Page: 14 Justice Binnie, who wrote for [The appellants’] editorial about [the respondent] clearly defamed her. Attributing to [the respondent] bigotry of the type associated with Hitler and a couple of notoriously racist Governors in the Southern United States at the height of the desegregation crisis would, I think, tend to lower her in the opinion of right-thinking people (some might call it a “smear”), and the appellants were right to concede the point in this Court. [Emphasis added.] [86] Justice Binnie observed that both courts below found that the impugned words were defamatory and said that conclusion was “plainly correct”: WIC Radio, at para. 56. [87] Unlike the rest of the Court, Justice LeBel was “not convinced” that the appellants’ comments were prima facie defamatory: WIC Radio, at para. 66. He concluded that although associating the respondent’s bigotry with Hitler would clearly be defamatory if taken at face value, he did not believe that the audience would have taken the shock jock’s comments at face value. In Justice LeBel’s view, the statement taken in full context posed no realistic threat to the respondent’s reputation: WIC Radio, at paras. 76-78. [88] There are certainly similarities between the reputation of the defendant and that of the “shock jock” radio talk show host in WIC Radio. However, those similarities do not necessarily lead to the conclusion that Mr. Levant’s impugned words are not defamatory. Justice LeBel’s minority view was very much based on the specific words complained of and context of that case, not all of which applies here. [89] I agree with and follow the approach reflected in the decision of Justice Binnie in WIC Radio. The impugned words in WIC Radio were plainly defamatory. They were not saved from that conclusion because of the known characteristics of the speaker. Nor is the defendant here saved from defending his words by his reputation alone. [90] I do not rule out the possibility that some speech may be so widely known to be false or unbelievable that its otherwise defamatory meaning is lost. However, that is not the case before me. Defences [91] When the above three requirements are met, falsity and damage are presumed. The onus shifts to the defendant to establish a defence in order to escape liability: Grant, at para. 29. [92] The defendant relies to varying degrees on the defences of justification, fair comment and qualified privilege. Malice must also be addressed because the defences of fair comment and qualified privilege, if established, are defeated by malice. The plaintiff bears the burden of proof with respect to malice. 2014 ONSC 6890 (CanLII) Supreme Court, the issue of defamatory meaning was conceded. the majority, stated as follows at para. 45: