[147] There is indeed a difference between “comment or criticism and allegations 11 App. Cas. 187 (P.C.), at p. 190, cited in WIC Radio, at para. 70, per LeBel J., concurring). A defining feature of a comment is that it is generally incapable of being proven (WIC Radio, at para. 26, citing Ross v. New Brunswick Teachers’ Association, 2001 NBCA 62, 238 N.B.R. (2d) 112, at para. 56). Similarly, a comment must be clearly recognizable as such and not be “so entangled [with allegations of fact] that inferences cannot be distinguished from facts” (R. E. Brown, Brown on Defamation: Canada, United Kingdom, Australia, New Zealand, United States (2nd ed. (loose-leaf)) (“Brown on Defamation”), at § 15:5). Any ambiguity in this regard must benefit the plaintiff (R. E. Brown, The Law of Defamation in Canada (2nd ed. (loose-leaf)), at p. 15-27, cited in Ager v. Canjex Publishing Ltd., 2005 BCCA 467, 259 D.L.R. (4th) 727, at para. 43). The inquiry is an objective one aimed at discerning the perception of the reasonable viewer or reader (Brown on Defamation, at § 15:4). [148] The chambers judge cursorily examined this issue. He concluded that the impugned statements were very similar to those in WIC Radio, which were found to be comments. He ultimately found that “no reasonable trier of this case could distinguish the facts in this case from the facts in WIC” (2019 BCSC 2028, 59 C.C.E.L. (4th) 205, at para. 137; see also para. 178). In so doing, he erred. [149] Characterizing speech as a comment or as a statement of fact involves a contextual analysis, the result of which is at most a finding of mixed law and fact. The 2023 SCC 14 (CanLII) of fact, such as that disgraceful acts have been committed” (Davis v. Shepstone (1886),