Lu v. Shen

2020 BCSC 490 Lu v. Shen

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA Citation: Lu v. Shen, 2020 BCSC 490 Date: 20200401 Docket: S163264 Registry: Vancouver Between: Jing Lu Plaintiff And: Qinqin Shen aka Qin Qin Shen aka Catherine Shen Defendant Before: The Honourable Madam Justice Adair Reasons for Judgment The Plaintiff appearing in person: Jing Lu The Defendant appearing in person: Qinqin Shen aka Catherine Shen Place and Date of Trial: Vancouver, B.C. September 30 and October 1 to 4, 2019 Place and Date of Judgment: Vancouver, B.C. April 1, 2020 1. Introduction.. 3 2. Procedural history. 4 (a) Pre-trial 4 (b) The trial 10 (c) Order made at the conclusion of the trial 11 3. Pleadings Issues. 12 (a) Basic principles and rules. 12 (b) The pleadings in this action.. 18 (i) The NCC.. 18 (ii) The Second Amended RCC.. 24 (iii) Ms. Shen's counterclaim and amended counterclaim.. 26 (iv) Ms. Lu's response to the amended counterclaim.. 32 4. Evidentiary issues. 33 5. The Defamation claims. 44 (a) Basic legal principles. 44 (b) General comments. 50 (c) Ms. Lu's defamation claims. 51 (d) Ms. Shen's defamation claims. 54 (i) Ms. Lu claimed that Ms. Shen's son was kicked out of school 55 (ii) Ms. Lu claimed that Ms. Shen threatened to kill Ms. Lu.. 55 (iii) Ms. Lu stated that she wanted to make Ms. Shen "the most famous cheap woman" 56 (iv) November 2, 2015: Ms. Lu stated her mission to make Ms. Shen "the most

famous loser more famous" 57 (v) On November 10, 2015, Ms. Lu stated Ms. Shen's former occupation as "laborer" 57 (vi) Ms. Lu published a post stating that Ms. Shen was the "worst scum" and her family was "garbage" 58 (vii) Ms. Lu stated that Ms. Shen and her son were "homeless dogs" 59 (viii) Ms. Lu stated that Ms. Shen was too poor to hire a lawyer and translator 60 (ix) Ms. Lu stated that Ms. Shen sleeps around and does odd jobs. 60 6. Claims for intentional infliction of emotional distress and under the Privacy Act 61 (a) Introduction.. 61 (b) Intentional infliction of emotional distress. 62 (c) The Privacy Act claims. 65 7. Remedies. 68 8. Summary and disposition.. 71 Appendix "A" 73 1. Introduction [1] In this action, two women who barely know one another, and who have rarely met one another in person, sue one another for defamation, breach of privacy and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Their claims against one another are the product of a verbal war they have waged against one another in social media for over a decade. After this action was filed, the war intensified, and was played out mostly (but not exclusively) in court filings and very lengthy affidavits. Each represented herself at the trial. [2] Before addressing the merits of the parties' claims, I am going to discuss a number of procedural matters. I do this, in part, because there were many

occasions on which provisions of the Supreme Court Civil Rules and procedural orders were not followed. This contributed to the difficulty in securing an orderly and efficient resolution of the issues in this action on their merits. [3] I will first set out a summary of the procedural history, including the trial. I will then discuss the pleadings and the issues arising from the pleadings. It is well-established that, in defamation actions, pleadings are exceptionally important: see Weaver v. Corcoran, 2017 BCCA 160, at para.

64. Next, I will discuss the evidentiary issues. The trial proceeded, not as a conventional trial but as a hybrid, using the parties' affidavits prepared for summary trial applications as their primary evidence-in-chief. As a result, the evidentiary issues are numerous and significant. [4] I will then address the merits of the claims of defamation, intentional infliction of emotional distress and breach of privacy. Finally, I will discuss what I have concluded are the appropriate remedies.

2. Procedural history (a) Pre-trial [5] The plaintiff, Ms. Lu filed her notice of civil claim (the "NCC") on April 13, 2016. The NCC was never amended. As a result, the cut-off date for Ms. Lu's defamation claims is April 13, 2016. Whatever the defendant, Ms. Shen, published after that date is not the subject of any claim of defamation by Ms. Lu, although such publications may be relevant to Ms. Lu's other claims. The NCC shows that it was signed by a lawyer acting on behalf of Ms. Lu. [6] Ms. Shen filed her response to civil claim (the "RCC") on March 23, 2017. Ms. Shen signed the RCC. An amended RCC was filed March 24, 2017, also signed by Ms. Shen. The amended RCC is 3 pages. Division 2 (Defendant's version of Facts) says that for "details" see "DEFENDANT'S VERSION." Division 3 (Additional Facts) refers to a "DEFENDANT EXPLANATION" and attachments 1-14. However, neither a "Defendant's Version" nor a "Defendant Explanation" nor attachments were attached to the amended RCC filed with the court. [7] On January 22, 2018, Ms. Lu filed a notice of application seeking a summary trial of her claim, relying on Rule 9-7 of the Supreme Court Civil Rules. With respect to evidence on a summary trial application, Rule 9-7(5) provides in relevant part that, unless the court otherwise orders, on a summary trial application, parties may tender evidence by affidavit. Ms. Lu filed her

Affidavit No. 3 in support of her application. I will discuss this affidavit (along with other affidavit evidence) in more detail below. [8] On January 30, 2018, Ms. Shen filed a notice of application seeking an order adjourning Ms. Lu's summary trial application. Ms. Shen filed her Affidavit No. 3 in support. Her affidavit was affirmed before the lawyer who appeared for Ms. Shen at a hearing on February 8, 2018, and the affidavit included an endorsement of interpreter, in accordance with Rule 22-2(7) of the Supreme Court Civil Rules. Attached as Exhibit "F" to Ms. Shen's affidavit was a draft of a proposed notice of civil claim, setting out a claim for damages for defamation (among other things) that Ms. Shen intended to file against Ms. Lu. [9] The two applications came on for hearing on February 8, 2018, before Madam Justice Watchuk. Ms. Lu was represented by an articled student from the office of her lawyer. Ms. Shen was also represented by a lawyer, although no notice of appointment of a lawyer for Ms. Shen had been filed. [10] In the result, on February 8, 2018, Madam Justice Watchuk pronounced the following order: 1. The Plaintiff's application is adjourned to a date to be set by the Plaintiff.

2. The Defendant [Catherine Shen] shall agree to and attend any future court date that the Plaintiff, Jing Lu, is able to set with the Supreme Court Scheduling office for a two and a half day summary trial subject to the availability of the Defendant's counsel if the Defendant is represented by counsel at the time.

3. Until a resolution of the summary trial regarding all issues, the parties agree on an interim basis, the Plaintiff and the Defendant shall refrain from directly or indirectly making, publishing, disseminating or broadcasting any defamatory words or words of like or similar effect in any public forum or social media including Canadameet.com and Ourdream.ca against each other or any family member of the parties subject to further court order.

4. The Defendant shall have the liberty to file an amended response to the Notice of Civil Claim and a counterclaim within 21 days from February 01, 2018.

5. The Plaintiff shall have the right to ask for costs of this application in any event the Defendant violates the terms of this order. [11] I will refer to this order as the "Watchuk Order." [12] The Watchuk Order was entered on February 8, 2018. [13] On February 21, 2018, Ms. Shen filed an "Amended Amended" RCC (the "Second Amended RCC"). The e-mail address for service remained a personal e-mail address for Ms. Shen. However, the Second Amended RCC reflects that it was signed by the lawyer who had represented Ms. Shen at the hearing on February 8, 2018. The Second Amended RCC was 46 pages long. This time, it included the "Defendant Explanation" (5 pages), the "Defendant's Version" (9 pages) and 28 pages of "Attachments." I conclude from their contents that these documents were drafted by Ms. Shen herself. [14] On February 21, 2018, Ms. Shen also filed a counterclaim. This document bears the signature of the lawyer who appeared on behalf of Ms. Shen at the hearing on February 8, 2018. It follows the draft notice of civil claim attached as Exhibit "F" to Ms. Shen's Affidavit No. 3 (apart from the identification of parties to reflect the fact that the document is a counterclaim, rather than a notice of civil claim). [15] On March 5, 2018, Ms. Shen filed an amended counterclaim. This document is signed by Ms. Shen herself. Whereas the original counterclaim was 5 pages (excluding

the appendix that is part of the form), the amended counterclaim has doubled in length. As I will discuss in more detail below, many parts of the amended counterclaim breach the provisions of the Supreme Court Civil Rules relating to pleadings, and must be struck. [16] As of March 5, 2018, the pleadings were closed. [17] On March 27, 2018, Ms. Lu filed a notice of intention to act in person. [18] In April 2018, Ms. Shen filed three affidavits (her Affidavits No. 4, No. 5 and No. 6) in response to Ms. Lu's summary trial application. [19] On September 11, 2018, Ms. Lu filed a requisition, setting down a one-day summary trial application for hearing on October 5, 2018. This filing was inconsistent with para. 2 of the Watchuk Order, which referred to setting a two and a half day hearing. As of September 11, 2018, no notice of trial had been filed. [20] On September 17, 2018, Ms. Shen filed a notice of application for a summary trial of her counterclaim. She sought (among other orders) an injunction against Ms. Lu, enjoining her from "making, publishing, disseminating or broadcasting any defamatory words or words of like or similar effect in any public forum or social media including Canadameet.com and Ourdream.ca against [Ms. Shen] or any of her family members," and damages against Ms. Lu. Ms. Shen filed an amended notice of application on September 18, 2018. Ms. Shen's application was also set for October 5, 2018. [21] On October 3, 2018, Ms. Lu filed her Affidavit No.

4. I will also discuss this affidavit in more detail below. A section (beginning at the paragraph numbered 15) was intended as Ms. Lu's response to Ms. Shen's Affidavits No. 4, No. 5 and No. 6, and Ms. Lu was, of course, entitled to respond to Ms. Shen's summary trial application. However, at this point I will note that Ms. Lu's Affidavit No. 4 went far beyond what might be considered permissible reply evidence on Ms. Lu's summary trial application. Rather, it contained complaints about many additional alleged defamatory publications by Ms. Shen, the vast majority of which were not mentioned in the NCC. [22] Ms. Lu's and Ms. Shen's applications came on for hearing before Madam Justice Matthews on October 5, 2018. At that time, the court made the following order (paragraph numbering reflects the numbering in the entered order): 1. This matter is adjourned. This matter is not suitable for summary trial. The matter is to be put on the trial list.

3. Parties are to attend a case planning conference before the court at the earliest possible date to discuss what issues need to be dealt with to prepare for trial, including whether a joint interpreter for documents is appropriate and interpretation at trial. The matter is to be set on the trial list for a 5 day trial. The length of trial is to be re-visited at the case planning conference.

4. Until the trial of this matter, the parties shall each refrain from directly or indirectly making, publishing, disseminating or broadcasting any words in any public form or social media including Canadameet.com and Ourdream.ca against each other or any family members of the parties subject to further court order.

5. Ms. Lu is to draft the order. The order is to be sent to Madam Justice Matthews for her signature and approval. Both parties' signatures are dispensed with. The trial is to be set for 5 days to commence on September 30, 2019, subject to review of trial length and the parties' readiness for trial at the case planning conference.

6. Ms. Lu is to enter the order and provide Ms. Shen with a copy of the entered order. [23] I will refer to this order as the "Matthews Order." I note that the terms of the injunction in para. 4 of the Matthews Order are broader than para. 3 of the Watchuk Order. [24] On November 22, 2018, Ms. Shen filed the notice of trial, setting the trial for five days, beginning September 30, 2019. This was done despite the terms of the Matthews Order that the parties were to attend a case planning conference (a "CPC") "at the earliest possible date," and that the trial length and the parties' readiness for trial was to be reviewed at the CPC. As of November 22, 2018, no CPC had been held or even scheduled, despite the court's view (expressed through the Matthews Order) that one was necessary. Ignoring the Matthews Order did nothing to facilitate the orderly and efficient resolution of the issues in this action on their merits. On the contrary, it was entirely incompatible with those objects. [25] On December 12, 2018, Ms. Lu filed an "amended" notice of application, purporting to amend her notice of application for summary trial filed on January 22, 2018. Nothing in the Supreme Court Civil Rules provided for such an "amended" notice of application to be filed. Moreover, in my view, Ms. Lu's amended notice of application was inconsistent with the terms of the Matthews Order, one of which

was that the matter was not suitable for summary trial. [26] Rule 8-1(4) provides that a notice of application (other than any draft order attached to it) "must not exceed 10 pages in length." Ms. Lu's amended notice of application was (excluding the appendix) 26 pages. The hearing date was stated to be September 30, 2019, for five days. Under "Material to be relied on," Ms. Lu listed her Affidavits No. 1, No. 3 and No. 4, as well as the pleadings. Under the "Legal Basis," Ms. Lu cited (among other things) Rule 9-7, the summary trial Rule. [27] In the amended notice of application, Ms. Lu sought a number of orders, including the following (using the numbering in Part 1 of the amended notice of application; all sic): 1. The Defendant . . . shall be enjoined from making, publishing, disseminating or broadcasting any defamatory words or words of like or similar effect in any public forum or social media including Canadameet.com and Ourdream.com against the Plaintiff or any of her family members; 2, The Plaintiff shall be rewarded with general and special damages to be assessed. . . .

4. The Defendant shall delete all personal information and defamatory statements about the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff's family that she posted; . . . [28] Ms. Shen filed an application response on December 18, 2018. In "Material to be relied on," Ms. Shen listed (among other things) the amended counterclaim, and her Affidavits Nos. 3-7. [29] On December 18, 2018, Ms. Shen filed her own notice of application setting a hearing date of September 30, 2019 for five days. Like Ms. Lu, Ms. Shen relied on Rule 9-7, the summary trial Rule, to make her application. Her application, like Ms. Lu's, was also inconsistent with the terms of the Matthews Order. [30] Among the orders sought by Ms. Shen were (using the paragraph numbering in Part 1 of the notice of application; all sic): 1. The Plaintiff Jing Lu shall be enjoined from making, publishing, disseminating or broadcasting any defamatory words or words of like or similar effect in any public forum or social media including Canadameet.com and Ourdream.ca against the Defendant and any of her family members.

2. The Plaintiff should give the Defendant an apology on the forums to let people know that the Plaintiff doesn't know anything about the Defendant. All the stories the Plaintiff made up about the Defendant and her family are rumours and are for malicious intent of defamation.

