NOTICE PURSUANT TO THE LIBEL AND

SLANDER ACT, R.S.O. 1990, c.L.12

B E T W E E N:

MIKE BULLARD

Plaintiff

- and –

HEATHER MALLICK and TORSTAR CORPORATION

NOTICE OF LIBEL

TAKE NOTICE that pursuant to section 5(1) of the Libel and Slander, Act, R.S.O. 1990,
c.L.12 (the “Libel and Slander Act”) Mike Bullard complains of and objects to the false,
malicious, irresponsible and defamatory public postings concerning him published on
Heather Mallick's Twitter account (wherein she holds herself out as a Toronto Star staff
columnist and provides her email address [email protected]) on June 1, 2018, which
read:

“What an awful ordeal journalist Cynthia Mulligan has been through. Don’t quite
understand how her stalker gets a second chance.” (hereinafter the “Defamatory
Publication”).

And further on or about June 9, 2018 two tweets, each of which read:

“I got a DM from Bullard a year ago about his stalking case. He seemed to think
I would be sympathetic! The amazing self-regard of the stalker endures.”
Attached to this particular tweet was a link to a “victim impact statement” in an
unredacted form which did not reflect the statement the Court permitted to be read
into Court record.

“This is what “comic” Mike Bullard did to a prominent TV journalist. Stalkers are
terrifying. They are vipers. Why is this man not in jail?”

1
The Defamatory tweet and/or publications and any others of which Mike Bullard is
currently unaware, are hereinafter collectively referred to as the “Defamatory Words”.

At all material times you were aware that on or about September 21, 2016 a charge of
criminal harassment pursuant to section 264(2) of the Criminal Code (the so called
‘stalker’ legislation) alleged that the complainant feared “for her personal safety” as a
result of Mike Bullard’s actions. As you knew or ought to have known, that charge was
dismissed by the Court on June 1, 2018. The Court found that the complainant’s fears
were entirely subjective and not objective.

At all material times you were aware that on or about October 26, 2016 a second charge
alleged that Mr. Bullard had breached a court order by allegedly attending at the
complainant’s home. As you knew or ought to have known, that charge pursuant to
section 145 (5.1) of the Criminal Code was dismissed by the Court on June 1, 2018.

At all material times you were aware that on or about November 7, 2016 one charge of
failure to comply was elevated to obstructing justice pursuant to section 139(2) of the
Criminal Code, by indirectly attempting to have the complainant withdraw her complaint.
As you knew or ought to have known, that charge was dismissed by the Court on June 1,
2018.

At all material times you were aware that 2 new charges of failing to comply with previous
bail conditions was brought on or about May 16, 2018. These were (1) on or about
October 16, 2016 Mike Bullard breached section 145(5.1) of the Criminal Code by
communicating indirectly with his complainant; and (2) that between October 26, 2016
and June 23, 2017, Mike Bullard breached section 145(3) of the Criminal Code by failing
without lawful excuse to reside with his surety. As you are aware, Mike Bullard pled guilty
to these charges on June 8, 2018.

At all material times you knew with respect to (1) that Mr. Bullard contacted a mutual
friend of his and the complainant, and relayed the message that he has heard that the
charge can drop if the complainant wished so. That third party forwarded text messages
to the complainant that had been sent to her by Mr. Bullard. Those texts provided a phone
number to a Detective and indicated that she had said that if the complainant called of
her own volition, and withdrew the complaint, the charge would be withdrawn. The
complainant instead contacted the police to report this incident.

At all material times you knew with respect to (2) that Mike Bullard advised the Court that
his lapse was inadvertent, and in part caused by a medical emergency and death of his
mother.

At all material times you were aware that Mike Bullard pled guilty to making harassing
telecommunications to the complainant between June 13, 2016 and September 21, 2016

2
contrary to section 372(4) of the Criminal Code. As you know these communications
were benign in nature and did not concern the complainant’s fear for safety.

At all material times you knew or ought to have known, that Mr. Bullard was granted a
conditional discharge with 6 month probation; a term that he take the PARS program;
have no contact with the complainant; and keep the peace and be of good behavior.

As you knew or ought to have known, in making its findings on June 1, 2018, amongst
other things, the Court stated:

While Bullard’s conduct as alleged could be seen as harassing in that sense, just
referred to, in my view there is no reasonable basis for the fear for Ms. Mulligan’s
safety. Parliament has chosen to differentiate between harassing communications
on the one hand and conduct which gives rise to a reasonable fear for one’s safety.
There was nothing in any of the communications which gives rise to a reasonable
inference that her safety was being threatened. While the communications could
be seen as persistent, unwanted, bothersome, conduct for which he will be
committed to trial, nothing in his past behaviour toward her nor these
communications allude to directly or circumstantially, explicitly or implicitly to any
threat to her safety. At most there was an aggressive email to Tumelty, but the
alleged threat to Tumelty, if that’s what it was, was not what this case was about.
It was never even argued. His conduct in my view is properly covered by the
harassing communications count. He’ll be discharged of the criminal harassment
count.

