↑

Cyber Libel Updates

Canadian Internet Defamation Rulings
This case is filed under Defamation Damage Awards
See all Defamation Damage Awards Cases ➤
2026 September 29
Gao v. Zhu,  2026 BCSC 1724

The British Columbia Supreme Court awarded the plaintiff $250,000 general damages and $25,000 aggravated damages over defamatory statements livestreamed by the defendant, either voiced by him or by others with his encouragement, which destroyed the plaintiff’s standing in the Chinese-Canadian community.  The livestreaming occurred from the street outside the plaintiff’s home over a period of 77 days in the fall of 2020 and another week in January 2023. The plaintiff and the defendant were each self-represented at the trial.

The Court found that the defendant livestreamed the statements he made and the statements of others on social media platforms like YouTube and Twitter. “[The plaintiff] referred to metrics displayed on the social media platforms themselves which showed that each livestream reached tens of thousands of viewers.  In some cases, they reached over 100,000 viewers.”  “[The defendant’s] livestream also featured the statements of others. Some of the statements were made in the form of a panel of news commentators.  Other examples were statements made by the crowd of protesters outside [the plaintiff’s] home when they were chanting and shouting about him.  Like the statements he made himself, the statements of others on [the defendant’s] video feed were viewed by many thousands of people.”

The Court held (at para 63) that the defendant “was the host of the livestreams broadcast from outside [the plaintiff’s] home. During those livestreams various speakers made and repeated numerous defamatory statements” made by the defendant.  “As the host of the livestream, responsible for publishing it on the internet, [the defendant] is liable for the defamatory words published.”

The Court, of its own motion, granted an injunction prohibiting the defendant from “repeating, republishing, or communicating the defamatory statements found in [this judgment], or any statement substantially similar in meaning or effect, whether about the plaintiff’s character, conduct, associations, or reputation … regardless of the means of publication… [including] publication by video, audio, image, or text and publication on such services as YouTube, Twitter, X, and GTV.com.”