TurnpenneyMilne INVESTIGATION SUMMARY OF FINDINGS EMPLOYER: TVO Complainant: Sarah Thomson Respondent: Steve Paikin Rachel Turnpenney, Investigator Turnpenney Milne LLP 501-2 Berkeley Street Toronto, Ontario 416-868-1457, extension 102 rachel@tmllp.ca Date: April 26, 2018,‘TABLE OF CONTENTS ‘Summary of Allegations and Investigator’s Findings. Investigation Authority and Process. 5. Contextual information Relevant to the Findings.. 6. Credibility Assessment and Findings. 7. Analysis and Findings (including Overall Findings).1 INTRODUCTION Turnpenney Milne LLP was retained by Hicks Morley Hamilton Stewart Storie LLP on behalf of their dlient, TVO, to investigate allegations made by Sarah Thomson ("Thomson or the "Complainant”) against Steve Patkin, Host of TVO's The Agenda with Steve Paikin "Paikin” or the “Respondent”). ‘Thomson's allegations were set out in two online posts on the Women’s Post, dated January 31, 2018 and February 2, 2018, as well as in an email to Paikin, dated February 3, 2018 (referred to collectively herein as “Thomson's Allegations”), Please note that all findings in this report are made on a balance of probabilities. While this is a summary of the findings, all available evidence has been considered in rafting this report. 2 PARTIES TO THE INVESTIGATION Steve Paikin P: in isa Canadian journalist, author and producer. Paikin has worked for TVO for approximately 25 ‘years and his current position is as the Host of The Agenda with Steve Paikin ("The Agenda” or the “show"). The Agenda is a show that focuses on current affairs and social issues. ‘Sarah Thomson ‘Thomson is the CEO and Publisher of the online publication, the Women’s Post. The publication's website states itis a social enterprise designed to promote women and their initiatives across Canada, Thomson is also involved in Toronto Transit Alliance, which Is described on its website as a non-political ‘organization for those who work in the transit and infrastructure industry, students or those interested in transit and transit planning in cities across Southern Ontario. Thomson has been politically involved and has run unsuccessfully as a candidate for political office as follows: 2010 candidate for Mayor (Toronto}; 2011 candidate for Ontario Liberal Party MPP (Trinity Spadina); 2014 Municipal Election (Toronto); registered candidate for Mayor (Toronto) and subsequently City Councilor.3. SUMMARY OF ALLEGATIONS AND THE INVESTIGATOR’S FINDINGS Note: a more detailed review of the allegations and analysis underlying these findings can be found in Section 7 below. In summary, Thomson has alleged that Paikin made a sexual advance toward her in that he sexually propositioned her during a lunch in 2010 at Grano Restaurant (referred to herein as the “2010 Grano Lunch”), Present at the lunch were Thomson, Paikin and Witness J. Specifically, Thomson has asserted ‘that Paikin asked her to have sex with him during the 2010 Grano Lunch. Paikin, in response to Thomson saying (words to the effect of) “et’s talk about your show”, responded with something like “let's talk about you having sex with me”. Thomson responded that she was very much in love with her husband and he's the reason she got into politics and there was no way she would do that (ie. have sex with Peikin). Thomson recalled excusing herself under the guise of going to the washroom. When she left the table, she recalled texting or telephoning her campaign manager. Thomson believes that her rejection of Paikin’s proposition resulted in her being passed over as a guest on The Agenda after the 2010 Grano Lunch. This inability to appear as a guest allegedly put Thomson at a disadvantage compared to the 2010 male Mayoralty candidates (ie. Rocco Rossi (*Rossi") and George Smitherman ("Smitherman")) ‘Thomson alleged that Witness J, a volunteer on her 2010 Mayoral campaign, was at the lunch and could corroborate her version of events. Thomson noted the existence of an email from November 5, 2010 allegedly authored by Witness J and sent to Thomson at 4:57pm on the day of the 2010 Grano Lunch (the “November 5" Email”)." Thomson also noted the existence of a Facebook Messenger exchange between Witness J and Thomson from early 2018 that lent support to her allegations. ‘Thomson further alleged that the 2010 Grano Lunch was not a single incident but rather part of a course of conduct, as she saw Paikin at a Liberal Party event in 2012 and he again made an inappropriate sexualized comment (i.e. asking Thomson whether she was going to