Taylor Thomson, the 66-year-old middle child of Canada’s billionaire Thomson family, is

suing

her former friend after a crypto investment, bought by the two friends and allegedly recommended by a psychic, went south.

Now an

Uber driver

, 47-year-old Californian Ashley Richardson is representing herself. She lost her personal wealth in the doomed crypto investment. Thomson reportedly lost US$80 million. It also cost them their friendship.

The two friends reportedly met back in 2009 at a Malibu house party.

Richardson grew up in an affluent part of Monterey County, Calif., attending an elite prep school and skiing by age two. She built a career designing social-media campaigns for companies like Ford Motor and McDonald’s. But Thomson’s wealth was of in a different ballpark. “We would go somewhere for a few days and she’d be buying houses like other people buy mugs,” Richardson told the

Wall Street Journal

.

However, money didn’t interfere with their relationship, Richardson says. “The reason we could be friends is because there was no financial connection.”

She claims she could be defensive about the way people used Thomson. At an art fair in London, she says attendees descended on Thomson. “People know who she is and know she will drop millions. It was nauseating.”

The friendship collapsed in 2022 after the cryptocurrency they invested in crashed within a year.

Thomson has accused her former friend of making hundreds of thousands of risky trades behind her back, according to the Wall Street Journal. Richardson denies the allegation and blames the billionaire for destroying their friendship and leaving her struggling to make ends meet.

Richardson also claims

the heiress made a pass at her

during a 2019 trip to British Columbia. A Thomson spokesperson denied this, telling the WSJ: “This is all false.”

“After spending years living a lavish lifestyle on Ms. Thomson’s dime, Ms. Richardson has taken her bogus story to the media in an attempt to extract more money from Ms. Thomson — which we know because Ms. Richardson has threatened multiple times she will do just that,” a spokesperson for Thomson told

The New York Post

in a statement.

The crypto investment came about due to a newsletter subscription Richardson had that was put out by celebrity psychic Michelle Whitedove. Her recommendation to invest in Persistence crypto coin got Richardson’s attention, and she raised the possibility with Thomson, who allegedly sought advice from her own psychic, Robert Sabella, an astrologer she regularly consulted, according to the New York Post.

“Taylor trusts her own instincts and would use Robert as a sounding board,” Thomson’s spokesman told the WSJ, “but by no means would she make substantial life decisions based on his suggestions.”

Richardson put most of her savings into the coin while Thomson reportedly poured in more than US$40 million. Richardson

claims

she reined in the heiress when Thomson suggested spending another US$60 million on the token after successful early gains.

Thomson also allegedly wrote an email to her brothers, who own the largest stake in the Thomson fortune, accusing them of restricting her ability to invest family wealth in the crypto market, the WSJ reports.

Thomson’s spokesman told the WSJ that an email was never sent.

The Thomson family is worth a reported $98.15 billion and Maclean’s named them Canada’s richest family in 2024. Woodbridge, the family’s holding company, owns about 70 per cent of the shares of Thomson Reuters as well as The Globe and Mail and a minority interest in the Montreal Canadiens.

Woodbridge and the Thomson brothers didn’t respond to the Wall Street Journal’s requests for comment.

Control of the Thomson family empire has passed down the male line. Taylor is the middle child and only girl. Her efforts to forge her own path led to occasional periods of estrangement, sources familiar with the family told the WSJ.

Thomson initially pursued a career in acting, training at the American Repertory Theater in Cambridge, Massachusetts. She performed with Shakespearean theatre companies in Massachusetts and Los Angeles and had roles in the U.S. TV show Matrix and Canadian drama Forever Knight. In 1999, she had a daughter.

During their trading spree, Richardson says she spent as much as 20 hours a day researching cryptocurrencies and executing trades for Thomson — at times stewarding US$140 million of her friend’s investment, according to the WSJ.

Then the crypto market crashed in 2022. Richardson lost everything and Thomson, feeling betrayed, hired lawyers to get her money back.

Thomson sued Richardson and Persistence in 2023, seeking at least US$25 million for their alleged role in roping her into the investment. Her lawyers accused them of lying about the potential returns, aiming to bring in a “whale” or wealthy individual whose investment in the crypto coin would show up publicly in the digital investment record, boost its reputation and entice other potential investors.

