Online review costs commenter $3,000

A Google review, a car crash, and a Coquitlam countertop company were at the centre of a $105,000 defamation suit recently heard in B.C. Supreme Court.

Pacific Granite Manufacturing Ltd., which builds and installs granite, marble and stone countertops, was the subject of a negative online review following a car crash involving a neighbour and a company employee.

Hyungdong Lee, who worked in the neighbourhood, stated that a Pacific Granite employee drove a white Impala into his parked car and fled the scene in October 2021.

Nader Tabrizi, a co-owner of Pacific Granite, testified that he met with Lee and told him the Impala was owned by one of his employees but the car wasn’t used for business. He told Lee the name of the employee, said the collision had nothing to do with Pacific Granite, and advised Lee to contact ICBC.

Lee stated that he met with a representative of Pacific Granite who denied one of their employees was involved in the collision.

Lee posted a review advising readers to “never do business” with Pacific Granite, said it was a “shame” that people like that work in the area, and described the car crash and its aftermath. Lee wrote: “the boss and the staff here lied to the end.”

He also uploaded three photographs including a picture of an RCMP vehicle in the area, a picture of the rear of an Impala, and the premises of Pacific Granite.

The review was up for about five months until a Pacific Granite employee informed Tabrizi, who subsequently went to Lee’s workplace and asked him to take down the post.

After Tabrizi was “rudely rebuffed,” a lawyer for Pacific Granite demanded Lee remove the post and replace it with an apology.

Lee altered and then eventually removed the Google Review but left the photographs. He published another account of the car crash on Pacific Granite’s Google.com webpage; writing that he was going to be sued by the company.

Pacific Granite contended the reviews “meant or implied” the company couldn’t be trusted and conducted business in a: “shameful, dishonourable, dishonest, unlawful and criminal manner.”

The company sought a total of $105,000 as well as injunction that would prohibit Lee from posting more comments online about the collision or the litigation.

Lee didn’t appear at trial and, except for a response to the plaintiffs’ claim, didn’t participate in the litigation.

Pacific Granite emphasized the competitiveness of the industry, with Tabrizi testifying the company competes with about 20 other countertop suppliers for a typical highrise contract. Tabrizi also noted that, based on Google reports, the company’s Google.com page picked up about 357 views per month.

The first post, which accused the company’s boss and staff of lying to the end, was defamatory as it would lower the company’s reputation in the eyes of a reasonable person, ruled Justice Andrew Mayer.

However, other sections of the online review, such as the use of the phrase “It’s a shame, that people and employees like you work close to our company,” didn’t qualify as defamation, according to Mayer.

Rather than a statement that the company is shameful in its conduct, the phrase could be interpreted as it’s too bad or it’s unfortunate, Mayer concluded.

Mayer also didn’t agree with the argument that the series of photographs indicated a coverup of the car crash or a criminal investigation.

“In my view, this is not a conclusion a reasonable and right-thinking reader would make,” Mayer wrote, adding: “it is an extreme stretch to conclude that a reasonable person would conclude that the RCMP were investigating unlawful conduct by the plaintiffs.”

Lee’s statement that he was going to be sued by the company is also not necessarily something that would injure the Pacific Granite’s reputation.

“In my view, it is possible that a right-thinking reader would not know what to make of this comment,” Mayer wrote.

Ultimately, Mayer found there was no evidence the Google Review led to any “significant or ongoing distress” to the company owners.

“As well there is no evidence establishing a negative impact on the business reputations of any of the plaintiffs,” Mayer wrote, noting there was no evidence from customers, staff or suppliers.

Mayer also noted that Tabrizi didn’t know about the review until an employee brought it to his attention.

“This does not lead to a conclusion that a large number of people doing business with Pacific Granite read this publication,” Mayer wrote.

Awarding general damages is, “more in the nature of a prophylactic than compensatory remedy,” Mayer wrote, explaining that the primary goal was to deter Lee and others from making similar posts.

Mayer awarded $1,000 to co-owner Alireza Beittoei and $2,000 to Tabrizi, whom Mayer noted suffered a greater “defamatory sting” as the face of the company.

Mayer decided not to grant an injunction that would’ve stopped Lee from posting more online comments about the company.

In explaining his decision, Mayer noted a case involving the Church of Scientology where an injunction was granted because the judge found no amount of punitive damages would stop the church from publishing defamatory statements about the plaintiff.

However, in this case there was no indication Lee had published anything about the company since March 2022.

“Nor is there any indication that he will do so after this judgment is released,” Mayer added.