take him up on his “previous + Note: The Investigator has reviewed and considered the November * Email, The content ofthe emai confirms ‘Thomson's version of everts but has been deemed unreliable bythe Investigator and has been given litle weight in the findings due to significant crelbilty concerns with its drafter, Witness. These same concerns relate tothe Facebook ‘Messenger exchange from early 2028, Please see the craibilty findings below for additional detail.offer’). In this allegation, Thomson alleged that she ran into Paikin and Witness ©, at a Liberal Convention (date unknown but appears to be somewhere between January 2012 and June 2012). As stated above, Thomson recalled Paikin coming over to her and allegedly asking her if she was going to take him up on his previous offer (or words to that effect). Thomson responded, “you are too fucking. old”. Later, Witness © came up to Thomson and allegedly told Thomson that he heard she likes younger men. Thomson said no and recalled Paikin laughing at the exchange. This alleged incident is referred to herein as the “2012 Advance” ‘The investigator's findings are as follows: itation of Thomson that would 2) Did Palkin make a sexual advance or engage in sexual soli amount to Sexual Harassment, Harassment, or Gender Based Discrimination under TVO's Workplace Violence and Harassment Prevention Policy or the Non-Discrimination and Harassment Policy? ») conduct with Thomson that would violate the TVO Ethical Framework? Thomson's Allegations cannot be substantiated as it pertains to questions (a) and (b) above. Specifically, the available evidence does not support Thomson's Allegations that, at the 2010 Grano Lunch, Paikin made an inappropriate sexual comment or was trying to leverage his power as the Host of The Agenda into a sexual relationship, or a quid pro quo (either express or implied) such that Thomson would gain access to The Agenda if she had sex with Paikin. Beyond the 2010 Grano Lunch, the evidence does not support a finding that Paikin prevented Thomson from being on The Agenda after November 5, 2010. Lastly, the Investigator finds that the evidence does not support a finding that Paikin made inappropriate comments or engaged in inappropriate conduct towards Thomson relating to the alleged 2012 Advance. Given the foregoing findings, there has been no violation of TVO's Policies by Paikin relating to Thomson's, Allegations.4 INVESTIGATIVE AUTHORITY AND PROCESS Rachel Turnpenney (the “Investigator") was retained by Henry Dinsdale, Partner at Hicks Morley Hamilton Stewart Storie LLP, on behalf of their client, TVO, to: Engage in an investigation into allegations raised by Thomson against Paikin on January 31, 2018, February 2, 2018, and February 3, 2018; Determine whether Thomson’ factual allegations could be substantiated on a balance of probabilities; and Once a determination had been made regarding Thomson's factual allegations, the Investigator was to consider and apply TVO's Workplace Violence and Harassment Prevention Policy; the ‘Non-Discrimination and Harassment Policy; and the TVO Ethical Framework ("TVO's Policies"), as applicable. ‘TVO's Policies have been attached as Tab 1. ‘The findings herein have considered all the available evidence at the time of drafting this report. Investigative Process The following is a summary of the investigative process followed in this investigation. Parties to the Complaint: Steve Paikin ~The first in-person interview was conducted with Paikin at the offices of Turnpenney Milne LLP on February 7, 2018. A second in-person interview was held at TVO on March 12, 2018. A final interview was held on April 23, 2018 at the offices of Paliare Roland Rosenberg Rothstein LLP. Emails were also exchanged during the course of the investigation with Paikin and his legal counsel, Megan Shortreed, Sarah Thomson ~ Despite requests for an earlier meeting (due to a variety of reasons, including Thomson being out of country for a period of time), the first in-person interview was held withSarah Thomson on April 5, 2018 at the offices of Turnpenney Milne LLP. A final in-person interview was held on April 20, 2018 at the offices of Turpenney Milne LLP. Counsel for Thomson, Saba Ahmad, was present at both meetings. Emails were also exchanged during the course of the investigation with Thomson, her first legal counsel and her second legal counsel, Saba Ahmad. In order to provide greater comfort to the witnesses who participated in the investigation, a witness key has been