A review accusing your business of theft or fraud can have a very different impact from a customer saying they disliked the service. Prospective clients may see the accusation before they ever visit your website. Your first instinct may be to demand immediate removal or threaten a lawsuit.

Before responding, separate three questions: what exactly does the review communicate, what can the evidence establish, and which response is proportionate? BC defamation law protects reputation, but it also protects legitimate criticism and public-interest expression. An effective response needs to account for both.

What makes a statement potentially defamatory?

The basic elements are that the words would tend to lower the claimant's reputation in the eyes of a reasonable person, refer to the claimant, and were communicated to at least one other person. The Supreme Court of Canada set out that framework in Grant v. Torstar Corp., 2009 SCC 61; it continues to inform BC decisions.

Context matters. The court considers the meaning an ordinary reader would take from the publication as a whole, not just an isolated word. A review may refer to a company, an individual owner, an employee or several of them. Identifying the proper claimant is part of the analysis.

Establishing those elements is not the end of the case. Defences may defeat a claim, and a business should not assume that a statement is actionable merely because it is embarrassing, unfairly phrased or damaging to sales.

Opinion and factual allegations are not interchangeable

Consider two hypothetical reviews. “I found the service slow and would not return” expresses a personal assessment of an experience. “The owner forged my signature and stole my deposit” conveys serious allegations of conduct capable of being tested against evidence.

That contrast is useful, but not a mechanical rule. An opinion may imply undisclosed defamatory facts, while a factual allegation may be defensible if substantially true. Adding “in my opinion” does not automatically protect an accusation of criminal conduct.

Truth is a complete defence where the defamatory sting is substantially true. Fair comment has its own requirements: it concerns recognizable comment on a matter of public interest, based on facts, that someone could honestly express on the proved facts. Malice can defeat that defence. Depending on the circumstances, other defences, including responsible communication on a matter of public interest, may also need consideration.

A recent BC example: evidence matters on both sides

VinFast Auto Canada Inc. v. Ngo, 2026 BCSC 1420, concerned Facebook posts rather than a Google customer review. The plaintiffs alleged that the posts falsely accused them of serious corporate misconduct. The defendant sought early dismissal under BC's Protection of Public Participation Act, commonly described as anti-SLAPP legislation.

The court accepted that the expression related to matters of public interest. That did not end the analysis. The judge examined whether the claim had substantial merit, the evidentiary basis for the defences raised, and the competing public interests in allowing the claim to continue and protecting the expression.

On the record before it, the court dismissed the defendant's application and allowed the action to proceed. It emphasized the absence of evidence substantiating the serious allegations and the evidence of reputational harm. This was not a final trial judgment awarding damages for defamation, and it does not establish that every negative business review can be removed by suing.

The useful lesson is narrower: identifying a public-interest subject does not automatically immunize a publication, and merely naming a defence does not supply the evidence needed to support it.

Understand the anti-SLAPP risk before sending a threat

Consumer commentary can engage the public interest. Under section 4 of the Protection of Public Participation Act, a defendant may seek early dismissal of a proceeding arising from expression on such a matter. If the threshold is met, the claimant must satisfy the statutory merits, defence and public-interest requirements to keep the case going.

The financial consequences can be significant. Section 7 generally entitles a successful dismissal applicant to costs on a full-indemnity basis unless the court considers that inappropriate. Section 8 also allows damages where the proceeding was brought in bad faith or for an improper purpose.

These provisions are a reason to assess a claim carefully, not a reason to accept genuinely unlawful attacks. A measured legal letter should identify the actual concern and a defensible remedy, rather than treating all criticism as something the business can prohibit.

Preserve evidence before reporting or replying

  • Save the full review, its URL, the displayed account name, rating and visible date.
  • Record edits, responses, reposts and any connected messages without altering the originals.
  • Preserve invoices, contracts, attendance records or communications that address the alleged events.
  • Keep evidence of actual impact, such as customers referring to the allegation when cancelling or declining work.
  • Separate what you know about the author's identity from what you merely suspect.

An unfamiliar account is not proof that the author was never a customer. Anonymous or pseudonymous publications may create additional identification and procedural issues. Do not publicly accuse a competitor or former employee without an evidentiary basis.

Choose the response that addresses the real harm

Depending on the circumstances, options may include a calm public response, a private request for clarification or correction, a platform report, a negotiated resolution, or legal proceedings. A platform's removal rules and the legal test for defamation are not identical.

Avoid revealing a customer's confidential information in order to “prove” your side publicly. A brief response directing a genuine customer to a private channel may be more appropriate than a detailed online argument. Professional businesses must also consider their confidentiality obligations.

Where a claim is justified, counsel can assess the defendant, defences, evidence, limitation issues and realistic remedies. Do not assume that a court will order immediate removal before trial or that a continuing online presence starts a fresh limitation period every day.

The takeaway

A harmful review deserves a factual, proportionate response. The best strategy depends on the meaning of the words, the available evidence and the balance between reputation and protected expression—not simply the number of stars attached to the review.

Sinclair Centre Law LLP can assess online defamation and business-reputation disputes in British Columbia. Contact our Vancouver office at 604-210-2009 with the publication and relevant records before taking a step that could escalate the dispute.

This article is general information, not legal advice. Its examples are hypothetical, and the recent case discussed concerns an early-dismissal application rather than a final determination of liability.

References