Page: 4 [19] Of the seven people present at the meeting, only three testified at trial – the plaintiff, Ms. Mithoowani and Mr. Porter. Of the seven people present at the meeting, only Mr. Porter took notes. [20] Mr. Porter had little independent recollection of the meeting, but he remembered a few specific remarks. He testified largely using his notes. He frankly agreed that his notes were not comprehensive. He did not catch everything, but he was trying to be accurate. I found Mr. Porter to be a credible witness, fairly testifying about what he did and did not recall occurred at the meeting, and what was recorded in his contemporaneous notes. [21] Not surprisingly, the students were nervous, although this did not come through to Mr. Porter. He found them organized and articulate. [22] At trial, much of what transpired at the meeting was the subject of consistent testimony by the plaintiff, Ms. Mithoowani and Mr. Porter. [23] As planned, the plaintiff began by speaking about why the article caused them concern. As planned, Ms. Sheikh spoke about the students’ proposal. Ms. Sheikh’s part of the presentation included a request for a responding article of equal length and prominence by a credible, well-known and prominent Muslim. The proposal also included a request for a donation to an organization in the area of race relations. [24] With respect to the charitable donation, the plaintiff’s and Ms. Mithoowani’s evidence is that no sum was mentioned. I accept that evidence, which is consistent with Mr. Porter’s evidence and notes. The notes say a “substantial” amount. If a specific sum had been mentioned, I conclude that it would have been noted by Mr. Porter. [25] After only a few minutes, Mr. Whyte spoke up, disagreeing with the students’ characterization of the article. He noted that the article was a book excerpt. He said that Mark Steyn was a reputable journalist. He said the article was nuanced and it did distinguish between groups. He said that shortly after the article, Maclean’s had published many letters to the editor received in response to the article. [26] Mr. Porter asked the students what laws they had looked at, to which they responded that they had looked at human rights codes and hate speech law. There is a dispute, however, about who brought up the subject first. Based upon Mr. Porter’s testimony and his notes, I conclude that the topic was first raised by the students, but Mr. Porter confirmed in his testimony that the students did not actually threaten legal action. 2014 ONSC 6890 (CanLII) notes. They were taken by surprise when they arrived at the meeting to discover that Maclean’s counsel, Julian Porter, Q.C., was in attendance, along with Ken Whyte (Editor-in-Chief) and Mark Stevenson (Deputy Editor). They were intimidated by the circumstances. Ms. Mithoowani testified that in hindsight they were naïve. I agree.