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 –

AOL CANADA INC., and ANDREE LAU

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.huffingtonpost.ca/2018/06/10/cynthia-mulligan-mike-bullard-victim-impact-
statement-harassment_a_23455297/ which was posted on June 10, 2018 and/or updated on June
11, 2018, entitled ‘Cynthia Mulligan Victim Impact Statement Calls Out Mike Bullard
Harassment As Abuse’. A subline therein further read ‘"I am here today because I refuse to be a
victim," said the Toronto reporter’. 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 and subline as well as:

“[the complainant] went to the Toronto police after receiving a flood of text messages
and anonymous phone calls from a pay phone.”

"And you were abusive in so many ways, driving by my work, endless texts and phone
calls, often while I was on air, despite the fact I clearly told you to stop," said Mulligan,
whose original victim impact statement was posted in its entirety by her friend and fellow
TV reporter Avery Haines on Facebook.”

1
 “"You abused your power as a radio host as well, threatening to talk about me on your
show if I didn't do as you ordered," Mulligan added.”

"No woman should ever have to go through this simply because she ended a
relationship."

“Police warned Bullard three times to stay away from Mulligan. The harassment trickled
down to an impact on Mulligan's daughters.”

“"Your irrational behaviour was escalating. I was scared," she said in her statement.”

"The hardest part, other than the growing pervasive fear, was when I had to tell my two
daughters that police were concerned for our safety and we had to move out of our
house."

“She also noted that Bullard has not taken responsibility for his actions.”

“On Friday, Bullard told reporters that Mulligan's victim impact statement was "the
most ridiculous thing I've ever heard in my life," according to CBC News.”

“"I've never stalked or abused a woman in my life. I've never made an obscene phone
call in my life, and I never will," said Bullard, who received a conditional sentence and
six months probation. He must also attend a domestic violence program.”

“His response underscored the message in Mulligan's statement.”

“"If anything, I hope people will listen to this and realize that if they turn a blind eye they
too are part of the problem and they are enablers. Women go through this far too often
— they need people to stand up and call out this destructive behaviour. It is a crime.”

"I'm told a friend of his defended him by saying 'all he did was love her.' That wasn't
love. It was abuse."

The Defamatory words were further accompanied by further defamatory words / screenshot
and/or tweet and/or facebook post from the complainant about her friend, having re-posted what
purported to be the ‘victim impact statement’ read in court, without any attached disclaimed or
limitation, whatsoever. Rather, the screenshot provided a link to an online facebook posting by
the accuser in the criminal proceedings, and read:

“My friend @avery_haines posted my victim impact statement after watching me read it
in court yesterday. Here it is in entirety. I’m lucky to have such amazing friends and
looking forward to now putting this behind me. Harassment is abuse
https://www.facebook.com/1113030342/posts/10215267000004286/ …”

2
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
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.

3
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
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:

4
 “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.”

“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.
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

5
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.

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 online at
https://www.huffingtonpost.ca 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 https://www.huffingtonpost.ca 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

6
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.

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: AOL Canada Inc.

99 Spadina Avenue, Suite 200
Toronto ON M5V3P8

AND TO: Andree Lau

99 Spadina Avenue, Suite 200
Toronto ON M5V3P8