competing public interests and failed to direct his mind to the quality of the expression, consider the chilling effect that the dismissal of N’s claim might have on future expression by others. The harm likely to have been or to be suffered by N strongly militates in favour of allowing the proceeding to continue, and the public interest in allowing N’s claim to proceed to trial outweighs the public interest in protecting H’s expression. Cases Cited By Karakatsanis J. Applied: WIC Radio Ltd. v. Simpson, 2008 SCC 40, [2008] 2 S.C.R. 420; 1704604 Ontario Ltd. v. Pointes Protection Association, 2020 SCC 22, [2020] 2 S.C.R. 587; Platnick v. Bent, 2020 SCC 23, [2020] 2 S.C.R. 645; referred to: Platnick v. Bent, 2018 ONCA 687, 426 D.L.R. (4th) 60; Housen v. Nikolaisen, 2002 SCC 33, [2002] 2 S.C.R. 235; Lachaux v. Independent Print Ltd., [2019] UKSC 27, [2020] A.C. 612; United Soils Management Ltd. v. Mohammed, 2019 ONCA 128, 23 C.E.L.R. (4th) 11; Levant v. DeMelle, 2022 ONCA 79, 79 C.P.C. (8th) 437; Saskatchewan (Human Rights Commission) v. Whatcott, 2013 SCC 11, [2013] 1 S.C.R. 467; R. v. Khawaja, 2012 SCC 69, [2012] 3 S.C.R. 555; R. v. Vice Media Canada Inc., 2018 SCC 53, [2018] 3 S.C.R. 374; R. v. Sharpe, 2001 SCC 2, [2001] 1 S.C.R. 45; Canadian Newspapers Co. v. Canada (Attorney General), [1988] 2 S.C.R. 122; R. v. Keegstra, [1990] 3 S.C.R. 697; Schwartz & Red Lake Outfitters v. Collette, 2020 ONSC 6580; Catalyst Capital 2023 SCC 14 (CanLII) which constitutes a reviewable error. The chambers judge also erred in failing to