A B.C. journalist defamation lawsuit has ended in a major win for the reporter at the centre of it. The B.C. Supreme Court has awarded $275,000 in damages to journalist Bing Chen Gao, whose home was targeted by 77 days of protests back in 2020. Justice Richard Hewson delivered the ruling on Thursday against Yun Fei Zhu, the man who livestreamed the demonstrations.

The case closes a painful chapter for Gao, who endured months of public accusations outside his own front door. As a result, the court’s decision sends a clear message about the legal risks of spreading unverified claims online. Below, we break down how the protests began, why the court sided with Gao, and what the ruling means going forward.

A Movement Led by a Convicted Fraudster

The protesters who gathered outside Gao’s home were supporters of Guo Wengui, also known as Miles Guo. Guo founded a group called the New Federal State of China alongside former Donald Trump advisor Steve Bannon. According to Hewson’s decision, the NFSC presented itself as “a political movement dedicated to replacing the (Chinese Communist Party) in China.”

The group attracted a large following across the Chinese diaspora and raised funds through donations tied to a network of entities linked to Guo. However, opinions about Guo were sharply divided. “Some viewed Guo Wengui as a courageous dissident exposing corruption, while others regarded him and the NFSC as unreliable, conspiratorial and cult-like,” the decision states.

Gao had publicly criticized both Miles Guo and the NFSC. In turn, the protesters accused him of being a spy for the Chinese Communist Party. This accusation became the foundation of the entire defamation case.

Notably, Guo was convicted of fraud and money laundering in the United States in 2024. He was later sentenced to 30 years in prison. Sentencing Judge Analisa Torres said Guo “preyed on those seeking to bring democracy to China,” using their money to fund a lavish lifestyle while calling on supporters “to harass and intimidate those who dare to speak out against him.”

Court Finds the Statements Clearly Defamatory

Gao moved to Canada in 2004 after years of involvement in China’s pro-democracy movement. He remained an outspoken critic of the CCP throughout his life in Canada. Despite this, Guo’s supporters accused him of secretly working for the very government he opposed.

Zhu told the court his involvement paused after an assault on Gao’s friend, Ning Yu Louis Huang, in late November 2020. The protests then resumed in January 2023, a week he also livestreamed. Huang separately won more than $156,000 in a related civil case earlier this year, though Zhu was not involved in that assault.

Video clips submitted as evidence showed Zhu and other protesters claiming Gao was a CCP spy who received party money and avoided paying taxes. They further alleged he infiltrated pro-democracy circles in Canada to steal personal information and pass it to Beijing, leaving him with “the blood of democracy activists” on his hands. A pamphlet distributed in 2023 claimed Gao “disguises himself as an anti-communism activist” to “spread false information on behalf of the CCP” and “defame real anti-communism activists.”

Gao argued these statements were false and damaging to his reputation. Meanwhile, Zhu maintained his statements were made in good faith and without malice. To settle the matter, Hewson first assessed whether the statements were published and clearly identified Gao, quickly confirming both.

The judge then determined the statements were “clearly defamatory.” As the decision explains, “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.” Specifically, calling someone a foreign spy who shares information about fellow citizens easily meets that threshold.

No Defence Justified the Claims, Judge Awards Damages

Once statements are found defamatory, the burden shifts to the defendant to prove a valid defence. Zhu attempted to rely on “responsible communication,” arguing his claims addressed a matter of public interest. Hewson rejected this outright, noting Zhu “provided no evidence to establish the status and reliability of the online or personal sources of information that informed his statements.”

Furthermore, the decision notes there was “no suggestion that he even made any attempt to determine if the information was reliable.” Zhu also made no effort to seek or report Gao’s side of the story. As a result, this defence failed entirely.

Hewson likewise dismissed defences of justification, fair comment, and qualified privilege. For justification, “truth is a complete defence to a claim of defamation,” yet “Mr. Zhu led no evidence that any of the statements he made… were in any way true whatsoever.” Fair comment, meanwhile, only protects opinions rather than factual claims, so it did not apply here either.

As for qualified privilege, the judge found Zhu acted with “knowing or reckless disregard for the truth.” Additionally, Hewson pointed to Zhu’s visible efforts organizing and coordinating protesters as “more than sufficient evidence of malice.” Consequently, none of the four defences held up in court.

With no valid defence remaining, Hewson turned to the question of damages. He found Gao had done nothing to warrant a reduction in compensation and had suffered “severe distress” because of the ongoing defamation. “His standing in the Chinese-Canadian community was destroyed,” the decision reads, adding that Gao can no longer participate in community life as he once did.

Ultimately, Hewson awarded $250,000 in general damages, calling it appropriate given the harm caused. He also added $25,000 in aggravated damages, reserved for cases where a defendant’s conduct is “particularly high-handed or oppressive.” Together, the awards total the $275,000 verdict now closing this years-long ordeal.