Law360 Canada ( January 9, 2025, 10:03 AM EST) -- Appeal by appellants from the trial judge's decision finding they engaged in a common design to defame respondent Malak ("Malak") and the five corporate respondents and the amount of damages awarded. The defamation campaign began when BC Hydro announced a major traffic control services contract. The defendant Hanna ("Hanna"), a former employee of the respondent corporation Ansan Group ("Ansan") who had a falling out with Malak, joined the appellant corporation ("VTS") and allegedly entered into a profit-sharing agreement with them. Consequently, defamatory posts about Malak and the Ansan Group appeared online, accusing them of criminal activities such as money laundering and bribery. The defamation campaign coincided with BC Hydro awarding the contract to VTS. Malak and the Ansan Group then sued the respondents and Hanna for defamation. After two trials, the judge concluded that the appellants participated in a common design to defame Malak and the Ansan Group, intending to harm their reputation and awarded Malak $500,000 in general damages, $200,000 in aggravated damages and $500,000 in punitive damages while the Ansan Group received $300,000 in general damages. The damages were awarded on a joint and several basis. The appellants argued that the trial judge erred in several ways, including misapplying the test for common design torts, relying on speculative inferences, and conflating credibility with factual findings. They also contested the damages awarded, claiming they were excessive and not supported by evidence of economic loss....