According to Thomson’s lawsuit, Persistence allegedly rewarded Richardson an undisclosed kickback or finder’s fee of $783,702 worth of the coin. Richardson countered she and Thomson agreed on a finder’s fee but that it would only be paid if Thomson’s investment was profitable after a year. Richardson now says she ultimately received nothing.

In July, Thomson and Persistence settled for an undisclosed amount.

Richardson has filed a countersuit for US$10 million, alleging Thomson has defamed her. She claims in her court filings that Thomson decided to invest on her own. She also claims she never made a trade without Thomson’s approval and always did her best to “minimize losses.”

“Because of you I have lost everything, and you decided to sue the person who had nothing left to lose,” Richardson wrote in one of her last messages to Thomson, reports the WSJ. “

I loved you

more than anything.”

One of their final interactions via text involved Richardson calling Thomson a “rich motherf–king sociopathic b–h,” according to the WSJ. “Send your f–king goons to take my life. Please, you have destroyed me,” she added.

• Thomson heir lists her Los Angeles house for $43 million
• Forbes’ Billionaires List has 76 Canadian entries. Here’s who they are

Our website is the place for the latest breaking news, exclusive scoops, longreads and provocative commentary. Please bookmark nationalpost.com and sign up for our daily newsletter, Posted, here.

WestJet’s argument that passengers shouldn’t be compensated for any flight disruptions stemming from safety issues, regardless of the circumstances that led to the problem, did not fly with the Federal Court of Appeal.

The carrier was appealing a decision from the Canadian Transportation Agency (CTA) that awarded Owen Lareau $1,000 because his WestJet flight from Regina to Toronto was cancelled less than an hour before departure on July 18, 2021, due to a crew shortage.

“The appellant’s proposed interpretation of the safety category would effectively defeat the consumer protection scheme established by the regulations to redress the acute imbalance in market power to which passengers have historically been subjected in relation to air carriers. It must be rejected,” Justice Gerald Heckman wrote in a recent decision out of Toronto from the three-judge panel that dismissed WestJet’s appeal.

After Lareau’s flight was cancelled, WestJet provided him with a hotel and meal vouchers. But the airline declined his request for compensation for inconvenience under the Air Passenger Protection Regulations because the flight “was cancelled due to crew member availability, and that this cancellation was required for safety purposes,” according to the CTA’s July 2022 decision under appeal.

A review of this country’s transportation system conducted a decade back found “Canadians were very concerned with the unsatisfactory treatment of airline passengers affected by delays, cancellations, and denials of boarding,” Heckman wrote in the appeal court decision dated Aug. 25.

“The review concluded that legislative and regulatory reform was needed to ensure the fair and reasonable treatment of air travellers.”

In 2019, the federal government brought in regulations forcing airlines to compensate passengers “for inconvenience caused by a disruption” within their own control.

But it made an exception for safety issues, the use of which should be limited to events “that cannot be prevented by a prudent and diligent carrier,” according to the CTA.

WestJet “argues that passengers should receive no compensation for any flight disruption that arises in response to a safety issue, regardless of the circumstances that have led to the safety issue, including a carrier’s failure to take reasonable measures to develop and implement a reasonable contingency plan to mitigate the disruption,” said the appeal decision. “Moreover, in the appellant’s view, the agency’s interpretation of the safety category cannot stand because it puts pressure on carriers and their personnel to choose to operate flights unsafely in order to avoid paying their passengers compensation.”

Air Canada, an intervener in the case, agreed with WestJet that the CTA’s “test for the safety category ignores whether a disruption is required for safety purposes and asks instead whether it was foreseeable and could have been prevented by a prudent and diligent carrier.”

In Lareau’s case, his flight was cancelled, according to WestJet, because the airline couldn’t find a first officer that day for his flight from Regina to Toronto.

“In the appellant’s view, on the plain and ordinary meaning of the definition of ‘required for safety purposes,’ the cause of the situation that leads to a safety issue, including whether it is due to the actions or inactions of a carrier, does not matter, except with respect to the carve-out for disruptions resulting from issues identified on scheduled maintenance. The only question is whether, in the circumstances that presented, whatever the cause, delaying or cancelling the flight was required by law in order to reduce risk to passenger safety.”

According to the appeal court judges, “a disruption that is within a carrier’s control” is one the airline has “the power to influence or direct, or over which it can exercise restraining or directing influence.”

