[27] The dialogue continued but it was a difficult, tense and relatively short meeting. It ended abruptly after a statement by Mr. Whyte to the effect that he would rather go bankrupt than publish the requested article. Mr. Porter specifically recalls the statement made, and I accept his recollection. Mr. Whyte said, forcefully, “I would rather go bankrupt than print an article by an author of your choice.” This is consistent with Mr. Porter’s notes, which say, “I’d rather go out of business than write article by a person of your choice.” [28] Ms. Mithoowani then attempted to ask what Maclean’s would be prepared to do, but was cut off by Mr. Porter saying his client had made his position clear. [29] About eight months later, when Maclean’s first took a public position about what transpired at the meeting, it became apparent to the students that there were disputes about what was said by both sides at the meeting. In December of 2008, Maclean’s issued a statement that said, among others things: (1) that Maclean’s had said it would consider a reasonable request; and, (2) that the students’ proposal was for an article by an author of their choice. [30] On the first issue, the plaintiff and Ms. Mithoowani testified that no such offer was made by Maclean’s at the meeting, although they were asked if they wanted to submit a letter to the editor. This is consistent with Mr. Porter’s notes. There is no evidence before me that the offer of a reasonable response was made at the meeting. [31] On the second issue, Ms. Mithoowani testified that Ms. Sheikh did say “mutually acceptable” author. Mr. Porter did not recall that being said. His notes mention “author of choice”, but Mr. Porter does not now independently recall that being said either. The plaintiff’s evidence at trial was that he did not recall reference to either an author of the students’ choice or a mutually acceptable author. However, he testified that he had a better recollection of what he said than what the other students said at the meeting, and he did not speak on this topic. [32] I conclude that the meeting was a significant failure of communication. Neither side effectively communicated what they had planned to propose. If Ms. Sheikh did say “mutually acceptable” it was clearly not heard. If Maclean’s did say they were prepared to consider a “reasonable response”, as later stated by Mr. Whyte in his press release, it was clearly not heard. I conclude on the evidence before me that both proposals were planned and intended in good faith, and neither effectively made. This is perhaps not surprising in what was clearly a tense, emotional and very brief meeting that came to an abrupt end. In final argument, counsel to the defendant fairly conceded that the two groups could have left the meeting with different, but honestly held, senses of what transpired. I conclude that that is what took place. Events after Maclean’s meeting [33] After the meeting, the students were shell-shocked and believed that they had not been given a chance to convey their concerns. They regrouped at the coffee shop across the street and decided to do legal research and write to Ted Rogers, given that Maclean’s was a Rogers publication. 2014 ONSC 6890 (CanLII) Page: 5