There was no intention to destroy the career of choreographer Steve Bolton by publishing an investigation into him, but to report facts that were of public interest, said one of the two journalists of The Press sued for defamation.
According to Stéphanie Vallet, who now works as an investigative journalist at To have tothe behaviors of Steve Bolton alleged by several dancers deserved to be reported and were of public interest, given the complaints they made to the Union des artistes (UDA), and also because he is a “choreographer of renown” which had several shows in progress and which worked a lot with young people, who could be more affected than adults by the reproached behaviors, like the alleged verbal abuse.
In the impugned report, we can read that about twenty complaints had been filed with the UDA against the choreographer, containing allegations ranging from verbal and physical violence to untenable working conditions and abuse power and harassment.
According to Mr. Bolton, the two journalists — Ms. Vallet and the head of the investigations unit Katia Gagnon — reported false and misleading allegations and made unfair choices in the information they gathered, favoring the testimonies of those who blamed him for things compared to those who reported having good experiences working with him. He blames them for a “botched” journalistic investigation and violations of the standards of the profession. In his legal action, he deplores the “seeking of manifest sensationalism. »
Questioned and cross-examined by the lawyers for a day and a half, Ms. Vallet defended and detailed her work, listing the many steps taken to gather information and to corroborate the allegations: calls, long interviews, obtaining documents, photos, recordings, emails and medical records.
For example, she explained in particular that a physical exercise denounced by alleged victims had been recounted in the article because it had been reported to her by several people.
“It’s starting to draw a ‘pattern’ and it’s relevant from a journalistic point of view,” the journalist told Superior Court judge Karen Kear-Jodoin at the Montreal courthouse.
As for the interview with the choreographer, it lasted two and a half hours, she says, and in the article, “for each alleged fact, there is Mr. Bolton’s version”.
Ms. Vallet contacted people he suggested who he believed would testify on his behalf.
Under cross-examination, one of Mr. Bolton’s lawyers, Mr.e Marc-Antoine Côté, confronted her on her work procedures, in particular on certain remarks she made in interviews with various people, and on certain facts favorable to Mr. Bolton which would have been omitted from the article.
For example, he reproaches him for not having included the assertions of a dancer who maintains that she has never seen him be violent and those of the director Serge Postigo who assures that he has never been told of such acts.
“Ms. Vallet, are these elements not found in your article? asked the lawyer.
To which the journalist replied that elements of violence were reported to her by one person and confirmed by others and that thus they could be included in the report. That Mr. Postigo says he heard nothing about it does not contradict the “reported and substantiated” allegations, she adds.
Me Côté also tried to demonstrate shortcomings in her work by questioning her on questions that she did not ask during her interviews – and that she probably considers relevant.
The trial has now reached the stage where experts in journalistic standards and ethics testify in order to enlighten the court on the profession’s ways of doing things.
To win his case and obtain financial compensation, Mr. Bolton must prove that the journalists committed one or more faults — they are bound by an obligation of means, that is to say, to do what a diligent journalist and prudent would have done under the same circumstances — not to a standard of perfection. He must also prove that their faults are the cause of the damages he alleges, in particular the loss of contracts.