In that context, said their decision, “it should go without saying that under no circumstances should the prospect of a carrier paying compensation for a flight disruption factor into safety decisions made by carriers or their crew members in the exercise of the discretion afforded to them under the governing regulatory framework.”

WestJet’s proposed interpretation of the safety exception “could deny compensation for disruptions that result either from the carrier’s lack of diligence in carrying out its day-to-day operations,” Heckman wrote, “or from a deliberate decision to privilege its economic interests. These outcomes are irreconcilable with the purpose of the regulations to institute a consumer protection scheme that corrects the acute imbalance in market power between air passengers and air carriers that predated the regulations.”

The judges didn’t stipulate who should pick up the legal tab. “As no costs are sought, I would award none,” Heckman wrote.

• Two class actions seeking compensation for travellers hurt by Air Canada strike
• Supreme Court upholds rules on passenger compensation in win for air travellers

Our website is the place for the latest breaking news, exclusive scoops, longreads and provocative commentary. Please bookmark nationalpost.com and sign up for our daily newsletter, Posted, here.

OTTAWA — Nearly six in 10 Canadians feel their country is more dangerous than five years ago, before Russia invaded Ukraine, India was linked to the murder of a Sikh-Canadian and Canada reckoned with the scourge of foreign interference.
 

In fact, only a paltry three per cent of Canadians believe Canada is a safer place now than it was five years, according to a January Ekos poll done on behalf of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS) and recently published online.
 

The poll suggests the number of Canadians who feel Canada is more dangerous now than five years ago also more than doubled since 2021, the last time CSIS put the question to the public.
 

The reasons cited are all tied to the spy agency’s national security mandate and include international conflict, religiously motivated terrorism as well as foreign interference and transnational repression.
 

“Not surprisingly, in light of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, foreign interference in Canadian affairs, and an assassination on Canadian soil, tracking… indicates that Canadians are now significantly more likely to feel Canada has become more dangerous than they were in 2021,” reads the report.
 

Many of the findings are positive for CSIS, including “broad public confidence” in the spy agency, a large boost in awareness of its mandate as well as a strong majority (77 per cent) who believe its mission is “very important.”

But behind the numbers hides a more concerning trend for CSIS: Canadians’ trust in the agency’s ability to keep them safe from threats such as espionage, terrorism, violent extremism and foreign interference is dropping.
 

While three-quarters of respondents said they have confidence in CSIS to protect Canadians from national security threats, it’s a 10-point drop from 2021.
 

“Despite an increase in belief in the importance of CSIS, tracking… reveals a decrease in confidence in CSIS’ ability to keep Canadians safe,” the report reads.
 

Respondents were also torn on whether CSIS has enough independence from elected officials, with 36 per cent saying yes and 35 per cent saying no (and 29 per cent saying they’re unsure).
 

In a statement,
CSIS spokesperson Eric Balsam celebrated the positive findings and recognized that the agency still has much room for improvement.
 

“We are pleased that three in four Canadians indicate confidence in CSIS. We recognize that there is more work to be done, and will continue working hard every day to earn that trust through robust transparency and accountability efforts,” Balsam said.
 

The survey results will likely also give the Liberal government pause as it prepares to push C-2, an omnibus security bill with sweeping new powers, through Parliament this fall.
 

Tabled in June, C-2 was sold
by the Liberals as a border safety bill and a response to concerns raised by U.S. President Donald Trump, but its impacts are far wider reaching.

The controversial legislation i
ncludes sweeping new powers to intercept or search communications including mail, increased powers for police and CSIS to access information without a warrant and increased intelligence collection and sharing across the federal government.
 

As the government prepares to move the bill in Parliament, poll results suggest fewer Canadian trust either CSIS or the government to strike a balance between Charter rights and national security since 2021.
 

“Tracking… reveals that the proportion of Canadians who say they trust the federal government to strike a balance between security and civil liberties has decreased somewhat over the past few years (from 56 per cent in 2021 to 49 per cent currently),” reads the report.
 

Furthermore, the survey suggests less than half (47 per cent) of respondents agree intelligence agencies such as CSIS should have more power while 52 per cent think they respect current laws when collecting information about Canadian.
 

