### November 25, 2025 On November 25, 2025, prior to and contemporaneous with a scheduled court appearance by **Keven Ages** in Toronto, Caryma Sa’d published a post stating: > [!quote] > “Two Antifa activists linked to the Canadian Anti-Hate Network (CAHN) are in court this week: > • Keven Ages appears in a Toronto courtroom today > • [Deana Sherif](https://x.com/search?q=from%3ACarymaRules%20%22Sherif%22&src=typed_query&f=live) is scheduled in an Ottawa courtroom on Friday” The post was accompanied by side-by-side images of Mr. Ages and Deanna Sherif and was framed as a paired comparison. > [!abstract] > The image of **Mr. Ages** used in the November 25, 2025 post appears to be a still frame taken from a **video recorded in [[September]]** by **Adam Lee Wasserman**, during an in-person, post-settlement encounter involving Mr. Ages and his wife. > - The video was **recorded by Mr. Wasserman**, who is the **partner of Caryma Sa'd**. > - The video itself has **never been publicly posted** by Ms. Sa’d. > - The still image used in the November 25 post is **not known to originate from any other publicly available source**. ![[signal-2026-01-05-080941_002.jpeg]] **Context:** - November 25, 2025 was **Mr. Ages’ first court appearance** in a **civil defamation action** in which he is the **plaintiff**, involving allegations against **Tanya Fusco**, an associate of Ms. Sa’d. - During the same week, **Deanna Sherif** was scheduled to appear in an **Ottawa criminal proceeding**, reported publicly as involving **assault and a hate-related element**. **Clarifying Facts:** - Mr. Ages has **never met, spoken to, or interacted with Deanna Sherif**. - The two matters were **unrelated**, in **different jurisdictions**, and of **different legal character** (civil defamation proceeding vs. criminal prosecution). - The post did **not disclose** that Mr. Ages was appearing as a **civil plaintiff**, nor did it distinguish between civil and criminal proceedings. The post juxtaposed Mr. Ages with an unrelated criminal defendant and applied shared labels (“Antifa activists,” “linked to CAHN”) without factual explanation, inviting associative inference between distinct legal matters. This framing occurred during an active court proceeding involving an associate of the author and omitted contextual information necessary to prevent misinterpretation by a reasonable reader. ### Audience Response — Foreseeable Interpretation of Post Following the November 25, 2025 post, a reply was published by an X user identified as **Ferry Fan**, stating: >[!quote] _“I’m guessing assault?”_ This comment appeared directly beneath Ms. Sa’d’s post and was made in response to the paired description of court appearances involving **Mr. Ages** and **Deanna Sherif**. ![[signal-2026-01-05-081449_002.jpeg]] > [!info] > The comment reflects a **reasonable reader’s inference** that the court appearance referenced in relation to Mr. Ages involved **criminal conduct**, specifically **assault**, despite Mr. Ages’ appearance being a **civil defamation proceeding in which he was the plaintiff**. > > This response illustrates how the post’s framing—pairing an unrelated criminal matter with Mr. Ages’ civil appearance and omitting clarifying context—**predictably invited misinterpretation** by members of the public. ---- ### Courtroom and Courthouse Conduct #### **Pre-Court Security Disclosure** On the morning of the first day of court, **Dawn Ages** informed courthouse security staff that **Caryma Sa’d** and **Adam Lee Wasserman** were present or expected to be present. She advised security that both individuals had a **documented history of harassment and stalking** involving herself and her husband, which had previously resulted in **multiple interactions with Toronto Police**, as recent as September 28, 2025 ![[signal-2026-01-05-094348_002.png]] Security staff advised that, in the absence of a restraining order, they could not remove the individuals, but acknowledged the disclosure and escalated the matter to a supervisor. No request was made by Mr. or Ms. Ages for court special constables to be assigned to the courtroom; the presence and positioning of court security was determined by courthouse staff. --- ### **Conduct Observed Inside the Courtroom** After all parties were seated, **Adam Lee Wasserman** entered the courtroom. Although the gallery was primarily empty and Ms. Sa'd was seated behind us, Mr. Wasserman walked directly down the row where **Keven Ages** and **Dawn Ages** were seated and sat immediately beside Mr. Ages. Mr. Wasserman shifted his entire body towards Mr. Ages, taking up as much physical space as he could. Mr. Wasserman was asked to move. When he did not do so voluntarily, a court special constable intervened and directed him to move. Mr. Wasserman then moved one seat over and the court special constable had to direct him to relocate further down the row and placed himself between Mr. Wasserman and the Ages. As Mr. Wasserman