Carter v. B.C. Federation of Foster Parents Assn. [21] Page 16 Taylor J. went on to find that in any event the activity of the defendant respondent amounted to innocent dissemination, but this is a difficult defence to Limited, [1900] 2 Q.B. 170 (C.A.). Romer L.J. pointed out in that case at 180 the heavy burden lying upon a defendant to demonstrate that the publication occurred without negligence on his part. On the evidence in this case, it is difficult to see how it can be successfully argued by the defendant Federation that the continuing publication occurred without negligence on its part. Here the Federation did not take effective steps to remove the offending comment and there seems to have been no proper follow up to see that necessary action had been taken. I do not therefore consider it was open on the evidence for the trial judge to conclude that a defence of innocent dissemination could be successfully made out on the state of facts here. [22] In the result, I would allow the appeal concerning the Dberlane comment and remit that matter for decision to the trial court. As I observed, it may be that the plaintiff will have difficulty in establishing the fact of publication to a third party subsequent to her originally learning about the existence of the comment in the year 2000, but I do not consider that she should be prevented from tendering evidence that there was such publication. I would allow the appeal to that extent. [23] Concerning the question of costs, it seems to me that in view of the circumstance that there were originally cross applications before the trial judge, and that ultimate success here has been mixed, an appropriate order for costs would be 2005 BCCA 398 (CanLII) maintain as illustrated by the judgment in Vizetelly v. Mudie's Select Library,