In an interview, former national security analyst Stephanie Carvin said the results suggest a bumpy road ahead for the Liberals’ Bill C-2.
 

“I would say the government is fairly well positioned… on the basis of the survey to make arguments, but is going to have to justify these infringements on civil liberties,” said the Carleton University associate professor in national security.
 

“It’s not yet clear how the Canadian public is going to receive C-2 and the impact of the debate on (CSIS) going forward in terms of its perception in the public,” she added.
 

In his statement, Balsam suggested CSIS was aware of the concerns surrounding C-2 and was making efforts to assuage them.
 

“CSIS has met with a number of groups across all segments of society, to ensure that proposed changes to the CSIS Act are well understood. These amendments were carefully crafted to balance Charter rights,” Balsam wrote.
 

“The proposed amendments to the CSIS Act will ensure that CSIS can continue to collect the information it requires to advance investigations. The amendments would not change the type of information that CSIS can collect without a warrant, nor would it expand CSIS’ mandate,” he added.
 

The Ekos survey polled 2,045 Canadian adults, including 1,040 online respondents, between Jan. 9 and 22. The margin of error associated with the total sample is +/- 2.2 percentage points, 19 times out of 20.
 

National Post

cnardi@postmedia.com

• Liberal government tables border security bill with sweeping reforms and asylum claim clampdown
• Chris Selley: Liberals wrap much-needed refugee reform in a terrible privacy-invading package

Our website is the place for the latest breaking news, exclusive scoops, longreads and provocative commentary. Please bookmark nationalpost.com and sign up for our newsletters here.

Two people were separately medically evacuated from a Princess Cruises ship off the coast of Washington and B.C. by the U.S. and Canadian coast guards on Sunday.

U.S. Coast Guard Northwest District watchstanders were notified Sunday morning that two patients on board the Ruby Princess cruise ship, approximately 145 nautical miles west of Cape Flattery, Wash., required immediate medical evacuations. A 52-year-old woman had experienced cardiac arrest and was on life support, while a 99-year-old man experienced a complete esophageal obstruction.

The Coast Guard coordinated with the Canadian Coast Guard and Royal Canadian Air Force (RCAF) to carry out the rescues. A CC-295 Kingfisher aircraft from RCAF 19 Wing Comox provided aerial oversight during the mission.

An MH-65 helicopter from USCG Air Station Port Angeles was launched to medevac the 99-year-old. He was hoisted to the helicopter, which conducted a wing-to-wing transfer with Life Flight Network at Neah Bay, Wash.

Canadian officials, meanwhile, launched a CH-149 Cormorant from 19 Wing Comox to evacuate the 52-year-old. She was successfully hoisted and transported to Royal Jubilee Hospital in Victoria, B.C., Canada.

“This case demonstrates how our specialized expertise and dedicated training allows us to rapidly respond to these types of time-sensitive medical evacuations at sea,“ said Cmdr. Kelly Higgins, commanding officer of U.S. Coast Guard Air Station Port Angeles. “The expert coordination between the Canadian Coast Guard, the Life Flight Network, the Royal Canadian Air Force and the U.S. Coast Guard ensured this patient received the care they needed.”

Our website is the place for the latest breaking news, exclusive scoops, longreads and provocative commentary. Please bookmark nationalpost.com and sign up for our daily newsletter, Posted, here.

Next month’s world premiere of a documentary that follows an Israeli man’s attempt to save his family on October 7 is already sold out after it was pulled from the Toronto International Film Festival and eventually reinstated following an international uproar.

The film, The Road Between Us: The Ultimate Rescue, is

scheduled

to be shown at Roy Thompson Hall in downtown Toronto on Sept. 10. The venue has a

capacity

of nearly 1,800 seats, according to Ticketmaster.

The Road Between Us follows Noam Tibon, a retired Israel Defense Forces general, racing from Tel Aviv to save his son’s family who were sheltering in Kibbutz Nahal Oz, a community near the Gaza border that was besieged by Hamas fighters. Noam’s son, Amir Tibon, is a prominent Israeli journalist who writes for Haaretz.

A member of the Facebook community “Everything Jewish Toronto,” posted a

screenshot

of his attempt to get tickets after they were released to the general public on Monday, showing a generic message from Ticketmaster noting, “Tickets are sold out now. Check back soon.” National Post saw an identical message when it checked on Tuesday morning.