stood to move, he made a loud statement directed to **Caryma Sa’d**: > [!quote] > “I just got off the phone with Ezra and they are going to run the story tonight.” Following this, and prior to the Ages’ matter being called, Mr. Wasserman addressed the presiding judge directly, stating words to the effect of: > [!quote] > "I am doing a story for Rebel News about a network Mr. Ages is a part of, and he doesn’t want me here because he wants to silence me..” > [!info] Subsequently, **Dawn Ages** contacted **Ezra Levant** directly. Mr. Levant advised that he had no knowledge of the claim attributed to him. ![[signal-2026-01-05-094129_002 1.png]] --- ### **Conduct Observed in Courthouse Waiting Area** While waiting between matters, the following conduct was observed by **Dawn Ages**: - **Adam Lee Wasserman** made comments referencing prior travel to Peterborough, including a remark referring to a “watermelon festival,” followed by a correction emphasizing that he alone — not Ms. Sa’d — had attended. - Mr. Wasserman appeared to point his phone toward **Dawn Ages** in a manner consistent with filming. A court special constable intervened and instructed him to stop, advising that recording was not permitted. Mr. Wasserman denied filming and lowered the phone. After the court special constable turned away, he raised the phone again, at which point the court special constable physically positioned himself between Mr. Wasserman and Ms. Ages to block the view. - Mr. Wasserman repeatedly played audio from his phone at an elevated volume. On at least one occasion, **Tanya Fusco’s legal counsel** asked him to lower the volume due to ongoing court sessions. - Minutes later, similar behaviour resumed, at which point **Caryma Sa’d** intervened by taking Mr. Wasserman's phone away. --- ### **Post-Court Observation (Lunch Period)** After court recessed for lunch, **Keven Ages** and **Dawn Ages** attended a nearby restaurant. **Caryma Sa’d** and **Adam Lee Wasserman** attended the same establishment despite multiple alternatives in the immediate area. While outside the restaurant, **Mr. Wasserman** appeared to hold his phone in a manner consistent with filming through the window toward the interior where the Ages were seated. ![[20251125_124849.mp4]] --- > [!note] > This entry documents **observed conduct** by third parties during an active civil proceeding, including repeated interactions requiring intervention by court security. All observations are recorded based on **first-hand recollection by Dawn Ages** and are presented without characterization of intent. ### Public Commentary Following In-Court Testimony On November 25, 2025, following **Mr. Ages’ testimony** in Small Claims Court, **Ms. Sa’d** published a post commenting on his in-court appearance and testimony. In the post, Ms. Sa’d stated, among other things, that: - Mr. Ages “took the stand” and that his wife, present for moral support, was “observed complaining” to a Toronto Police Service special constable, - A TPS special constable remained in the courtroom for the duration of proceedings, - Mr. Ages “broke down in tears during portions of his testimony,” and - The “authenticity” of this emotional response was “difficult to gauge.” The post further characterized aspects of Mr. Ages’ testimony and stated that the trial was scheduled to continue on January 8, 2026. The post included a photograph of Mr. Ages taken in a public setting and was published under the hashtag **#ProtestMania**. ![[signal-2026-01-05-080941_003.jpeg]] > [!info] > During his testimony, **Mr. Ages became visibly emotional** while describing the personal impact of the alleged defamation. > This testimony occurred in the context of **concurrent family circumstances**, including Mr. Ages’ recent travel to British Columbia to assist with arranging permanent **care for his mother due to advanced Alzheimer’s disease**. > [!warning] > Earlier that day, courthouse security had independently determined that a special constable would remain present in the courtroom following disclosures made to security staff (see related November 2025 entry). --- ### Third-Party Responses to Public Commentary on Court Testimony Following the publication of Ms. Sa’d’s November 25, 2025 post commenting on **Mr. Ages’ testimony**, a number of third-party users replied directly to the post. The replies included statements commenting on: - The physical appearance and perceived health of **Mr. Ages**, - The legitimacy of his emotional response while testifying, and - The character of **Mr. Ages** and **Dawn Ages** as a couple. Several replies also contained **explicit accusations of criminal or immoral conduct**, made without evidence and unrelated to the civil proceeding referenced in the original post. ![[signal-2026-01-05-081449_006.jpeg]] > [!info] > The post also included a quoted repost linking Mr. Ages to an unrelated criminal court matter involving another individual (see related November 2025 entry).