2026 September 4

Ramsay Lampman Rhodes v. Nobert, 2026 BCSC 1696

On an application for a summary assessment of damages following a default judgment on its defamation claim, the plaintiff law firm received a judgment for $18,122.64 general damages against a former client over “very serious” defamatory expression striking at the integrity and honesty of the law firm and its lawyers, both of which went to the core of its legal practice and its ability to attract and retain business.  The Court held that the defendant “engaged in an extensive campaign of emails and social media communications to spread her negative reviews” and that her defamatory communications were ongoing as of this Court hearing. The Court noted that at the hearing, the law firm sought an order to permanently restrain the defendant from writing or otherwise publishing any further defamatory statements referring in any way to the law firm or its lawyers (past or present) as well as a mandatory order requiring the defendant to remove from the internet any defamatory postings she had already published.  The Court also noted the law firm “only seeks modest damages effectively equivalent to legal fees and disbursements [the law firm] incurred to the date of this hearing, or alternatively, costs in the cause.”  “The defamatory statements were posted repeatedly and publicly on the internet over a period of more than two years, as well as being reiterated through emails targeting specific audiences in the local legal and business communities.”  The requested injunction and damages were ordered by the Court.