The announcement triggered a discussion in the Facebook group. One user, claiming to be a TIFF member with early ticket access, said that all the tickets were sold out within hours last Wednesday, during an exclusive

early-bird

sale. Commenters encouraged one another to contact TIFF and request that another showing of the documentary be scheduled to meet the high demand. Members of a separate Facebook community, “TIFF Tickets,” also

bemoaned

the sold-out showing.

The Post contacted TIFF for comment, but did not hear back in time for publication.

Earlier in August, an American entertainment magazine reported that TIFF organizers decided to pull the film from the festival’s lineup because some of its footage, which included atrocities committed by Hamas on October 7, failed to meet the “legal clearance of all footage.”

The decision caused an

uproar

among Canadian politicians and prominent members of the entertainment community, including Howie Mandel and Mayim Bialik, to reinstate the film. The backlash prompted TIFF CEO Cameron Bailey to address the controversy.

I have learned that TIFF has reversed its decision and will screen ‘The Road Between Us: The Ultimate Rescue’.

This is the right call. But this never should have happened – and it shouldn’t have taken a public outcry to reverse this mistake.

TIFF owes Barry Avrich a public… pic.twitter.com/dIBd09OW8Z

— Brad Bradford✌️ (@BradMBradford) August 14, 2025

“First and foremost, I would like to express my sincere apologies for any pain this situation may have caused,”

Bailey wrote

in mid-August. The following day, Bailey and the documentary’s director, Barry Avrich,

released a joint

statement
 

acknowledging that “a resolution to satisfy important safety, legal and programming concerns” had been reached.

Last Wednesday, Bailey said in his first public remarks about the incident, the festival remained committed “to challenging relevant screen storytelling,” expressing his desire to “repair relationships.” Bailey also acknowledged he regretted any prior “mischaracterizations” of the film.

• Entertainment industry leaders criticize TIFF’s handling of October 7 film in open letter
• TIFF CEO apologizes for ‘hurt, frustration’ caused by cancelling October 7 documentary

Our website is the place for the latest breaking news, exclusive scoops, longreads and provocative commentary. Please bookmark nationalpost.com and sign up for our daily newsletter, Posted, here.

More electronic devices are being searched at the United States border than ever before, according to recent data released by U.S. Customs and Border Protection.

Between April and June this year, searches were conducted on

14,899 devices

— including phones, computers and cameras. That number has increased since the same time period last year, when 12,090 devices were inspected. According to CBP, last year’s searches affected less than 0.01 per cent of the more than 420 million international travellers who arrived.

The recent numbers have jumped since 2018, which is far back as the available data from the CBP goes online. During the same time that year, around 8,000 devices were searched.

The total number of searches has also been rising, for the most part, since 2018. That year, there were 33,296 searches. The fewest total searches were during the pandemic, at 32,038. Last year, there were 47,047 searches, but already in 2025, with one more quarter left in the fiscal year, there have already been 39,251.

Last year, the bulk of the searches — nearly 78 per cent of them — were conducted on devices owned by non-U.S. citizens.

“While reports show more phones are being searched at the U.S. border, we don’t anticipate any impact on cross-border business travel. Canadians are seasoned travellers who know how to prepare and adapt,” managing director for Flight Centre Travel Group Canada Chris Lynes said in an emailed statement to National Post.

“When it comes to leisure travel, the bigger factor is the dollar, not device checks.”

For those who are travelling for business, they should be proactive and treat their devices like a passport, “travelling light digitally, and having the right documentation,” he said.

The agency says that its ability to “lawfully inspect electronic devices crossing the border is integral to keeping America safe in an increasingly digital world.”

There are two types of searches described by the agency: basic and advanced. This year, between April and June, there were 13,824 basic searches and 1,075 advanced.

In general, a basic search involves an officer “reviewing the contents of the device manually without the assistance of any external equipment,” per CBP. In an advanced search, a person’s electronic device is connected to “external equipment” to “review, copy, and/or analyze its contents.”

For an advanced search to be conducted, it requires “reasonable suspicion of a violation of law enforced or administered by CBP or a national security concern.” It requires the approval of a senior manager before a search is conducted.

