On August 10, 2016, the appellant gave an interview
wherein he discussed the BDS resolution and responded to the
respondent’s claim that he had advocated on behalf of terrorists.
He said in the interview that
I don’t know, and I don’t purport to know, whether in fact [Bahaa Alayan]
committed the crimes of which he is accused. And if he actually attacked in-
nocent civilians, I condemn that. I do not condone any attacks by anybody on
any innocent civilians or civilian infrastructure. That’s against international
law. It’s an atrocity. And it’s not to be tolerated.
 On September 13, 2016, the appellant was removed from
his position in the Green Party’s shadow cabinet for refusing to
apologize for an op-ed article that he and others had written criticizing the leader of Green Party of British Columbia for his condemnation of the BDS resolution. On September 14, 2016, the
respondent published an article praising the appellant’s removal
and linking back to its previous article. It stated that the
respondent had “previously urged . . . Elizabeth May to dismiss
Lascaris as justice critic after it exposed that he advocated on
behalf of terrorists who murdered three Israeli civilians in
 On December 20, 2016, the respondent published a “year
in review” article, wherein it again stated that it had exposed
the appellant for using “social media to evoke sympathy for
a Palestinian terrorist”.
 On or about April 3, 2017, the appellant discovered another publication on the respondent’s Twitter account, stating:
“Dimitri Lascaris resorts to supporting #terrorists in his desperation to delegitimize the State of #Israel.” The tweet contained
a link to the respondent’s August 4, 2016 article, which accused
the appellant of being an “advocate on behalf of terrorists”.
 After the tweet, the appellant served notice upon the
respondent regarding the defamatory publications under s. 5(1) of
the Libel and Slander Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. L.12. The respondent
did not retract, remove, correct or edit its publications. The appellant then served an amended statement of claim on or about July
4, 2017, and the respondent served a statement of defence on or
about August 24, 2017. In its statement of defence, the respondent pleaded justification, qualified privilege, fair comment and
notice based defences under the Libel and Slander Act.2
2 In its statement of defence, the respondent raises issues regarding the
timing of the notice that the appellant provided. The motion judge briefly
adverted to (but did not deal with) this defence. The parties did not address
this issue in their written submissions to this court. As a result, I do not
view it as necessary to deal with this defence in these reasons.