (5.1) of the Criminal
Code was dismissed by the Court on June 1, 2018.

At all material times you were aware that on or about November 7, 2016 one charge of failure to
comply was elevated to obstructing justice pursuant to section 139(2) of the Criminal Code, by
indirectly attempting to have the complainant withdraw her complaint. As you knew or ought to
have known, that charge was dismissed by the Court on June 1, 2018.

At all material times you were aware that 2 new charges of failing to comply with previous bail
conditions was brought on or about May 16, 2018. These were (1) on or about October 16, 2016
Mike Bullard breached section 145(5.1) of the Criminal Code by communicating indirectly with

2
his complainant; and (2) that between October 26, 2016 and June 23, 2017, Mike Bullard
breached section 145(3) of the Criminal Code by failing without lawful excuse to reside with his
surety. As you are aware, Mike Bullard pled guilty to these charges on June 8, 2018.

At all material times you knew with respect to (1) that Mr. Bullard contacted a mutual friend of
his and the complainant, and relayed the message that he has heard that the charge can drop if the
complainant wished so. That third party forwarded text messages to the complainant that had
been sent to her by Mr. Bullard. Those texts provided a phone number to a Detective and
indicated that she had said that if the complainant called of her own volition, and withdrew the
complaint, the charge would be withdrawn. The complainant instead contacted the police to
report this incident.

At all material times you knew with respect to (2) that Mike Bullard advised the Court that his
lapse was inadvertent, and in part caused by a medical emergency and death of his mother.

At all material times you were aware that Mike Bullard pled guilty to making harassing
telecommunications to the complainant between June 13, 2016 and September 21, 2016 contrary
to section 372(4) of the Criminal Code. As you know these communications were benign in
nature and did not concern the complainant’s fear for safety.

At all material times you knew or ought to have known, that Mike Bullard was granted a
conditional discharge with 6 month probation; a term that he take the PARS program; have no
contact with the complainant; and keep the peace and be of good behavior.

At all material times you knew that Mike Bullard was not contacted to comment on any of the
Defamatory Words. You also knew that you did not balance the Defamatory Words by reference
to court transcripts or any independent research or background checks, such that the Defamatory
Words were never intended to provide proper context but were meant to distort, and mislead the
public.

As you knew or ought to have known, in making its findings on June 1, 2018, amongst other
things, the Court stated:

While Bullard’s conduct as alleged could be seen as harassing in that sense, just referred
to, in my view there is no reasonable basis for the fear for Ms. Mulligan’s safety.
Parliament has chosen to differentiate between harassing communications on the one
hand and conduct which gives rise to a reasonable fear for one’s safety. There was
nothing in any of the communications which gives rise to a reasonable inference that her
safety was being threatened. While the communications could be seen as persistent,
unwanted, bothersome, conduct for which he will be committed to trial, nothing in his
past behaviour toward her nor these communications allude to directly or
circumstantially, explicitly or implicitly to any threat to her safety. At most there was an

3
 aggressive email to Tumelty, but the alleged threat to Tumelty, if that’s what it was, was
not what this case was about. It was never even argued. His conduct in my view is
properly covered by the harassing communications count. He’ll be discharged of the
criminal harassment count.

To conclude, he will be committed on the failing to comply for the October 13th text to
Ms. Seatle. The Crown seeks committal on the call and the texts of October 16th when
he was going to the hospital. He will be committed on that. He will be committed on one
count of harassing communications.
None of the communications threatened the complainant. They were unwanted, to be
sure. They were harassing and they amounted to breaches of the undertaking. I cannot
imagine reasonable, responsible counsel being unable to resolve this case in a way that
is consistent with the interests of Mulligan, Bullard and the public interest. In this era
where trials of very serious injuries are stayed for delay, it is perplexing that this has
taken up four days for a preliminary inquiry and will now proceed to a jury trial. This is
not a case, in my view, that should proceed to a jury trial. I hope counsel seriously
reflect on those comments. With that I am happy to sign the committal.
As you know or ought to have known, the complainant’s “victim statement” that was posted
online, was different from the one she read in Court. The one she read in Court was redacted by
the judge to delete unproven allegations, amongst other things. In particular you knew or ought
to have known that the Court struck:

“Your abuse”

“And you left me voicemail messages, horking and spitting at me”

“Even after your arrest your harassment didn’t stop. It continued on Twitter, with veiled
threats, comments and denials. And then a private investigator showed up at my house
on a Sunday morning four months ago and tried to bully and intimidate. He also went to
my former husband’s home and called a colleague, saying if I didn’t drop the charges he
would release dirt on me and destroy my career. There is no dirt and you know it.
Fortunately there is a recording. That PI is now facing charges as well.”

