statements were not based on fact, making the defence unavailable. Fenlon J.A. further [42] Fenlon J.A. also concluded that the chambers judge erred in the public interest weighing analysis. First, the chambers judge focused on the subject matter of Mr. Hansman’s statements to the exclusion of the defamatory sting of those statements (paras. 61-62). Second, the chambers judge erred in his harm analysis by “fail[ing] to give full effect to the presumption of damages in defamation and wrongly assum[ing] causation would be difficult to establish because others had made similar comments about Mr. Neufeld” (para. 51). [43] Finally, Fenlon J.A. held that the chambers judge ought to have considered as part of the weighing analysis “the potential chilling effect on future expression” by the plaintiff, or others in his position, about “this or other highly charged matters of public interest” that might occur if the action were dismissed (para. 65). IV. [44] Analysis This appeal presents two issues: (i) Did the chambers judge err in the weighing exercise set out in s. 4(2)(b) of the PPPA by concluding that the public interest in protecting Mr. Hansman’s expression mandates dismissal of the underlying action? 2023 SCC 14 (CanLII) held that the chambers judge erred in his assessment of malice.