[68] Even where the extent of harm suffered by the plaintiff is serious, however, between the defendant’s expression and the harm suffered (Pointes, at para. 71). Where the defendant is not the only one speaking out against the plaintiff, inferring a causal link between the defendant’s expression and the harm suffered by the plaintiff becomes both more important (para. 72), and more difficult. [69] The chambers judge’s reasons on this issue are more summary because he had already concluded that Mr. Neufeld did not discharge his burden regarding the fair comment defence, and he considered the public interest weighing exercise as an alternative argument. Thus, he did not specifically deal with the relevant circumstantial arguments that Mr. Neufeld made in support of the extent of the harm he suffered. Still, the judge’s ultimate conclusion on the record is clear. Even considering the circumstantial factors that Mr. Neufeld alleged, there is no basis to disturb the judge’s assessment of the harm to Mr. Neufeld. And as the judge recognized, other circumstantial factors clearly pointed to a conclusion that Mr. Neufeld had suffered limited reputational harm: Mr. Neufeld continued to express the same contentious views despite the public reaction and won re-election a year later. [70] Nor do I agree with the Court of Appeal that the chambers judge found causation could not be established simply because Mr. Hansman was one of many speaking out against Mr. Neufeld. To link the few examples of harm he alleged to Mr. Hansman, Mr. Neufeld asserted only that the negative attention he received 2023 SCC 14 (CanLII) the legislation also requires some evidence that enables the judge to infer a causal link