3. The Plaintiff should delete all the posts that the Plaintiff made up without the fact of the truth to defame the Defendant and her family members. . . . [31] Ms. Lu did not file an application response until September 17, 2019, contrary to Rule 8-1(9), which required an application response to be filed and served within 8 business days of service of the notice of application. In the "Material to be relied on," Ms. Lu listed her Affidavits Nos. 1, and 3-9. Ms. Lu's Affidavits Nos. 6 to 9 were not filed until August and September 2019. [32] On January 21, 2019, the parties attended a trial management conference (a "TMC"). The TMC had been set by requisition filed on January 17, 2019 by Ms. Lu. [33] A TMC has a number of purposes. These include: to ensure that a trial is ready to proceed on the date scheduled and that the time set for the trial is sufficient to complete the trial; and to deal with any administrative and organizational matters that need to be addressed in advance of the trial date, so that the trial can be completed efficiently in the time set. When I asked the parties on the first day of the trial why the TMC had been held so far in advance of the scheduled trial date, the explanation essentially was that there was a misunderstanding, and it was assumed that a TMC and the CPC ordered by Madam Justice Matthews were one and the same. Unfortunately, TMCs and CPCs

are not the same, and their purposes are quite different. [34] In my view, the TMC held on January 21, 2019, more than nine months before the scheduled trial date, was, unfortunately, a complete waste of everyone's time. [35] No CPC was ever held. No examinations for discovery were ever done. No proper TMC, closer to the trial date, during which some necessary triage might have been done, was ever held. (b) The trial [36] When the case was called on September 30, 2019, the first day of the trial, I first conducted a brief TMC. One of the purposes was to canvass with the parties whether five days would be sufficient to complete the trial. The parties had assembled document binders containing copies of the affidavits that had been sworn (or affirmed) by each of them. I conclude that this was done because both parties assumed the hearing beginning on September 30 would be conducted as a summary trial (rather than a conventional trial, with oral testimony rather than affidavits), based on the notices of application that each had filed in December 2018. Neither Ms. Lu's nor Ms. Shen's first language is English. Ms. Lu had arranged for a duly certified and accredited Mandarin interpreter (Ms. Joy Mo) to attend the trial. Ms. Shen did not have an interpreter for trial. However, all of Ms. Shen's affidavits (including those drafted by her) were in English. [37] I concluded that, in the

circumstances, where finality was highly desirable and to complete the trial in the time set, the trial would be conducted as a hybrid of a conventional trial and a summary trial. The affidavits would stand as the parties' evidence in chief (together with brief oral evidence at the beginning of each party's case), and each party would then be subject to cross-examination. I made an order accordingly. Ms. Lu's affidavits (Nos. 1 to 10) were marked as Exhibit 2, and Ms. Shen's affidavits (Nos. 3-11) were marked as Exhibit 3. The parties were advised that no weight would be given to material in the affidavits that was not admissible evidence. [38] As a result, the parties were able to use affidavit evidence previously prepared to present their cases, and the trial completed within the five days set. However, conducting the trial in this way had significant disadvantages, disadvantages of the type not uncommon in summary trials. I will discuss these in more detail in the section Evidentiary issues, below, where I will also discuss the significant problems with the affidavit evidence submitted. (c) Order made at the conclusion of the trial [39] At the conclusion of the trial, I reserved judgment and made the following order: [1] Pending further order of the Court, the plaintiff, Jing Lu, and the defendant, Qinqin Shen aka Qin Qin Shen aka Catherine Shen, shall each refrain from directly or indirectly making, publishing, disseminating or broadcasting any words in any public forum or social media, including Canadameet.com and Ourdream.com, either against or of and concerning each other or any family member of each other; and [2] The signatures of the plaintiff and the defendant are dispensed with.

3. Pleadings Issues [40] In this section, I will discuss the significant issues and problems that arise from the pleadings in this action. (a) Basic principles and rules [41] In Weaver v. Corcoran, Madam Justice Dickson discussed both the function of pleadings generally, and the critical importance of pleadings in defamation actions in particular, at paras. 63-65 [underlining added]: [63] The function of pleadings is to define and clarify the issues of fact and law for determination. Pleadings give opposing parties fair notice of the case to be met and set the boundaries and context for matters such as pre-trial discovery, presentation of evidence and argument at trial. The plaintiff defines the issues by stating, succinctly, the material facts for each cause of action, namely, those necessary to support the complete cause. Upon seeing the case to be met, the defendant responds in a manner which allows the court to understand the issues of fact and law that must be decided: Lax Kw'alaams Indian Band v. Canada (Attorney General), 2011 SCC 56 at para. 43; Homalco Indian Band v. British Columbia, [1998] B.C.J. No. 2703 at para. 5 (S.C.). [64] In defamation actions, pleadings are exceptionally important. This is due in part to the serious nature of defamation allegations and the significance of context in assessing them in an appropriately informed, well-balanced way.

Traditionally, defamation pleadings have attracted a more critical evaluation than those in other causes and have been held to a higher standard regarding the precision with which material facts must be pleaded. This enhanced judicial scrutiny is justified based on the need to avoid unwarranted "fishing expeditions" and the critical importance of the defendant knowing clearly the case to be met: Laufer v. Bucklaschuk (1999), 181 D.L.R. (4th) 83 at para. 24 (M.B.C.A.); The Catalyst Capital Group Inc. v. Veritas Investment Research Corporation, 2017 ONCA 85 at paras. 22‒25. [65] More recently, courts have applied greater flexibility when analysing defamation pleadings, at least in the early stages of a proceeding. While the need for enhanced scrutiny and precise pleadings remains, it is recognised that plaintiffs may be unable to provide full particulars of allegations prior to discovery. For this reason, where a plaintiff pleads a prima facie case of defamation, including all reasonably available particulars of defamatory material, the pleadings may stand despite a lack of detailed facts outside the plaintiff's knowledge: Catalyst Capital Group at paras. 25‒29. Nevertheless, given the fundamental values at stake in a defamation action, it remains particularly important for parties to plead and adhere to clearly defined issues of fact and law. [42] It is the role of pleadings to

serve as the frame for an action. Properly drawn, they precisely define the issues the court will be asked to decide, they advise the other party of the case to be met, they determine the extent of pre-trial procedures, and they guide the trial process. The provisions of the Rules governing pleadings exist to support and facilitate those ends. When pleadings are disorganized, prolix, or confusing, or when they raise irrelevancies, pleadings impede litigation in contradiction to their mandate. See The Owners, Strata Plan LMS3259 v. Sze Hang Holding Inc., 2012 BCCA 196, at para. 1; Atlantic Waste Systems Ltd. v. Attorney General of Canada, 2015 BCSC 1324, at para. 25. [43] Rule 3-1(2) requires that a notice of civil claim must set out "a concise statement of the material facts giving rise to the claim" and "a concise summary of the legal basis for the relief sought" [underlining added], and must otherwise comply with Rule 3-7. These Rules also apply to a counterclaim: see Rule 3-4(6). [44] With respect to a response to civil claim, for any fact set out in Part 1 of the notice of civil claim that is denied, a defendant must "concisely set out the defendant's version of that fact" [underlining added]: Rule 3-3(2)(a)(ii). Further, a response to civil claim must "set out, in a concise statement, any additional material facts that the defendant believes relate to the matters raised by

the notice of civil claim" [underlining added]: Rule 3-3(2)(a)(iii). Rule 3-3(2)(c) requires that, if the defendant opposes any of the relief sought against the defendant, the defendant must set out a concise summary of the legal basis for that opposition. The response to civil claim "must otherwise comply with Rule 3-7": Rule 3-3(2)(d). [45] The requirements in Rule 3-1(2) and Rule 3-3(2), that the pleading set out a "concise statement" and "concise summary" are mandatory and directed to promoting clarity. The word "concise" is defined in The Oxford English Dictionary (11th ed. Revised) as "giving information clearly and in a few words." Thus, both brevity and clarity are important in a pleading. See Sahyoun v. Ho, 2013 BCSC 1143, at para. 23. [46] The requirement that the statement of the material facts and the summary of the legal basis be "concise" emphasizes the importance of stating clearly everything that is necessary, but not more. Going beyond a concise statement or summary is not conducive to defining and limiting the issues in the case. It is incompatible with the goal of the efficient resolution of issues on their merits: see Rule 1-3. The court or the adverse party should not have to hunt through many paragraphs to find the concise statement of the essential elements of a claim or defence. See Atlantic Waste, at para. 26. [47] Rule 3-7(1) brings home the point that

a material fact is different than evidence and that evidence must not be pleaded. A material fact is one that is essential in order to formulate a complete cause of action. If a material fact is omitted, a cause of action is not sufficiently pleaded, and liable to be struck out. See Skybridge Investments Ltd. v. Metro Motors Ltd., 2006 BCCA 500, at para. 9. [48] In a libel claim (such as Ms. Lu and Ms. Shen allege here), the words used are material facts and they must be set out clearly in the party's pleadings, preferably in the form of a quotation: see Gatley on Libel and Slander, 11th ed. (London, U.K.: Sweet & Maxwell, 2008), at para. 28.11; and Sime v. Jupp, 2009 BCSC 1154, at para.

24. A necessary pleading of material facts is not to be left to inference to be deduced from the form in which the pleading is framed; rather, the defendant is entitled to know the case it is being called upon to meet: Atlantic Waste, at para. 27. [49] The Supreme Court Civil Rules set out specific requirements respecting pleadings in defamation actions. Rule 3-7(21) states that: (21) In an action for libel or slander, (a) if the plaintiff alleges that the words or matter complained of were used in a derogatory sense other than their ordinary meaning, the plaintiff must give particulars of the facts and matters on which the plaintiff relies in support of that sense, and (b) if the defendant alleges that, insofar as the words complained of consist of statements of fact, they are true in substance and in fact, and that insofar as they consist of expressions of opinion, they are fair comment on a matter of public interest, the defendant must give particulars stating which of the words complained of the defendant alleges are statements of fact and of the facts and matters relied on in support of the allegation that the words are true. [50] In short, if a plaintiff intends to rely on any meaning other than the literal meaning of the impugned words, that meaning must be specifically pleaded. The plaintiff must also give particulars of the facts and matters on which she relies in

support of the derogatory sense she is alleging. A defendant who wishes to rely on the defences of fair comment or justification must provide particulars to support those defences, as the court's analysis will be confined to what is set out in the pleadings. A defendant intending to rely on fair comment as a defence must specifically plead (and ultimately prove) the factual foundation said to justify the comment: see Weaver v. Corcoran, at para. 107. [51] Madam Justice Russell helpfully summarized the law concerning the requirements of pleadings in defamation actions in Christian Advocacy Society of Greater Vancouver v. Arthur, 2013 BCSC 1542, at paras. 107-113: [107] The law with regard to pleadings for defamation causes of action is simply stated: the plaintiff is required to set out the exact words in the pleadings unless those words can only become known after examination for discovery: Central Minera Corp. v. Lavarack, 2001 BCSC 349 at para. 12. [108] The pleading requirements were set out as follows in Cooper [Cooper v. Hennan, 2005 ABQB 709] at para. 18: The material facts in a defamation suit must include the publication made by each defendant, the words published by that defendant, which plaintiff was defamed by the publication, the time and place of the publication, the manner of the publication, and to whom the publication was made. It is not sufficient to name

multiple defendants in a paragraph of the pleading unless all of the defendants committed the alleged conduct. If such is the case then the pleading should so state. See also Brown on Defamation at 19-31. [109] The plaintiff cannot rely on a vague, general statement of the defamatory words: Fraser v. Central Ready-Mix Ltd., [1999] B.C.J. No. 2061 (S.C.) at para. 12. [110] As stated by Mr. Justice Grauer recently in Nu Fibre [Nu Fibre Inc. v. Ishkanian, 2013 BCSC 1255]: [20] In considering the allegations, it is important to remember that defamation proceedings are technical in nature and pleading-dependent. A plaintiff must be precise in respect of the alleged defamatory words and their publication, just as a defendant must be precise as to the facts which he alleges justify his words in support of a plea of justification. [citations omitted.] [111] However, in instances where the plaintiff does not know and has no means of ascertaining the exact words spoken except by extracting them from the defendant, the plaintiff may determine the exact words spoken through examination for discovery if they are able to establish they have a good cause of action: Central Minera at para.

14. The plaintiff would be able to amend their pleadings once they obtained the new information through discovery. [112] The plaintiff is not relieved from their obligation to plead particulars when they can determine the precise words by investigating them. In Isaac v. Guardian Capital Group Ltd., 2004 BCSC 254, the court held that the plaintiff failed to indicate in his pleadings that he had attempted to ascertain the precise words, forming one of the bases for striking the defamation claim (para. 35). [113] If the alleged defamatory words have been entirely omitted, that omission usually results in the impugned paragraphs being struck or an order that it be amended to include the actual words written or spoken: Frost v. Fox Brokers Ltd. (c.o.b. Demara Insurance Brokers), [1999] B.C.J. No. 2562 (S.C.) at paras. 10 (affirmed 2000 BCSC 93). [52] The court has the power to strike out a bad pleading or other document. [53] Rule 9-5(1) provides: At any stage of a proceeding, the court may order to be struck out or amended the whole or any part of a pleading, petition or other document on the ground that (a) it discloses no reasonable claim or defence, as the case may be, (b) it is unnecessary, scandalous, frivolous or vexatious, (c) it may prejudice, embarrass or delay the fair trial or hearing of the proceeding, or (d) it is otherwise an abuse of the process of the court, and the

court may pronounce judgment or order the proceeding to be stayed or dismissed and may order the costs of the application to be paid as special costs. [54] Under Rule 9-5(1)(b), a pleading is unnecessary or vexatious if it does not go to establishing the plaintiff's cause of action, if it does not advance any claim known in law, where it is obvious that an action cannot succeed, or where it would serve no useful purpose and would be a waste of the court's time and public resources. If a pleading is so confusing that it is difficult to understand what is pleaded, it may also be unnecessary, frivolous or vexatious. See Green v. Proline Management Limited, 2017 BCSC 1656, at para. 36; and Willow v. Chong, 2013 BCSC 1083, at para. 20. [55] An "embarrassing" pleading, as contemplated by R. 9-5(1)(c), is one that is so irrelevant that to allow it to stand would involve useless expense and would also prejudice the trial of the action by involving the parties in a dispute apart from the issues: see, e.g., Keddie v. Dumas Hotels Ltd.(1985), 62 B.C.L.R. 145 at 147 (C.A.). [56] Abuse of process, either under Rule 9-5(1)(d) or the court's inherent jurisdiction, is a flexible doctrine. It allows the court to prevent a claim from proceeding where to do so would violate principles of judicial economy, consistency, finality and the integrity of the administration of justice. See Green, at

para. 37 and Willow, at para. 21. [57] It is well established that a plaintiff has an obligation to clearly plead the material facts on which the plaintiff relies in making the claim. Pleadings must enable the court, within a reasonable time and review of the pleading, to find the cause of action and the material facts on which the cause of action is based. It is not for the court to articulate for a litigant a comprehensible and legally recognizable cause of action. Pleadings that do not meet these minimum requirements fail to satisfy the requirements of the Rules and are an abuse of the court's process. See Green, at para. 38 and Jensen v. Jackman, 2010 BCCA 6, at para. 26. [58] The court can strike a pleading (or other document) on its own motion to prevent an abuse of its process. See Rule 9-5 and Song v. Westwood Plateau Golf & Country Club, 2016 BCCA 110, at para. 13. [59] In my view, it would be fundamentally unfair in this case to create a defamation claim, or defences to a defamation claim, when a claim or a defence has not been properly pleaded. Parties (including self-represented litigants) must properly plead, in accordance with the provisions of the Rules and the authorities, the cases they wish the court to adjudicate. The court cannot draft a suitable pleading for a litigant, including a self-represented litigant. (b) The pleadings in this action [60] As of

trial, Ms. Lu and Ms. Shen were representing themselves. However, Ms. Lu's NCC was drafted by a lawyer. Ms. Shen's Second Amended RCC was also (on its face) drafted and signed by a lawyer, as was her original counterclaim. (i) The NCC [61] In the "Legal Basis" section of the NCC, Ms. Lu identifies three causes of action: 1. The Defendant has defamed the Plaintiff; 2. The Defendant has purposely caused the Plaintiff mental suffering; 3. Privacy Act, RSBC 1996. [62] In the "Factual basis," after introducing the parties in paras. 1 and 2, Ms. Lu alleges: 3. The parties first met on an Internet forum called Canadameet.com ("Canadameet") in the year 2005. At that time both parties were preparing to immigrate to Canada from China.

4. Canadameet is an online forum popular with the Chinese community in Canada, wherein users interact and have discussions about various issues having to do with their lives and the Chinese community.

5. In 2006, both parties stopped using Canadameet and started using a new Internet forum called Ourdream.ca ("Ourdream"). Ourdream is also an online forum in which members of the Canadian Chinese community have discussions about various issues. Ms. Shen admits the allegations in paras. 3-5. [63] Ms. Lu continues: 6. Both Canadameet and Ourdream are very popular forums accessible by hundreds of thousands of people in the Chinese community.

7. In or around 2005, the Defendant became increasingly dismissive and insulting toward the Plaintiff, including by stating the Plaintiff's family would not be able to have a good life in Canada.