utilized by the Investigator. Use of a such a key does not mean that anonymity or confidentiality was provided to any of the participants and in fact, the witnesses and parties were told that no such agreement would or could be entered into by the Investigator. * Witness A—One in-person interview was conducted with Witness A on February 9, 2018. Follow up was done via email '* Witness B - One in-person interview was conducted with Witness 8 on February 12, 2018. ‘® Witness C—One in-person interview was conducted with Witness C on February 12, 2018. Follow up was done via email and telephone call. ‘© Witness D ~ One in-person interview was conducted with Witness D on February 14, 2018. Follow up was done via email and telephone call. ‘© Witness E ~ One in-person interview was conducted with Witness E on February 23, 2018. * Witness F — One in-person interview was conducted with Witness F on February 26, 2018, Counsel attended with Witness F. * Witness G-One in-person interview was conducted with Witness G on March 8, 2018. Follow up was done via telephone call '* Witness H — One in-person interview was conducted with Witness Hon March 23, 2018. Follow up was done via email ‘* Witness I One telephone interview was conducted with Witness | on March 23, 2018. © Witness J One in-person interview was conducted with Witness J on April 17, 2018. © Witness ~ One in-person interview was conducted with Witness K on April 11, 2018, © Witness L- One telephone interview was conducted with Witness Lon April 17, 2018. Witness M — One in-person interview was conducted with Witness M on April 17, 2018.© Witness N- One in-person interview was conducted with Witness N on April 18, 2018. Email received April 19, 2018. '* Witness 0 ~ One Facetime interview was conducted with Witness 0 on April 19, 2018, ‘® Witness P — One in-person interview was conducted with Witness P on April 17, 2018, '® Witness Q— One telephone call (note: not an interview) and one email was sent by Witness Q on April 18, 2018, '* Witness R — One telephone interview was conducted with Witness R on April 23, 2018. Email sent by Witness R. ‘* Witness S — One telephone call (note: note an interview) and one email was sent by Witness § on February 8, 2018. ‘* Witness T— Telephone calls regarding process. One email was sent by Witness T on April 23, 2018. '* Witness U—One telephone interview was conducted with Witness U on April 23, 2018. ‘The Investigator also attempted to interview other witnesses but either did not receive a response to the requests or the interview was declined. ‘The Investigator reviewed documents provided by the parties and the witnesses. Please note that important documents are referenced herein. ‘As stated above, in this report, witnesses’ names have been eliminated and each witness has been identified by letter (the exception to this was if the Investigator deemed it necessary to identify who had provided the evidence), Prior to some interviews, the Investigator had a telephone call or email exchange with witnesses to discuss process-related issues. At the outset of each intial interview, parties and witnesses were ‘cautioned about the confidentiality expected of them relating to the investigation process, reminded not to talk to anyone about their interview with the Investigator, and were told that they would be asked to review and sign the investigator's notes following their in-person interviews to confirm the accuracy of the notes taken by the Investigator. At the conclusion of the in-person interviews, parties and witnesses reviewed the notes taken during the interview by the Investigator and were provided an opportunity to ensure the notes accurately reflected the discussion. They (i.e. parties and witnesses)then signed off on the notes (with amendments, if applicable). The exception to this practice was when interviews were conducted over the telephone. Where interviews were held over the telephone, and if express consent was provided by the witnesses (and if practicable), some of the interviews were tape recorded by the Investigator. There were also emails sent to the Investigator from witnesses who did ‘not wish to participate further in the investigation process or as part of follow up to an interview. 