“commenced” after Mr. Hansman’s statements (Chambers Judge’s Reasons, at the record before him. He found it was clear that other people and entities had independently reacted negatively to Mr. Neufeld’s views, and there was nothing to indicate their reactions were influenced or motivated by Mr. Hansman’s comments (para. 150). I would defer to the chambers judge’s conclusions. As noted, there was an [71] immediate public outcry to Mr. Neufeld’s views, one which began the day he first posted on Facebook, even before Mr. Hansman’s first statement to the media. In the context of this case, I would not disturb the chambers judge’s finding that something more than a bare assertion that the harm commenced after Mr. Hansman’s statements was needed to prove a causal link. [72] Given the dearth of evidence from Mr. Neufeld on harm, the chambers judge did not err in concluding that Mr. Neufeld had adduced “almost no evidence of damage suffered” as a result of Mr. Hansman’s statements. Absent extricable error, his findings are entitled to deference (Bent, at para. 77). (b) [73] The Chilling Effect on the Plaintiff and Others Similarly Situated The Court of Appeal also held that the chambers judge erred in not considering the “chilling effect” dismissing the proceeding would have on “others who might wish to engage in debates on . . . highly charged matters of public interest” 2023 SCC 14 (CanLII) para. 147). The chambers judge held this, too, was a bald assertion and one belied by