8. The Plaintiff immigrated to Canada with her family under the Federal Skilled Worker Program in or around July, 2005.

9. The Defendant moved to Canada in or around September, 2005.

10. After moving to Canada, the Defendant continued making various unprovoked insulting forum comments about the Plaintiff, including stating that the Plaintiff and her family were poor and that the Plaintiff was a liar.

11. In or around 2007, due to the continuing online harassment by the Defendant, the Plaintiff stopped frequenting either Canadameet or Ourdream.

12. In or around October, 2007 the Plaintiff and her family purchased a house located at [address given], Coquitlam, BC (the "Home").

13. In or around 2007, one of the Plaintiff's friends posted on Ourdream the news that the Plaintiff's family had purchased the Home. The Defendant responded by repeatedly saying the Plaintiff's family was too poor to buy a house. The Plaintiff became aware of the Defendant's postings when she checked the forum history in 2009.

14. In or around 2009, the Plaintiff checked the forum postings on Ourdream and found that despite the Plaintiff's lack of participation in the forum, the Defendant continued making derogatory comments about the Plaintiff between the years 2007 and 2009.

15. In or around 2009, the Plaintiff once again began participating in forum discussions on Canadameet, under the user name "Snowbear888".

16. In or around 2009, the Plaintiff advertised that she was looking to rent out the basement of the Home.

17. The Defendant asked a friend to contact the Plaintiff pretending to be interested in renting, in order to see the Home and find out the Home's address. The Defendant subsequently proceeded to disclose the Plaintiff's address without the Plaintiff's permission on Canadameet.

18. In or around 2010, the Defendant followed the Plaintiff's son, who was 16 years old at the time, home from school.

19. In or around 2010, the Defendant made various derogatory remarks regarding the Plaintiff's son, including that he was a bad student, that his high school dropped in ranking due to him attending there, and that he could never get into a good school in the United States.

20. In or around April, 2010, the Plaintiff's son was admitted to Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Columbia and other post-secondary institutions. The Defendant contacted the high school and a tutoring centre attended by the Plaintiff's son in order to verify this fact. In the process, the Defendant found out that the Plaintiff's son had a different last name than the Plaintiff's husband. Shen used this information to post defamatory forum comments about how the Plaintiff had been divorced and abandoned by a prior husband.

21. Between the years 2010 to 2012 the Defendant persisted in making defamatory statements about the Plaintiff and her family. [64] I am going to pause here and make several observations. [65] First, as of this point in the NCC, Ms. Lu has failed to plead (in accordance with the requirements set out above) a reasonable defamation claim in connection with any of the facts alleged. No details are given and no particulars are pleaded, only generalities. The most obvious example of this problem is in para.

21. Whatever statements Ms. Shen is alleged to have made, when, where, to whom, and what she said, are all unknown. Ms. Lu has simply applied the label "derogatory" and (in paras. 20 and 21) "defamatory" to what can only be, at best, a paraphrase of whatever Ms. Shen stated. That is not sufficient. [66] Second, Ms. Lu is the only plaintiff. Assuming that Ms. Shen made statements that might have been defamatory of Ms. Lu's son (and assuming a claim was properly pleaded), or engaged in some other tortious conduct toward him, he is not a plaintiff in this action. Ms. Lu cannot sue for wrongs done to her son. It is unclear whether the allegations in paras. 17, 18 and 19 are made in support of Ms. Lu's claims for breach of privacy or intentional infliction of emotional distress (or both). [67] Finally, the conduct complained of happened years before the NCC was filed in April 2016. As a result, there are limitation issues, given the provisions of the Limitation Act, S.B.C. 2012, in particular s. 6(1), which provides: Subject to this Act, a court proceeding in respect of a claim must not be commenced more than 2 years after the day on which the claim is discovered. [68] The NCC continues: 22. Between 2012 and 2015, the Parties had no substantial online interactions.

23. In or around June 2014, the Plaintiff's son graduated from Harvard with a Bachelor of Arts degree in Applied Mathematics.

24. In or around January, 2015, the Plaintiff stopped frequenting Canadameet until March, 2015. When the Plaintiff checked the forum postings on Canadameet in March, 2015, she found that the Defendant had persisted in making various defamatory and derogatory comments about the Plaintiff and her family, including that the Plaintiff lied about her son attending and graduating from Harvard. As proof of this, the Defendant claimed it is not possible to obtain a Bachelor of Arts Degree in Mathematics.

25. The Defendant wrote an email to Harvard University to enquire whether or not Harvard awards Bachelor's Degrees in Applied Mathematics, Harvard's reply was that the university offered both graduate and postgraduate degrees in Applied Mathematics. The Defendant posted Harvard's reply on Canadameet and said it was proof that The Plaintiff was a liar and that the Plaintiff's son did not graduate from Harvard. [69] Paras. 24 and 25 allege that Ms. Shen made defamatory comments about Ms. Lu, specifically, that Ms. Lu is a liar. [70] Para. 24 provides no particulars of dates or of the words used by Ms. Shen that are alleged to be defamatory. [71] There are two publications referred to in para.

25. The first is found at Exhibit "40/41" to Ms. Lu's Affidavit No.

4. The author is shown as "Implacablefoe38," which Ms. Shen admitted was one of her on-line IDs. The publication is a lengthy one and is one (no. 17) of a series of 61 posts by Ms. Shen. It does not refer to Ms. Lu by name, but as "BEAR38," although in an earlier post (no. 5, found at Ms. Lu's Affidavit No. 3, p. 22), Ms. Shen identified Ms. Lu by name. The last sentence of this publication reads [certified translation]: Other than trying to learn about it from other people, I also learned about it by search for books to read, unlike BEAR38 who keeps lying without proof. [72] The second publication is found at Exhibit 30 to Ms. Lu's Affidavit No.

4. No date is shown. The author is shown as "Gengen," which Ms. Shen has admitted is also one of her on-line IDs. The post reads in part [certified translation]: Are you sure that BEAR son went to the Applied Mathematics department? Whoever lies will cause the death of his/her entire family. You are being fooled by the fraudster and running in circles. . . . The people BEAR38 have deceived are just like you who are dumb but with lots of money. HAHA. I'm not its fan, I'm its deadly enemy. Whatever lies this 38woman tells, I will reveal them, no negotiations allowed. [73] However, Ms. Lu has not set out in the NCC particulars of Ms. Shen's words, as she is required to do. In addition, she has not pleaded anything about what she asserts are the defamatory meanings of Ms. Shen's words. I can only conclude that, since no inferential meanings are pleaded, Ms. Lu's complaint is that, in their natural and ordinary meaning, Ms. Shen's words (whatever they might be) are defamatory. [74] The NCC continues: 26. In or around November, 2015, the Defendant posted on Canadameet that the Defendant has been watching the Plaintiff, her family, and the Home since September, 2015. The Defendant made various forum posts describing the Plaintiff's daily actions, 27. From approximately 2010 to November, 2015, the Plaintiff owned and operated a cafe business called Orphan Annie's Cafe. The Plaintiff occasionally served customers as part of her responsibilities.

28. The Defendant followed the Plaintiff to the cafe and took photos of the Plaintiff serving customers. In or about October, 2015, The Defendant posted these photos online and claimed the Plaintiff was so poor she had to work at a restaurant.

29. Due to the Defendant's harassment, the Plaintiff was compelled to sell the business at a price below market value.

30. In or about March, 2016 the Defendant followed the Plaintiff's husband, took photos of him and subsequently posted them on Canadameet. [75] Paras. 26 to 29 appear to relate to Ms. Lu's other causes of action. I draw that conclusion because the posts that are mentioned in paras. 26 and 28 are not alleged to be defamatory. [76] The conduct alleged in para. 30 is in relation to Ms. Lu's husband, who is not a plaintiff. Ms. Lu has no cause of action for wrongs done to another person. [77] Part 1 of the NCC concludes as follows: 31. The Plaintiff works part time as an education consultant.

32. The Defendant has repeatedly made claims on Canadameet that the Plaintiff is not qualified to work as an education consultant and that the Plaintiff is a bad education consultant because her English is not good enough.

33. The Plaintiff's husband works as a tutor in Math, Physics and Chemistry for children in grades 7 through 12.

34. The Defendant has repeatedly made claims on Canadameet that the Plaintiff's husband is not qualified to work as a tutor and the Plaintiff's husband is a bad tutor.

35. As a result of the Defendant's defamation and harassment, the Plaintiff has suffered and continues to suffer, loss and damage which include the following: a) Deterioration of reputation in the Vancouver Chinese community; b) Mental anguish and suffering; c) Loss of job opportunities; d) Other loss to be advised. [78] It is unclear whether para. 32 is intended to be part of Ms. Lu's defamation claim. Assuming it is, no particulars have been provided, and, as a result, no reasonable claim has been stated. [79] The allegations in paras. 33 and 34 relate to Ms. Lu's husband. As I noted above, he is not a plaintiff. Ms. Lu cannot sue for any wrongs done to him. [80] Based only on the allegations in the NCC, no reasonable defamation claim has been pleaded, in my view. However, before the pleadings were closed in March 2018, Ms. Lu filed her Affidavit No.

3. Although it was filed in connection with her summary trial application, I have concluded that the contents of this affidavit can be considered as particulars of Ms. Lu's defamation claim. I have reached this conclusion for two reasons. [81] First, I consider it would be unfair to Ms. Lu to dismiss her defamation claims on the basis of the flaws in her NCC, when her Affidavit No. 3 can (and does) provide some particulars in the form of copies of Ms. Shen's posts that are alleged to be defamatory. These are attached as Exhibits to Ms. Lu's Affidavit No. 3. [82] Second, after Ms. Lu's Affidavit No. 3 was filed and served, Ms. Shen was granted leave to amend her response to civil claim, pursuant to the Watchuk Order. Then, on February 21, 2018, Ms. Shen filed the Second Amended RCC. She had the assistance of a lawyer in the preparation of that document. In those circumstances, I conclude that Ms. Shen had an opportunity to respond to Ms. Lu's defamation claims, as particularized in Ms. Lu's Affidavit No. 3. [83] However, I am not prepared to treat the many posts attached to Ms. Lu's Affidavit No. 4 as further particulars of her defamation claims. In my view, this would be tantamount to creating claims for Ms. Lu that she did not see fit to plead properly, and would be unfair to Ms. Shen. [84] Accordingly, I have concluded that Ms. Lu's defamation claims will stand to be

determined on the basis of the NCC, as particularized in Ms. Lu's Affidavit No. 3 only. (ii) The Second Amended RCC [85] I turn next to the Second Amended RCC. [86] In Division 2 - Defendant's Version of the Facts, Ms. Shen pleaded [all sic; parts titled "Defamation" and "Privacy", paras. 1-7 below, are underlined, indicating amendments, however underlining is omitted below]: ● All what Jing Lu sued me is what she did to me. ● Jing Lu uses made up stories or takes part of story to lie to the Court. Therefore, Jing Lu can force me appearing at the public place - the Court Defamation 1. The words complained of, as set forth in the Notice of Civil Claim, in their context, are not defamatory as alleged or at all.

2. In the alternative, the words complained of in the Notice of Civil Claim are protected by the defense of fair comment, being statements of opinion, inference or deduction on a matter of public interest, namely the accuracy of advice given to immigrants, representing the views that a person could honestly hold, based on true or privileged facts, stated or known.

3. In the alternative, the statements complained of were true or substantially true, and in that regard the defendant relies on the entirety of publications in issue for context and meaning.

4. In the alternative, the publications complained of are on matters of public interest, which were handled in a responsible manner such that they are protected by the defence of responsible communication.

5. In the alternative, the publications complained of were based on reasonable, honest belief. Privacy 6. The information complained of in the Notice of Civil Claim is public domain.

7. Consent was given to the defendant by the plaintiff to publish the information complained of in the Notice of Civil Claim. ● Jing Lu followed me and revealed my address in 2009. In 2012-2015, she not only sent email to harass me but also sent false information to the police to sent them to bother me. Now, she tries to raise a false accusation to force me to give address and appear at the Court. ● For details, please see DEFENDANT'S VERSION. [87] In Division 3 - Additional Facts, Ms. Shen pleaded: 1. Please see DEFENDANT EXPLANATION & ATTACHMENT 1-14 2. The plaintiff started to delete posts & threads on the Web. That is guilt to delete evidence. [88] As I noted above, the Second Amended RCC included a 5-page section titled "Defendant Explanation," a 9-page section titled "Defendant Version - Response to Part 1," and 28 pages of 11 attachments. Attachment 1, for example begins: "Here I will give you evidence regarding she threatened to kill and burn my son . . .." [89] The "Defendant Explanation" is not a concise statement of material facts. Rather, it sets out what Ms. Shen herself describes as evidence and includes her arguments, opinions and conclusions. The attachments are part of the "Defendant Explanation." There, Ms. Shen explains that, when she gives evidence from the "forum," (e.g., Canadameet), she will give the website link, date and number of the post, and then her

translation into English and explanation. She suggests that "You can have someone who knows Chinese to verify if my translation exactly follows the original meaning." That kind of independent investigation is not part of the court's role in adjudicating legal disputes. Like the "Defendant Explanation," the "Defendant Version" is also not a concise statement of material facts. [90] The Legal Basis (which was unchanged from the amended RCC) states in part [all sic]: Jing Lu bullied me and words abused my son as well as my family members on the forum, and made me suffered over 10 years. She lied and made up stories and put my son and my big face photos to defame us. Meanwhile, She bragged about making easy money without any cost and discriminated working class & renting class. 10 years later, Since end of 2015, I defended her based on the truth I researched from the Web, or did investigation to clear the s[***], made up stories, Jing Lu put on my head. If any evidence I put on the forum is not truth, then that is my fault. If the evidences I give are true, then should we ask Jing Lu why she lied against truth to make her look great and make me and other people indecent. [91] Ms. Shen then set out her explanation for why she was not giving her address. [92] Without meaning any disrespect to Ms. Shen, what she has pleaded in the "Legal Basis" of the Second Amended RCC must be struck

out, as must the "Defendant Explanation" (along with the attachments), and the "Defendant Version." In addition to being contrary to the provisions of the Rules relating to pleadings, they are vexatious, prejudicial and embarrassing. (iii) Ms. Shen's counterclaim and amended counterclaim [93] I turn next to Ms. Shen's original counterclaim (a form of which was before Madam Justice Watchuk on February 8, 2018) and her amended counterclaim. [94] The counterclaim is not a model pleading by any means. The "Statement of Facts" in Part 1 is 17 paragraphs, many of which are lengthy. In many places, the Statement of Facts goes beyond a concise statement of material facts and pleads evidence, adding to its length without any corresponding benefit (and, indeed, contrary to the Rules). However, despite its flaws, the counterclaim is at least recognizable as a pleading asserting defamation claims, with some (although not a great deal of) sensitivity to the pleadings requirements concerning such claims, and the provisions of the Rules relating to pleadings generally. It sets out dates of publications alleged to have been made by Ms. Lu that Ms. Shen alleges are defamatory, provides particulars of the words alleged to have been used and pleads meanings. [95] In terms of causes of action, the "Legal Basis" of the counterclaim identifies: 1 Tort of libel and slander. 2 The tort of

harassment. 3 The tort of intentional infliction of mental suffering. 4 Common law and equitable principles concerning injunctive relief for defamation. 5 The Privacy Act, RSB [sic] 1996 6 The Libel and Slander Act, RSBC 1996 7 Common law principles governing the assessment of damages for defamation. [96] This is recognizable as a concise summary of the legal basis for the relief sought, based on the facts pleaded (although the "tort of harassment" is doubtful on the authorities). [97] Even in the original counterclaim, and like the NCC, conduct is complained of that happened many years before the action was started, and there are limitation issues. [98] However, in my view, the majority of the amendments made in the amended counterclaim fail fundamentally to comply with the provisions of the Rules concerning pleadings, as well as the authorities, both discussed above. Many amendments are not concise statements of material facts and add nothing to the facts already pleaded in the counterclaim. Many amendments plead evidence that Ms. Shen then sets out in her Affidavit no. 4, or add irrelevant commentary. To give but one example, one of the amendments made in para. 5 is [underlining omitted]: "It is clear evidence that the Plaintiff was following the Defendant." Para. 14 is a new paragraph. Not only is it is not a concise statement of material facts, at best it pleads evidence

