which it is based, but the comment need not be a reasonable or proportionate response expression, but to ensure the reader is aware of the basis for the comment to enable them “to make up their own minds” as to its merit (para. 31). [101] Here, the chambers judge held that Mr. Neufeld had not shown grounds to believe that the challenged statements were not based in fact, pointing to Mr. Neufeld’s original Facebook post as a basis for the statements (para. 134). Mr. Neufeld argues, and the Court of Appeal agreed, that there were grounds to believe that Mr. Hansman would be unable to establish that certain of the statements were based in fact. [102] I disagree. The relevant inquiry is not whether the underlying facts supported the truth of the statements. At trial, Mr. Hansman need not demonstrate that Mr. Neufeld is bigoted, transphobic, promoted hatred, or created an unsafe environment for students. The question is merely whether the statement can be tethered to an adequate factual basis so the reader can be an informed judge. I agree with the chambers judge that Mr. Neufeld’s original Facebook post could provide the requisite factual basis for most statements at issue. The post reads: Okay, so I can no longer sit on my hands. I have to stand up and be counted. A few years ago, the Liberal minister of education instigated a new curriculum supposedly to combat bullying. But it quickly morphed into a weapon of propaganda to infuse every subject matter from K-12 with the latest fad: Gender theory. The Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity (SOGI) program instructs children that gender is not biologically determined, but is a social construct. At the risk of being labelled a bigoted homophobe, I have to say that I support traditional family values and I agree with the College of paediatricians that allowing little children [to] 2023 SCC 14 (CanLII) (paras. 39, 51 and 59). The purpose of this element is not to measure the fairness of