B.C. business' lawsuit against client who posted negative Google review allowed to proceed

A bad review on Google is the subject of a B.C. court case. (Image credit: Shutterstock)

A B.C. judge has decided to let a jury decide whether a single, negative online review of a dentistry practice was defamation, dismissing a bid to have the lawsuit tossed.

In a decision posted online last week, Justice Gordon S. Funt outlined his reasons for letting the case proceed.

The civil claim was brought by Smiley Kids Dental and Dr. Edward Chin and concerns a Google review posted in 2020.

"Dr. Chin had horrible customer service and treated our child with (zero) care. Very unimpressed,” it read.

The defendants, William Huang and Sophia Nim applied to have the case dismissed under Supreme Court Civil Rule 9-5, which allows the court to dismiss all or part of a claim that has no reasonable prospect of success.

At this stage in the process, Funt explained, the issue before him was only to decide whether the statement is "capable of being defamatory” and not whether it actually was.

"If the test is met, then the applications must be dismissed. It cannot be said that the plaintiffs’ claim is bound to fail," he wrote.

Funt explained that defamation is defined in law as published words that negatively impact one's reputation or expose someone to "hatred, contempt or ridicule."

The defendants argued that the review was not defamatory because "negative reviews for almost any business are common" and the post in question was "short, vague, subjective, and did not connote an ongoing problem," according to the decision.

The test, Funt explained, requires the court to decide how a "reasonable, right-thinking person" would interpret the words. The fact that Chin was named and that the dental practice's customer service was disparaged was enough to satisfy that criterion, he ruled.

"In my view, a reasonable, right-thinking person would not view the posting as silly, vague, vacuous, or just part of the uncouthness and boorishness frequently seen on the Internet," Funt wrote, adding that the review could lead to a negative perception of the practice among prospective clients.

The decision did not provide details on what damages are being sought. While the case could still be settled out of court, Funt's decision said "the collective wisdom of a jury is particularly well-suited to make the determination."