Page: 11 [67] Based on his trial testimony, I am left with no doubt that only Mr. Joseph was in charge. He was not collaborating with any of the students regarding the strategy for the case or who would be called as witnesses. [68] It was Mr. Joseph’s decision to call the plaintiff as the first witness. The scope of the testimony was also his decision. He testified that the plaintiff was a fact witness regarding what happened at the Maclean’s meeting. Neither complainant could address that subject. Mr. Joseph testified that it was a bonus that he could ask the plaintiff about other issues such as his concerns about the article. The plaintiff was not substituting for Dr. Elmasry. [69] The plaintiff was cross-examined by Mr. Porter at the BCHRT hearing, on behalf of Maclean’s. This was a somewhat unusual situation in that Mr. Porter was, in addition to being a senior and distinguished counsel, also a witness to what transpired at the Maclean’s meeting. I conclude that his cross-examination, in the circumstances, would have particular force. Mr. Porter put to the plaintiff that he had never said “mutually acceptable” at the meeting. The plaintiff agreed with Mr. Porter. He said that they did not have a chance to get to that because Mr. Whyte made it clear Maclean’s was not interested in a response. Based upon the trial evidence, I conclude that this was the first time the plaintiff’s memory (or lack thereof) crystalized on this point. [70] After the plaintiff’s evidence was complete, he left the hearing room and was talking with the other two students. They said he was mistaken. They said Ms. Sheikh had said “mutually acceptable” at the Maclean’s meeting. The plaintiff indicated that he did not remember it. Mr. Joseph was in the room during this discussion, but decided not to return to the issue in the hearing. He had already told the Tribunal he was not calling the other students in his case in chief. [71] That part of Mr. Porter’s cross-examination marks the beginning of the series of blogs complained of in this action. All but one of the posts complained of in this action were posted starting at that point of the cross-examination and following, with headlines as follows: (1) “Khurrum Awan is a serial liar”; (2) “Awan the liar, part 2”; (3) “Awan the liar, part 3”; (4) “Awan the liar, part 4”; (5) “Awan the liar, part 5”; 2014 ONSC 6890 (CanLII) [66] Nor was the plaintiff assisting counsel in any significant way. This too was identified at the outset of the hearing in response to specific questions from the Tribunal chair. Only the other two students were identified as assisting Mr. Joseph. The plaintiff was identified as the first witness.