my view, and with all due respect, my colleague is depriving Mr. Neufeld of that very [178] As for Mr. Hansman’s motion to adduce fresh evidence, I am of the view that both of the affidavits he seeks to file are not relevant to the decisive issues on appeal and therefore do not meet the test for admitting fresh evidence set out in Palmer v. The Queen, [1980] 1 S.C.R. 759. The purpose of the first affidavit is to contradict Mr. Neufeld’s claim that dismissing his defamation action would have a chilling effect on him by demonstrating that he continued to speak out after the chambers judge dismissed his action. However, the live issue before this Court is not whether Mr. Neufeld’s expression was stifled because of the chambers judge’s dismissal order. Rather, it is whether other people’s expression could be. The second affidavit sets out developments in the human rights complaint filed by the BCTF; it is not relevant to the disposition of this appeal. [179] For these reasons, I would dismiss the appeal with party and party costs in this Court and ordinary costs in the Court of Appeal for British Columbia. Pursuant to s. 7(2) of the PPPA, I would make no order regarding the costs of the PPPA application in the Supreme Court of British Columbia. Appeal allowed with costs, CÔTÉ J. dissenting. Solicitors for the appellant: British Columbia Teachers’ Federation, Vancouver; Michael Sobkin, Ottawa. 2023 SCC 14 (CanLII) opportunity.