no real prospect of success (s. 4(2)(a)(ii)). If the court is not satisfied the plaintiff has however, the plaintiff meets their burden, the court must conduct a public interest weighing exercise under s. 4(2)(b), in which the plaintiff must satisfy the court that the harm they are likely to have suffered or are likely to suffer due to the defendant’s expression outweighs the public interest in protecting that expression. In other words, once the court is satisfied that the proceeding arises from expression that relates to a matter of public interest, it must dismiss the proceeding if the plaintiff does not meet its onus as to either s. 4(2)(a) or (b). The order in which a judge chooses to address each of the elements under s. 4(2) is, of course, at the discretion of the court. [54] Only the “no valid defence” requirement (s. 4(2)(a)(ii)) and the public interest weighing exercise (s. 4(2)(b)) are at issue in this appeal. [55] As with a motion filed under s. 137.1, a s. 4 motion has evidentiary requirements distinct from other preliminary motions. A motion for summary judgment, for example, permits the parties to file an extensive record, while a motion to strike is adjudicated based on the pleadings alone. Section 4, by contrast, contemplates that parties will put forward a record beyond the pleadings, though a limited one, given that an anti-SLAPP motion is not the place for an ultimate adjudication of the issues (Pointes, at para. 38). The PPPA provides that evidence must be given by affidavit and the affiant may be called for limited cross-examination (see s. 9(4) and (5)). 2023 SCC 14 (CanLII) met their onus as to one or both criteria, it must dismiss the proceeding. Even if,