[109] The line between comment and fact can be difficult to draw, particularly the context of political debate, commentary, media campaigns and public discourse” (para. 26). Opinions are expressed as facts more often than as personal views, such that statements that may seem to convey fact might be more properly construed as comment (R. D. McConchie and D. A. Potts, Canadian Libel and Slander Actions (2004), at p. 342). Context is essential in distinguishing comment from fact. [110] Mr. Neufeld relies on a handful of cases to argue that Mr. Hansman’s statements were not comments but imputations of fact. In Lascaris v. B’nai Brith Canada, 2019 ONCA 163, 144 O.R. (3d) 211, at para. 34, the court found that a reasonable trier might conclude that statements that the appellant supported terrorists were statements of fact, not opinion. In Bondfield Construction Company Ltd. v. Globe and Mail Inc., 2019 ONCA 166, 144 O.R. (3d) 291, at para. 17, the court held that statements suggesting corruption and collusion in a bidding process could be viewed as factual assertions. And in Pan v. Gao, 2020 BCCA 58, 33 B.C.L.R. (6th) 211, at para. 104, the court concluded that a statement that someone was a “seasoned liar” was a statement of fact. But these cases do not help us to determine whether Mr. Hansman’s statements were recognizable as comment. In 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. 2023 SCC 14 (CanLII) “in an editorial context where loose, figurative or hyperbolic language is used . . . in