[104] As the chambers judge noted, Mr. Neufeld can hardly argue that his himself wrote that he posted at the risk of “being labelled a bigoted homophobe”. For the few publications that do not go into detail in describing Mr. Neufeld’s statements, the journalists seem to have relied on the fact that those views had achieved a level of notoriety such that they would have been known to the reading audience. This was a high-profile local controversy that spanned over a year. Both men were public figures. Mr. Neufeld’s Facebook post was widely reported by major media outlets within hours of it being posted, and the media continued to report on the dispute as it evolved. In this context, it was reasonable to conclude that it was unnecessary to set out the background to the controversy in great detail for all 11 publications. [105] But Mr. Neufeld says that the original Facebook post cannot ground Mr. Hansman’s statement to the Huffington Post that “trustees with faith-based views need to figure out how they’ll work in a secular public school system” or seek work elsewhere. Mr. Neufeld contends there was no basis for this statement as his original post did not refer to his religious views (those posts came later). I disagree. The publication references the fact that Mr. Neufeld is a church subdeacon and prison chaplain, providing a factual nexus for the challenged statement. [106] Similarly, Mr. Neufeld contends the Facebook post is insufficient to ground Mr. Hansman’s comment to a local news outlet on September 16, 2018, that “[i]t is extremely problematic to have somebody who is running as a school trustee 2023 SCC 14 (CanLII) Facebook post did not provide a factual basis for Mr. Hansman’s statements when he