Page: 9 [53] At trial, the defendant attempted unsuccessfully to prove a very close relationship between the plaintiff and Dr. Elmasry. The plaintiff certainly had connections with him. He had prior involvement with the CIC in 2007 and earlier, and therefore had contact with him. The plaintiff had received a modest scholarship from the CIC, in return for which he was obliged to perform 150 hours of community service for the CIC. His CIC activities had included becoming Youth Chapter President, writing papers and testifying before government committees. But, as of 2008, the plaintiff was not even a member of the CIC. The plaintiff was unaware of Dr. Elmasry’s statements on the above television show at the relevant time. At trial, he not only distanced himself from Dr. Elmasry generally, but rejected his controversial views. [54] The trial evidence does not establish that the plaintiff had the close relationship with Dr. Elmasry alleged by the defendant, or that the plaintiff shared the controversial views highlighted by the defendant. [55] Although the students had requested the involvement of the CIC, it did not play a major role in the students’ plans. They developed their own strategies before and after the Maclean’s meeting. They decided to pursue a remedy in the Ontario human rights regime. They retained counsel for their Ontario complaint. They did involve the CIC, however, and received support on things like their media communications. [56] As the human rights proceedings unfolded outside Ontario, Dr. Elmasry presumably became more involved in that he was a personal complainant. The students’ role diminished. The trial evidence did not establish significant interaction between them. When it came to the British Columbia proceedings, the students were involved but no longer had a decision-making role. Nor did the trial evidence establish that the students were communicating with Dr. Elmasry about the strategy for the conduct of the hearing. [57] It became apparent in his trial testimony that the defendant assumed that all that transpired with respect to Maclean’s was Dr. Elmasry’s doing. It was also apparent that the defendant held considerable ill-will toward Dr. Elmasry and as a result the CIC. Much of what the defendant wanted to talk about at trial related more to Dr. Elmasry than to the plaintiff. I conclude that the defendant visited his ill-will on the plaintiff, in the absence of Dr. Elmasry, at the BCHRT hearing. BCHRT hearing [58] The BCHRT hearing took place from June 2 to June 6, 2008. The plaintiff testified. One of the complainants testified – Dr. Habib. The other complainant – Dr. Elmasry – did not testify. The other evidence called on behalf of the complainants consisted of the testimony of three 2014 ONSC 6890 (CanLII) controversial figure. In 2004, he had made statements on a television show to the effect that all adult Israelis were valid targets. As a result, he was condemned by many for endorsing terrorism against Israeli civilians. The defendant frequently wrote about Dr. Elmasry, repeatedly calling him a Jew-hating bigot, among other things.