Court File No.

: CV-14-517197

ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

B E T W E E N:
WALTER CALLAGHAN
Plaintiff

- and -

HUSSAIN MASOOM, NICKIE VAN LIER, SOALEHA SHAMS, SUSANNE WALDORF,

KAVITA SIEWRATTAN and UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO GRADUATE STUDENTS
UNION
Defendants
A N D B E T W E E N:

HUSSAIN MASOOM and SOALEHA SHAMS

Plaintiffs by Counterclaim
- and -

WALTER CALLAGHAN
Defendant by Counterclaim

REPLY AND DEFENCE TO COUNTERCLAIM

1.

The plaintiff/defendant by counterclaim, Walter Callaghan, admits the facts

and allegations in paragraphs 11-14, 16-23, and 46 of the Statement of
Defence and Counterclaim.

2.

Mr. Callaghan denies the balance of facts, allegations and claims for relief,
unless otherwise admitted here.

3.

In defence to the Counterclaim, Mr. Callaghan repeats and relies on the facts
pleaded in the Statement of Claim, in addition to the further facts pleaded
here.

4.

The Statement of Defence and Counterclaim fundamentally mischaracterize

the core allegations of the Statement of Claim. Mr. Callaghan does not allege
that voting on political decisions or investigating complaints, in themselves,
were tortious or a breach of the Human Rights Code. Rather, the defendants
misconduct included:
a. disparaging Mr. Callaghan in relation to his mental health;

b. persisting with this harmful conduct, even when aware of the detrimental
effects on Mr. Callaghans health;
c. aggressively advancing and accepting a complaint against Mr. Callaghan,
without even advising him of the complaint details or obtaining his
response; and
d. prohibiting Mr. Callaghan from UTGSU communications and activities, and
from the UTGSU premises itself, in knowing breach of the defendants
authority.

5.

In respect of paragraphs 52-63, the comments attributed to Mr. Callaghan are

mischaracterized, grossly exaggerated, and taken out of context. The specific
allegation at paragraph 55 that Mr. Callaghan made physical threats is a total
fabrication.

6.

To the extent any of the triggering comments referred to in paragraphs 52-63

are accurately described, those comments were made before Ms. Shams
disclosed that she suffered from any mental health condition, and before she
advised that she could be triggered by military references and aggressive
language and gestures. Mr. Callaghan denies that he ever intended to cause
mental distress to Ms. Shams or that he could have reasonably foreseen any
of his comments having that effect.

7.

In specific response to paragraph 56 of the Statement of Defence and

Counterclaim, except for puppet, Mr. Callaghan denies ever making such
comments to Ms. Shams or the other defendants. The defendants
misleadingly allege that the terms were used publicly. To the extent Mr.
Callaghan used any such terms, he did so in private communications to which
the defendants were not parties. The defendants were never the expected
audience, and there was no intention to cause them mental distress. The
defendants are once again attempting to police Mr. Callaghans private
communications.

8.

Mr. Callaghan specifically denies the allegations in paragraph 58, including the
allegation that Ms. Shams asked Mr. Callaghan to be more aware of his
language and then left the meeting in tears.

9.

Mr. Callaghan specifically denies the allegation in paragraph 60 that Ms.

Shams attempted to meet with Callaghan to discuss her issues with him and
the manner in which her treatment was affecting her. There was no such
attempt and Mr. Callaghan never brushed her off as Ms. Shams claims.

10.

Mr. Callaghan specifically denies Mr. Masooms intentionally inflammatory

allegations in paragraphs 63-66. Mr. Callaghan never made the comments or
the gesture attributed to him.

11.

As pleaded above with respect to paragraph 56, any comments similar to

those referred to at paragraph 67 were made privately. Mr. Callaghan did not
intend or desire that Mr. Masoom receive them. There was no intention to
cause Mr. Masoom mental distress. As above, the plaintiffs by counterclaim
are aware they were not the intended audience.

12.

Mr. Callaghan pleads that the tort of harassment is not a recognized cause of
action in Ontario.

13.

Mr. Callaghan pleads that the damages sought in the counterclaim are
exaggerated, excessive and remote.

14.

Mr. Callaghan respectfully requests that the Counterclaim be dismissed and

costs ordered against the plaintiffs by counterclaim, personally, on a full
indemnity basis. The Counterclaim is false, vindictive, politically-motivated,
and deserves the Courts censure.

January 20, 2015

Turnpenney Milne LLP

2 Berkeley Street, Suite 501
Toronto, ON M5A 4J5
Danny Kastner (54019O)
(416) 868-1457 (phone)
(647) 260-0939 (fax)
danny@tmllp.ca
Lawyers for the plaintiff

TO:

Iler Campbell LLP

Barristers & Solicitors
150 John Street, 7th Floor
Toronto, Ontario M5V 3E3
Priya Sarin (53481W)
Tel. (416) 598-0103

Fax: (416) 598-3484

Lawyers for the defendants

WALTER CALLAGHAN

Plaintiff

-and-

HUSSAIN MASOOM, NICKIE VAN LIER,

SOALEHA SHAMS, SUSANNE WALDORF,
KAVITA SIEWRATTAN and UNIVERSITY OF
TORONTO GRADUATE STUDENTS UNION
Defendants
Court File No.: CV-14-517197

ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
Proceeding commenced at TORONTO

REPLY AND DEFENCE TO

COUNTERCLAIM

TURNPENNEY MILNE LLP

2 Berkeley Street, Suite 501
Toronto, Ontario M5A 4J5
Danny Kastner (54019O)
Tel: 416.868.1457
Fax: 647.260.0939
danny@tmllp.ca
Lawyers for the plaintiff