The present appeal also has similarities to Pan v. Gao, 2020 BCCA 58, 33 B.C.L.R. a “seasoned liar” was a statement of fact (paras. 101-4). [156] My colleague distinguishes Lascaris, Bondfield and Pan from the matter at hand because “[i]n the context of those cases, the statements suggested concrete knowledge of past wrongdoings, which is distinguishable from the generalized critiques at issue in this case” (para. 110). But to accuse a person of hate speech is not the same as making a “generalized critique”. On the contrary, it is to attribute precise wrongdoing to that person (para. 110). [157] For this reason, I conclude that there are grounds to believe that the two impugned statements were made as statements of fact and not as comments and, consequently, that the fair comment defence is not available to Mr. Hansman. I turn now to the public interest hurdle. B. Public Interest Hurdle The Harm Likely to Have Been or to Be Suffered by Mr. Neufeld Is Very Serious [158] Mr. Neufeld claims damages for non-monetary harm. He seeks compensation for the stress, anxiety, humiliation, mental and emotional distress as well as reputational harm suffered as a result of Mr. Hansman’s statements (A.R., vol. I, at 2023 SCC 14 (CanLII) (6th) 211, in which the Court of Appeal for British Columbia held that calling someone