Since I have never watched Trailer Park Boys, I would personally say she’s not major. Now, if it had been Lacey or Wanda from Corner Gas, that would be another thing entirely.
This article from the Financial Post gives some suggestions:
Was he one of the four highest paid, or was he one of the next six highest? Probably the first category, but we don’t know for sure.
As a former fan of Jian Ghomeshi I am just reeling from the allegations. Here was a guy who brought a certain cool to reading with the Canada Reads series, a definite hipster vibe to daily affairs, I heard new indie bands for the first time on Q, and he had some amazing interviews, one of my favorites was with Mandy Pitinkin. Another was with Neil Young.
Anyway that’s all gone now. I can’t stomach what he’s done to these women, one from Trailer Park boys, and another a writer and Lawyer with a young family seem to be extremely credible. Those two who were willing to be identified were very brave indeed. It seems that the abuse has escalated in the 12 years since he abused Lucy and Reva, and the women’s ages have become younger. There is an investigation happening at Carleton University, since there was a twitter account @bigearsteddy back in April of possibly a media intern alleging abuse by Ghomeshi.
I found fascinating the timeline of the firing. The Globe and Mail published it today
My thought as well - apparently confirmed (by anonymous sources):
Behind the CBC’s decision to fire Ghomeshi
A must-read article with lots of information, for those following the story. As an aside… He didn’t write most of his opening essays, according to this article. Though I realize, that’s far from being the worst thing about this whole situation.
Yea that’s the article I posted upthread. Pretty wild to think all those essays weren’t his.
Another article by a young female journalist reminded is excellent and speaks to a broader issue
Reminds me of the time I worked in a restaurant. I was young, about 22, I was sexually harrassed by the boss, first he commented on my breasts, I ignored him, then he said he wanted to go to Bahamas with me, I asked him what his wife would think. Then one night he slapped my ass in the dining room in front of patrons. That was it. He was a married ugly man. I was in shock. I couldn’t stop worrying about if the guy was going to follow me to the change room. Even though I was shaken up, I didn’t give a shit about the job so I finished the shift and left. I phoned him to tell him I wasn’t coming in anymore and my boyfriend was going to drop by to get my things. He kept asking why, as if nothing was wrong. I screamed at him that he was a pervert and hung up. My then boyfriend later husband went in their and raised hell, to the dismay of everyone including the customers. These fuckers need to be exposed. I feel for women in the job they love having to put up with this shit.
I wonder if there will be civil suits. There would almost certainly be if this were a U.S. celebrity.
Since he’s not as rich as a TV star or even a major radio star (e.g. Stern, Savage, etc.), legal fees could leave him penniless.
[QUOTE=from that article]
At that meeting, a lawyer for Mr. Ghomeshi presented two people from CBC management with texts, e-mails and photos of the radio host’s sexual encounters. The evidence was intended to demonstrate consent, a point Mr. Ghomeshi would later stress in a statement: “Everything I have done has been consensual.”
But the CBC managers were taken aback, and their views on Mr. Ghomeshi’s conduct changed instantly. What they saw, in their opinions, was far more aggressive and physical than anything they had been led to believe during months of discussions.
Although Mr. Ghomeshi wrote in his statement that the CBC agreed “there was consent,” sources suggested CBC officials were not confident in drawing that conclusion. What was certain was the corporation – a public broadcaster, heavily funded by citizens – swiftly decided it had seen evidence of conduct it could not be seen to defend, according to sources.
[/QUOTE]
Okay. So there was a Ray Rice moment, where the actual evidence, once reviewed, was very different. (Please note that I am NOT saying that the CBC behaved like the NFL - I have no idea if the CBC had access to this evidence up to that point and that is NOT the point I am seeking to explore here.)
It makes sense that Ghomeshi would take such a get-out-in-front-of-it approach - he was throwing a Hail Mary. But it is appearing that when the evidence is seen and assessed vs. Ghomeshi’s position, his Hail Mary is failing, as illustrated by how his firing came about and the PR firm’s decision to drop him.
Yeah, he’s done.
I don’t think he’s done. I think we’ll see criminal charges, even if they dont lead to convictions, before this is over.
I think his union deal means he can’t possibly win suing them. And that he only did it so they could no longer speak to the media. So by filing suit he both silenced them, and got his spin out, well ahead of the grim details.
Sounds like you think I meant his troubles will be over soon. Oh no, I didn’t mean that. 
