continuing to spread hate about LGBTQ people . . . and also be out there, making vile dispute in the courts below about whether this statement concerned Mr. Neufeld or, as Mr. Hansman contends, another trustee candidate, given that the publication does not name anyone in particular. I agree with the concession of Mr. Neufeld’s counsel before the chambers judge that the comment appears to have been made “in response to another school board trustee” (A.R., vol. V, at p. 86), and should therefore not be considered. In sum, Mr. Neufeld has not shown grounds to believe that Mr. Hansman’s [107] statements lacked a factual basis. As in WIC Radio, the general facts giving rise to the dispute were likely known to the audience and referred to in the publications themselves (para. 34). (b) [108] Was the Expression Recognizable as Comment, Rather Than an Imputation of Fact? For expression to constitute fair comment, the statement must be one that would be understood by a reasonable reader as a comment rather than a statement of fact (WIC Radio, at para. 27). A comment includes a “deduction, inference, conclusion, criticism, judgment, remark or observation which is generally incapable of proof” (para. 26, quoting Ross v. New Brunswick Teachers’ Association, 2001 NBCA 62, 238 N.B.R. (2d) 112, at para. 56). This is a low threshold; “the notion of ‘comment’ is generously interpreted” (WIC Radio, at para. 30). 2023 SCC 14 (CanLII) comments about refugees and immigrants” (A.R., vol. II, at p. 34). There was some