of the statements made by Mr. Hansman, and (2) placing undue reliance on WIC Radio. that the chambers judge’s analysis was appropriate in the circumstances and responsive to the arguments of the parties. His reasons, read as a whole, do not suggest that he overlooked the defamatory meaning of any particular statement in context, or some essential aspect of the analysis. And unlike the Court of Appeal, I do not agree the chambers judge erred by relying on WIC Radio. WIC Radio is a seminal decision from this Court on the interpretation of the elements of the fair comment defence and is factually similar to this case. Both that case and this one involved defamation suits arising out of a public debate in the media over educational policies and practices about the 2SLGBTQ+ community. In each case, the plaintiff was a public figure who expressed views perceived by the defendant to be discriminatory, which invited harsh criticism by the defendant. I am of the view that WIC Radio was a relevant, if not controlling, precedent for the judge to have considered. D. [121] Motion for Fresh Evidence Mr. Hansman applied under s. 62(3) of the Supreme Court Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. S-26, and r. 47 of the Rules of the Supreme Court of Canada, SOR/2002-156, to adduce two affidavits as fresh evidence in this Court. While I have serious reservations that this proposed evidence meets the Palmer test for admission (Palmer v. The Queen, [1980] 1 S.C.R. 759), as affirmed in Barendregt v. Grebliunas, 2022 2023 SCC 14 (CanLII) It is unnecessary for me to address these purported errors in detail, other than to say