pp. 97-98). The chambers judge noted that Mr. Neufeld presented no evidence, aside be linked to Mr. Hansman’s statements. It is worth emphasizing that what was required of Mr. Neufeld at this preliminary stage was not to prove harm or causation but only to “provide evidence for the . . . judge to draw an inference of likelihood in respect of the existence of the harm and the relevant causal link” (Pointes, at para. 71). In my opinion, and as I demonstrate below, the chambers judge erroneously ignored factors aggravating the harm likely to have been or to be suffered by Mr. Neufeld, despite the fact that they were specifically argued by him (para. 155). [159] First, the chambers judge failed to consider that the seriousness of the harm can be inferred from the gravity of the impugned statements. Indeed, the “nature of the defamatory comment is the most important element in assessing the amount of damages” (Brown on Defamation, at § 25:19; see also P. A. Downard, The Law of Libel in Canada (5th ed. 2022), at §14.01[2][b]). For example, allegations of criminal conduct rank high on the scale of seriousness (Grant, at para. 111; see also Lascaris, at paras. 40-41, cited with approval in Canadian Union of Postal Workers v. B’nai Brith Canada, 2021 ONCA 529, 460 D.L.R. (4th) 245, at para. 39, per Jamal J.A. (as he then was); Clark v. East Sooke Rural Association, 2004 BCSC 1120, at para. 132 (CanLII); Manno v. Henry, 2008 BCSC 738, at para. 79 (CanLII); Lalli v. Athwal, 2017 BCSC 1931, at para. 141 (CanLII); Mann v. International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, 2012 BCSC 181, at para. 73 (CanLII)). 2023 SCC 14 (CanLII) from one paragraph in his affidavit, showing that he had suffered any damage that could