[63] Under s. 4(2)(b), the factor to be considered in favour of the public interest defendant’s expression. (a) [64] Evidence of Harm and Causation Mr. Neufeld pleaded generally that he suffered reputational harm and associated emotional distress due to Mr. Hansman’s statements. He contended that these assertions were corroborated by a few examples of steps taken against him by other entities: the Chilliwack School Board sought his resignation and directed him to stay away from schools (he refused and continued to serve as a trustee); he was uninvited from an annual trustee meeting; and he was uninvited from delivering high school commencement addresses. Mr. Neufeld also argued that harm could be inferred based on circumstantial factors, including the identity of the accuser, the breadth, and distribution of the statements, and the republication of the statements (Chambers Judge’s Reasons, at para. 155). [65] The chambers judge recognized that Mr. Neufeld was not expected to present a fully developed damages brief on a s. 4 application (para. 157). Still, he found that Mr. Neufeld had presented only “bare assertions” of harm, leaving him with “precious little evidence” to weigh on Mr. Neufeld’s side of the equation under s. 4(2)(b) (paras. 147 and 152). He found further that, “apart from one paragraph in his affidavit”, Mr. Neufeld presented no evidence that would link the minimal harm he alleged to Mr. Hansman’s statements (para. 158). 2023 SCC 14 (CanLII) in continuing the proceeding is the likely harm to the plaintiff as a result of the