A fight between B.C. neighbours over a driveway turned into a $96K defamation suit. Here’s how.

A dispute over a shared driveway in a small B.C. community degenerated into a costly defamation lawsuit after a man made inflammatory and “vile” false accusations about his neighbours in a community WeChat forum, according to a recent court decision.

Justice Gordon S. Funt handed down his ruling in the case last week after a weeks-long trial, bringing an end to the years-long conflict between two couples living in the Village of Lions Bay.

“The two subject properties are each large lots that rise steeply from the roadway to the respective single-family homes. Each home enjoys an exceptional view of Howe Sound,” the decision said.

“Having regard to the topography of each property, the only practical access to each residence is the driveway.”

Cindy and Richard David live in one of the homes, while George Liu and his wife Tracey Song live in the other.

“For the first few years, the parties were neighbourly. They would exchange gifts at Christmas, Chinese New Year, and on other occasions leave gifts at the home of the other, including home-cooked meals,” the judge wrote.

That changed in 2022 – and the ensuing legal case would end with Liu being ordered to pay the Davids a combined $96,500 in damages for defamation.

“The defendant, Mr. George Liu, libelled (in Chinese) Ms. David with the defamatory stings that she is a tax evader, a fraudster, a public resource abuser and, staggeringly, the vile sting that she uses her cancer for personal gain,” Funt’s decision says, describing the defamation.

“Mr. Liu also libelled Mr. Richard David, the second plaintiff, as an illegal immigrant.”

At the time of the trial, Cindy’s cancer prognosis was terminal, although she was pursuing experimental treatment in the U.S.

Conflict over the shared driveway

The Davids began an expensive, lengthy home renovation starting in 2021, the court heard. By March of 2022, their neighbours began complaining about the state of the driveway – saying the construction vehicles had caused “substantial damage” and asking the Davids to pay to have repairs done.

After about a month, Liu began doing work on the driveway himself “without obtaining any professional advice,” according to the decision. Liu dug what he described as a “drainage trench” on part of the driveway and set up “two small sawhorse-like structures styled as ‘safety signs,’” the court heard.

The Davids, for their part, characterized “the ‘drainage trench’ as a ‘hole’ and the ‘safety signs’ as ‘barricades,’” Funt wrote in his decision.

Five days later – amid concerns about access to the driveway – the Davids delivered a lawyer’s letter to their neighbours, demanding Liu stop digging and remove the obstruction.

“Mr. Liu continued digging and the barricades remained,” the decision said.

The letter from the lawyer appears to have prompted the first defamatory posts to WeChat, which occurred the next day – on April 7, 2022.

The posts in the WeChat forum

The posts were made in a WeChat forum “serving Chinese-speaking residents in the area of the Village of Lions Bay,” the court heard.

The posts, which were translated for the court, describe an unnamed “neighbour” and her husband in the disparaging terms the judge outlined in the decision – accusing the woman of fraud and tax evasion referring to her as a “scoundrel,” “scum” and a “stinky fish” while also accusing her husband of being an illegal immigrant, suggesting the couple should be reported to federal authorities.

They also refer to the woman using her cancer diagnosis as a “gimmick” and an “excuse.”

Cindy David posted a reply, saying – in part, “I won’t make any response to the personal attack against me or my family by this social media,” according to the judgment.

To prove defamation, a person needs to prove the statements referred to them – something Liu argued the Davids could not do in this case because they were not named. Further, he told the court that it only became clear that the post referred to the Davids and was authored by him when Cindy posted her response.

“In lay terms, Mr. Liu wishes the court, colloquially speaking, to ‘blame the victim.’ This the court will not do. There is no merit in Mr. Liu’s argument. A victim of defamation has the right to defend oneself and oneself’s reputation,” Funt wrote, adding, “I find that Mr. Liu wished to target Ms. David and Mr. David while trying to construct some legal deniability.”

Liu posted to the group again on April 19, 2022, making similar defamatory statements about Cindy.

It is unclear how many people would have seen them, but a forum on WeChat is essentially an online discussion board.

The decision explained that the legal test for whether something defamatory is “published” only requires proving statements were “communicated to at least one person other than the plaintiff,” which the judge said was established in the case.

