in the supreme court of british columbia - Clark Wilson LLP

British Columbia Medical Association v. Aviva Insurance
Company of Canada Page 10
duties determined by you, and is not paid a fee, salary or other compensation
by you or anyone else for their work performed for you.
The Underlying Action and Coverage Dispute
[21] In September 2008, Mardon provided David Porter of Advance Claims (the
outside adjuster appointed by Aviva), with notice that Dr. Wang was threatening to
commence a defamation action against BCMA and some of its directors.
[22] Dr. Wang commenced the Underlying Action by Writ of Summons and
Statement of Claim filed August 7, 2009 (the “Initial Statement of Claim”). The
defendants named are BCMA, the Individuals and a series of unknown defendants.
Under the heading “Campaign of Vilification Actuated by Malice and Bad Faith”,
paras. 24 to 27 provided in part:
2011 BCSC 1399 (CanLII)
24. Commencing on or about February 2, 2008 the defendants have each in
bad faith engaged in a campaign of malicious public attacks on the plaintiff
characterized by the defamatory expression, injurious falsehoods and
negligent misstatements (collectively hereinafter referred to as the “Unlawful
Expression”) particularized in paragraphs 57 to 174 of this statement of claim.
25. The defendants and each of them maliciously published the Unlawful
Expression for which each is responsible with the knowledge that the
meanings conveyed by that expression were false, or alternatively, with
reckless indifference whether those meanings were true or false.
26. The defendants, and each of them, have been guilty of reprehensible,
insulting, high-handed, spiteful, malicious and oppressive conduct and such
conduct by the defendants justifies the court in imposing a substantial penalty
of exemplary damages on the defendants plus an award of special costs in
favour of the plaintiff, in addition to an award of general damages for injury to
reputation. The plaintiff will rely upon the entire conduct of the defendants
before and after the commencement of this action to the date of judgment in
this action.
27. The said defendants published the Unlawful Expression for which each is
responsible for the dominant purpose of:
(i) Inflicting injury upon the plaintiff because of personal spite or
animosity, or a desire to obtain revenge; and/or
(ii) destroying her reputation so that the plaintiff would have no
professional and political credibility with the BCMA membership
thereby.
[23] Under the heading “The Unlawful Expression - Particulars”, Dr. Wang alleged
instances of allegedly defamatory and disparaging expressions published by various