“I was told that 80 percent of women give up after 6 or 8 months because they can’t take
the pressure as time goes on and there is no end in sight. That’s not justice. That’s an
overburdened system.”

“What is troubling is you have never taken responsibility for your actions. You think in a
twisted way you were justified. You weren’t. You are alone responsible for being here in
this courtroom. I hope you get help. You need it. Go to therapy and when you are done,
get more therapy and then get some more.”

4
 “But I will always wonder who around Mr. Bullard stood up to tell him what he was
doing was wrong. Who spoke out? And how many were passive witnesses? I’m told a
friend of his said “all he did was love her.” That wasn’t love. It was abuse. There is
still such a long way to go.”

You also knew or ought to have known of Mike Bullard’s on record position at Court on June 8,
2018 that he disagreed with the bulk of the complainant’s victim statement that was read in
Court.

At all material times you also knew or ought to have known that there was an agreement on
sentencing, and that the complainant had represented herself publicly and in her unredacted
personal posting she claimed was her Victim Impact Statement, that she claimed to be someone
who was not part of an alleged 80% of women she said simply gave up legal proceedings
because they couldn’t take the pressure.

At all material times you knew or ought to have known that the complainant had unrelated
security concerns she alleged were related to her reporting on political matters, as well as to the
general nature of her employment, and her high profile status.

Finally, at all material times you also knew or ought to have known that the complainant did not
move out of her home.
And despite being aware of all of the aforementioned things, you went ahead with the
publication of the Defamatory Words. The Defamatory Words were published with express
malice, the defendants intending or knowing, that the Defamatory Words and the innuendo
arising from them were false and defamatory or with careless and reckless disregard for the truth
and their publication was calculated by the defendants to disparage and injure the reputation of
Mike Bullard personally and in the way of his profession, trade and calling.
Further, the defendants published the Defamatory Words intending or knowing, that the
Defamatory Words would be republished or rebroadcast, in whole or in part, by others and
accordingly the defendants are jointly and severally liable for all such republication or
rebroadcast.

Mike Bullard intends to rely on the entirety of the Defamatory Words including all
accompanying headlines, texts and/or images, in support of his intended action, and all earlier
and subsequent versions of the Defamatory Words published or republished, in any form
whatsoever, in whole or in part, by the defendants and/or others.
The Defamatory Words in their natural and ordinary meaning and/or by inference or innuendo,
are false, malicious and defamatory of Mike Bullard, have subjected him to humiliating personal
attacks, hatred and contempt and have caused and will continue to cause damage to his
reputation personally and in the way of his profession, trade and calling.

5
Mike Bullard states that the Defamatory Words in their natural and ordinary meaning, and by
innuendo, falsely and maliciously meant and were understood to mean that:

a) he was guilty of criminal stalking despite the charge having been

dismissed by the Court;
b) the allegations against him, as described by his complainant, are
true, despite being dismissed by the Court;
c) by virtue of the above, he is unfit for employment and/or intimate
relationships.

The full extent of the damages suffered by Mike Bullard is unknown.

To mitigate his damages, Mike Bullard requires that you immediately publish in print in
Chatelaine Magazine and online at www.chatelaine.com an apology and retraction, in a form
first approved by Mike Bullard, in respect of the Defamatory Words, in a manner at least as
prominent as the original publication of the Defamatory Words, and that you immediately
remove the Defamatory Words from the www.chatelaine.com website and take all steps
necessary to ensure that no archived versions remain on the internet, in whole or in part.

Please be advised that you are named in this Notice of Libel in that you caused, participated in,
authorized, permitted or condoned the publication of the Defamatory Words and are, as a result,
jointly and severally liable for the damages flowing therefrom.

It is hereby demanded that you retain in safekeeping all drafts of the Defamatory Words, all
notes and tapes of all interviews and all other notes, documents, computer documents, tapes,
emails, any other materials, documents and records relevant to the Defamatory Words, and all
comments or reaction, in any form, received by the defendants in respect to the publication of the
Defamatory Words.

Mike Bullard intends to commence an action against you in respect of the Defamatory Words
and reserves all rights in this regard. He hereby gives notice pursuant to the Courts of Justice
Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.C.43 that he will be claiming pre-judgment interest from the date of this
Notice to the date of judgment.

6
July 11, 2018 ZUBER & COMPANY LLP
Litigation Counsel
100 Simcoe Street
Suite 500
Toronto, ON
M5H 3G2

Joshua J. A. Henderson (56389K)

Tel: (416) 362-5005

Fax: (416) 362-5289

Lawyers for Mike Bullard

TO: Rogers Media Inc.

1 Mount Pleasant Rd.
Toronto, ON M4Y 2Y5

AND TO: Sarah Boesveld

1 Mount Pleasant Rd.
Toronto, ON M4Y 2Y5