What is the defence of qualified privilege in a defamation action brought by the Respondent Hrynchuk?

On this record, it is plain and obvious that the Respondent Hrynchuk had sufficient reasonable grounds to commence an investigation into a suspected crime and was in the execution of his duty in doing so. But that does not end the inquiry. In Schultz v. Porter, supra, Waite, J. elaborated on the defence of qualified privilege at p. 73: “The gravamen of defamation is malice. Ordinarily malice is inferred from the publication of defamatory words. But if the publication occurs on a privileged occasion, that inference is rebutted and malice must then be proved expressly by the plaintiff. ...”