Inc., 2021 ONSC 7957, at para. 463 (CanLII); Smith v. Nagy, 2021 ONSC 4265, 156 Gill v. Maciver, 2022 ONSC 1279, at para. 179 (CanLII); Volpe v. Wong-Tam, 2022 ONSC 3106, 512 C.R.R. (2d) 153, at paras. 402-3). [77] The Court of Appeal’s consideration of a “chilling effect” flowing from a plaintiff’s inability to pursue a defamation claim turns the concept on its head. Our jurisprudence addresses the concern that the possible imposition of a legal penalty would cause speakers to refrain from commenting on matters of public interest. Instead, the Court of Appeal held that the inability to inflict a legal penalty on Mr. Hansman would chill Mr. Neufeld’s expression and those of others who wish to express unpopular views. Simply put, there is no chilling effect in barring potential plaintiffs from silencing their critics and collecting damages through a defamation suit. Just as our law protects Mr. Neufeld’s right to voice his opinions on matters of public interest, so it protects the right of others, like Mr. Hansman, to respond. As the Court of Appeal recognized, “freedom of expression is ‘the cornerstone of a pluralistic democracy’ and . . . there must be room for views to be forcefully and even intemperately presented in the public forum” (para. 70). [78] Mr. Hansman undoubtedly used words with the potential to inflict serious reputational harm. But the consideration of the public interest in continuing the proceeding must be grounded in harm to Mr. Neufeld, reputational or otherwise, caused 2023 SCC 14 (CanLII) O.R. (3d) 770, at para. 91; Galloway v. A.B., 2021 BCSC 2344, at para. 784 (CanLII);