present case illustrates why merely transposing a finding of mixed law and fact to WIC Radio, Mr. Hansman was not a well-known, controversial commentator when he made the impugned statements; he was speaking in his capacity as president of the British Columbia Teachers’ Federation (“BCTF”), a union composed of 45,000 teachers (C.A. reasons, 2021 BCCA 222, 50 B.C.L.R. (6th) 217, at para. 35). Moreover, contrary to the facts of WIC Radio, Mr. Hansman’s statements were not published in an editorial; they were reported in news articles. These are critical differences, as both the reputation of a defendant, such as Mr. Hansman, and the format of the publication matter in classifying expression as a comment or a statement of fact and in assessing the availability of the fair comment defence in general (WIC Radio, at paras. 27 and 48). More fundamentally, as the Court of Appeal aptly noted, the court’s ruling in WIC Radio was the result of an adjudication on the merits at trial, unlike in the present case (para. 39). [150] In my opinion, there are grounds to believe that the fair comment defence is not available for two of Mr. Hansman’s statements because they were made as statements of fact. [151] In January 2018, news articles regarding Mr. Neufeld were published in the Fraser Valley News and the Agassiz Harrison Observer. Both articles, available online, reproduced a press release from the Chilliwack Teachers’ Association. The press release announced the passing of a motion of non-confidence in the Chilliwack 2023 SCC 14 (CanLII) another case is a questionable practice that should be avoided. Unlike the defendant in