that would be relevant to Ms. Shen's defence to Ms. Lu's claims against her, not to Ms. Shen's counterclaim. It has no place in the amended counterclaim. [99] Amendments were made that were not underlined, contrary to Rule 6-1(3)(b). An example is found in para. 5 of the amended counterclaim. The second last sentence is new wording, however it is not underlined. Wording was deleted from the last sentence of para. 13 but was not shown as struck out, contrary to Rule 6-1(3)(a). On the other hand, the whole of para. 11 of the amended counterclaim is underlined. However, only the first and last two sentences are new wording. The balance was para. 10 in the counterclaim. There is a similar problem with para. 27 of the amended counterclaim, all of which is underlined. However, it corresponds to para. 17 of the counterclaim, and the only new wording in para. 27 is "emotional stress." [100] Paras. 19-26 and 28-29 are all new. However, not only are these paragraphs not concise statements of material facts, but they are also a mixture of invective, opinions, conclusions and argument. They fail to plead material facts in support of any reasonable claim. [101] In the Legal Basis section, Ms. Shen has added [underlining omitted]: 8) Discrimination of working class and renting class 9) Contempt of court [102] "Discrimination of working class and renting class" does not describe any legal

basis to grant any remedy sought on the basis of the facts alleged. Contempt of court is a remedy, and there is no relief pleaded connected with it or facts pleaded to support it. [103] I then turn to what is left of Ms. Shen's amended counterclaim. Generally, in the passages quoted below, I will omit what I consider must be struck out by using "[struck]." [104] In para. 3, Ms. Shen pleads [all sic]: Exchanges would continue from the time to time between the parties on OURDREAM until the Defendant began using CANADAMEET. [struck] On June1, 2008, she wrote that the Defendant was akin to "a donkey that is not compliant unless you stroke her hair", and that the Defendant "talks nonsense" and "likes to argue with everyone". These comments are false, defamatory, do not constitute fair comments and are not in the public's interest. They lead to innuendo that the Defendant has a mental disorder and is narcissistic. . . . [105] Para. 4 is a new paragraph in the amended counterclaim. As best I can make out, it relates to Ms. Shen's Privacy Act claims or her claims of intentional infliction of emotional suffering (or perhaps both). Ms. Shen alleges [underlining omitted; all sic]: 4) In 2009, the Plaintiff got the Defendant's Chinese name, address, resume, big face photo illegally, then exposed them gradually in 10 years. In 2009, the Plaintiff revealed detailed address of the Defendant;

In 2012, the Plaintiff revealed the Defendant's Chinese name which only showed on formal tax return form, along with whole family member's name and other information; In 2015, the Plaintiff posted the Defendant's big face photos; In 2016, the Plaintiff revealed the Defendant's working history in China which only showed on the resume. [106] Ms. Shen then pleads [underlining showing amendments omitted; all sic]: 5) The Plaintiff made a post on October 9, 2009, stating that "the Defendant lives in a poor place and in such close quarters with her son that her son takes a physiology course in the home." This was intended to belittle the Defendant and the Defendant's family on the public forum and bring shame to her family in the community. On October 10, 2009, the Plaintiff posted the exact address of the Defendant on the forum and stated "let her die ugly" and that the Defendant's square face made her husband unlucky. This put further shame on the Defendant and caused her extreme distress. [struck] These comments also came shortly after the Defendant's suitcase had been stolen from her suite at her apartment building. The Plaintiff used made up stories to spread rumors repeatedly to defame the Defendant along with whole family members. Since then, the Defendant closes herself and never talks about herself with others. The Plaintiff's made up rumors make the Defendant has low self-esteem, emotional expression problem, shame, trust problem and incapacity to establish intimacy.

6) On October 15, 2009, the Plaintiff made a post calling the Defendant "grandfather Niu" and stated that the Defendant wore loose sportswear making her look like an "old aunt selling bus tickets," and stated that the Defendant blamed her son loudly on the street, and both of them did not watch the cars around them while they were crossing the street, implying that the Defendant and her son lived a shameful life.

7) The Defendant was frightened for her son and decided that her son was safer in China due to the Plaintiff's actions. On December 26, 2015, however, the Plaintiff made a post that the Defendant's son had to China due to being kicked out of school which is false, defamatory, and leads to defamatory innuendo that the Defendant and her son are failures and lack dignity. [107] With respect to the allegations in para. 7, to the extent Ms. Shen intends to allege Ms. Lu made defamatory statements about Ms. Shen's son, Ms. Shen's son is not a party, and Ms. Shen has no cause of action for wrongs allegedly done to her son. With respect to the conduct alleged from 2009, there are limitation issues. [108] In para. 8, Ms. Shen alleges what the moderator of Canadameet did and why. I note that there is no admissible evidence concerning these allegations. [109] Ms. Shen continues, beginning at para. 9 [underlining showing amendments omitted; all sic]: 9) On July 20, 2012, the Plaintiff using a new ID of Snowbear999, made further defamatory comments about the Defendant, specially that "the Defendant's face with square jaw and high zygomatic bone, is a liar, is poor, takes advantage of other people, that her son takes advantage of other people, that she is hiding," and posted the Defendant's real name, that she lived in the Metrotown area, the name of her son and husband, and the husband's

telephone number. The Plaintiff used the above defamatory comments and real personal information to make a label and to attach the label to all stories the Plaintiff made up to defame the Defendant. On July 29, 2012, the Plaintiff made two posts where she stated that "the Defendant is a homeless dog, that her son has epileptic seizures and bad grades, and that the Defendant deserves the worst retribution," all with the intent to harass, intimidate, hurt, defame, and bring shame and stress to the Defendant. On July 31, 2012, The Plaintiff posted that "the Defendant has a mental disorder, that she is kicked out of China due to being a disgrace, that she is useless garbage, that she sleeps around, and that the Defendant should kill herself," all with the intent to harass, intimidate, bring shame upon the Defendant and defame her.

10) The Defendant continued to refrain from commentary throughout the end of 2012, all of 2013, and most of 2014. [struck] During this time, the Plaintiff emailed the Defendant's husband to break the relationship, to irritate, and to humiliate the Defendant and her son. July 29, 2012, an email titled "the uneducated woman without virtue,"; Jan 27, 2013, an email titled "all women in your family are bitches and your bastard son even cannot be enrolled in any indecent post-secondary school"; May 26, 2013, an email titled "your bitch is caterwauling again, almost 50 years old, still seduces 30 years old young man, what a shame"; [struck] [110] I pause here to note that the e-mail messages referred to in para. 10 appear in Ms. Shen's Affidavit No. 4 at Exhibit 1 (the only exhibit) p.

32. The e-mail messages on this page have different dates and appear to have been copied and pasted from some other source(s). Like many of the pages of the exhibit to Ms. Shen's Affidavit No. 4, the page includes unsworn commentary from Ms. Shen that has been added to the page. Ms. Lu was not asked on cross-examination about the messages. [111] Moreover, with respect to the allegations in paras. 9 and 10, there are limitation issues with respect to the conduct alleged to have occurred in 2012 and 2013. [112] Ms. Shen's amended counterclaim continues [underlining omitted; all sic]: 11) [struck] On November 13, 2014, the Plaintiff made a post about the Defendant, stating that the Defendant has threatened to kill the Plaintiff. This statement is absolutely false and defamatory, as the Defendant is a peaceful person and never threatened to kill the Plaintiff. [struck] 12) On July 1, 2015, the Plaintiff registered an anonymous ID "I am GENGEN" to post the Defendant's big face photo which was took sneakily in or about 2009 (GENGEN is the Defendant's ID). . . . In her post, the Plaintiff stated that she wanted to make the Defendant the most famous cheap woman and thus attempted to intimidate, harass, and injure the Defendant, while admitting to the intention to defame the Defendant.

13) The Plaintiff also told the Defendant in a post on July 3, 2015 that her family members photos were already available online and her photo in the newspaper anyway, so she did not mind more people watch her son and her husband's photos[.] . . . The Plaintiff then added that her mission is to prevent the Defendant's son from being married, and furthermore that the Defendant will not be alive for long. 14) [entire para. struck because it does not plead facts material to Ms. Shen's counterclaim] 15) On November 2, 2015, someone complained about the Plaintiff's behavior on the forum and the Plaintiff replied that it was her mission to make the Defendant the most famous loser more famous, again showing the intention to defame the Defendant. The Plaintiff further commented on the same day that the Defendant's son should be chopped up and oil put on him. On November 10, 2015, the Plaintiff exposed private information about the Defendant that the Plaintiff could only acquire through fraud. Specifically, the Defendant had applied for a job in 2009 and sent her resume to the person offering the job. The information the Plaintiff revealed was about the Defendant's working history in China as seen in that resume. Although the place the Defendant used to work was correctly stated by the Plaintiff on the post, the specific occupation stated by the Plaintiff was as a laborer, which is false, and intended to portray the Defendant as lowly, and is thus defamatory. The Plaintiff also exposed email address, QQ, Phone of the defendant's family member on the forum.

16) On December 26, 2015, the Plaintiff published a post stating that the Defendant was the worst scum and her whole family was garbage, and then proceeded to threaten her life in a post on December 27, 2015.

17) On Feb 29, 2016, the Plaintiff published that, "I have prepared to pay double, for me even pay half, I win. As long as forced the opponent to the Court, I win," showing an intention to intimidate and harass the Defendant through court processes.

18) On September 25, 2016, the plaintiff made a public post asking where she can learn how to shoot a gun, intended to intimidate and harass the Defendant. On January 6, 2017, the Plaintiff called the Defendant and her son homeless dogs and attached with both big face photos and names. On October 10, 2017, the Plaintiff stated that the Defendant did not reply to the Plaintiff's notice of civil claim due to too poor to hire a lawyer and a translator. This statement is false and defamatory and intended to imply the Defendant's guilt and shamefulness. On January 2, 2018, the Plaintiff stated that the defendant sleeps around and does odd job, no house, no car, no husband, which is false and defamatory. [113] Finally, Ms. Shen pleads, in para. 27 [underlining omitted}: 27) As a result of the Plaintiff's behavior, the defendant has suffered extreme mental anguish, fear, emotional stress, and loss of reputation with her family in the community. [114] Like Ms. Lu's affidavit evidence, Ms. Shen's affidavit evidence, and specifically her Affidavit No. 4, goes far beyond the defamation claims pleaded in her amended counterclaim. However, in my opinion, Ms. Shen's defamation claim must be determined on the basis of the claims that are properly pleaded in her amended counterclaim and are not statute-barred. In my view, those claims are pleaded in paras. 7, 11, 12, 15, 16 and 18 only. (iv) Ms. Lu's response to the amended counterclaim [115] In her response to the amended counterclaim, Ms. Lu denied all of the facts alleged, apart from para.

1. She did not plead any affirmative defences to Ms. Shen's defamation allegations. However, in "Division 2 - Plaintiff's Version of Facts," Ms. Lu set out her version of the facts, pleading (among other things) that "it was always the Defendant who initiated the attacks and publically publishing false and defamatory comments on the forums against the Plaintiff and her family." In "Division 3," Ms. Lu pleaded that she relied on the facts in the NCC.

4. Evidentiary issues [116] In a conventional trial, where witnesses are called and testify in open court, the evidence is presented in real time. Among other things, the trial judge can make evidentiary rulings on the spot, as the evidence is being presented and heard, to ensure (to the extent possible) that inadmissible or irrelevant evidence is excluded. As a result, generally speaking, by the close of the evidence in a conventional trial, the court and the parties (and their counsel) are clear on what properly forms the evidentiary record, and the purpose(s) for which evidence has been admitted in the trial. [117] However, summary trials and a hybrid trial (like this one) are different. [118] In these types of trials, instead of the evidence being presented to the court in real time, it is pre-packaged in affidavits. Even when affidavits are drafted by lawyers, they often contain a great deal of material that is inadmissible and irrelevant, and that the court must therefore ignore. Typical examples of such inadmissible material include: opinions (rather than facts) from non-experts, argument, rhetoric, invective, speculation, conclusions and irrelevant statements of belief, emotional appeals, and hearsay. But, since the evidence is not being presented in real time, the decisions and rulings concerning what is and is not admissible in the affidavits are made later, and, not

infrequently, after the hearing has concluded. That is the case here. [119] Rule 22-2 of the Supreme Court Civil Rules deals with affidavits. These provisions do not exist to create inconvenient barriers to litigants or to impede access to justice. Rather, the provisions (like the provisions of the Rules generally) exist to facilitate the adjudication of matters coming before the court in an efficient manner (given that judicial resources are scarce) and in a manner consistent with the object of the Rules, as set out in Rule 1-3: Object (1) The object of these Supreme Court Civil Rules is to secure the just, speedy and inexpensive determination of every proceeding on its merits. Proportionality (2) Securing the just, speedy and inexpensive determination of a proceeding on its merits includes, so far as is practicable, conducting the proceeding in ways that are proportionate to (a) the amount involved in the proceeding, (b) the importance of the issues in dispute, and (c) the complexity of the proceeding. [120] The broader goal is to promote, support and enable timely and efficient access to justice. [121] It should be obvious that burdening the court (and adverse parties) with a large volume of irrelevant and inadmissible material in an affidavit is incompatible with these goals. The parallel in a conventional trial would be asking the court to sit through days of irrelevant

testimony. That would not be tolerated. [122] Rule 22-2(2) sets out requirements in terms of the form and content of an affidavit, and provides in relevant part: An affidavit (a) must be expressed in the first person and show the name, address and occupation of the person swearing or affirming the affidavit, (b) must be divided into paragraphs numbered consecutively, and . . . (d) may be in Form 109. [123] The advantage of having the text of an affidavit divided into paragraphs numbered consecutively, in terms of the document being readable and comprehensible, is, I think, obvious. The instruction is not onerous or difficult to understand. Its purpose is to enable efficient adjudication of disputes. Parties are expected to follow it. [124] However, the requirement that an affidavit must be divided into paragraphs numbered consecutively was not followed in most of Ms. Lu's affidavits. Ms. Lu's Affidavit No. 4, on which Ms. Lu relied heavily at trial, provides an example. In a short affidavit, the failure to follow this requirement might not be a problem. However, Ms. Lu's Affidavit No. 4 is 32 pages of text, together with over 100 exhibits. Although some paragraphs are numbered (and the numbers are consecutive), many, many are not. For example, the paragraph numbered 6 in fact has 13 paragraphs; the paragraph numbered 9 has 11. [125] Ms. Shen's Affidavit No. 7, which has 47

pages of text, also has many paragraphs that were not numbered. [126] In the text of Ms. Lu's Affidavit No. 4, the exhibits were not numbered in any logical order. For example, the first exhibits referred to (in para. 3) are Exhibits "2," "3", "4" and "K." The next exhibit referred to (in para. 4) is Exhibit "61." [127] Like Ms. Lu's Affidavit No. 4, the exhibit pages in Ms. Shen's Affidavit No. 4 (her main affidavit on the merits) are not numbered in any logical way in the text. This affidavit has a single numbered exhibit, "Exhibit 1," although there are 133 pages of exhibits. In the paragraph numbered 1 in the affidavit (two unnumbered paragraphs precede it), Ms. Shen refers to pp. 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39 (1, 2, 3), 40 and 41 of Exhibit 1. In the paragraph numbered 5 of the affidavit, Ms. Shen refers to Exhibit 1, pp. 56, 57, 68, 85, 103 and 120. Ms. Shen explained at the beginning of her Affidavit No. 4 that she had sorted the evidence in the exhibits "according to the timeline." If that was the organizational method, it was not obvious from a review of the pages attached as Exhibit 1. [128] Without meaning any disrespect to either Ms. Lu or Ms. Shen, the form of organization both adopted for the exhibits to their main affidavits did not make for either easy or efficient review. Rather, it made locating relevant (or potentially relevant) evidence, and connecting that

