What is the test for an award of aggravated damages in a sexual assault case?

Belz submits that in light of the jury’s failure to find malice, the award of aggravated damages cannot stand because as a matter of law, such an award can only be made upon a finding that the defendant was motivated by actual malice. In support of his position, he relies upon the following statement by Cory J. in Hill v. Church of Scientology of Toronto, 1995 CanLII 59 (SCC), [1995] 2 S.C.R. 1130 at para. 190: If aggravated damages are to be awarded, there must be a finding that the defendant was motivated by actual malice, which increased the injury to the plaintiff, either by spreading further afield the damage to the reputation of the plaintiff, or by increasing the mental distress and humiliation of the plaintiff [emphasis added and authorities omitted].