one. It requires showing that there is a basis in law and in the record for finding that application is brought (Pointes, at paras. 37-39; Bent, at para. 103). [145] To succeed, the plaintiff does not have to establish that the applicant has no valid defence for every impugned statement; it suffices that a valid defence is unavailable for some statements or even only one. This is because s. 4 of the PPPA contemplates the dismissal of a proceeding altogether (see s. 1 of the PPPA, which defines “dismissal order” as “an order under section 4 dismissing a proceeding”). It does not allow for partial dismissal of the proceeding or for striking out parts of the claim. This is entirely consistent with the PPPA’s purpose, which is to screen out lawsuits in order to prevent defendants from being unduly pulled into the litigation process (Pointes, at paras. 16 and 62). [146] For this reason, it is important to examine the defamatory sting and the context of each of the impugned statements in order to assess the availability of a defence. Therefore, I agree with the Court of Appeal that the chambers judge erred by failing to examine each of the impugned statements contained in the 11 publications. This was particularly critical because a fair comment defence was being advanced by Mr. Hansman. Assessing the availability of such a defence requires a careful review of the impugned statement in the context of the publication in which it appeared to determine whether it is recognizable as a comment rather than as a statement of fact (WIC Radio Ltd. v. Simpson, 2008 SCC 40, [2008] 2 S.C.R. 420, at para. 28). 2023 SCC 14 (CanLII) there is no valid defence, taking into account the stage of the proceeding at which the