reputation” (para. 65). Finally, the Court of Appeal held that the chambers judge Mr. Hansman’s speech significant protection. On this basis, and without conducting any explicit weighing, the Court of Appeal determined that Mr. Neufeld’s action deserved to go on to a trial. [62] As I explain below, I disagree with the Court of Appeal both as to the extent of the harm to Mr. Neufeld and as to the public interest in protecting Mr. Hansman’s expression. First, Mr. Neufeld failed to identify any specific harm flowing from the statements serious enough to outweigh the public interest in protecting Mr. Hansman’s expression. Second, the Court of Appeal’s consideration of the “chilling effect” factor was divorced from a proper interpretation of s. 4(2)(b) and runs contrary to how a chilling effect has been conceived of in freedom of expression jurisprudence. Third, Mr. Hansman’s expression is counter-speech motivated by a desire to promote tolerance and respect for a marginalized group in society. His expression is deserving of significant protection. I would affirm the chambers judge’s conclusion that the public interest in protecting Mr. Hansman’s expression outweighed the public interest in remedying the harm to Mr. Neufeld. Harm Likely to Have Been or to Be Suffered by the Plaintiff as a Result of the Defendant’s Expression 2023 SCC 14 (CanLII) imposed too great a burden on Mr. Neufeld to prove harm and erred in affording