the impugned statements, and allegations of hate speech rank high on the scale of or as the subject matter of a human rights complaint, accusing a person of hate speech or promoting hatred against an identifiable group is extremely damaging to that person’s reputation. The absence of an apology is another aggravating factor increasing harm, as is the stature of the defendant. The greater the reputation of the defendant, the greater the impact that defamation can be expected to have on the plaintiff. In addition, the context of the publication and the platform on which the impugned statements were published should have been considered. The anonymity offered by the Internet, combined with the increased accessibility and information sharing, can result in greater harm to a person’s reputation. Moreover, it is an error to discount the part played by a defendant in a plaintiff’s harm because others had expressed similar criticism towards the plaintiff. A definitive determination of a defendant’s part in a plaintiff’s harm is not required at this stage of the proceeding. Further, the fact that a plaintiff was not silenced by a defendant’s statements does not negate any harm suffered. The role of the court in the public interest weighing exercise under the PPPA is not and should not be to evaluate the soundness of the parties’ respective positions on an issue. Freedom of expression is content-neutral and would be seriously undermined if the outcome of the weighing exercise depended on the alignment between the views expressed by the defendant and those held by the court. The majority 2023 SCC 14 (CanLII) seriousness. Regardless of whether such conduct is characterized as a criminal offence