views bigoted, transphobic, and hateful; accused him of undermining safety and whether he was suitable to hold elected office. [5] Mr. Neufeld sued for defamation. Mr. Hansman then applied to have Mr. Neufeld’s defamation action dismissed as a SLAPP under s. 4 of the PPPA. The core feature of the PPPA is that it instructs courts to dismiss even meritorious claims where the public interest in protecting the defendant’s freedom of expression outweighs the public interest in remedying the harm done to the plaintiff. It also requires the plaintiff to meet a merits threshold by demonstrating grounds to believe that the underlying proceeding has substantial merit and that the defendant has no valid defence in the proceeding. [6] The chambers judge found that Mr. Neufeld’s defamation action had the effect of unduly suppressing debate on matters of public interest and dismissed the suit (2019 BCSC 2028, 59 C.C.E.L. (4th) 205). The chambers judge held both that Mr. Hansman had a valid fair comment defence and that the value in protecting his expression outweighed the resulting harm done to Mr. Neufeld. The Court of Appeal disagreed on both counts and reinstated the action (2021 BCCA 222, 50 B.C.L.R. (6th) 217). [7] I agree with the chambers judge. Mr. Neufeld argued in the courts below and in this Court that he only criticized a policy; he never expressed hatred towards the transgender community, nor did his words create an unsafe school environment for 2023 SCC 14 (CanLII) inclusivity for transgender and other 2SLGBTQ+ students in schools; and questioned