Case Comment: David v. Song (2025 BCSC 231) — Online Defamation and Punitive Damages

Overview

In David v. Song, 2025 BCSC 231, the Supreme Court of British Columbia confirmed that defamatory statements published on digital or community-based platforms can result in significant financial liability, including punitive damages. The case illustrates the risks associated with posting allegations online, even in relatively private forums such as WeChat groups.

For businesses, professionals, and individuals in Alberta, this decision is strongly persuasive, despite not being binding, because it is one of the most recent Canadian cases addressing online defamation in community-specific forums.

Background

The plaintiffs, a married couple, initiated a defamation action after the defendant published false and injurious statements about them in a WeChat group used by a Chinese-speaking residential community along the Sea-to-Sky corridor. The posts contained serious allegations that directly implicated the plaintiffs’ personal and professional integrity.

While the forum was limited to a community-specific audience, the Court recognized that the impact of the statements was meaningful because the plaintiffs’ reputations were significant within this tight-knit community. The Court emphasized that even though the audience size was smaller than a public social media platform, the harm caused to reputation, personal dignity, and emotional well-being was substantial.

This case illustrates that community-specific forums are treated with the same seriousness as broader publications in defamation law. Legal responsibility is not diminished simply because the statements are made in a semi-private or language-specific platform.

Legal Issues

The case presented several key issues under British Columbia defamation law:

1. Publication and Defamatory Meaning
Statements must be published to at least one third party and be capable of lowering the plaintiff’s reputation. The Court found that the WeChat posts met these criteria because they were shared in a community where the plaintiffs were well-known.

2. Available Defences
Common defences to defamation in Canada include:
– Justification (truth): The defendant must prove the statement is substantially true.
– Fair comment: The statement must be an honestly held opinion on a matter of public interest.
– Qualified privilege: Certain communications may be protected if made in specific contexts, such as to authorities.

In David v. Song, none of these defences succeeded. The Court emphasized that malicious or reckless statements without factual support are not protected.

3. Quantum of Damages
The Court considered:
– General and aggravated damages for reputational harm and emotional distress.
– Punitive damages to punish the defendant and deter similar behaviour.

This demonstrates B.C. courts’ willingness to award enhanced damages for particularly egregious defamatory conduct, which is persuasive in Alberta as well.

Court Findings

The Court concluded that the statements were defamatory and false, causing tangible harm to the plaintiffs’ reputations:

– Statements were published to third parties in a way that the average member of the community would perceive as lowering the plaintiffs’ reputation.
– The posts were made maliciously, demonstrating reckless disregard for the truth.
– The defendant offered no credible evidence to support the allegations.

The Court emphasized that online publication does not reduce legal responsibility, even in semi-private forums.

Damages Awarded

The Court awarded $96,250 in total damages, broken down as:

– General and aggravated damages rewarded to Cindy David: $57,000, reflecting reputational harm, humiliation, and emotional distress.
– Punitive damages rewarded to Richard David:
$ 25,000, aimed at punishing the defendant and deterring similar conduct in the future.
– General damages of $14,250 rewarded to Richard David

Punitive damages are reserved for conduct demonstrating high moral blameworthiness. This case signals that financial consequences for online defamation can be substantial, even when statements are not published in mass media.

Why This Case Matters in Alberta

Although David v. Song is a British Columbia decision and not binding in Alberta, it is strongly persuasive for several reasons:

1. Recent and relevant authority
It is one of the most recent Western Canadian cases addressing online defamation in community-specific forums, making it highly relevant to digital communication disputes in Alberta.

2. Principles align with Alberta law
Alberta courts often consider other provincial decisions when interpreting defamation law, especially in the absence of recent local authority. The assessment of harm within a tight-knit community and the treatment of punitive damages for egregious online statements aligns closely with Alberta jurisprudence.

3. Guidance for online communication
This case serves as a cautionary example that even private digital forums in Alberta are not immune from liability, and courts may award substantial damages where reputational harm is proven.

Practical Implications for Individuals and Businesses in Alberta

1. Limited audiences can still result in liability
Defamatory statements in small or community-specific forums can justify significant damages.

2. Digital platforms are fully subject to Canadian defamation law
WeChat, WhatsApp, or private social media groups do not provide immunity.

3. Punitive damages are a real risk
Reckless or malicious online statements may result in punitive damages, reflecting accountability beyond compensation.

4. Seek early legal advice
Online disputes can escalate rapidly. Legal counsel can evaluate potential defamation and help manage reputational risk.

5. Mitigation through apologies or corrections
Alberta courts may consider genuine apologies or corrective statements to reduce damages.

Conclusion

David v. Song demonstrates that reputation is strongly protected under Canadian law, even in online, semi-private, or community-specific forums. For individuals and businesses in Alberta, this case is persuasive authority, highlighting that courts will award both compensatory and punitive damages when defamatory statements are made recklessly or maliciously.

Anyone posting statements online should exercise caution, verify facts carefully, and seek prompt legal advice if reputational harm arises. The decision confirms that digital platforms are not beyond the reach of defamation law, and even statements shared in “small” communities can carry serious legal and financial consequences.