the form in which it was expressed (solicited by the media to present a discriminatory and harmful expression and to protect transgender youth in schools) are all deserving of significant protection. The chambers judge’s conclusion that the public interest in protecting H’s expression outweighed the public interest in remedying the harm to N should be affirmed. The chambers judge also did not err in concluding that N failed to challenge the validity of the fair comment defence. Section 4(2)(a)(ii) of the PPPA provides that a court must make a dismissal order unless the plaintiff satisfies the court that there are grounds to believe that the defendant has no valid defence in the proceeding. The fair comment defence is premised on the idea that citizens must be able to openly declare their real opinions on matters of public interest without fear of reprisal in the form of actions for defamation. The fair comment defence has five elements: the comment must be on a matter of public interest; be based on fact; be recognisable as a comment; satisfy an objective test (could any person honestly express that opinion on the proved facts?); and the speaker cannot be actuated by express malice. Consideration of the elements of the fair comment defence requires an assessment of the defamatory words used in the full context surrounding their use. In the instant case, N failed to adequately challenge the fair comment defence. First, N has not shown grounds to believe that H’s statements lacked a factual basis. To constitute fair comment, a factual basis for the impugned statement must be 2023 SCC 14 (CanLII) counter-perspective within an ongoing debate), and the motivation behind it (to combat