evidence with the issues in the parties' cases, much more difficult. [129] Rule 22-2(7) is titled "Interpretation to person swearing or affirming the affidavit who does not understand English," and provides: If it appears to the person before whom an affidavit is to be sworn or affirmed that the person swearing or affirming the affidavit does not understand the English language, the affidavit must be interpreted to the person swearing or affirming the affidavit by a competent interpreter who must certify on the affidavit, by endorsement in Form 109, that he or she has interpreted the affidavit to the person swearing or affirming the affidavit. [130] None of Ms. Lu's affidavits has been so endorsed. Of Ms. Shen's affidavits, only Affidavit No. 3 has been so endorsed. I conclude that, after March 2018, when both parties were representing themselves, Ms. Lu and Ms. Shen drafted their own affidavits, in English. [131] There are important limits on the contents of an affidavit, as set out in Rule 22-2(12) and (13): Limitation on contents of affidavit (12) Subject to subrule (13), an affidavit must state only what a person swearing or affirming the affidavit would be permitted to state in evidence at a trial. Exception (13) An affidavit may contain statements as to the information and belief of the person swearing or affirming the affidavit, if (a) the source of the information and

belief is given, and (b) the affidavit is made (i) in respect of an application that does not seek a final order, or (ii) by leave of the court under Rule 12-5(71)(a) or 22-1(4)(e). [132] Some of the affidavits were made in respect of interlocutory applications (for example, Ms. Lu's Affidavit No. 1 and Ms. Shen's Affidavit No. 3 (there are no Affidavits No. 1 or No. 2)), and, in that context, the exception in Rule 22-2(13) would apply. [133] However, at the trial, no exceptions applied. Each affidavit relied on was required to state only what the person swearing or affirming the affidavit would be permitted to state in evidence at a trial. Everything else was inadmissible. [134] The result is that a very great deal of the contents of the affidavits of both parties is inadmissible. Substantial portions are argument, inadmissible opinion, conclusions (without the necessary facts being stated), conjecture, speculation, invective, insults and hearsay (either obvious or disguised). [135] I have concluded that a detailed review of the problems with the affidavit evidence, and identification of all that is inadmissible, would add tremendously to the length of these Reasons with little or no corresponding benefit, and cannot be justified. As a general comment, I would say that the admissible evidence is overwhelmed by what is inadmissible, and, for that reason, admissible evidence is difficult to locate in the mass of material. I will, however, provide some examples of the problems that, in my view, permeate all of the affidavit evidence. [136] I begin with Ms. Lu's Affidavit No.

3. This is a relatively brief affidavit (certainly compared with Ms. Lu's Affidavit No. 4). It is an important affidavit, since it was sworn by Ms. Lu in support of her original summary trial application. Moreover, it was prepared at a time when Ms. Lu was represented by a lawyer. [137] In para. 8 of Ms. Lu's Affidavit No. 3, she says [all sic]: The ignorance from my side to the Defendant's posts on Canadameet did not quite [i.e.., quiet] things down between the Defendant and I, instead the Defendant continued posting derogatory and defamatory comments about my family online. [138] Ms. Lu's statements ("derogatory and defamatory comments") about Ms. Shen's activities are conclusory and argumentative, and express her opinions on what Ms. Shen was doing. However, what the court needs from Ms. Lu is facts. [139] In para. 9, Ms. Lu says: 9. Through years of interaction with the Defendant on the Forums, I know and verily believe it to be true that the Defendant has been using various usernames on the Forums . . . for all these years that she uses to harass me with made up and twisted stories defaming me and my family. [140] Again, Ms. Lu's statements at the end of this paragraph are conclusions, opinions and argument, and inadmissible. [141] In para. 15, Ms. Lu says: 15. In or around 2009, by going through the forum history, I learned and verily believe it to be true that after my

departure from Ourdream, seventeen administrators of Ourdream in our about September 2007 reached a unanimous decision in blocking the Defendant's user ID on Ourdream due to her continuous harassment toward me. [142] This is not admissible evidence to prove what administrators of Ourdream did or why they may have acted in any particular way. In short, Ms. Lu's statement about what she learned is inadmissible to prove the truth of underlying facts. It is hearsay. [143] In paras. 18 and 19, Ms. Lu says: 18. The Chinese Canadian community in the great[er] Vancouver area is fairly small, and Canadameet is one of the most popular and influential web forums used by Chinese Canadians in the great[er] Vancouver area.

19. Canadameet has thousands of users and followers regularly viewing and publishing posts. The users would seek recommendations and make further inquiries to the matters posted on the forum. [144] These are a combination of inadmissible opinion, conclusions and disguised hearsay. However, I note that there is basic agreement between Ms. Lu and Ms. Shen about the reach and popularity of Canadameet. [145] In para. 28, Ms. Lu says: 28. In or around 2015, the Defendant wrote a series of forum posts on Canadameet, which contained personal information about me and my family. It was posted for the sole purpose of harassing and destroying my family's reputation in the Chinese Canadian community. . . . [146] The sentence "It was posted . . ." is (at best) inadmissible argument and opinion. [147] In para. 32, Ms. Lu says: 32. As a result of the Defendant's twisted comments posted on Canadameet, we [i.e., Ms. Lu and her husband] suffered a loss of income and potential income from the [tutoring and education consulting] business. Our reputation was also damaged in the Vancouver Chinese community. [148] These are conclusions, opinion, speculation and argument, and inadmissible. [149] Para. 35 of Ms. Lu's Affidavit No. 3 suffers from the same problems: 35. Due to the popularity of Canadameet and followers of the Defendant on the forum, the posts targeting my workplace were spread on the forum and had negatively impacted my business. [150] I have mentioned above some of the problems with Ms. Lu's Affidavit No.

4. While Ms. Lu complains in that affidavit that she was defamed in many posts authored by Ms. Shen, and attaches copies of the posts (with translations) as exhibits to her affidavit, her complaints of defamation are not grounded anywhere in the NCC or the particulars in her Affidavit No.

3. I consider that to be fatal to any claim by Ms. Lu that posts in her Affidavit No. 4, or later affidavits, are defamatory. [151] Much of the text of Ms. Lu's Affidavit No. 5 is inadmissible argument, conclusions and opinions. For example, in para. 6 of that Affidavit, Ms. Lu says [all sic]: 6. The 12-year cyber-bullying behaviour of the Defendant proves the Defendant is a person who has no integrity and does not abide by the promises, even including the order signed by the court judge. [152] On Ms. Shen's side, her Affidavit No. 4 is a significant affidavit in terms of the presentation of her case on the merits. It matches up with a number of paragraphs in the amended counterclaim and incorporates material from the "Defendant Explanation" and attachments. However, this affidavit also suffers from serious problems, some of which I will highlight below. [153] One of the major problems is that most of the pages of Exhibit 1 to Ms. Shen's Affidavit No. 4 contain unsworn commentary by Ms. Shen. Some of this commentary is found at the bottom of the page in square brackets, and is identified as "Catherine's explanation." On other pages, Ms. Shen's commentary is found in other parts of the exhibit page, interspersed with the English translation of a screenshot of a post. Some examples are found on pages 10, 11, 22-23, 24, 47, 53 and 59. Unsworn commentary (generally a date and a

short topic name for the post) has been added at the top of exhibit pages. For example, at the top of p. 121 of Exhibit 1, the following appears: 20170106(24) bully, defame, discriminate, humiliate [154] On almost every page, there is commentary in the English translation of the on-line ID in a post. For example, on p. 48 of Exhibit 1, instead of an English translation of only the ID, it reads: "Jing Lu's ID snowbearbear." Absent an admission from Ms. Lu or some other admissible evidence, Ms. Shen's unsworn commentary is not proof that the ID belongs to Ms. Lu. [155] All of the unsworn commentary added by Ms. Shen to the exhibit pages is inadmissible argument. [156] The page stamped with the exhibit stamp is stated to be a "Translator's Declaration," which reads [all sic]: I, Bernice Ma, hereby certify that I am a certified English/Chinese translator, fluent in English, Cantonese and Mandarin languages,. (I got a Certificate of Translation and Interpretation from UBC) I have accurately translated the attached copy of the screenshot of posts (page 1 to 94, 96-131) from the Chinese language to the English language while respecting the original content faithfully, rendered to the best of my knowledge and ability. [157] Based on her certificate, Ms. Ma lacks the qualifications and experience of Ms. Mo, for example. Moreover, because of all of the commentary found on the exhibit

pages, I cannot be confident that Ms. Ma's translations (to the extent I can separate her work from what Ms. Shen has added as commentary) are reliable or that I can safely give them weight. What is shown in English respecting the on-line ID, for example, is not simply a translation from the original. Rather, unsworn commentary (which can only have come from Ms. Shen) has been added. [158] In the text of her Affidavit No. 4, Ms. Shen states [all sic; bold in original]: 1) The Plaintiff likes to bully and defame people. She likes to cook up vulgar stories to maliciously defame people along with their family members, as well as exposes their real name and photos on the forum. Affidavit 4th exhibit 1 pages 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39(1,2,3), 40, 41 showing the typical style of the Plaintiff's personality. [159] This paragraph is inadmissible argument, opinions and conclusions. It is fairly typical of the contents of Ms. Shen's Affidavit No. 4. [160] In para. 6, Ms. Shen says [all sic; bold in original]: 6) Being bullied and defamed over 10 years by the Plaintiff, my family and my reputations are completely damaged by the Plaintiff's made up stories and rumors. I get deep depression, live solitary, and cannot have a normal life. From the end of 2015, I started to collect the evidence to defend to reveal the truth according to the Plaintiff's consent, request, and enforcement. Affidavit

4th exhibit 1 pages 45, 58, 62, 63, 67. [161] This paragraph is a mixture of the admissible with the inadmissible. The first sentence is argument and conclusory. The second sentence is mostly admissible, to the extent that Ms. Shen is expressing facts ("live solitary") about her life. The third sentence is mostly argument and conclusions. Whether Ms. Lu consented to anything Ms. Shen did in 2015 is for the court to decide, based on the admissible evidence presented. [162] In para. 23, Ms. Shen says [all sic; bold in original]: 23) I was frightened for my son and decided that my son was safer in China due to the Plaintiff's actions. On December 26, 2015, however, the Plaintiff made a post that my son had to [go] to China due to being kicked out of school, which is false, defamatory, and leads to defamatory innuendo that my son and I are failures and lack dignity. Affidavit 4th exhibit 1 page 101. [163] The second sentence should have stopped after the word "false." The balance of the sentence is conclusory and argument. Moreover, Ms. Shen's opinion about whether something published by Ms. Lu is defamatory (and why) is irrelevant. However, she frequently expresses her opinion on that point in her affidavit. [164] In para. 47, responding to Ms. Lu's evidence concerning the sale of her coffee shop, Ms. Shen says [all sic; bold in original]: 47) I did investigation for the store

contract of purchasing and sale when I received the affidavit 3rd from the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff sold her business under the table instead of on the market through an agent. Many people sell car or business under the table to put less amount on the contract to avoid to pay more tax. So if the Plaintiff wants to prove she has a stable business, she should provide monthly sales reports along with yearly taxes return in a raw of 4 years to prove. [165] This paragraph is a combination of speculation, argument and irrelevant opinion. [166] In her Affidavit No. 5, Ms. Shen provides her opinions and complaints about the quality and accuracy of the translations Ms. Lu has provided in her affidavit evidence. Ms. Shen's personal opinions are irrelevant. Ms. Shen provided her own translations, using a dictionary and Google. However, I cannot accept these as reliable or give them any weight, certainly not as compared with the translations done by Ms. Mo. [167] Ms. Shen's Affidavit No. 7 is particularly problematic, although I think at least part of the explanation is that this Affidavit is responding to Ms. Lu's Affidavit No. 4, which has a great deal of irrelevant and inadmissible content. [168] Ms. Shen's Affidavit has 47 pages of mostly single-spaced text and another 80-plus pages of exhibits (all marked collectively as Exhibit 1). The "key parts" that Ms. Shen identifies on p. 1 of

the affidavit do little to add to its readability. Although some paragraphs of the text are numbered, many others are not. For example, the paragraph numbered 3.5 is followed by 14 unnumbered paragraphs. Many paragraphs are extremely lengthy, with a single paragraph covering multiple pages. Parts of the "Defendant's Version" attached to the Second Amended RCC are reproduced verbatim in "Part 2" of the affidavit. In many places, Ms. Shen refers back to her Affidavit No. 4 and pages from Exhibit 1 to that Affidavit, repeating (unnecessarily) what she already said in that Affidavit. She complains about the translations in Ms. Lu's Affidavit No. 4, and, in some cases, provides her own personal translation. However, I cannot accept Ms. Shen's personal translations over those done by Ms. Mo, a non-party and a duly certified and qualified translator. [169] The text of Ms. Shen's Affidavit No. 7 is filled with inadmissible opinion, argument, rhetorical questions, irrelevant commentary, conclusions, insults and invective, as well as hearsay. [170] The 80-plus pages of Exhibit 1 are also problematic. The first page is unnumbered but has the exhibit stamp on it, along with text. The text on this page is not evidence of anything, but more argument. Page 1 (of 9) which follows is the same. After page 9 of 9 is an unnumbered page headed "Translator's Declaration," completed by Ms. Ma and stating that she has translated the screenshots on pages 1 to 60 from Chinese to English. The page numbering in Exhibit 1 begins again with p.

1. Like the pages attached as Exhibit 1 to Ms. Shen's Affidavit No. 4, the pages with screenshots have unsworn - and inadmissible - commentary by Ms. Shen. [171] I have concluded that whatever might be admissible in this affidavit cannot be separated from the inadmissible with any reasonable or proportionate amount of effort. In my view, this entire affidavit is vexatious and abusive. At best, it demonstrates: (a) how obsessed Ms. Shen had become with Ms. Lu and what she considered Ms. Lu's unjustified bragging on Canadameet about her life; and (b) the extreme lengths to which Ms. Shen felt she needed to go to respond to Ms. Lu's forum posts and to Ms. Lu's Affidavit No. 4. [172] I have ignored and given no weight to what is inadmissible in the affidavits of both parties.

5. The Defamation claims (a) Basic legal principles [173] The basic legal principles concerning defamation claims have been conveniently summarized by Dickson J.A. in Weaver v. Corcoran. [174] To obtain judgment in a defamation action, the plaintiff must prove three things: (i) that the impugned words were defamatory; (ii) that they referred to the plaintiff; and (iii) that they were published, meaning that they were communicated to at least one other person. Where the plaintiff establishes these elements, falsity and damage are presumed and the onus shifts to the defendant to advance a defence in order to escape liability. Defamation is a tort of strict liability, so it is unnecessary to prove that the defendant was careless or intended to cause harm. See Weaver v. Corcoran, at para. 70 (citing Grant v. Torstar Corp., 2009 SCC 61, at paras. 28-29). [175] Words that tend to lower the plaintiff's reputation in the eyes of a reasonable person are defamatory. The central question is whether the meaning conveyed by the impugned words genuinely threatened the plaintiff's actual reputation. See Weaver v. Corcoran, at para.

