Can a defence of qualified privilege be defeated by a finding of malice?

The defence of qualified privilege can be defeated by a finding of malice on the part of the defendant. In Smith v. Cross, 2009 BCCA 529 at para. 34, the court endorsed the following analytical framework of the categories under which a finding of malice can be made: 34. A defendant is actuated by malice if he or she publishes the comment: i) Knowing it was false; or ii) With reckless indifference whether it is true or false; or iii) For the dominant purpose of injuring the plaintiff because of spite or animosity; or iv) For some other dominant purpose which is improper or indirect, or also, if the occasion is privileged, for a dominant purpose not related to the occasion.

The onus of proving malice to defeat the defence of qualified privilege rests on the plaintiff: Neptusky v. Craig, 1972 CanLII 19 (SCC), [1973] S.C.R. 55 at 60-63.