[95] In support of his s. 4 application, Mr. Hansman advanced the defence of political power” (C. Sappideen and P. Vines, eds., Fleming’s The Law of Torts (10th ed. 2011), at p. 668). 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 (Cherneskey v. Armadale Publishers Ltd., [1979] 1 S.C.R. 1067, at p. 1086, quoting Slim v. Daily Telegraph Ltd., [1968] 1 All E.R. 497, at p. 503 (C.A.)). This democratic discourse is a defining feature of a free and open society. Thus, the defence aims to keep the equilibrium in defamation law between two competing values: the protection of individual reputation from unwarranted attack, on one side, and the free debate “that is said to be the ‘very life blood of our freedom and free institutions’” on the other (WIC Radio, at para. 1, quoting Price v. Chicoutimi Pulp Co. (1915), 51 S.C.R. 179, at p. 194). The task of courts in interpreting the defence is to reconcile these two values, not to prefer one over the other (WIC Radio, at para. 2). [96] The fair comment defence has five elements. First, the “comment must be on a matter of public interest” (Grant, at para. 31). Second, it must be “based on fact” (para. 31). Third, “though it can include inferences of fact, [it] must be recognisable as comment” (para. 31). Fourth, it must satisfy an objective test: “could any person honestly express that opinion on the proved facts?” (para. 31). Finally, even if the above elements are met, “the defence can be defeated if the plaintiff proves that the defendant was actuated by express malice” (para. 31). Consideration of the elements of the fair 2023 SCC 14 (CanLII) fair comment. The right of fair comment is “a basic safeguard against irresponsible