68. A plaintiff must show that the alleged defamatory words lowered her reputation in the estimation of right-thinking members of society generally, or exposed her to hatred, contempt or ridicule: see Hee Creations Group Ltd. v. Chow, 2018 BCSC 260, at para. 64. [176] As Madam Justice Dickson explained in Weaver v. Corcoran, para. 69: [69] . . . The same words used in a particular context may lead different minds to reach different conclusions for different reasons. In determining whether impugned words, fairly construed, are defamatory, courts adopt an objective, common sense approach and avoid seizing upon the worst possible meaning. As Madam Justice Abella, then of the Ontario Court of Appeal, explained in Color Your World Corp. v. Canadian Broadcasting Corp. (1998), 156 D.L.R. (4th) 27 at para. 15 (Ont. C.A.), the words must be assessed, in context, from the perspective of a reasonable, right-thinking person, "that is, a person who is reasonably thoughtful and informed, rather than someone with an overly fragile sensibility". [177] The intention of the author and publisher of a statement alleged to be defamatory is not relevant on the issue of meaning. The subjective opinion of a plaintiff concerning the meaning of the expression is also not relevant. See Lawson v. Baines, 2011 BCSC 326, at para. 39, aff'd 2012 BCCA 117. [178] With respect to proof of defamatory meaning,

Madam Justice Dickson explained in Weaver v. Corcoran, at paras. 71 and 72: [71] Words may convey a defamatory meaning literally, inferentially or by legal innuendo. Literal meaning is conveyed directly; inferential meaning, indirectly; and legal innuendo, by extension based on extrinsic facts. These alternate means of proof were summarised by Hinkson J.A., as he then was, in Lawson: [13] There are three alternate means by which defamation can be proven: a) If the literal meaning of the words complained of are defamatory; b) If the words complained of are not defamatory in their natural and ordinary meaning, but their meaning based upon extrinsic circumstances unique to certain readers (the "legal" or "true" innuendo meaning) is defamatory; or c) If the inferential meaning or impression left by the words complained of is defamatory (the "false" or "popular" innuendo meaning). [72] Where the literal meaning of words is in issue, it is unnecessary to go beyond the words themselves to prove that they are defamatory. Where a claim is based on the inferential meaning of words, the question is one of impression: what would the ordinary person infer from the words in the context in which they were used? Both literal and inferential defamatory meaning reside within the words, as part of their natural and ordinary meaning. . . . [179] It is for the trier of fact (in a non-jury trial

such as this one, the trial judge) to decide what natural and ordinary meaning the words bear, including what innuendos can be reasonably inferred, and whether any are defamatory. Thus, I am not bound by either Ms. Lu's interpretations or Ms. Shen's interpretations. See Casses v. Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, 2015, BCSC 2150, at para. 326. [180] Ms. Lu has not pleaded either inferential meanings or any legal innuendo meanings. Based on Ms. Lu's pleadings, she asserts only that the literal meanings of the words are defamatory. Ms. Shen, on the other hand, in her amended counterclaim, pleads inferential meanings of statements she claims were published by Ms. Lu and asserts that those are defamatory. [181] Once defamatory meaning is established, the plaintiff must go on to prove that the impugned words are of or concerning him or her. This is a factual question. Where the plaintiff is not specifically named, the question is: would the statements lead reasonable people who know the plaintiff to conclude that they refer to the plaintiff? An immediate suspicion on a recipient's part is insufficient. The test is whether the recipient would, in light of the surrounding circumstances, reasonably believe that the person referred to in the defamatory statements is the plaintiff. A series of defamatory statements may be considered together when determining whether a particular

defamatory statement refers to the plaintiff without naming him or her. Moreover, where more than one defamatory article is published by the same person, the court may look at all related articles in considering whether the impugned words in a particular article refer to the plaintiff. See Weaver v. Corcoran, at paras. 84-85 and 98. [182] Finally, the plaintiff must prove publication. It must be established that the defendant has, by any act, conveyed the defamatory meaning concerning the plaintiff to a third party, who has received it. See Weaver v. Corcoran, at para.

86. Whereas defamatory words contained in a newspaper or a broadcast are deemed to be published pursuant to Libel and Slander Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 263, there is no such presumption in relation to allegedly defamatory material published on the internet: see Crookes v. Newton, 2011 SCC 47, at para. 14; and Hee Creations, at para.

76. Thus, while the court cannot presume that allegedly defamatory material was "published" in the required sense, it is open to the court to draw an inference from the other available evidence that it was: see Hee Creations, at para. 78. [183] Where there are multiple publications, generally, each publication is a separate cause of action for which an action lies: see Rook v. Halcrow, 2019 BCSC 2253, at para.

24. However, as Madam Justice Dickson pointed out in Weaver v. Corcoran, at para. 83: [T]he circumstances in which multiple publications may be read together to determine allegedly defamatory meaning of impugned words are limited by logic, case law and the pleadings. In my view, where separate publications are pleaded as independent causes of action, absent referability or other inextricable linkage, the meaning of each should be determined independently, in the immediate context in which the words are used. [184] For the most part, based on the NCC and the particulars in Ms. Lu's Affidavit No. 3, Ms. Lu did not plead separate publications as individual defamatory expressions and separate causes of action. Rather, posts alleged to have been made by Ms. Shen tended to be treated globally. Ms. Shen, on the other hand, pleaded separate publications as independent causes of action. [185] Once a plaintiff proves the required elements in a defamation claim, the onus then shifts to the defendant to advance a defence in order to escape liability: see Grant, at para.

29. Examples of defences are fair comment, justification and responsible communication. Any defence must be properly pleaded. [186] A defendant claiming a defence of fair comment must satisfy the following test: (a) the comment must be on a matter of public interest; (b) the comment must be based on fact; (c) the comment, although it can include inferences of fact, must be recognisable as comment; (d) the comment must satisfy the following objective test: could any person honestly express that opinion on the proved facts? See WIC Radio Ltd. v. Simpson, 2008 SCC 40, at para.

28. Even though the comment satisfies the objective test, the defence can be defeated if the plaintiff proves that the defendant was actuated by express malice, and that this was the defendant's primary or predominant motive in publishing the comment: see WIC, at paras. 28 and 63. [187] Fair comment is a defence that protects defamatory criticisms or expressions of opinion. It does not protect defamatory statements of fact. In order to determine whether a defamatory imputation can be protected as fair comment, it must be initially determined whether it is comment upon given facts, or a statement of facts. The distinction is fundamental and must absolutely be made because an assertion of facts can never be defended as fair comment: see Ross v. New Brunswick Teachers' Assn., 2001 NBCA 62, at para. 55. [188] Justification is an absolute defence to defamation. It applies to statements of fact. It will succeed if the defendant proves, on a balance of probabilities, the substantial truth of what is alleged to be defamatory. See Casses, at para. 550. [189] Grant is the leading case on the defence of responsible communication. For the defence to apply, the publication must be on a matter of public interest. Second, the defendant must show that publication was responsible, in that he or she was diligent in trying to verify the allegation(s), having regard to all the relevant

circumstances. See Grant, at para. 98. [190] Chief Justice McLachlin summarized the more detailed elements of the defence, at para. 126: [126] The defence of public interest responsible communication is assessed with reference to the broad thrust of the publication in question. It will apply where: A. The publication is on a matter of public interest, and B. The publisher was diligent in trying to verify the allegation, having regard to: (a) the seriousness of the allegation; (b) the public importance of the matter; (c) the urgency of the matter; (d) the status and reliability of the source; (e) whether the plaintiff's side of the story was sought and accurately reported; (f) whether the inclusion of the defamatory statement was justifiable; (g) whether the defamatory statement's public interest lay in the fact that it was made rather than its truth ("reportage"); and (h) any other relevant circumstances. [191] Whether a publication is on a matter of public interest is for the trial judge to decide. The judge must determine whether the nature of the statement is such that protection may be warranted in the public interest. The judge's role at the gatekeeping stage is to determine whether the subject matter of the communication as a whole is one of public interest. The "public interest" is not synonymous with what interests the public. However, it is enough if some segment of

the community would have a genuine interest in receiving information on the subject. See Grant, at paras. 100-102. [192] Where liability has been established, and a defendant has not succeeded in making out a defence, the court must then consider remedies. [193] With respect to damages, Frankel J. A. explained in Best v. Weatherall, 2010 BCCA 202, beginning at para. 45: [45] Defamation is a strict liability tort and damages are presumed (except for slander that is not actionable per se): Grant v. Torstar Corp. at para. 28; Hill v. Church of Scientology of Toronto, [1995] 2 S.C.R. 1130 at para. 164; R.E. Brown, The Law of Defamation in Canada, 2nd ed., looseleaf (Toronto: Carswell, 1999), vol. 3 at 25-2, 25-3. Compensatory damages, both general and special, and punitive damages are available in a defamation action. [46] There are many different statements intended to capture the difficulty of assessing the quantum of damages in defamation cases. It has been said that the calculation of damages for defamation is speculative and an inexact science, that there is no objective measure, and that damages need not be calculated mathematically. Further, although damages for defamation are difficult to assess, courts should sensibly and rationally attempt to arrive at a monetary sum that will compensate the plaintiff appropriately, i.e., achieve restitutio in integrum. Such an award

should provide "solatium, vindication and compensation": see Brown, The Law of Defamation, vol. 3 at 25-7 - 25-11. [47] In Hill v. Church of Scientology of Toronto, Mr. Justice Cory (at para. 182), referring to Gatley on Libel and Slander, 8th ed. (London: Sweet & Maxwell, 1981), endorsed the following factors as being relevant to the assessment of general damages for defamation: the conduct of the plaintiff, his position and standing; the nature of the libel; the mode and extent of publication; the absence or refusal of any retraction or apology; the conduct of the defendant from the time of publication to the time of verdict; the conduct of the defendant before and after the action, and in court (including conduct of defendant's counsel); and evidence of aggravation or mitigation of damages. [194] The damages should allow for the reality that no apology, retraction or withdrawal can ever be guaranteed to completely undo the harm the defamation has done. However, regardless of the amount awarded, the mere grant of judgment in a defamation action will likely go some distance in restoring the reputation of the defamed individual. See Hee Creations, at para. 113. [195] Although damages are presumed once a cause of action for defamation is established, there is no corresponding presumption that damages must be substantial, nor is there a minimum floor for damages in defamation:

see Chase v. Anfinson, 2018 BCSC 856 at para. 140. [196] Injunctive relief may be appropriate, although, generally, it is not easy to obtain an injunction in response to a defamation claim, given the concern to protect free speech rights. However, the remedy is not impossible to obtain. Permanent injunctions have been ordered after findings of defamation where either: (1) there is a likelihood that the defendant will continue to publish defamatory statements despite the finding that she is liable to the plaintiff for defamation; or (2) there is a real possibility that the plaintiff will not receive any compensation, given that enforcement against the defendant of any damage award may not be possible. See, for example, Hunter Dickinson Inc. v. Butler, 2010 BCSC 939 at paras. 75-79; Griffin v. Sullivan, 2008 BCSC 827, at paras. 119-127; and Newman v. Halstead, 2006 BCSC 65 at paras. 297-301. (b) General comments [197] Based on the admissible evidence, I find that publication has been established by both Ms. Lu and Ms. Shen, and that the posts in issue (which I describe in detail below) were published on the Canadameet forum. With some exceptions, neither Ms. Lu nor Ms. Shen seriously disputed that the posts in issue made by one of them was "of or concerning" the other, so I will discuss that issue relatively briefly below. [198] The main areas of dispute are: whether the

statements were defamatory; whether any defences were made out; and, if liability for defamation is established, what is the appropriate remedy? I will deal with remedies in the section titled Remedies below. (c) Ms. Lu's defamation claims [199] Although Ms. Shen did not plead a limitation defence, I am treating all publications prior to April 13, 2014 (i.e., two years before the NCC was filed) as statute-barred under the Limitation Act. Despite what Ms. Lu asserts in her Affidavit No. 3 at para. 41, there is no satisfactory or reliable evidence that publications earlier than that date continued to be available on either of the forums (or elsewhere on the Internet) after that date. Accordingly, I am not persuaded that, as of April 13, 2014, the publications of either Ms. Shen or Ms. Lu prior to April 2014 continued to be available either on Canadameet or elsewhere on the Internet. In addition, there is some evidence from both Ms. Shen and Ms. Lu that earlier posts were deleted by forum administrators. [200] This ruling concerning the application of the limitation period is made in the unique circumstances of this case. [201] Ms. Shen has admitted using several different on-line IDs and making posts under those IDs. I find that, in posting on the two social media sites that are in issue in this action (Canadameet and Ourdream), Ms. Shen used the following IDs (in translation):

NiuMang, GenGen, Windgone and implacablefoe38. [202] Based on my discussion above (at paras. 80-84), the only defamation claims by Ms. Lu that are properly before me are those particularized in her Affidavit No. 3, Exhibits "D" and "E." Both Exhibit "D" and parts of Exhibit "E" are part of a series of 61 numbered posts that I find were made by Ms. Shen in late October and early November 2015, using the "implacablefor38" ID, and were published in November 2015 to Canadameet forum users. [203] The first of these posts (numbered 1) is at p. 17 of Exhibit "E" to Ms. Lu's Affidavit No.

3. The certified English translation (at p. 19) reads as follows [all sic]: 1) Foreword: Finally, I'm able to write a post with evidence and facts with such a calm and placid mood. This is the way I prefer. I don't like it at all when I had no option but to publish a post after being bothered and harassed by that Henan scammer. That was not my intention but rather something I had to do. This post records all the libellous statements this scammer had made about me and other cyber friends, and there's a part where it [she] brags about itself [herself] and its [her] son's prosperous future, plus some facts of its [her] fraudulent act in real life. Take a look if you have extra time and it will help you gain some knowledge, so that when you later on encounter a scammer, whether online or offline, your ability to recognize it will be enhanced dramatically. Ignore this if you don't have time, or you may use the shielding function available for the forum. It's only when I started to write this fact-based gossip post did I realize how difficult it is to collect evidence online. Many posts of argument between this woman38 and a few women have been deleted, so when it comes to the evidence of libels against other cyber friends, the evidence is on the weak side. This post only describes some examples that can be backed up by evidence. There are 61 posts in total. Posts No. 1-13 are

foreword. Starting from post No. 14, those are about how woman38 brilliantly brags about herself finding a professional job and how her story was revealed to be a lie. Starting from post No. 40, those posts describe how Bear38 deceives and swindles in real life. Starting from post no. 44, it's about its [her] son's prosperous future. And finally its [her] real living status is described. [204] The certified English translation of Post no. 5 in the series is at p. 22 of Exhibit "E" to Ms. Lu's Affidavit No. 3, and reads as follows (I have omitted some of the "pseudonyms" and redacted the name of Ms. Lu's son below) [all sic]: 5) forward This Bear38 has a real name of Lu Jing, Becky Lu was an English name (she) once used. Born in Henan province, (she) made a living in Shenzhen early on and once frequented the forum on tianya.com. (She) moved to Coquitlam of the Vancouver area from Shenzhen in 2005. (Her) first cyber name at iask.com was TU-BA-GE. As (she) bragged a lot on the immigrants' forum after landing here and was subsequently exposed to the very core by others. Then (she) had a big argument with me, so after that (she) did not dare to get on the forum in a fair and square way for a period of 4 years and had to use a pseudonym to harass me on this forum. SNOWBEAR888 is one of the hidden pseudonyms used to harass me. After the pseudonym SNOWBEAR888 was exposed in 2009, it

[she] used a series of pseudonyms [pseudonyms omitted] and currently uses 'Chui-Niu-Pi' to smear me and my family and son. I'll call it [her] Bear38 as it comes from SNOWBEAR888, so SB38 for short. It [she] has a substitute husband of the second marriage Hongyun Ke, Henry Ke, son [name redacted]. Below is a photo taken after SB38 just landed at age 38, now almost 50; . . . [205] Post No. 37 in this series is marked as Exhibit "D" to Ms. Lu's Affidavit No.

3. Ms. Lu says that, here, Ms. Shen posted defamatory comments about her, concerning how she had been divorced and abandoned by a prior husband. The certified English translation of this reads as follows (I have redacted the name of Ms. Lu's son below) [all sic]: 37) In 2010, its [her] son was admitted into an elite school. Bear38 was elated by that, and started to brag again It [she] thought it [she] could tell whatever tall tales it [she] wanted to because others wouldn't be able to find out. Fortunately I, Niu, is quite family with Pinetree Secondary School in Coquitlam. I got to know its [her] son's classmates. When I arrived at Pinetree Secondary, (as it [her] husband's last name is Ke), I tried to get information of a student whose last name is Ke, but nobody knew any student Ke who had been admitted into an elite school. Then I said, is there any student from Shenzhen? Someone told me the student from Shenzhen had a last name [name redacted]. When I confirmed that [name redacted] was indeed its [her] son, I almost fainted. This despicable shrew, when it [she] cursed me online over the past few years regarding the divorce, and being jilted by husband and mother-in-law, it was all reflections of her own life. It [she] loves to curse me saying I should be jilted by comparison, but actually it [she] is a slut who is jilted by [name redacted], a man who knew good from bad.

