What is the legal test required to prove a defence of justification in a defamation case?

What is required to be proven is not the truth of each and every word or the literal truth of the statement, but rather the truth of the substance of the allegation or the sting of the charge. Minor inaccuracies do not defeat the defence of justification: Cimolai v. Hall et al., 2005 BCSC 31, aff’d 2007 BCCA 225 at para. 172. But, if the overall impression of the statement is false, the defence fails even if some or even all of the literal words are proven to be true. Half-truths can be just as damaging as outright falsehoods: Cimolai at para. 173.

Where it applies, qualified privilege provides a complete defence to a claim in defamation. A defendant who establishes that his statement was made on an occasion of qualified privilege is protected from liability for communicating defamatory and untrue statements about the plaintiff: Hill v. Church of Scientology of Toronto, 1995 CanLII 59 (SCC), [1995] 2 S.C.R. 1130 at para. 144.