The plaintiffs brought a defamation action against the defendant arising from a public response letter published after a newspaper article criticizing the defendant’s investigation into farm animal conditions.
The defendant moved for summary judgment arguing the publication was protected by qualified privilege, while the plaintiffs cross-moved to strike the defence.
The court held that the evidentiary record was insufficient to determine whether the defence of qualified privilege applied or had been defeated by malice.
Numerous factual disputes concerning the underlying investigation, the accuracy of the statements made, and the defendant’s dominant motive required credibility assessments that could only properly occur at trial.
Both motions were therefore dismissed and the issue of qualified privilege left to be determined on a full evidentiary record.