5 CONTEXTUAL INFORMATION RELEVANT TO THE FINDINGS Pertinent Dates to Thomson's Allegations For ease of the reader, the following are important dates relating to Thomson's Allegations: ‘© Thomson appeared on The Agenda on September 7, 2010 for the Toronto Mayoralty Debate along with Rob Ford, Rossi, and Smitherman. * Thomson officially ended her Mayoralty campaign around September 28, 2010, '* Thomson appeared on The Agenda on October 7, 2010 (Topic: Us, Them and Rob Ford). ‘* 2010 Municipal (Toronto) Election ~ October 25, 2010. ‘© Date of Grano Lunch ~ November 5, 2010. Likely commencing around 11:30am. © Rossi appeared on The Agenda on February 24, 2011 to discuss moving political parties. © Smitherman appeared on The Agenda on February 25, 2011 to discuss why he had decided to leave politics. ‘* Thomson appeared on The Agenda on September 22, 2011 (Topic: Who is Best for Toronto), ‘© 2011 Provincial (Ontario) Election ~ October 6, 2011. © Both Smitherman and Rossi appear on The Agenda post 2014. Thomson does not appear on The ‘Agenda after September 22, 2011. ‘© Thomson alleged she was at a Liberal Party Convention with Paikin and Witness O in the time period between January and June 2012 (approximate dates). * Thomson withdraws her candidacy for Mayor and runs for Toronto City Councilor an or about September 9, 2014. '* 2014 Municipal (Toronto) Election ~ October 27, 2014.‘© Dates of Thomson's Women's Post articles raising the allegations without specifically naming. Paikin — January 31, 2018 and February 2, 2018. + Date of email from Thomson to Paikin confirming Paikin as the Respondent to the Allegations and requesting he step down from The Agenda/TVO February 3, 2018 Note on Guest Bookings on The Agenda ‘As part of Thomson's Allegations, she believes that Paikin has prevented her from being a guest on The ‘Agenda after November 2010 because she didn’t comply with his sexual advance at the 2010 Grano Lunch. Thomson maintained her assertion that she was unable to get on the show despite evidence that demonstrated that she in fact did appear as a guest after Novernber 5, 2010 (specifically on September 22, 2011). Thomson suggested it was solely as a result of her affiliation with the Liberal Party that gained her access to The Agenda on that occasion. Even in the face of evidence detailed by the Investigator to Thomson from Witness C and Witness N regarding: ‘+ the general process whereby guests for The Agenda are selected, ‘© the specific reasons that Thomson was asked to be a guest on the show on September 22, 2011; and ‘© why Thomson didn’t appear again after 2011, ‘Thomson continued to maintain her position. In essence, Thomson believes that her September 22, 2011 appearance was solely because “the Liberals got me on...” when she was a candidate, The Investigator has satisfied herself that Thomson's belief in this regard is without factual foundation. Witness N, a producer on The Agenda (and TVO employee since 2001), detailed that the stories that will form the basis of a show are pitched at an editorial meeting every week. In brief summary, there is then an approval process (which has changed over the years) but essentially amounted to, and still consists of, pitching an idea and then obtaining the approval of the Executive Producer for both the story idea as well as the guests that will appear relating to the story. The decisions regarding show content and who appears as guests are not part of Paikin’s role or authority as the Host of The Agenda. There may be occasions where Paikin acts as a producer for a story, or suggests a story or guest, but even in those instances, the Executive Producer would be the ultimate decision maker relating to show content and guests, 10Executive Producers can change the guests who are set to appear, or disagree with a proposed guest and may exercise, on occasion, what could be considered a veto power. Therefore, itis the Executive Producer, not Paikin, who is the ultimate gatekeeper for guests who appear on The Agenda, Beyond the standard process summarized above, Paikin has not interfered with or blocked Thomson from appearing on The Agenda between 2010 and present day. Post September 2011, Thomson was not asked to be a guest. One of the key reasons why she was not invited back related to the views of Producer (Witness N) and Executive Producer (Witness C) that Thomson was engaging in what was described as unpredictable and “gimmicky” behaviour. This behaviour included travelling to Toronto City Hall to register as a 2014 Mayoralty Candidate in a horse drawn carriage. There was also a recoll n by Witness C that Thomson was regarded as unpredictable and had been acting erratically in the green room and on The Agenda during her September 2011 appearance that influenced