Page: 16 [100] It is through the true facts provided or otherwise known to the reader that readers can arrive at their own conclusions and assess the publisher’s opinion. A bald comment asserted where it cannot be understood as an inference is likely to be treated as fact: Brown at p. 15-55, 15-87. [101] It is not necessary that all the facts be included in the publication if there is enough information to identify the basis upon which the comment is being made. The facts must, however, be known to the reader. They may have been previously put forward to the reader by the defendant or others, or be common knowledge: Brown at pp. 15-49 to 15-55. [102] The comment need not be fair in the ordinary sense. Even if exaggerated, outrageous and ridiculous, the comment may be protected provided that the above requirements are met: WIC Radio, at paras. 4, 49. Indeed, the comment may be rude, prejudiced, extreme, vitriolic, severe, vehement, exaggerated or even fantastic, provided that the other requirements of fair comment are met: Brown, at pp. 15-75 to 15-77. [103] The defence of fair comment is defeated by malice – that is, an indirect or improper motive not connected with the purpose for which the defence exists: WIC Radio, at para. 1. Qualified privilege [104] A fair and accurate report of judicial or quasi-judicial proceedings is protected by the defence of qualified privilege, subject only to malice. I agree that the June 2008 hearing was a quasi-judicial proceeding within the meaning of this qualified privilege. [105] The plaintiff disputes the availability advanced by plaintiff’s counsel confuses the within which a qualified privilege may arise. defamation law, outside the context of reports of this privilege to the media. The argument above qualified privilege with other circumstances Other types of qualified privilege are available in on judicial or quasi-judicial proceedings. [106] The plaintiff seeks to rely upon the law regarding the qualified privilege that arises where a defendant had a duty to make the statement and the recipient of the information a corresponding interest to receive it. This type of qualified privilege was asserted in Grant v. Torstar, which had nothing to do with the qualified privilege that attaches to fair and accurate reports of judicial and quasi-judicial proceedings. In turn, the comments made by the Court in that case about the unavailability of that privilege to the media are of no assistance here. [107] The plaintiff also relies upon Hill v. Church of Scientology, [1995] 2 S.C.R. 1130, which again did not involve a report on a hearing. However, even outside that context the Court did recognize a qualified privilege associated with a fair and accurate report of a court document – a qualified privilege that is available to the media: at paras. 153, 154 and 209. This decision is an 2014 ONSC 6890 (CanLII) comment. If the factual foundation is unstated or unknown, or turns out to be false, the fair comment defence is not available: WIC Radio, at para. 31.