Finally, the appellants assert that the motion judge erred in stating that malice may undermine the appellants’ defences. Malice may be established by reckless disregard for, or indifference to, the truth, spite or ill-will, or any indirect or ulterior motive: Hill v. Church of Scientology of Toronto, 1995 CanLII 59 (SCC), [1995] 2 S.C.R. 1130, at para. 145; Platnick, at para. 136. The appellants state in their factum that “[t]o infer that an advocacy organization may have acted with malice by following a lead and uncovering a public interest story is not evidence of malice.”
"The most advanced legal research software ever built."
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.