analysis would endanger the constitutionality of anti-hate speech laws. Therefore, what that elicits deep feelings of detestation and vilification (Keegstra, at p. 777; R. v. Andrews (1988), 65 O.R. (2d) 161 (C.A.), at p. 179, per Cory J.A., aff’d [1990] 3 S.C.R. 870). Such speech sits at a distance from offensive or hurtful expression that “does not incite the level of abhorrence, delegitimization and rejection that risks causing discrimination or other harmful effects” (Whatcott, at para. 57; see also para. 46). [155] In my respectful view, affirming that Mr. Neufeld engaged in hate speech is quite different from expressing a judgment or making a remark incapable of proof. Read in their context, the aforementioned hate speech allegations appear similar to allegations of fraud, theft or other criminal conduct that have been found to be statements of fact for which a fair comment defence is not available (see, e.g., Nanda v. McEwan, 2019 ONSC 3357, at para. 48 (CanLII) (regarding allegations of theft and corruption), aff’d 2020 ONCA 431, 450 D.L.R. (4th) 145; Hall v. Kyburz, 2006 ABQB 294, at para. 33 (CanLII) (regarding allegations of various criminal acts, such as fraud, kidnapping and extortion), aff’d 2007 ABCA 228). I view the present case as being similar to Lascaris v. B’nai Brith Canada, 2019 ONCA 163, 144 O.R. (3d) 211, and Bondfield Construction Company Limited v. The Globe and Mail Inc., 2019 ONCA 166, 431 D.L.R. (4th) 501, in which the Court of Appeal for Ontario held that statements that a party “supported terrorists” (Lascaris, at para. 34) or was involved in corruption and collusion (Bondfield, at para. 17) could be viewed as statements of fact. 2023 SCC 14 (CanLII) is considered hate speech is not speech that evokes a wide range of emotions, but speech