In order to be protected by qualified privilege, the defamatory words need not be true, as long as they were honestly believed by the defendant. Mere carelessness as to the truth of the words does not disentitle a defendant to the defence of qualified privilege: Botiuk at para.187; Hill v. Johnston (2006), 56 Alta. L.R. (4th) 262 at paras. 25-26, 2006 ABQB 212. In other words, justification and qualified privilege are alternative defences: even where a statement is not proved to be true, it may be protected by qualified privilege.
"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.