SCC 22, at paras. 29-34, the evidence is unnecessary to resolve the appeal and I need V. Conclusion [122] I would allow the appeal, set aside the order of the Court of Appeal for British Columbia, and restore the order of the chambers judge dismissing the defamation action. I would make an order for costs to the appellant assessed on a party and party basis in this Court and on an ordinary costs basis at the Court of Appeal, with costs in the Supreme Court of British Columbia to be awarded on a full indemnity basis pursuant to s. 7(1) of the PPPA. The following are the reasons delivered by CÔTÉ J. — I. Overview [123] In a famous concurring opinion, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis posited that the remedy for objectionable speech “is more speech, not enforced silence” (Whitney v. California, 274 U.S. 357 (1927), at p. 377). The argument that counter-speech is to be preferred to the censorship or silencing of ideas perceived to be wrong or offensive is connected to the concept of a “marketplace of ideas” encouraging competition between conflicting viewpoints. However, 2023 SCC 14 (CanLII) not deal with the motion.