How has the defence of qualified privilege been argued?

The defence also asserted qualified privilege. The defendants bear the onus of establishing the facts and circumstances necessary to create the privilege. Needless to say, that was not done in this case. I therefore have no evidence from the defendants as to whether the comments were fairly warranted by the occasion and that the words were written for the necessary performance of a duty or the protection of an interest underlying the alleged privilege. Furthermore, I am unable to glean from the evidence that is before me the foundation of the defence of qualified privilege. Further still, the defence of qualified privilege may be defeated if the dominant motive for publishing is actual or express malice: Brown v. Cole (September 26, 1996), Vancouver, C922035, at para. 39: …However, the privilege is not absolute. It may be defeated in two ways. The first arises if the dominant motive for publishing is actual or express malice. Malice is commonly understood as ill will toward someone, but it also relates to any indirect motive which conflicts with the sense of duty created by the occasion. Malice may be established by showing that the defendant either knew that he was not telling the truth, or was reckless in that regard. Second, qualified privilege may be defeated if the limits of the duty or interest have been exceeded. In other words, if the information communicated was not reasonably appropriate to the legitimate purposes of the occasion, the qualified privilege will be defeated.