[40] Mr. Joseph testified at trial. He testified that he was initially reluctant to become involved because of the hostile climate toward Muslims at that time. However, he ultimately decided to take on the matter because of his background as President of the Islamic Centre and in other roles. He knew Maclean’s had Mr. Porter as its counsel. He testified that the students were in over their head. He did not think it was a fair fight. He initially got involved in Ontario only but was later contacted by the CIC and the second British Columbia complainant, Dr. Habib, to act for them in British Columbia. [41] On December 4, 2007, there was a press conference at which Mr. Joseph spoke about the complaints and the failed attempt to resolve the issues with Maclean’s. He said that the complainants were seeking equal space to respond to what they felt was an Islamophobic and unfair article. [42] Mr. Whyte then issued the statement setting out his position about the meeting with the students. He indicated that the students had asked for an opportunity to respond to the story and that Maclean’s had said it would consider a reasonable request bearing in mind that it had already run many responses to the article in its letters section. Mr. Whyte described what had been requested and said, “We told them we didn’t consider that a reasonable request for response. When they insisted, I told them I would rather go bankrupt than let somebody from outside of our operations dictate the content of the magazine. I still feel that way.” [43] The suggestion that Maclean’s had offered a reasonable response came as a surprise to the students. They did not recall it being mentioned at the meeting. There is no evidence before me that it was. Nor was it mentioned in the letter from Mr. Segal after the meeting. This was also the first time the students realized that there was an issue about whether their planned approach to the selection of the author had been effectively communicated at the meeting. [44] The law students responded by a press release dated December 7, 2007. They attempted to discuss a resolution again, given the statement by Maclean’s that it would consider a reasonable response. They offered to settle the matter. This overture was not taken up by Maclean’s. [45] In the December 7, 2007 and later public statements by the students, they described what they asked for at the Maclean’s meeting, including a response from a mutually acceptable author. This appeared in letters to the editor several times between the December 7, 2007 press release and the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal (“BCHRT”) hearing in June of 2008. These letters were prepared by whichever student had time, and circulated to the others for comment, and the others would comment if they had time. Each stated that they were on behalf of all four students. The evidence before me does not establish any intention to deceive on the part of any of the students in relation to these public statements. 2014 ONSC 6890 (CanLII) Page: 7