that “[h]ate and bigotry have no place on school boards” (ANCC, at para. 44) [37] Mr. Neufeld’s defamation action was set for hearing in December 2019. In March, the PPPA was enacted. Mr. Hansman moved under s. 4 of the PPPA to dismiss Mr. Neufeld’s defamation action against him. Section 4 creates a pretrial screening mechanism that instructs a judge to dismiss an action arising from expression on a matter of public interest unless the plaintiff can satisfy the judge that their action has substantial merit; the defendant has no valid defence in the proceeding; and the harm to the plaintiff as a result of the defendant’s expression is serious enough to outweigh the public interest in protecting that expression. III. Procedural History A. British Columbia Supreme Court, 2019 BCSC 2028, 59 C.C.E.L. (4th) 205 (Ross J.) [38] The chambers judge granted Mr. Hansman’s application for dismissal. He concluded that Mr. Neufeld had not established grounds to believe that Mr. Hansman had no valid defences in the proceeding (para. 135). He held that Mr. Hansman had a valid fair comment defence, relying on this Court’s reasoning in WIC Radio Ltd. v. Simpson, 2008 SCC 40, [2008] 2 S.C.R. 420, and on the lack of a compelling challenge to the defence by Mr. Neufeld (paras. 126 and 137). 2023 SCC 14 (CanLII) (Statement 11).