the decision to not have her back on the show. For clarity, Paikin had no involvement with this decision, Note on Thomson's Allegations As referenced above, Thomson's Allegations were brought forth in the form of two articles posted on the Women’s Post. _httos://www.womenspost.ca/2018/01/31/aullty-men-fear-the-truth/ httos://www.womenspost.ca/2018/02/02/media-personality-uses-position-gain-se) The Investigator has reproduced the February 2, 2018 post below (italicized by the Investigator): There is still one man whose actions haunt me. In 2010 when | was running for Mayor of Toronto, | was (on a political talk show with the other top four candidates. The show was widely watched and it helped ‘my numbers in the polls, so the next time | saw the host | asked if | might get on his show again. Always kind and friendly, he suggested we meet over lunch to discuss. My assistant and | met him at Grano’s on Yonge Street, and the three of us ordered our lunch. Not five minutes into the lunch the host asked me if would sleep with him. My assistant almost spit his drink all over the table. | politely told the host that / loved my husband and would never do that. | then excused myself, went to the washroom and called my campaign manager. My manager was at frst angry that | was alone with a talk show host, but when | explained that my assistant was actually sitting there with us and had heard the entire thing, his anger uturned to shock. He was great at calming me down and joked that if | didn’t want to “take one for the team” then | should excuse myself and leave. | followed his instruction, and later asked my EA what he and the host had talked about while | was in the washroom. He told me he questioned the talk show hast to see if asking directly for sex actually worked for him. The host said that it worked 50 percent of the time. | hope he was just bragging, but i've always wondered if the women who are frequent guests on his show have slept with him. Back in 2010 this meant that some of the male candidates had extra exposure on his show that | couldn’t get. They didn’t have to sleep with him to get on his show. It was frustrating but in a busy campaign we didn’t have time to address it. When | talk with younger women, they are shocked at the way the world was back then. | realize that women of my generation were programmed to accept how it was. We had to joke about it because getting mad every other day wasn't healthy. | remember @ woman saying to me ‘once when | complained about an editor who slept with interns that “boys will be boys.” it wasn’t until | ‘met my husband that | earned that some boys turn into caring and compassionate men concerned about building «fair and just society 1m 2010 the host made it harder for me to compete with the men | was up against, because they were invited to appear on his show while | wasn’t. He didn't give a damn about how he impacted my future. In the years since he’s approached me several times, usually at political functions, to suggest we “sleep together” and he always laughs about it. | wonder if he does this so that if he is ever held to account he can claim that he was only joking? | also wonder how he would explain why he has never had me on his show, in a climate where talk show hosts complain that they can‘t get women to appear on their shows? ‘And I wonder how many other women have had the same experience | did with him? How many women have not been invited back to his show simply because they won’t sleep with him? | wonder too what our next steps should be? My assistant who sat with me at the table when ! was propositioned by this host, remembers the conversation well. But my gut tells me we will need to gather a few other women who have shared a similar experience in order for his CEO to take this seriously. With two elections coming up this year the hast will have many opportunities to prey on women candidates. hope my words will stop him from abusing his power. So | shout them and warn women to be careful ~ avoid lunching with the host ofa talk show! If you have experienced the some situation, and know whom | om writing about, please contact me ~sarah@sorahthomson.ca. We will protect your identity. 