The appellants appealed a jury verdict finding them liable for defaming the respondent in a series of newspaper articles.
The jury awarded $150,000 in general damages and $100,000 in aggravated damages against the publisher.
On appeal, the appellants argued the trial judge erred in his instructions on the defence of fair comment and that the aggravated damages award was inconsistent with the jury's finding of no malice at the liability stage.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the appellants failed to prove the underlying facts required for the fair comment defence, and that a finding of malice for aggravated damages can be based on post-publication conduct even if no malice existed at the time of publication.
