that he honestly believed the views he espoused (at para. 141), and he was entitled to [118] I also do not agree with the Court of Appeal that the chambers judge held as a matter of law that once a defendant expresses an honest belief in their statements, malice can be proved only by an admission on cross-examination. The chambers judge noted that, while the PPPA provides for a right of cross-examination on affidavits, Mr. Neufeld declined to use this opportunity. The judge determined that, short of an admission of malice by Mr. Hansman on cross-examination, it was difficult to imagine how malice could be found on the “evidence before [him]” (para. 141). This simply amounted to a statement that Mr. Neufeld failed to meet his persuasive burden on this s. 4 application. [119] I agree with the chambers judge that Mr. Neufeld failed to adequately challenge the fair comment defence. The defence was Mr. Neufeld’s to disprove, yet Mr. Neufeld adduced no “evidence . . . that would form the basis of an argument against the validity of the fair comment defence” (para. 126). The judge was therefore entitled to dismiss the proceeding on this basis. (d) [120] Other Errors Found by the Court of Appeal Besides impugning the chambers judge’s ultimate conclusion on the fair comment defence, the Court of Appeal also objected to the way he undertook his analysis. The court held that the chambers judge erred by (1) working from a summary 2023 SCC 14 (CanLII) do so.