To conclude, he will be committed on the failing to comply for the October 13th text
to Ms. Seatle. The Crown seeks committal on the call and the texts of October
16th when he was going to the hospital. He will be committed on that. He will be
committed on one count of harassing communications.
None of the communications threatened the complainant. They were unwanted, to
be sure. They were harassing and they amounted to breaches of the undertaking.
I cannot imagine reasonable, responsible counsel being unable to resolve this
case in a way that is consistent with the interests of Mulligan, Bullard and the public
interest. In this era where trials of very serious injuries are stayed for delay, it is
perplexing that this has taken up four days for a preliminary inquiry and will now
proceed to a jury trial. This is not a case, in my view, that should proceed to a jury
trial. I hope counsel seriously reflect on those comments. With that I am happy to
sign the committal.

3
As you know, the complainant’s victim statement that was posted online, was different
from the one she was allowed to read in Court. The one she read in Court was redacted
by the judge to delete unproven allegations, amongst other things. In particular you knew
or ought to have known that the Court struck:

“Your abuse”

“And you left me voicemail messages, horking and spitting at me”

“Even after your arrest your harassment didn’t stop. It continued on Twitter, with
veiled threats, comments and denials. And then a private investigator showed up
at my house on a Sunday morning four months ago and tried to bully and
intimidate. He also went to my former husband’s home and called a colleague,
saying if I didn’t drop the charges he would release dirt on me and destroy my
career. There is no dirt and you know it. Fortunately there is a recording. That PI
is now facing charges as well.”

“I was told that 80 percent of women give up after 6 or 8 months because they
can’t take the pressure as time goes on and there is no end in sight. That’s not
justice. That’s an overburdened system.”

“What is troubling is you have never taken responsibility for your actions. You think
in a twisted way you were justified. You weren’t. You are alone responsible for
being here in this courtroom. I hope you get help. You need it. Go to therapy and
when you are done, get more therapy and then get some more.”

“But I will always wonder who around Mr. Bullard stood up to tell him what he was
doing was wrong. Who spoke out? And how many were passive witnesses? I’m
told a friend of his said “all he did was love her.” That wasn’t love. It was abuse.
There is still such a long way to go.”

You also knew or ought to have known of Mike Bullard’s on record position at Court on
June 8, 2018 that he disagreed with the bulk of the complainant’s victim statement that
was read in Court.

And despite being aware of all of the aforementioned things, you went ahead with the
publication of the Defamatory Words. The Defamatory Words were published with
express malice, the defendants intending or knowing, that the Defamatory Words and the
innuendo arising from them were false and defamatory or with careless and reckless
disregard for the truth and their publication was calculated by the defendants to disparage
and injure the reputation of Mike Bullard personally and in the way of his profession, trade
and calling.

4
Further, the defendants published the Defamatory Words intending or knowing, that the
Defamatory Words would be republished or rebroadcast, in whole or in part, by others
and accordingly the defendants are jointly and severally liable for all such republication
or rebroadcast.

Mike Bullard intends to rely on the entirety of the Defamatory Words including all
accompanying headlines, texts and/or images, in support of his intended action, and all
earlier and subsequent versions of the Defamatory Words published or republished, in
any form whatsoever, in whole or in part, by the defendants and/or others.
The Defamatory Words in their natural and ordinary meaning and/or by inference or
innuendo, are false, malicious and defamatory of Mike Bullard, have subjected him to
humiliating personal attacks, hatred and contempt and have caused and will continue to
cause damage to his reputation personally and in the way of his profession, trade and
calling.

Mike Bullard states that the Defamatory Words in their natural and ordinary meaning, and
by innuendo, falsely and maliciously meant and were understood to mean that:

a) he was guilty of criminal stalking despite the charge having been dismissed by the
Court;
b) the allegations against him, as described by his complainant, are true, despite
being dismissed by the Court;
c) by virtue of the above, he is unfit for employment and/or intimate relationships.

The full extent of the damages suffered by Mike Bullard is unknown.

To mitigate his damages, Mike Bullard requires that you immediately publish in print in
the Toronsto Star newspaper, and on the @HeatherMallick Twitter website
https://twitter.com/search?q=heather%20mallick&src=typd, an apology and retraction, in
a form first approved by Mike Bullard, in respect of the Defamatory Words, in a manner
at least as prominent as the original publication of the Defamatory Words, and that you
immediately remove the Defamatory Words from the @HeatherMallick Twitter website
https://twitter.com/search?q=heather%20mallick&src=typd and take all steps necessary
to ensure that no archived versions remain on the internet, in whole or in part.

Please be advised that you are named in this Notice of Libel in that you caused,
participated in, authorized, permitted or condoned the publication of the Defamatory
Words and are, as a result, jointly and severally liable for the damages flowing therefrom.

It is hereby demanded that you retain in safekeeping all drafts of the Defamatory Words,
all notes and tapes of all interviews and all other notes, documents, computer documents,
tapes, emails, any other materials, documents and records relevant to the Defamatory
Words, and all comments or reaction, in any form, received by the defendants in respect
to the publication of the Defamatory Words.

5
Mike Bullard intends to commence an action against you in respect of the Defamatory
Words and reserves all rights in this regard. He hereby gives notice pursuant to the
Courts of Justice Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.C.43 that he will be claiming pre-judgment interest
from the date of this Notice to the date of judgment.

July 11, 2018 ZUBER & COMPANY LLP

Joshua J. A. Henderson (56389K)

Tel: (416) 362-5005

Lawyers for Mike Bullard

TO: TORSTAR Corporation

AND TO: Heather Mallick