Page: 17 extension of, and not inconsistent with, the qualified privilege for fair and accurate reports on judicial and quasi-judicial proceedings. [109] The test for fairness and accuracy is an objective one. It is summarized in Brown, at pp. 14-25 to 14-26, as follows: The report must give a complete and fair summary of the judicial proceedings. It must capture the substance of the proceeding measured by the natural and probable effect on the ordinary and average reader and viewer. It must not carry a greater sting in terms of its libelous impact than what occurred in court. The question is “whether the report substantially alters the impression which its recipient would have gained had he or she been present during the proceedings.” …[Citations omitted] [110] With respect to the first requirement – that the report must be accurate – the report must not misstate the facts. However, the report does not have to be accurate in every respect, so long as the language used has substantially the same import: Brown, at pp. 14-28, 14-52 and 14-53. [111] The obligation to be fair brings in different criteria than those that apply to fair comment. In the context of a report on proceedings, fairness includes the notion of impartiality – it must be a balanced report. It must be just and impartial to the person about whom the report is being made: Brown, at p. 14-36. [112] There is some room for literary licence provided that the report is fair. However, the addition of comments that have no foundation of fact and have the effect of holding the plaintiff up to public ridicule and contempt may result in loss of the privilege: Brown, at pp. 14-28, 1441. Further, if the conduct of the defendant is high-handed and careless, exceeding the legitimate purpose of the occasion, the privilege may be lost even if not published maliciously: Hill, at para. 156. Impugned words [113] I will now proceed to consider each of the impugned blog posts in turn. [114] The first seven blog posts at issue were posted on the second day of the hearing – June 3, 2008. They were posted in quick succession, making it more likely that the readers would have seen more than one of them if they were following the blog at that point in time. I have therefore taken into account the prior posts when considering whether the facts relied upon by the defendant would be known to readers, rather than looking at each post in isolation. 2014 ONSC 6890 (CanLII) [108] I conclude that the privilege is available, subject to its criteria being met.