I just meant that any hope of him building a compelling alternate “Consensual Defense™” POV for this is bye-bye.
I think the CBC has been very clever to get their side out through the use of other media outlets, in this case the Globe to detail the chronological timeline that led to the firing.
Not that the CBC is entirely innocent. That appeared to be a very toxic workplace, and an employee harrassed by Ghomeshi was told that they needed to look for ways to make it a better environment because “he’ll never change” So letting this kind of environment fester is very much on CBC.
An employer in these situations is always going to be damned if they do, and damned if they don’t.
If they aren’t super-careful before firing someone, or taking remedial actions of a lesser nature, such as giving him a meaningful opportunity to rebut the accusations against him, they are going to face a shitstorm of criticism - particularly where that employee is a popular media personality.
If they are super-careful before taking any actions, then the question is always going to be - if this guy is an abuser, why didn’t they do something sooner about all those accusations they were hearing?
I’m a little confused, though, about why the lawyer would show them this stuff if it was contra-indicating what the lawyer was trying to argue. Did the lawyer think the stuff he showed them showed there was consent? If so, why did CBC not think so?
Only speculating here of course - but I am assuming that the lawyers for Mr. G. were privy to information they thought very likely to become public (or at least, known to the CBC) in the near future, and were trying to put the best possible “spin” on it, knowing that they had no choice but to deal with it - and it would be better for Mr. G. if it came from him (with a chance to put his “spin” on it), than if the CBC heard it from (say) the front page of the Toronto Star.
Unfortunately for Mr. G., the CBC, looking at the evidence, simply did not buy the “spin”; the facts were seen by them as too damning, and the “spin” not credible.
I was assuming it was “put up or shut up” time. Ghomeshi+Lawyers had been saying Consensual, but this article was coming out and they must’ve been aware of what it would reveal and the spin on it. So they had to share what they had with the CBC and hope that the CBC would accept the spin of Consensual and help Ghomeshi+Lawyers counteract the spin that would come from that article in the blogosphere. Apparently, they didn’t ;).
All conjecture.
ETA: conjecture which was ninja’d by Malthus - curse you!!
If what I’m interpreting is correct, Ghomeshi initiated the meetings with the CBC because he was fearing some sort of explosive article to be written about him. He volunteered his evidence of consent to CBC executives, who were satisfied that he was being besmirched by a jilted ex, and were willing to stand by him. Ghomeshi does not speak of others in his facebook as being out to get him, just one person and a freelance writer, possibly the writer at the Star. But the new information that seemed to be furnished by the Toronto Star was it wasn’t one jilted ex, it was at least 8 women, with one willing to go public. This was far more than what Ghomeshi implied in his facebook explanation.
It appears that Ghomeshi was given an opportunity to own up to his abuse at the Sunday meeting, thereby giving the CBC a chance to offer some sort of treatment or time off to get help, but Ghomeshi was steadfast in saying he did nothing wrong. So according to the article that’s when the axe fell.
So while it’s apparent that the CBC did the right thing in this instance, (basically Ghomeshi hung himself with his own words,) the CBC still needs to address the collateral damage in their workplace, and why abusive behaviour within the workplace was allowed for so long .
Guess he’ll be on DANCING WITH THE STARS in a couple of years. He’ll probably get all 10s in the La Danse Apache.
He might want to take the money he’s saving on PR and pay it to an accountant to protect whatever assets he has left from civil suits and garnishments.
Sounds like this affair might have tarnished their brand a little bit. Maybe there are some specialized firms out there that can help them with that.
The spin would have worked I suspect if it were simply the so called jilted ex, in question, Ghomeshi was more than prepared to counter her claims of abuse.
But when there’s a systemic problem of at least 12 years of anecdotal accounts of non-consensual acts of escalating aggressive sexual behaviour, there’s not a lot you can spin.
That’s my take on it too.
No doubt Mr. G.'s lawyers did their best given the instructions of their client, but the facts are the facts: they had to play the hand they were dealt. Unfortunately for Mr. G., the “hand” in question was a loser. His rather inventive lawsuit looks like a last attempt at a bluff.
It is very difficult to credit that all of the accounts are false, and his story is accurate. Much easier to credit that his story is false. Unless some truly startling new facts come out, it is very unlikely that his grievance or lawsuit will work out well for him - that an arbitrator or judge will second-guess the CBC’s decision to fire him.