Have you guys ever seen anyone who's more shameless than this bitch!! [206] I find that Ms. Shen's words in these posts were defamatory of Ms. Lu. Saying that someone is a liar, a slut and a bitch, and someone who deceives and swindles others, would tend to lower that person's reputation in the eyes of a reasonable person. I find that Ms. Lu has proved the impugned words are of or concerning her. Indeed, in post no. 5, Ms. Shen identified Ms. Lu by name, and described one of the nicknames, "Bear38," she would use to refer to Ms. Lu. [207] Accordingly, I find that Ms. Lu has proved the required elements of her defamation claim in relation to these posts by Ms. Shen. [208] I turn then to Ms. Shen's defences: justification, fair comment and responsible communication. In my view, none of these defences can succeed. [209] Ms. Shen has failed to prove, by admissible evidence, that the gist or sting of her defamatory statements concerning Ms. Lu was substantially true. That Ms. Shen fervently believes in the truth of what she states in her posts is insufficient. Her recital in her posts of investigative steps she says she has taken to arrive at her conclusions is not admissible evidence to prove any of the facts or the truth of what Ms. Shen asserts. [210] In my opinion, neither Ms. Shen's fair comment defence nor her defence of responsible communication has been properly

pleaded. [211] However, even if that was not a problem, in my opinion, both Ms. Shen's defences of fair comment and responsible communication must fail based on the complete absence of any public interest in Ms. Shen's comments and communications concerning Ms. Lu. This is a personal feud between Ms. Lu and Ms. Shen that, regrettably, is being aired on social media. There is nothing that affects the public at large. [212] Accordingly, I find that Ms. Lu is entitled to a remedy. (d) Ms. Shen's defamation claims [213] As was the case with Ms. Shen, no limitation defence was pleaded by Ms. Lu. However, and for the reasons set out above in relation to Ms. Lu's defamation claims, I consider that any defamation claims by Ms. Shen based on publications alleged to have been made more than two years prior to April 13, 2016 to be statute-barred under the Limitation Act. Again, this ruling concerning application of the limitation period is made in the unique circumstances of this case. [214] Ms. Lu has admitted using several different on-line IDs and making posts under those IDs. I find that, in posting to Canadameet and Ourdream, Ms. Lu used the following IDs (in translation): Snowbear888; Chui Niu pi (sometimes ChuiNiuPi); Tubage and lubecky. [215] I turn then to Ms. Shen's claims that Ms. Lu made defamatory statements about her. I will use the amended counterclaim as a basic guide. (i)

Ms. Lu claimed that Ms. Shen's son was kicked out of school [216] In para. 7 of the amended counterclaim and para. 23 of her Affidavit No. 4, Ms. Shen asserts that on December 26, 2015, Ms. Lu "made a post that the Defendant's son had to [go] to China due to being kicked out of school . . . which leads to the defamatory innuendo that the Defendant and her son are failures and lack dignity." As I noted above, in the discussion of Ms. Shen's amended counterclaim, Ms. Shen cannot sue for wrongs done to her son. [217] The post is found at p. 101 of Exhibit 1 to Ms. Shen's Affidavit No.

4. It is shown as coming from the ID "ChuiNiuPi." The post was put to Ms. Lu on cross-examination, when she said that there was a problem with the translation. The English translation reads [all sic]: Is that you who found me tracking your son, so you (sent him) go back to China? In fact, he made trouble at school, so he was kicked out by the school. He went back to China, finding he cannot catch up, he came back again. [218] In my view, the words used in the post do not bear the defamatory meaning alleged by Ms. Shen, in relation to her, or any defamatory meaning. [219] Accordingly, I find that Ms. Shen has failed to show that she was defamed by this post. (ii) Ms. Lu claimed that Ms. Shen threatened to kill Ms. Lu [220] In para. 11 of the amended counterclaim and para. 30 of her Affidavit No. 4, Ms. Shen asserts that on November 13, 2014, Ms. Lu posted that Ms. Shen "has threatened to kill" Ms. Lu. Ms. Shen says that this statement was defamatory. [221] I was unable to locate a copy of such a post in the evidence tendered by Ms. Shen, and I find that Ms. Shen has failed to prove, on a balance of probabilities, that Ms. Lu made such a post. (iii) Ms. Lu stated that she wanted to make Ms. Shen "the most famous cheap woman" [222] In para. 12 of the amended counterclaim and para. 31 of her Affidavit No. 4, Ms. Shen asserts that on July 2, 2015, Ms. Lu, under the ID "I am GENGEN," stated that she wanted to make Ms. Shen the most famous cheap woman. [223] The post is found at p. 52 of Exhibit 1 to Ms. Shen's Affidavit No.

4. Although this post was not put to her on cross-examination, Ms. Lu admitted making the post on the following page, which has the same ID, and I find that Ms. Lu made the post found at p.

52. The post at p. 52 has been translated as follows [all sic]: Somebody is born with low status. (I) cannot make (her/him) awake by curses. For example, this woman from Shanghai, a poor cheap person, is looking for being cursed and beat. If someone knows her, just tells her. I keep cursing her on forum until she becomes the most famous cheap woman of Shanghai. [224] The screen-shot at the top of p. 52 has 4 photographs that appear to be of Ms. Shen, although Ms. Shen does not say that in her Affidavit. [225] I conclude that, in context, readers of Ms. Lu's post would understand that it is of or concerning Ms. Shen. [226] I find further that the natural and ordinary meaning of the words "most famous cheap woman" were defamatory of Ms. Shen and implied that Ms. Shen was famous for selling herself cheaply for sex. [227] Accordingly, Ms. Shen has established that she was defamed in this post by Ms. Lu. Ms. Lu has not raised any affirmative defences. Ms. Shen is therefore entitled to a remedy. (iv) November 2, 2015: Ms. Lu stated her mission to make Ms. Shen "the most famous loser more famous" [228] In para. 15 of the amended counterclaim, and para. 38 of her Affidavit No. 4, Ms. Shen asserts that on November 2, 2015, Ms. Lu posted that it was her mission to make Ms. Shen "the most famous loser more famous." This post is found at p. 73 of Exhibit 1 to Ms. Shen's Affidavit No. 4. [229] Ms. Lu admitted that she made the post, in Chinese, shown in the screenshot on p.

73. The post has been translated as follows [all sic]: Not boring. Making this Vancouver the most famous loser QinQin Shen more famous is my duty. [230] In my view, the words in this post ("most famous loser") are words that would tend to lower Ms. Shen's reputation in the eyes of a reasonable person and are defamatory of Ms. Shen. The post refers to her by name. Accordingly, Ms. Shen has established that she was defamed in this post by Ms. Lu. Ms. Lu has not pleaded any affirmative defences. [231] Ms. Shen has, therefore, established her defamation claim with respect to these words, and is entitled to a remedy. (v) On November 10, 2015, Ms. Lu stated Ms. Shen's former occupation as "laborer" [232] Further in para. 15 of her amended counterclaim, and para. 38 of her Affidavit No. 4, Ms. Shen asserts that in a post dated November 10, 2015, "the specific occupation stated by the Plaintiff was as a laborer, which is false and intended to portray the Defendant as lowly, and is thus defamatory." [233] The post is found at p. 84 of Exhibit 1 to Ms. Shen's Affidavit No. 4, and is shown as being published by "Chui Niu Pi," one of Ms. Lu's IDs. The English translation of the post reads [all sic]: QinQin Shen, your WeiHuang, graduated from JiaoTong University in 89, then betrayed the state-owned enterprise and went to Mitsubishi Corporation. You also worked as a warehouse staff in FuJi

Xerox for a few days. I keep the secret for your, you are satisfied, aren't you? [234] In my view, the post does not bear the meaning alleged by Ms. Shen. Moreover, in my view, describing someone as a labourer is not defamatory, in its natural and ordinary meaning. [235] According, I find that Ms. Shen has failed to make out her claim with respect to this post. (vi) Ms. Lu published a post stating that Ms. Shen was the "worst scum" and her family was "garbage" [236] In para. 16 of the amended counterclaim and para. 41 of her Affidavit No. 4, Ms. Shen says that on December 26, 2015, Ms. Lu published a post stating that Ms. Shen was "the worst scum and her whole family was garbage." [237] The post is found at p. 94 of Exhibit 1 to Ms. Shen's Affidavit No.

4. The ID is translated as "ChuiNiuPi," one of Ms. Lu's IDs. The translation of the post reads [all sic]: Ten years ago I discriminated you. The fact is all the people in your family are garbage. The man is useless, cannot take care of the wife. The son is an underachiever. You are the worst scum. [238] In my view, Ms. Lu's words, namely, "garbage" and "the worst scum" are defamatory. [239] However, there is nothing in this post that identifies Ms. Shen, or that indicates that it is referring to her. Context, if available, might do that. However, Ms. Shen does not provide such context either in the facts alleged in her amended counterclaim or in her affidavit evidence. I am unable to conclude that a reasonable person, who knew Ms. Shen, would conclude that the post refers to her. I am not in a position to conclude that the feud between Ms. Lu and Ms. Shen was so notorious on Canadameet that a reasonable person would conclude that whenever Ms. Lu said something about someone that tended to lower the reputation of Ms. Lu's target in the eyes of a reasonable person, she was speaking of Ms. Shen. In my opinion, the facts that the post comes from an ID used by Ms. Lu, that Ms. Lu and Ms. Shen are feuding with one another, and that Ms. Shen believes she is the target are not enough to establish this part of Ms. Shen's claim. [240] I conclude that Ms. Shen has failed to make out her claim with respect to this post. (vii) Ms. Lu stated that Ms. Shen and her son were "homeless dogs" [241] In para. 18 of the amended counterclaim and para. 43 of her Affidavit No. 4, Ms. Shen asserts that on January 6, 2017, Ms. Lu called Ms. Shen and her son "homeless dogs" and posted their pictures. [242] The post is found at p. 121 of Exhibit 1 to Ms. Shen's Affidavit No.

4. The screen-shot is dated January 6, 2017, and the ID of the poster is shown as "ChuiNiuPi," one of Ms. Lu's on-line IDs. The English translation of the post reads [the name of Ms. Shen's son has been redacted; all sic]: Remember, this pair of homeless dogs, the old one is 50 years old QinQin Shen, the little is [redacted], Michaels [redacted] Might be your relatives by marriage, or maybe your friend's relative by marriage in the future. [243] I find that Ms. Lu made this post, and that the words "homeless dogs" were defamatory of Ms. Shen, who is referred to by name. [244] Accordingly, I find that Ms. Shen has established that she was defamed in this post by Ms. Lu. Ms. Lu has not pleaded any affirmative defences. [245] Ms. Shen has, therefore, established her defamation claim with respect to these words, and is entitled to a remedy. (viii) Ms. Lu stated that Ms. Shen was too poor to hire a lawyer and translator [246] In para. 18 of the amended counterclaim, Ms. Shen asserts that on October 10, 2017, Ms. Lu "stated that the Defendant did not reply to the Plaintiff's notice of civil claim due to too poor to hire a lawyer and translator" [all sic]. Ms. Shen asserts that this statement "is false and defamatory and intended to imply the Defendant's guilt and shamefulness." [247] The post is found at p. 123 of Ms. Shen's Affidavit No.

4. The English translation of the post reads [all sic]: Hai -----------------as you do not want to spend money hiring a lawyer and translator ------------------ That's why (you) did not respond. . . . . . If it does not cost money, only lie in teeth ---------------------- Then nobody can lie over you in the world ------------------ [248] In my view, the post does not bear the defamatory meaning alleged by Ms. Shen or any defamatory meaning. It does not support a claim by Ms. Shen for defamation. (ix) Ms. Lu stated that Ms. Shen sleeps around and does odd jobs [249] In para. 18 of the amended counterclaim, Ms. Shen asserts that in a post dated January 2, 2018, Ms. Lu stated that "the defendant sleeps around and does odd job, no house, no car, no husband, which is false and defamatory" [all sic]. The post is found at p. 126 of Ms. Shen's Affidavit No.

4. The English translation reads [all sic]: Only this so called office clerk QinQinShen worked in a joint venture company, now still working for odd job. Living alone, no house, no car, no husband Today leaves, tomorrow find another one --------------can sleep with anybody ---------------- [250] The post is shown as being made by the ID ChuiNiuPi, which Ms. Lu has admitted is one of her online IDs. I conclude on the basis of the ID that the post was published by her. [251] I find that the words "can sleep with anybody" bears the inferential meaning pleaded by Ms. Shen ("sleeps around") and is defamatory. As Ms. Shen is referred to by name, there is no doubt that the words are about her. [252] Accordingly, I find that Ms. Shen has established that she was defamed in this post by Ms. Lu. Ms. Lu has not pleaded any affirmative defences. [253] Ms. Shen has, therefore, established her defamation claim with respect to these words, and is entitled to a remedy.

6. Claims for intentional infliction of emotional distress and under the Privacy Act (a) Introduction [254] Both Ms. Lu and Ms. Shen assert that the other is liable for damages for intentional infliction of emotional distress or mental suffering, and for breach of privacy under the Privacy Act. [255] In my opinion, and although (as I noted above) neither Ms. Lu nor Ms. Shen pleaded any limitation defences, the conduct each described from the previous decade cannot provide the foundation for a valid cause of action in the context of this action. However, I have considered it as part of the overall history of the relationship between these two women in the context of their claims against each other for intentional infliction of emotional distress and under the Privacy Act. [256] Moreover, and for the reasons I set out above, I have not considered the very large volume of exhibits and pages attached to the parties' affidavits as part of their defamation claims. However, I have considered that material in the context of Ms. Lu's and Ms. Shen's mutual claims for intentional infliction of emotional distress and under the Privacy Act. (b) Intentional infliction of emotional distress [257] To make out a cause of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress, a plaintiff must demonstrate conduct that is (1) flagrant and extreme, (2) plainly calculated to produce harm, and

which (3) results in visible and provable illness. See Rahemtulla v. Vanfed Credit Union, 1984 CanLII 689 (BCSC), at paras. 52-56; and also Merrifield v. Canada (Attorney General), 2019 ONCA 205, at para. 45. [258] In their social media communications, both of these women, for reasons that remain largely a mystery, have demonstrated conduct that is flagrant and extreme. Indeed, much of it could be described as obsessive and bordering on the irrational. Each of them claims that the behaviour of the other has inflicted serious harm on her. However, neither recognizes that they are, in many respects, mirror images of one another, and that each of them engages in the very conduct she finds so distressing coming from the other person. Instead, each of them seeks to justify her own conduct as an appropriate response to being attacked and harassed by the other. [259] I will provide a few examples. [260] In a post dated November 2, 2015 (Ms. Shen's Affidavit No. 4, Exhibit 1 p. 68) that Ms. Lu admits she made (although in her evidence, she indicated that not all of her post had been translated), she said (as translated): Taking a knife and down it goes, [name of Ms. Shen's son redacted] is chopped, and put oil on him, ha. [261] Ms. Shen took this as a threat to her son's life. [262] Also in 2015, Ms. Lu admits she posted the following message (found at Ms. Shen's Affidavit No. 4

