EXCLUSIVE: A Leap Union Organizer Speaks Out, But Doesn’t Answer the Key Question

When we published our investigation into Avi Lewis's labour record last week, we asked a simple question: Why did The Leap shut down just nine months after unionizing, without a single bargaining session, only to re-emerge days later as a non-union news outlet?

We expected pushback from the Lewis campaign. What we didn't expect was a Facebook post from the very person who led that union drive, a post that raises as many questions as it answers.

James Hutt, who served as Senior Manager of Programming at The Leap from 2019 to 2021 and led the staff unionization effort, came forward to defend his former employer. His account is worth reading. It's also worth examining closely because, despite his firsthand testimony, Hutt never actually addresses the central mystery our investigation uncovered.

What Hutt Verified

Hutt confirms what we reported: that The Leap unionized with CUPE in June 2020. He states that Avi Lewis and Naomi Klein “fully supported the union drive” and even brought in Billy Bragg to celebrate. He also provides new details about The Leap's closure.

According to Hutt, staff learned in January 2021 that the organization would cease operations. The reasons: “several major grants fell through,” coupled with Executive Director Katie McKenna's departure and Lewis's “long-planned step away” to focus on federal politics. Hutt says they explored options including handing the organization to staff, but “all of these options proved too difficult.”

He concludes: “I can say unequivocally that Avi and Naomi supported the unionization and that we would have reached a collective agreement if the trajectory of The Leap allowed for it.”

What Hutt Didn't Address

Here's the problem. Our investigation never claimed that Lewis publicly opposed the union. We never said he was surprised by it. The Billy Bragg video is nice but also irrelevant to the core question.

Our question was this: what happened during those nine months between certification and closure?

Hutt's entire post skips from June 2020—when the union was certified—to January 2021, when staff learned of the closure. That's a seven-month gap. Seven months when, according to public records, no bargaining took place. No proposals were exchanged. No sessions were scheduled.

Hutt doesn't explain why. He doesn't say whether the employer ever came to the table, whether CUPE requested bargaining dates, or whether Lewis or management dragged their feet. He simply jumps to the funding crisis as if the preceding months didn't exist.

If the funding crisis was truly the only factor, then why wasn't a contract negotiated in those seven months before the crisis hit? Unionized workplaces don't typically wait until the organization is collapsing to start bargaining.

First contracts are supposed to be negotiated promptly.

The Funding Question

Hutt cites “several major grants fell through” as the reason for closure. But our investigation documented something else: The Leap and its fiscal sponsor continued receiving government subsidies throughout this period.

The Polaris Institute received a Canada Summer Jobs wage subsidy in June 2020—the very month the union was certified—and collected CEWS during the pandemic.

Were these funds insufficient? Were they misdirected? Hutt doesn't say. More importantly: If funding was so precarious, why not negotiate a contract that could have protected workers when the grants fell through? That's what unions are for. That's what collective agreements do.

The Breach

And then there's The Breach. Hutt doesn't mention it at all.

Six days after The Leap closed, a new outlet launched with Lewis and as a contributor. The Breach covers the same issues, employs much of the same people, and operates without a union.

Hutt doesn't explain why The Breach isn't unionized. He doesn't explain why Lewis, who “fully supported” the Leap union. didn't ensure the new outlet followed suit. He doesn't explain why workers who unionized at The Leap never got their contract, while The Breach's contributors operate without one.

Maybe there's an explanation; Maybe The Breach's structure makes unionization impossible. Maybe workers there don't want one. But Hutt doesn't provide any of these answers and simply ignores the question.

"Nobody Asked Me"

Hutt expresses frustration that our investigation didn't interview Leap staff. He's right about one thing: we didn't speak to him. We reached out to Lewis's campaign, to CUPE Ontario (which has since endorsed Lewis), and to former Co-Executive Director Bianca Mugyenyi. Mugyenyi told us she left before this happened. CUPE didn't respond. Lewis's campaign didn't respond.

We publish what we can verify. Public records. Labour board documents. Timelines. Expert analysis. We don't publish anonymous claims or unverifiable anecdotes. Hutt is more than welcome to provide documentation—emails, bargaining notes, grant applications—that substantiates his account.

A Facebook post isn't documentation.

The Question That Remains

Hutt's intervention gives us a firsthand perspective we didn't have before. But it doesn't resolve the central contradiction:

Avi Lewis campaigns as a champion of workers. His organization unionized. Nine months passed with no bargaining. The organization closed. A new one launched without a union. Lewis never explained why.

Hutt says they “would have reached a collective agreement if the trajectory allowed for it.” But trajectories are shaped by decisions. The decision not to bargain in those seven months—if that's what happened—was a decision. The decision to launch The Breach as a non-union shop was a decision.

Until those decisions are explained, the question stands.