chooses to address each of the elements under s. 4(2) is at the discretion of the court, undermining the legislative objective behind s. 137.1 of Ontario’s Courts of Justice Act and s. 4 of the PPPA alike, namely, to ensure that a plaintiff with a legitimate claim is not unduly deprived of the opportunity to vindicate that claim. Under s. 4(2)(a)(ii) of the PPPA, the plaintiff must demonstrate that the defendant has no valid defence in the proceeding. The standard is not a very demanding one: it requires showing that there is a basis in law and in the record for finding that there is no valid defence, taking into account the stage of the proceeding at which the application is brought. To succeed, the plaintiff does not have to establish that the defendant has no valid defence for every impugned statement; it suffices that a valid defence is unavailable for some statements or even only one. For this reason, it is important to examine the defamatory sting and the context of each of the impugned statements in order to assess the availability of a defence. This is particularly critical where a fair comment defence is being advanced. Assessing the availability of such a defence requires a careful review of the impugned statement in the context of the publication in which it appeared to determine whether it is recognizable as a comment rather than as a statement of fact. There is a difference between comment or criticism and allegations of fact. A defining feature of a comment is that it is generally incapable of being proven. Similarly, a comment must be clearly recognizable as such and not be so entangled 2023 SCC 14 (CanLII) the majority is effectively ignoring the Court’s recent decision in Pointes, and