B.C. judges denies bid to delete ‘manifestly defamatory’ TikTok videos before trial | CBC News

A B.C. Supreme Court judge has denied a Surrey veterinary hospital’s application for an interim injunction to remove or delete TikTok videos before a trial that the hospital claims are defamatory.

It’s the latest development in the legal fight over a series of videos by Victoria Veira — including one that’s racked up over 800,000 views — that are highly critical of the Surrey Animal Hospital.

In the videos, Veira claims the vet mistreated her dog, Charlie, when he was neutered there and subsequently developed an infection in 2022. 

“I brought my dog to a slaughterhouse. OK, I didn’t say that. That’s mean. I’ll take that back. But I took him to a bad vet, that’s for sure,” she said in the video.

The clinic sued her for defamation, claiming the videos damaged the business’s reputation. The clinic said Charlie’s post-surgery infection was Veira’s responsibility, and it accused her of posting the videos knowing her story wasn’t true.

Veira, in her defence, claims her story is true and the clinic is the one attacking her reputation, not the other way around. She says her comments are also protected by the defence of “fair comment,” and the suit against her should be dismissed.

The claims have not been tested in court. Lawyers for both parties said Monday a settlement is possible before a trial.

In a decision posted Monday, Justice John Gibb-Carsely wrote that injunctions in defamation proceedings prior to a trial are only issued in the “rarest and clearest of cases,” and the speech must be both manifestly defamatory and impossible to defend.

The second part of the test, he said, was not met.

Judge refers to ‘gist’ or ‘sting’ of comments

On the first issue, Gibb-Carsely was unequivocal.

“I find that Ms. Veira’s reference to the Clinic as a “slaughterhouse” is manifestly defamatory, in that it would tend to lower the Clinic’s reputation in the eyes of a reasonable person,” but when deciding if a statement is impossible to defend, he wrote, “it is the ‘gist’ or ‘sting’ of the statement that must be assessed.”

“Clearly, the Clinic is not a ‘slaughterhouse.’ Use of that word alone, in its literal meaning, is indefensible. However, in my view, the gist or sting of Ms. Veira’s statement is that the clinic offers bad veterinary services.”

He added that Veira’s claims may be found defamatory at trial, but she could feasibly defend them.

“Given the importance of free speech, an injunction in the defamation context will not be granted unless it is the clearest of cases and the words complained of are impossible to justify.”

Growing defamation lawsuit trend

When reached Monday, a lawyer for Surrey Animal Hospital, Affan Bajwa, said his clients wished to highlight the judge determining that the words were defamatory.

Veira’s lawyer, Noah Abrahams, said in an emailed statement his client was pleased the judge did not grant the injunction.

“Ms. Veira’s only intention in posting the TikTok videos was to share her experiences with the public. She was diligent in verifying the truth of her statements before she made them, and there is plenty of evidence to support her position,” Abrahams wrote.

Legal experts have said the case adds to the growing trend of defamation lawsuits involving social media posts, with TikTok and its massive reach becoming a new venue for such cases.