Bride owes $115,000 for online attacks
Judge sides with wedding company disparaged by former client on numerous sites
A bride who defamed a company that provided wedding services for her and her fiance has been ordered by a judge to pay $115,000 in damages.
In April 2015, Emily Liao and Edward Chow hired Amara Wedding for wedding-related services including photography, makeup, hair styling, scheduling, flowers, tuxedo rental and a master of ceremonies.
Despite a dispute over some pre-wedding photos, the company provided its services at the couple’s wedding on July 4, 2015.
Liao was unhappy with the photos, and for nearly a year following the wedding, she published numerous disparaging comments about the company, using various Englishand Chinese-language blogs, forums and social media sites, including Facebook, VanPeople and WeChat.
In one January 2016 post on Weibo, the Chinese version of Twitter, Liao included highly personal attacks on the company’s operators, accused them of fraud, and warned others not to do business with them.
In August 2015, Liao and Chow filed a small claims action in Provincial Court alleging breach of contract, but the following year the lawsuit was thrown out, with the judge ruling in favour of the company’s counterclaim.
Attempts by couple Kevin Leung and Kitty Chan, the operators of the company, to get Liao to remove the defamatory posts and publish an apology failed until after the small claims decision was released. Liao then issued an apology.
Liao testified she posted the comments because she believed she had been deceived and lied to, but in his ruling, B.C. Supreme Court Justice Gordon Weatherill said he didn’t believe her explanations.
The judge said the plain and ordinary meaning of the posts, none of which were true, was that the company was a “major scam shop” and a “deceitful photography mill business” engaged in extortion and dishonest and unfair practices.
Rather than waiting for a resolution through the court process Liao initiated, she embarked on a “determined campaign” to discredit and harm the company in what can only be described as an “egregious, accusatory and vitriolic manner,” the judge said.
Weatherill found Liao was motivated by malice and awarded $115,000 in damages, including $25,000 in punitive damages.
“In my view, Emily’s persistent malice towards the plaintiff throughout and the manner in which she attacked the plaintiff via the internet justifies an award of punitive damages in this case,” the judge said.
“Emily and others who think it is acceptable to use the internet as a vehicle to vent their frustrations must be given the message that there will be consequences if their publications are defamatory.”
Chow was also named as a defendant, but the judge found he had nothing to do with the defamation.
Kevin Leung said in an email he and his wife were “totally relieved” at the ruling and added the defamation went viral in the Chinese community just at the point they were about to expand their business.
“Not only potential customers chose to stay away from us, photographers and other wedding professionals did not want to work with us and were gossiping about my wife’s business practices and integrity. So not only financially, she also suffered mentally because of all the rumours that were spreading across the internet.”
Bernard Lau, a lawyer for the plaintiffs, said there was a public interest element in the case.
“The outcome of this case makes it clear that if you’re going to be posting things online and they’re going to be defamatory, you better make sure that what you’re posting online is either true or is covered by some of the (other) defences that are available with respect to defamation law.”
Liao could not be reached.