The court case and additional conflict

The Davids filed their initial notice of civil claim 10 days after the second post on WeChat, while the dispute over access to the driveway was ongoing – asking the court, in part, to issue an injunction ordering their neighbours to stop digging and to remove the objects from the driveway.

The injunction was granted on May 19, 2022. However, the case was not closed because the Davids were also seeking damages for the driveway obstruction.

The defamation claim was added to the lawsuit roughly a year later, and a fresh round of conflict would begin soon after.

On June 3, 2023, things escalated to the point where the Davids called 911. The court heard that Liu and Song climbed onto their roof and began yelling at the Davids who were having brunch on their deck. The judge quoted what he described as the “abusive insults” captured in translated audio recordings of the incident, in which Song described Cindy’s ovarian cancer as “karma” and refers to her neighbour as a “female eunuch.”

An officer from Squamish RCMP attended and spoke to both couples. Over the next few days, the Davids aimed speakers at their neighbours’ home to “drown out” further yelling and things calmed down by June 7.

In July of 2024, tensions appear to have flared again.

Liu emailed the RCMP constable who had attended the dispute the previous June, saying he was aware of his neighbours being involved in “fraudulent activities.” A similar email was also sent to the Chief Administrative Officer of the Village of Lions Bay, but this one also included a claim that Cindy “mentioned her disease to get sympathy and privilege,” according to the decision.

Damages for defamation

In order for a statement to be defamatory, the judge explained, it has to be one that would “tend to lower the plaintiff’s reputation in the eyes of a reasonable person.”

That bar was met in this case, Funt found, saying that the allegations levelled by Liu were serious and would have been harmful to the Davids’ reputations in their community – both professionally and personally.

“The sting that Mr. David was an illegal immigrant is patently defamatory. Similarly, the stings that Ms. David is a tax evader, a fraudster, a public resource abuser, and uses her cancer for personal gain are defamatory,” Funt wrote.

“A reasonable person reading the April 7 and 19 WeChat posts would understand the posts to mean that Mr. David and Ms. David were neighbours who were to be avoided and were, in general terms, morally bad, dishonest, unprincipled, and cheats.”

Cindy was seeking $60,000 in general damages, which the court can award as compensation for things like pain and suffering or emotional distress.

“I find that Ms. David, as would any other strong person fighting serious cancer, suffered mental injury as a result of the intentional sting that she uses her cancer for personal gain. The sting was compounded by the defendants’ cruel mocking of Ms. David. The effect of the sting was serious, prolonged, and insidious, giving rise to a disturbance beyond ‘ordinary annoyances, anxieties and fears,’ despite Ms. David’s general stoicism,” Funt wrote.

The award was reduced by five per cent from $60,000 to $57,500 to reflect the fact that Liu issued a written apology to his neighbours that was submitted to the court, posted on WeChat, posted to a Lions Bay community Facebook page and sent to the RCMP constable and the Village’s administrative officer.

“While the apology came very late and at the end of the trial, there is some value that must be recognized,” the decision said.

Richard David sought $15,000 in general damages, and was awarded $14,250 to reflect the same five percent reduction for the Dec. 20, 2024 apology.

Cindy was also awarded the full $25,000 in punitive damages that she sought, finding they were warranted in the circumstances.

“A punishment in the nature of a fine is wholly appropriate,” the judge wrote.

“I will not reduce the award having regard to the apology because it would reduce the societal goal of punishment and deterrence. Especially having regard to the unknown scope of publication on the Internet, it is important that the court make an award that ensures members of the public, while enjoying free expression, are deterred from malicious, oppressive, and high-handed conduct.”

The decision on the driveway

The Davids were also awarded $12,500 in damages for the driveway obstruction, with the judge finding their neighbours had violated an easement agreement that said access could not be obstructed in any way except with the “express written consent” of both parties.

When assessing damages, the judge noted that the seven-week-long obstruction led to concerns over access to the property in an emergency, something that would have been particularly concerning to someone with a cancer diagnosis.

“There is an aspect of loss of peace of mind where one is disabled, elderly, or suffering from a disease with an uncertain path. There is a greater sense of vulnerability where there is a concern that, if required, the quickest possible arrival of emergency services may not occur,” the decision said.

Liu and Song counter-sued the Davids on a number of grounds, seeking compensation for damage to the driveway, claiming nuisance as a result of the construction and alleging defamation. All of those claims were dismissed.