The B.C. journalist whose home was targeted by 77 days of protests in 2020 has won his defamation case against the man who livestreamed the gatherings. In a decision issued Thursday, B.C. Supreme Court Justice Richard Hewson awarded Bing Chen Gao $275,000 in damages for the defamatory statements Yun Fei Zhu published about him. Movement led by convicted fraudster The protesters were supporters of Guo Wengui, also known as Miles Guo, who founded a group called the New Federal State of China with former Donald Trump advisor Steve Bannon. Hewson’s decision says the NFSC presented itself as “a political movement dedicated to replacing the (Chinese Communist Party) in China.” “It attracted supporters throughout the Chinese diaspora in various countries around the world and raised money through donations to a network of entities associated with Guo Wengui,” the decision reads. “Some viewed Guo Wengui as a courageous dissident exposing corruption, while others regarded him and the NFSC as unreliable, conspiratorial and cult‑like. Mr. Gao was publicly critical of Mr. Guo and the NFSC.” Gao, who moved to Canada in 2004 after years of involvement in the pro-democracy movement in China, was also an outspoken critic of the CCP, but the Guo supporters protesting outside his home accused him of being a spy for the party. Notably, Guo was convicted of fraud and money laundering offences in the U.S. in 2024. He was sentenced earlier this year to 30 years in prison. Sentencing Judge Analisa Torres said Guo “preyed on those seeking to bring democracy to China,” taking their money so he could live lavishly, and he had called upon supporters “to harass and intimidate those who dare to speak out against him.” Zhu told the court his involvement with the protests at Gao’s home ended after an assault on Gao’s friend Ning Yu Louis Huang in late November 2020. It resumed with a week of protests in January 2023, which Zhu livestreamed. Earlier this year, Huang was awarded more than $156,000 in a civil case against his assailants. Zhu was not involved in the assault. ‘Clearly defamatory’ Gao’s defamation lawsuit centred on Zhu’s responsibility for publishing his and other protesters’ statements via his livestreams, both in 2020 and in 2023. In video clips provided to the court and interpreted into English, Zhu and other protesters claimed Gao was a CCP spy, that he had received money from the party and not paid taxes, and had infiltrated pro-democracy activist circles in Canada to steal personal information and share it with the party, leaving him with “the blood of democracy activists” on his hands. A pamphlet distributed by Zhu and other protesters in 2023 read as follows, as quoted in the decision: “Gao disguises himself as an anti‑communism activist and has set up a special YouTube channel to spread false information on behalf of the CCP, steer public opinion, and defame real anti-communism activists and the Canadians who are against the CCP.” Gao argued that these statements were false and defamatory, while Zhu “maintained that his statements were made in good faith, in relation to matters of public interest and without malice,” according to the decision. Judges in defamation cases must first determine whether the allegedly defamatory statements were published and whether they clearly identified the subject of the defamation. Hewson had no trouble establishing that Zhu’s communications met these criteria. The judge also found that the statements were “clearly defamatory.” “A statement is defamatory if it tends to lower a person in the estimation of right-thinking members of society or exposes a person to hatred, contempt or ridicule,” the decision reads. “Statements that another person is a spy for foreign country and has gathered and passed on information about Canadians would clearly lower a person in the estimation of reasonable people and expose the person to hatred.” No defences for defamation Once a defamatory statement is established, it’s up to the person who made it to provide a valid defence. Zhu’s argument that he had made the defamatory statements “in good faith, in relation to matters of public interest and without malice” is the basis for a defence of “responsible communication.” Hewson rejected this defence, however, on the grounds that Zhu had “provided no evidence to establish the status and reliability of the online or personal sources of information that informed his statements.” “There is no suggestion that he even made any attempt to determine if the information was reliable,” the decision reads. “He was merely repeating defamatory statements made by others.” Moreover, there was no evidence that Zhu had made any effort to seek or accurately report Gao’s side of the story, according to the decision. Hewson similarly dismissed potential defences of “justification,” “fair comment” and “qualified privilege.” “To come within a defence of justification, Mr. Zhu must prove the truth of all the material statements,” the decision reads. “Truth is a complete defence to a claim of defamation. However, Mr. Zhu led no evidence that any of the statements he made and published in his livestream, in the pamphlets, or the defamatory statements of others were in any way true whatsoever.” Fair comment only applies to statements of opinion, not assertions of fact, and was therefore not available to Zhu, according to the decision. As for qualified privilege, which protects statements made “in discharging some moral, social or legal duty,” the judge explained that Zhu’s pursuit of such a defence would be undermined by the fact that he made his statements with “knowing or reckless disregard for the truth.” “In this case, the statements were so serious that they called out for enquiry,” the decision reads. “The absence of evidence of any effort to enquire into the truth of the statements, combined with the evident enthusiasm with which they were made and the efforts of Mr. Zhu visible on the video clips entered into evidence to organize and co-ordinate the protesters outside Mr. Gao’s home are more than sufficient evidence of malice.” Damages warranted Having established that the statements were defamatory and that no defences were available, Hewson considered whether to award damages. The judge found that Gao had not engaged in any conduct that would merit reducing the damages awarded to him. Hewson also concluded that Gao suffered “severe distress” as a result of the defamation. “His standing in the Chinese-Canadian community was destroyed,” the decision reads. “He is no longer able to participate in the community in the ways and to nearly the extent that he had in the past. He deserves to have his reputation vindicated. In my view, an award of $250,000 in general damages is appropriate.” The judge also awarded $25,000 in aggravated damages, which courts award when a defendant’s conduct has been “particularly high-handed or oppressive,” according to the decision. Hewson also ordered an injunction prohibiting Zhu from repeating the defamation in the future and ordered him to pay $5,000 in court costs to Gao. With files from The Canadian Press