If non-American travellers do not provide their electronic device to be examined by an agent upon request, that in and of itself does not mean they’ll be barred from the country. The agency says admissibility is based on a “totality of the circumstances” and its “ability to inspect an electronic device alone does not determine” if a traveller can enter.

The searches are being done to enforce the law, the agency says, and to detect “digital contraband.” That could include child pornography, classified materials, terrorism-related information or any other information that would be relevant to a person’s admissibility.

“As permissible, border searches may also help detect other national security matters, as well as reveal information about transnational financial crimes, including bulk cash smuggling, and commercial crimes with a nexus to the border, such as those relating to copyright and trademark,” per the agency.

In the

CBP’s tear sheet

, the paper provided to travellers that indicates they’ve been selected for a search, it says that the device will be returned unless the agency determines the need to temporarily detain or seize it.

Some travellers who were previously turned away from entering the United States said it occurred after their electronics were searched. One such person, a French scientist, was denied entry in March after

he said “hateful” messages about U.S. President Donald Trump

were discovered on his phone.

A government

travel advisory

for Canadians going to the United States last updated on July 31 includes a section about electronics. It says that U.S. border agents are entitled to search through devices such as phones, computers or tablets.

“They don’t need to provide a reason when requesting a password to open your device,” according to the federal government. “If you refuse, they may seize your device. The border agent could also delay your travel or deny entry if you are not a U.S. citizen.”

It advises Canadians to put their devices in airplane mode “to ensure remote files don’t get downloaded accidentally” before crossing the border.

In June, U.S. Ambassador to Canada Pete Hoekstra said that the device searches were not a pattern,

The Canadian Press reported

.

“If a Canadian has had a disappointing experience coming into the United States, I’m not denying that it happened, but I’m saying it’s an isolated event and it is not a pattern,” he said.

“Coming to the U.S., that’s a decision for the Canadians to make. Searching devices and all of that is not a well-founded fear. We don’t do that. America is a welcoming place.”

• Canadian buyers are fleeing U.S. hotspots, leaving Sunbelt realtors reeling
• U.S. ambassador says Canadians facing device searches, detainment ’not a pattern’

Our website is the place for the latest breaking news, exclusive scoops, longreads and provocative commentary. Please bookmark nationalpost.com and sign up for our daily newsletter, Posted, here.

A man in Denver, Colorado, lost US$17,000 (approx. $23,500 Canadian) after his phone call was transferred to a scammer by an operator in the customer service department of United Airlines.

Multiple news outlets

in the United States are reporting on the incident, which was first brought to light by

Steve Staeger

, a consumer investigative reporter at NBC’s 9News in Denver.

Dan Smoker had reportedly been planning an 18-day trip to Europe with his wife, their children and some friends. But the flight from Denver to London was cancelled. So the next day, he called the United Airlines customer service line for help.

Smoker said his own call log showed he was on the phone for more than three hours, but a United Airlines representative told him he’d only been talking to them for 12 minutes.

Somewhere between those two extremes he was transferred to another “customer service agent” who called himself David. David said he could get Smoker and his party on a Lufthansa flight to Europe. He said Smoker would have to pay US$17,000 on his credit card but that it would be reimbursed later.

Smoker never got those tickets. He never got his money back either. This was when

Staeger stepped in

.

He assumed at first that Smoker had fallen victim to a secondary scam in which Googling a customer service number brings up a fake number that, when called, connects you to a scammer. But in fact, that’s what had happened to the United customer service rep on the first call.

On Friday, United confirmed to 9News: “The customer was transferred to an external number and the agent was not using our internal tools to validate the number.”

Smoker said David told him the cost of a new flight — US$17,000 — would have to be charged to his credit card but that United Airlines would refund the money. He said David put him on hold for a long time, then came back and said he couldn’t book the flight, but repeated that the charge would be refunded.

In an odd twist, Smoker said David eventually did also manage to rebook his party on another United flight, which went off without a hitch. But when he got his credit card statement, there was a charge for the real flight from United Airlines, and a US$17,000 charge to a generic company called “AIRLINEFARE.”

Of course, since the original flight was cancelled, there should not have been a charge to rebook. This might have raised a red flight, but the customer thought he was still talking to the airline.

Our website is the place for the latest breaking news, exclusive scoops, longreads and provocative commentary. Please bookmark nationalpost.com and sign up for our daily newsletter, Posted, here.