Can qualified privilege be lost in circumstances where there is malice or reckless disregard for the truth?

In Hill v. Church of Scientology, 1995 CanLII 59 (SCC), [1995] 2 S.C.R. 1130 (at paras. 45-46), Cory J. set out the two circumstances in which qualified privilege might be lost: (a) where there is actual or express malice, publication from an indirect or ulterior motive that conflicts with the sense the sense of duty or the mutual interest which the occasion created, and the publication in which the defendant spoke dishonestly or in knowing or reckless disregard for the truth; or (b) where the limits of the duty or interest have exceeded anything that is relevant and pertinent to the discharge of the duty or the exercise of the right or the safeguarding of the interest which creates the privilege.