100 In the present case, although the words complained of contain references to fire rating tests and whether the Uniflex duct may or may not pass or be the subject of test reports, there is no explicit reference, on the face of the words, to Uniflex being involved in the covering up of a risk arising from the situation. Nonetheless, in par 16 of the claim, the plaintiff has pleaded that the words were defamatory of the plaintiff in that in their natural and ordinary meaning they meant and would be understood to mean that the plaintiff "had been covering up the risk" and then follows three distinct propositions. Thus, upon a fair reading of par 16, the notion of "covering up the risk" must be viewed as a preface to each proposition so that, for example, the first of the three imputations pleaded as a material fact by the plaintiff is that the words meant or would be understood to mean that the plaintiff had been covering up the risk that the plaintiff's product did not comply with relevant fire rating standards and/or regulations. In other words, the meaning in issue in each case is not simply whether the words meant that the plaintiff's product did or did not comply or that the plaintiff had taken some step to give the appearance of compliance. The suggestion is that, properly construed, the words meant in regard to each imputation that the plaintiff had been involved in a process of covering up the risk that was referable to the three areas of concern singled out in subpars (a) to (c) of par 16.