Exhibit 1 p. 56; as translated): Ok, I will spend another 10 years, my next goal is to let the epilepsy [a reference to Ms. Shen's son] child never get married. [263] Ms. Lu also posted this message (found at Ms. Shen's Affidavit No. 4, Exhibit 1 p. 57; as translated): In short, loose woman, Qin Qin Shen you listen carefully If you are too curious about other people's way of living, you will pay [with] your life. Whether you understand of not, after all, you won't have many more years to live. [264] According to Ms. Shen, she took this last message as a threat to her life. [265] On the other hand, according to Ms. Lu, in 2015 Ms. Shen stalked her and documented details about her daily schedule, which Ms. Shen then posted (together with photographs) on Canadameet. In the post, Ms. Shen described Ms. Lu as having (as translated) "the look of a shrew and bitch." In addition to the 61 posts in October and November 2015, Ms. Shen began another series of posts about Ms. Lu on March 3, 2016, under the ID "Windgone." It began (in translation): This thread will be completed in 3 days. Around 15 [posts] each day. Take the spot first, all the information is in the computer. For the sake of security, I don't want to post any article online from my computer at home. Tomorrow morning, I'll carry around my computer and go outside to post my article. Originally I wrote 50 posts in this thread,

but ended at 40 something, because BEAR called the police on me to prevent me from posting more. . . . [266] In many posts in 2015 and into 2016, Ms. Shen persistently targeted Ms. Lu's son. Based on the contents of her posts, Ms. Shen felt driven to communicate with his high school and Harvard concerning him, in an attempt to justify her views about Ms. Lu. This is extreme and alarming conduct. In my opinion, it can only have been done to hurt Ms. Lu. [267] Most regrettably, Ms. Lu also targeted Ms. Shen's son. A couple of Ms. Lu's posts in that respect are set out above. Ms. Lu posted photographs of Ms. Shen's son next to images of a cartoon pig. She referred to him as the "epilepsy child," something that Ms. Shen says is false. Ms. Lu's conduct can only have been done to hurt Ms. Shen. [268] Ms. Shen frequently expressed her outrage at the education consulting business carried on by Ms. Lu and her husband. In January 2017, Ms. Shen posted (under the ID Windgone) that (in translation) she had "already said everything I wanted to say" and that when the "evil person" (i.e., Ms. Lu) came to the forum "to pick a fight, I am not going to respond." However, Ms. Shen could not contain herself. In later posts, often in relation to events in this action, Ms. Shen described Ms. Lu as a "fraudster" and someone who was "lying to the court," while Ms. Shen was telling the truth. [269] In

their affidavit evidence, each of Ms. Lu and Ms. Shen describe the stress and emotional toll the conduct of the other has taken on her. For example, Ms. Lu described herself as not feeling safe and suffering great mental stress. Ms. Shen described the fear she felt for her son, and that she herself felt deeply depressed and that she could not have a normal life. [270] There is no social utility in the communications Ms. Lu and Ms. Shen have posted. It is difficult to imagine that anyone, apart from Ms. Lu and Ms. Shen themselves, cares whether Ms. Lu is right or Ms. Shen is right, or cares about Ms. Lu's and Ms. Shen's opinions about one another. However, based on the evidence I have before me, I find that each woman feels bullied, abused and harassed by the other. Their posted communications are, in my view, plainly calculated to harm the other person, and cause that person mental and emotional distress. [271] I turn then to the third element that must be proved: that the conduct results in visible and provable illness. [272] In my opinion, neither Ms. Lu nor Ms. Shen has satisfied her evidentiary burden on this element. Although medical evidence is not essential (see, for example, Rahemtulla, at para. 53), I have no independent or objective evidence from anyone. The evidence from each of Ms. Lu and Ms. Shen is, for the most part, conclusory and self-interested. I accept that

Ms. Lu's and Ms. Shen's interactions with one another, spanning more than a decade, have been unpleasant and very upsetting to both of them. However, to make out a claim for intentional infliction of emotional suffering, a plaintiff must demonstrate "visible and provable illness". Neither Ms. Lu nor Mr. Shen have done that, in my opinion. [273] The result is that both Ms. Lu's and Ms. Shen's claims for intentional infliction of emotional distress must fail. (c) The Privacy Act claims [274] The Privacy Act provides, in relevant part, as follows: Violation of privacy actionable 1 (1) It is a tort, actionable without proof of damage, for a person, wilfully and without a claim of right, to violate the privacy of another. (2) The nature and degree of privacy to which a person is entitled in a situation or in relation to a matter is that which is reasonable in the circumstances, giving due regard to the lawful interests of others. (3) In determining whether the act or conduct of a person is a violation of another's privacy, regard must be given to the nature, incidence and occasion of the act or conduct and to any domestic or other relationship between the parties. (4) Without limiting subsections (1) to (3), privacy may be violated by eavesdropping or surveillance, whether or not accomplished by trespass. Exceptions 2 . . . (2) An act or conduct is not a violation of privacy if any

of the following applies: (a) it is consented to by some person entitled to consent; . . . (3) A publication of a matter is not a violation of privacy if (a) the matter published was of public interest or was fair comment on a matter of public interest, . . . . . . (4) Subsection (3) does not extend to any other act or conduct by which the matter published was obtained if that other act or conduct was itself a violation of privacy. [275] "Wilfully" has been interpreted as meaning "an intention to do an act which the person doing the act knew or should have known would violate the privacy of another person": see Watts v. Klaemt, 2007 BCSC 662, at para. 16. [276] In St. Pierre v. Pacific Newspaper Group Inc. and Skulsky, 2006 BCSC 241, Rice J. discussed what is meant by "privacy," at paras. 40-42: [40] As to what is meant by "privacy", in Davis v. McArthur (1969), 10 D.L.R. (3d) 250, 72 W.W.R. 69 (B.C.S.C.), Seaton J. cited definitions from American case law and the Shorter Oxford English Dictionary, at p. 1586, which defined privacy as "[t]he state or condition of being withdrawn from the society of others, or from public interest; seclusion." [41] Although the judgment was reversed in the result at the Court of Appeal [(1970), 17 D.L.R. (3d) 760, [1971] 2 W.W.R. 142 (B.C.C.A.)], Seaton J.'s approach to this issue was approved. The Court of Appeal found that the definition of the "Right of Privacy" in Black's Law Dictionary, 4th ed., (St. Paul: West Pub Co., 1951), was "useful" and "largely consonant" with the provisions of the Privacy Act. Black's provides as follows: The right to be let alone, the right of a person to be free from unwarranted publicity. Holloman v. Life Ins. Co. of Virginia, 192 S.C. 454, 7 S.E. 2d 169, 171, 127 A.L.R.

110. The right of an individual (or corporation) to withhold himself and his property from public scrutiny, if he so chooses. It is said to exist only as far as its assertion is consistent with law or public policy, and in a proper case equity will interfere, if there is no remedy at law, to prevent an injury threatened by the invasion of, or infringement upon, this right from motives of curiosity, gain or malice. Federal Trade Commission v. American Tobacco Co., 44 S.Ct. 336, 264 U.S. 298, 68 L.Ed. 696, 32 A.L.R. 786. [42] The Privacy Act does not grant an absolute right to privacy. The right is restricted to "that which is reasonable" as indicated in § 1 set out above. [277] What is "private," is not open to or shared with or known to the public. [278] Ms. Lu and Ms. Shen each claim that the other violated her privacy in a variety of ways. [279] For example, Ms. Lu says that Ms. Shen has violated her privacy by (among other things): stalking Ms. Lu and posting details on Canadameet concerning Ms. Lu's daily schedule; posting photographs of Ms. Lu taken without Ms. Lu's authorization; repeatedly threatening in 2015 to reveal personal information about Ms. Lu; and publishing the 61 posts in October and November 2015. [280] On the other hand, Ms. Shen asserts that Ms. Lu has violated her privacy by (among other things): publishing in November 2015 private information about Ms.

Shen's job history taken from her resume (which Ms. Shen asserts Ms. Lu obtained as a result of fraud); and by stalking Ms. Shen. [281] I have concluded that, in the unique context of this case, the right to privacy includes the right to be left alone and to be shielded from unwanted contact by or from another person. In that context, in my opinion, the conduct that I have described above in the discussion of the parties' mutual claims for intentional infliction of emotional distress, which is but a small sampling of the conduct detailed in the evidence, is sufficient to justify the conclusion that each of Ms. Lu and Ms. Shen has, over a period of years, breached the other's privacy. While the evidence was insufficient to show "visible and provable illness" for the purposes of the claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress, the tort of breach of privacy is actionable without proof of damage. [282] Of course, the relationship between Ms. Lu and Ms. Shen began, and has persisted, as a result of their participation in social media, and specifically the Canadameet forum. Individuals who participate in social media are making information public, and, as both Ms. Lu and Ms. Shen have learned to their regret, inviting interaction with others, whether they want it or not. The interaction can be pleasant and benign, or it can be very unpleasant and hurtful. [283] There are

costs to wanting to be left alone and maintain one's privacy. One of the costs is refraining from participation in social media. [284] Both Ms. Lu and Ms. Shen seek privacy, especially from the other. To maintain privacy, their behaviour has to change. Ms. Shen, for example, complained that, in this litigation, she was being forced to "seal" her mouth, implying that she should be able to say whatever she wants whenever she wants and however she wants, without consequences. For Ms. Shen to say that she was forced to "seal" her mouth was a gross exaggeration. There were simply court-ordered limits on what she could say on social media, and the same limits applied to Ms. Lu. More importantly, Ms. Shen cannot expect to be shielded from unwanted behaviour or from breaches of her privacy - relief she is asking the court to grant for her - without at the same time modifying her own behaviour. The same is true for Ms. Lu. [285] I conclude, therefore, that, in the unique circumstances of this case, each of Ms. Lu and Ms. Shen has shown that the other has violated and breached her privacy.

7. Remedies [286] I have found that each of Ms. Shen and Ms. Lu is liable to the other for defamation, and that each breached the other's privacy. What then should be the remedy or remedies? [287] While, in a defamation claim, a plaintiff is not required to prove a specific financial loss, in this case, in addition to general damages, Ms. Lu also seeks compensation for what she claims is the loss on the sale of her coffee shop business, "Orphan Annie's," which she says she was "compelled" to sell as a consequence of Ms. Shen's conduct. Ms. Lu asserts in her Affidavit No. 3 that this loss should be assessed at about $40,000, based on what Ms. Lu says is the difference between the original purchase of $60,000 and the sale price of $21,250. However, once again, Ms. Lu's evidence to support this part of her claim is simply conclusory, and I can give it little weight. I am not persuaded that Ms. Shen's conduct in fact caused either the sale or any loss. [288] Ms. Lu also seeks compensation for what she asserts are losses in connection with the business she and her husband carry on as educational consultants. Like Ms. Lu's claim in connection with her coffee shop, Ms. Lu has failed to show either (a) any quantified losses from that business, or (b) that, even if there are losses, they are causally connected to any wrongful conduct on the part of Ms. Shen. [289] I turn then to the

assessment of general damages for defamation. [290] In my view, based on the authorities concerning damages in defamation claims, discussed above under Basic legal principles, the damages here should be relatively modest. [291] I note the absence of any apology from either Ms. Lu or Ms. Shen. Ms. Shen in particular was persistent in continuing to post on social media after this action was started and she was served, and despite the terms of the Watchuk Order and Matthews Order. There is no proof of what impact the defamatory posts had on the reputations of either Ms. Lu or Ms. Shen, apart from their own beliefs and opinions. Neither Ms. Lu nor Ms. Shen has presented any reliable evidence of actual harm to her reputation, such as might justify a substantial award. On the other hand, the scope of publication was significant, based on the popularity of the Canadameet forum. In my view, a nominal award would be inadequate, and a reasonable, although modest award, is necessary to vindicate each of Ms. Lu and Ms. Shen and as consolation for their hurt feelings. [292] Accordingly, in respect of the defamation claims, I award general damages in the sum of $5,000 to each of Ms. Lu and Ms. Shen. [293] Damages for breach of privacy can be very modest, or quite substantial, depending on the circumstances and the evidence presented. Some breaches, for example, unauthorized and malicious

disclosure on the Internet of private and sensitive medical information, can result in great harm and merit a substantial award to denounce and deter such misconduct. However, other breaches, for example, unauthorized reading of a letter about a business matter, may justify only nominal damages. [294] In my view the most significant factors here are: the effect of the breach on each of Ms. Lu and Ms. Shen, in particular the mental and emotional distress each says she has suffered as a result of the conduct of the other; the lack of any apology from either of them; and Ms. Shen's persistent posting on the forum after she was served with the NCC. [295] For breach of privacy, I award Ms. Lu additional damages in the sum of $4,000 and Ms. Shen additional damages in the sum of $3,500. [296] I turn finally to the question whether other orders should be made. In my view, they should. [297] I note that both Ms. Lu and Ms. Shen sought injunctions against the other, prohibiting either of them from publishing any defamatory words, in any public forum or social media, against the other or members of her family. The terms of the order that I pronounced at the end of trial were broader, and prohibited the publication of any words in any public forum or social media against or of or concerning the other or any of her family members. [298] In my opinion, given the history between the parties,

and the conclusions I have reached on the merits of the claims, an injunction in substantially the terms of the order I pronounced on October 4, 2019 is both appropriate and necessary to bring an end to this lengthy war, and as a means to modify the behaviour of both Ms. Lu and Ms. Shen toward each other, as well as to protect the privacy of each of them from unwanted intrusions from the other. [299] I therefore order that: (a) subject to paras. (b) and (c): (i) the plaintiff, Jing Lu, shall refrain from directly or indirectly making, publishing, disseminating or broadcasting any words in any public forum or social media, including Canadameet.com and Ourdream.com, either against or of and concerning the defendant, Catherine Shen, or any family member of Catherine Shen; (ii) the defendant, Catherine Shen, shall refrain from directly or indirectly making, publishing, disseminating or broadcasting any words in any public forum or social media, including Canadameet.com and Ourdream.com, either against or of and concerning the plaintiff, Jing Lu, or any family member of Jing Lu; (b) the plaintiff, Jing Lu, and the defendant, Catherine Shen, are permitted to publish in a public forum or social media, including Canadameet.com and Ourdream.com, the statement set out in Appendix "A"; (c) the order in para. (a) expires one year after the date it is pronounced, that is, the date of these

Reasons, unless extended by further court order. [300] I order further that, by August 31, 2020, and except for the statement in Appendix "A": (a) Ms. Lu take reasonable steps to remove from any public forum or social media, including Canadameet.com and Ourdream.com, all posts she has made or published either against or of and concerning Ms. Shen or any members of Ms. Shen's family; and (b) Ms. Shen take reasonable steps to remove from any public forum or social media, including Canadameet.com and Ourdream.com, all posts she has made or published either against or of and concerning Ms. Lu or any members of Ms. Lu's family.

8. Summary and disposition [301] In summary: (a) I award damages to Ms. Lu in the sum of $9,000; (b) I award damages to Ms. Shen in the sum of $8,500; (c) I make the additional orders set out in paras. 299 and 300 above. [302] The parties are entitled to interest pursuant to the Court Order Interest Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 79. [303] I am directing that if, by May 31, 2020, a draft of the formal order resulting from these Reasons for Judgment has not been submitted by the parties for my review, settlement (if necessary) and signature, then the draft formal order be prepared by the registrar of the court, and the approval of the form of order by the parties is dispensed with. [304] With respect to costs, subject to any submissions the parties may wish to make, I consider that neither party has been substantially successful, and therefore I make no order with respect to costs. If the parties wish to make submissions concerning costs, I direct that submissions be made in writing. The written submissions of each party shall be no more than 10 pages, double-spaced and using a font size no smaller than 12 point (except for quotations). Any affidavit evidence shall be limited to 20 pages, including exhibits. Ms. Lu's material shall be filed and served by not later than June 15, 2020. Ms. Shen's material shall be filed and served by not later than June 30, 2020. "Adair, J." Appendix

"A" Judgment was issued on April 1, 2020 by the Supreme Court of British Columbia in the legal proceedings between Jing Lu (Plaintiff) and Qinqin Shen aka Qin Qin Shen aka Catherine Shen (Defendant). The Reasons for Judgment are indexed at 2020 BCSC 490, and can be found on the Court's website. By court order, no other statement will be made by either the Plaintiff or the Defendant concerning these legal proceedings.