[78] In this case, there is no dispute about the second or third requirements, based upon a request to admit delivered in relation to this action. The words complained of in fact referred to the plaintiff and were published by the defendant. However, there is a dispute about whether or not the first requirement has been satisfied, specifically whether the impugned words were defamatory. Whether the words complained of are defamatory [79] The defendant makes a general assertion that none of the words complained of were defamatory due to the defendant’s reputation. Mr. Levant’s counsel submitted at trial that readers of Mr. Levant’s blog would not take all of his comments about the plaintiff “at face value” and would be “well aware of Mr. Levant’s penchant to stir controversy and make outlandish comments at times.” The defendant was described as having the reputation of “someone who is provocative, makes controversial comments and can be a troublemaker.” [80] It is well accepted that a defamatory statement is one that has a tendency to lower the reputation of the person to whom it refers in the estimation of right-thinking members of society generally, and in particular, to cause him or her to be regarded with feelings of hatred, contempt, ridicule, fear, dislike or disesteem: Botiuk v. Toronto Free Press Publications Ltd., [1995] 3 S.C.R. 3, at para. 62; Color Your World v. Canadian Broadcasting Corp. (1988), 38 O.R. (3d) 97 (C.A.), at para. 14, as cited in Manson v. John Doe No. 1, 2013 ONSC 628, at para. 21. [81] The statements are judged by the standard of an ordinary right-thinking member of society. Hence, the test is an objective one: Color Your World, at para. 14. [82] In this case, the impugned words include numerous meanings that would, in the ordinary course, be readily regarded as defamatory. The defendant has said, over and over again, that the plaintiff is a liar. This alone would tend to lower the plaintiff’s reputation among ordinary rightthinking members of society. It obviously bears the meaning that the plaintiff is dishonest, and casts doubt on his integrity, the most important attribute of any lawyer: Botiuk, at para. 69. Honesty and integrity are no less important for a law student who is about to embark on a career as a lawyer. [83] Other impugned words imply that the plaintiff is incompetent and is an anti-Semite. These are but examples. While I will go through the impugned words in more detail below, they certainly include words that would ordinarily carry defamatory meanings. [84] In denying that the impugned words carry defamatory meanings in this case, the defendant seeks to align himself with the minority view of Justice LeBel in WIC Radio Ltd. v. Simpson, 2008 SCC 40, [2008] 2 S.C.R. 420. I am not persuaded that Justice LeBel’s view applies here. [85] WIC Radio involved a “shock jock” radio talk show hosted by a well-known and sometimes controversial commentator. The respondent was a widely known social activist who was also outspoken and whose public speeches were replete with references to war. At the 2014 ONSC 6890 (CanLII) Page: 13