What is the test for proving malice in a libel action?

The defendants allege that not all extrinsic evidence is relative to proving malice. Rather, it must be “so connected with the state of mind of the defendant as to lead to the conclusion that he was malicious at the date when the libel was published.” (Turner v. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Pictures, Ltd. (1950), [1950] 1 All E.R. 449 HL (Eng.).)

As argued by the defendants: Malice is a state of mind. States of mind are facts which can be determined by a court only b[y] inference. The author’s state of mind at a particular time may be of assistance in making an inference about another state of mind which he held soon afterwards. Per Blackburn J. in Renouf v. Federal Capital Press of Australia Pty. Ltd (1977), 17 A.C.T.R. 35 at 56 (S.C.).

Rule 7-1 has a different meaning than the old rule, Rule 26. Mr. Justice Punnett in Biehl v. Strang, 2010 BCSC 1391, concluded the following: 10 Rule 7-1(1) is one of the more controversial changes in the new Rules which came into force on July 1, 2010. The rule states: (1) Unless all parties of record consent or the court otherwise orders, each party of record to an action must, within 35 days after the end of the pleading period, (a) prepare a list of documents in Form 22 that lists (i) all documents that are or have been in the party's possession or control and that could, if available, be used by any party of record at trial to prove or disprove a material fact, and (ii) all other documents to which the party intends to refer at trial, and (b) serve the list on all parties of record. 11 Prior to July 1, 2010, Rule 26(1) governed document production: 26(1) A party to an action may deliver to any other party a demand in Form 92 for discovery of the documents which are or have been in the party's possession or control relating to any matter in question in the action, and the other party shall comply with the demand within 21 days by delivering a list, in Form 93, of the documents that are or have been in the party's possession or control relating to every matter in question in the action. ... 14 The new rule replaces that requirement. Now the initial production obligation is limited to what is required to prove or disprove a material fact rather than what relates to every matter in question. The assumption appears to be that in many, if not most cases, such production will be sufficient. This change in scope is consistent with Rule 1-3(2) which provides: Proportionality (2) Securing the just, speedy and inexpensive determination of a proceeding on its merits includes, so far as is practicable, conducting the proceeding in ways that are proportionate to (a) the amount involved in the proceeding, (b) the importance of the issues in dispute, and (c) the complexity of the proceeding. 15 Rule 7-1 (14) does provide for wider disclosure upon application to the court including documents "relating to any or all matters in question in the action".