(para. 65).The court hypothesized that people may “withdraw or not engage in public with no opportunity to protect their reputation” (para. 65). Given the “serious reputational harm” accusations of hate speech might inflict, the court determined that the chambers judge erred in overlooking the “collateral effect that preventing Mr. Neufeld from defending himself from such serious accusations could have on other individuals’ willingness to express themselves on issues of public interest in [the] future” (para. 68). [74] This reasoning runs counter to precedent, and is not “tethered to the text of [the relevant provision]” (Pointes, at para. 80). To begin, s. 4(2)(b) defines “the public interest in continuing the proceeding” with reference to “the harm likely to have been or to be suffered by the respondent as a result of the applicant’s expression”. The harm relevant to the public interest weighing exercise is harm to Mr. Neufeld caused by Mr. Hansman’s statements, not by his inability to sue. The loss of a right to sue is a possible outcome of the public interest weighing exercise, not an input. [75] The “chilling effect” identified by the Court of Appeal does not constitute a “harm” suffered by Mr. Neufeld for the purpose of the weighing exercise. The concept of a chilling effect has a clear meaning in Canadian freedom of expression law. A chilling effect occurs where uncertainty surrounding the scope or application of a law limiting or prohibiting expression creates a risk that people will not speak for fear of violating the relevant law (see, e.g., Saskatchewan (Human Rights Commission) v. 2023 SCC 14 (CanLII) debate for fear of being inveighed with negative labels and accusations of hate speech