In a recent decision, the BC Supreme Court found that the defendant, an activist critical of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), defamed the plaintiff by livestreaming protests in front of the plaintiff’s home alleging that the plaintiff was a CCP spy and a criminal, among other things. The case demonstrates the operation of Canadian defamation laws in the modern age of video streaming, where an individual can reach an audience of hundreds of thousands, if not millions, with the click of a button. It also highlights the fact that the host of a livestream on social media can be found liable for the defamatory statements made by others in the broadcast.
Law of defamation
Defamation is the publication of a statement that would tend to lower a person’s reputation in the eyes of a reasonable person. To establish a claim for defamation, the plaintiff must prove:
a) that the impugned words were defamatory, in the sense that they would tend to lower the plaintiff’s reputation in the eyes of a reasonable person;
b) that the words in fact referred to the plaintiff; and
c) that the words were published, meaning that they were communicated to at least one person other than the plaintiff.
Defences to defamation include responsible communication, fair comment, justification and qualified privilege.
Case background: Gao v Zhu, 2026 BCSC 1724
Both the plaintiff and defendant in this action are originally from China. The defendant founded a political movement known as the “New Federal State of China” (NFSC), which is critical of the CCP and seeks to replace it. The plaintiff was publicly critical of the NFSC and the defendant. For 77 days in 2020, and again for a week in 2023, the defendant livestreamed protests in front of the plaintiff’s home.
The protestors alleged that the plaintiff was a CCP spy, distributed pamphlets giving his home address and played funeral music outside his house. On various dates during the livestreams hosted by the defendant, protestors chanted or shouted “CCP spy,” “stinky dog poop,” “trash,” “We all hate your guts” and “Everybody on this cul‑de‑sac hates you.” The defendant held a sign that said “Bing Chen Gao is a CCP spy,” claimed the plaintiff had received money from the CCP and not paid taxes, stated that the plaintiff’s “hands are covered in the blood of democracy activists” and that “he has committed a lot of crimes,” among other things. The crowds outside the plaintiff’s home ranged from 10 to 60 people, and the livestream reached an online audience sometimes exceeding 100,000 viewers.
Decision
The Supreme Court of British Columbia found that the defendant, Mr. Zhu, defamed the plaintiff, Mr. Gao, and awarded the plaintiff CA$275,000 in damages. The Court made the following key findings:
- The statements made by the defendant and the other protesters referred to the plaintiff.
- The statements were published to more than one person. Not every internet-related act constitutes publication, but a statement made on a social media platform will constitute a publication if it is communicated to at least one person other than the plaintiff.[1]
- The statements were defamatory. Under Canadian defamation law, a statement is defamatory if it tends to lower a person in the estimation of right-thinking members of society or exposes a person to hatred, contempt or ridicule. The statements in this case, alleging that the plaintiff is a spy, has committed crimes, and has the blood of protestors on his hands were clearly defamatory.
- No defence of responsible communication was available. The Court noted that the defendant provided no evidence that he tried to determine if the information he repeated about the plaintiff was reliable. Further, the defendant never sought and accurately reported the plaintiff’s side of the story. The defences of justification, fair comment and qualified privilege were also not made out.
- The defendant was liable for both the statements he made himself, and for the defamatory statements made by others as host of the livestream broadcast outside the plaintiff’s home. The Court held that as the host of the livestream, responsible for publishing it on the internet, the defendant was liable for the defamatory words that were published.
Key takeaways
Social media is often an aggravating factor in Canadian defamation decisions. Publishing defamatory statements online allow the statements to reach an essentially unlimited audience, and can be preserved on the internet forever. This case demonstrates that publishing defamatory statements on social media, such as by livestreaming, can result in significant liability not only for the individuals making the statements, but also for the hosts that publish them.
For more information on this decision, or defamation law in Canada more generally, please contact Morgan Camley, KC, Meredith Bacal, Jasmine Der and Kathryn Gullason.
[1] Gao, supra note 1at para. 47.
