[115] A showing of malice defeats a valid fair comment defence. This can be reckless indifference as to its truth, to injure the plaintiff out of spite or animosity, or for some other improper purpose (WIC Radio, at paras. 100-101 and 104; see also Bent, at para. 136; Smith v. Cross, 2009 BCCA 529, 314 D.L.R. (4th) 457, at para. 34). Proof of malice “may be intrinsic or extrinsic: that is, it may be drawn from the language of the assertion itself or from the circumstances surrounding the publication of the comment” (WIC Radio, at para. 100). A finding of a subjective honest belief negates the possibility of finding malice (para. 53). [116] Mr. Neufeld argued that Mr. Hansman acted with malice in making the challenged statements — an allegation that the chambers judge found was unsubstantiated. The Court of Appeal held the chambers judge erred in his malice assessment in two material ways: (1) by finding as a fact that Mr. Hansman’s affidavit “stated” an honest belief in the views he expressed, when it contained no such assertion; and (2) by holding that, once a defendant asserts a subjective belief in their comments, malice can be proved only by a full admission by the defendant on cross-examination (paras. 43-44). I disagree on both counts. [117] In WIC Radio, this Court cautioned against analyzing the fair comment defence at a “troubling level of technicality” (para. 35). A finding of subjective honest belief can be based on the thrust of the defendant’s evidence, read as a whole. Ultimately, the chambers judge found that Mr. Hansman’s affidavit “ma[de] it clear” 2023 SCC 14 (CanLII) done by demonstrating the defendant made the statement knowing it was false, with