The defendants appealed a trial judgment awarding the plaintiff, a doctor and research scientist, $950,000 in general, aggravated, and punitive damages for defamation arising from a television broadcast.
The broadcast falsely implied the plaintiff supported prescribing killer drugs, was in a conflict of interest, and acted negligently or dishonestly.
The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's findings that the defences of justification, qualified privilege, and fair comment failed because the broadcast was deliberately slanted and the defendants did not honestly believe their thesis.
The damage awards and the award of solicitor and client costs were affirmed due to the egregious and malicious conduct of the defendants.