2And | warn him: we are coming. We aren’t rushing, but we are slowly gathering our facts and we won't let up. Do the right thing, and step down from your job. Following the posting of these articles, Thomson sent Paikin a personal email reproduced below (note: the reproduced content is formatted, redacted and italicized by the Investigator): From: Sarch Torso Sent: February 3, 2018 2:20 PM To: Steve Paikin Subject: Do the right thing Steve, am sorry but | could net let you carry on - what you did to me wasn't fair - and with the elections this year, I don't want you doing it to other wamen candidates. Part of me thinks that you just don't realize how wrong iti to use your position of power over women. But | know you are smarter than that. So perhaps you need to get help? Try to put yourself in our shoes. Think about how my EA went back to our office after our lunch end told ‘my entire campaign teom that the lunch ended when we discovered you weren't interested in discussing the show but instead wanted to sleep with me. Then o few weeks later my team watched our competitor ~ George Smitherman -- on your show and were disgusted. Not an easy thing for a women running for ‘mayor to have to deal with. Using your position to try to get women to have sex with you is wrong on EVERY level - and you should not have that kind of power over women, So | am gathering letters from other women with similar experiences of you - we'll add a letter from my EA and my own letter and will be sending to your board and CEO next month. Steve | sincerely hope that you don't have to face the court of public opinion as | did with Rob Ford. it was «terrible experience and | would not wish it on my worst enemy. You have time to step down without hhaving to face the public shaming that could come out as more women step forward. I can't control how the other women will want to handle their issues with you - they may want to expose you. My advice to you isto step down now, before this blows up. That isthe right thing to do. Do the right thing Sarah Sarah Thomson Canvas and Cave 13Twitter:@ConvasandCove Facebook: /CanvasandCove Instagram: /CanvasandCove On February 6, 2018, Paikin responded to Thomson's Allegations by posting his version of events on Facebook (italicized by the Investigator): my TURN February 6, 2018 (Okay, now it’s my turn. This is my response, written by me, not a committee of lawyers or spin doctors at 4 o'clock this morning. Yes, 've had a bit of trouble sleeping since this all came to light. And this is my statement, not my employer's. This past Saturday afternoon, received an email from Sarah Thomson. 've known Ms Thomson for ‘almost a decade, having covered her municipal and provincial political campaigns and seen her at various political events over the years, although | don’t believe I've seen or had any contact from her in several years. To say | was gobsmacked by the allegations in her email is the understatement of my life. Even though | knew the allegations were 100% false, | did what | suspected was the appropriate thing to do and immediately passed the email on to my superiors at TVO. | knew the charges were bogus but | knew I ‘owed it to my employer to be totally transparent about all of it. The next day, Sunday, I spent two hours with TVO management and its lawyers answering every imaginable question. And | was happy to do it. wanted to convince them that there’s not a shred of truth to any of this. lalso appreciate the times in which we live, and given the seriousness of the allegations, understood that TVO might have to take action to protect its reputation, To my delight, TVO has left me in the anchor chair of The Agenda. | appreciate that vote of confidence. They also did the right thing by calling in on independent third party to investigate this mess and welcome that investigation. Bring it on! | have no doubt but that a thorough and fair analysis of the allegations and the parties involved will point to the truth. ! look forward to all parties having their sy. | find so much about this story completely perplexing. | have interviewed probably 20,000 people over the course of my 35 years in journalism. I've moderated six leaders’ debates for federal and provincial elections ~~ presumably a sign that during key moments in our country’s history, the people seeking the highest offices in our land think I'm ‘impartial and respectable. The #MieToo movement is too important to be undermined by spurious allegations. The only good thing ‘about this has been receiving the huge number of emails and phone calls from people who believe me, and are prepared to say so publicly. '"ve spent 35 years building my reputation. in one fell swoop, these lies have prompted outrageous headlines and connected me to a story to which | have no business being connected. 14