within an ongoing debate), and the motivation behind it (to combat discriminatory and significant protection. Given Mr. Neufeld’s failure to establish harm serious enough to outweigh that substantial public interest, the chambers judge did not err in concluding that the weighing exercise under s. 4(2)(b) mandates dismissal of the underlying action. C. [94] Issue 2: No Valid Defence While the weighing exercise may be the core of the anti-SLAPP legislation, the chambers judge first grounded his dismissal of the action in the finding that Mr. Hansman had a valid fair comment defence. Section 4(2)(a)(ii) provides that a court must make a dismissal order unless the plaintiff satisfies the court that there are grounds to believe that the defendant has no valid defence in the proceeding. The defendant must first point to any defences they intend to raise at trial, after which the burden shifts to the plaintiff. “[G]rounds to believe” means “something more than mere suspicion, but less than . . . proof on the balance of probabilities” (Pointes, at para. 40, quoting Mugesera v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2005 SCC 40, [2005] 2 S.C.R. 100, at para. 114). To satisfy this burden, a plaintiff must show the defences advanced by the defendant “are not legally tenable or supported by evidence that is reasonably capable of belief such that they can be said to have no real prospect of success” (Pointes, at para. 59). Fair Comment Defence 2023 SCC 14 (CanLII) harmful expression and to protect transgender youth in schools) are all deserving of