A dispute between neighbours over a shared driveway in Lions Bay that escalated into a public online smear campaign — and included a “vile” accusation the plaintiff used her cancer diagnosis as a gimmick for sympathy — has cost the defamers more than $100,000 in damages.
Cindy and Richard David were awarded a total of $118,750 in B.C. Supreme Court after a 34-day trial late last year, in which they sued next-door neighbours Tracey Song and George Liu, according to the judgment by Justice Gordon Funt released this week.
Most of the damages, about $88,000, were awarded to Cindy David, and they included general damages, aggravated damages (which indicate there was malice) and the relatively rare punitive damages, which accounted for $25,000 of the total, it said.
“Mr. Liu’s misconduct was clearly so malicious, oppressive and high-handed that it offends the court’s sense of decency,” wrote Funt of the punitive damages. “A punishment in the nature of a fine is wholly appropriate.”
He said punitive damages have a “societal goal of punishment and deterrence.”
Vancouver lawyer Roger McConchie, who has specialized in suing on behalf of those defamed for more than 25 years, says this case is typical of the type of “contempt and hate you can see on some of these social media sites.”
“The problem with online defamation is overwhelming because with the internet, everyone is a potential target,” said McConachie, who wasn’t involved in this case. “And there is a lot of hate pile-ons and cancelling” of people’s livelihoods by those who publicly smear someone’s name because they don’t agree with their politics or ideology.
“We get countless calls every day by some of these attacks being made on their reputation,” he said. “This (case) is a tip of an iceberg. It’s getting worse and worse because on the internet … there’s no restraint.”
He said damages for defamation in Canada have gone as high as $1.6 million in the Hill vs. the Church of Scientology Toronto case in 1995 and regularly run above $500,000. In the Hill vs. the Church of Scientology Toronto case, the church had suggested Casey Hill, a Crown attorney, had misled a judge and breached a court order sealing documents belonging to the Church of Scientology.
“I don’t think the law of deterrence is deterring anyone,” he said.
McConchie keeps a spreadsheet and said there have been 1,000 libel verdicts in Canada since 1995. Yet many cases don’t make it to a judgment. They’re either settled out of court or abandoned because legal fees are costly or dropped by plaintiffs for other reasons.
Such lawsuits can be defended by proving the posts were true, he said.
Song and Liu’s defamatory statements included accusing Richard David of being an illegal immigrant and Cindy David of being a “tax evader, a fraudster, a public resource abuser and, staggeringly, the vile sting that she uses her cancer for personal gain,” wrote Funt.
Liu wrote in Chinese about Cindy David that “it is mind-blowing that she always attacks others with her cancer as a spear,” according to the judgment.
The comments were posted to a WeChat forum in 2022 with about 1,000 members and serving the Chinese-speaking residents of Lions Bay, it said.
At first, the couples were friendly and exchanged gifts at Christmas and Chinese New Year and exchanged home-cooked meals, and Cindy David referred to Liu on WeChat as “Brother George,” Funt wrote.
The bad blood started when the Davids in 2022 had a carport built on their property and the other couple accused them of damaging the shared driveway with the construction vehicles, demanding they pay to fix it, the judgment said.
Liu dug a trench or hole across the driveway for run-off, blocking the Davids’ driveway and police and lawyers became involved and Liu started posting the defamatory statements on WeChat, it said.
On the last day of the trial, on Dec. 20, 2024, Liu posted an apology to WeChat calling his 2022 comments defamatory and “fabrications,” but later retracted it, the judgment said.
Funt said he found the Davids credible and truthful witnesses and said Song and Liu, who had countersued the Davids for defamation and breach of privacy, were not.