Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• The defendants obstructed access to a shared easement driveway without the plaintiffs’ consent, violating the Easement Agreement.

• Defamatory statements were published by Mr. Liu on WeChat, falsely accusing the plaintiffs of tax evasion, fraud, and other misconduct.

• The plaintiffs were awarded special costs due to the defendants’ litigation conduct, deemed “reprehensible” by the court.

• Mr. Liu's actions, including trench digging and social media posts, were found to be part of a broader effort to intimidate and financially exhaust the plaintiffs.

• Ms. Song was held jointly and severally liable with Mr. Liu, given her active participation and benefit from the conduct.

• The court directed the Registrar to assess the quantum of special costs, excluding one day of trial impacted by a judicial oversight.

Facts and outcome of the case

Background and dispute between the parties

This case arises from a neighbor dispute between Cindy and Richard David (plaintiffs) and Jing Song and Zuquan Liu (defendants) in Lions Bay, British Columbia. The parties share access to a common easement driveway. In April 2022, tensions escalated when Mr. Liu began digging a trench on the shared easement without written consent from the Davids, obstructing the only ingress and egress to their home. Simultaneously, Mr. Liu made posts in a WeChat group containing defamatory statements about the plaintiffs, accusing them of being tax evaders, public resource abusers, and, in the case of Ms. David, exploiting her cancer diagnosis.

Litigation history and special costs request

Following a successful trial judgment in their favor (referenced as David v. Song, 2025 BCSC 231), the plaintiffs sought an award of special costs. The issue before the court in David v. Song, 2025 BCSC 704 was whether the defendants’ conduct during litigation warranted such an award, which is reserved for instances of “reprehensible” behavior under British Columbia law. Justice Funt examined whether the defendants acted with improper motives, frustrated the litigation process, and caused unnecessary financial burden on the plaintiffs.

Court’s analysis of improper motives and conduct

Justice Funt found clear evidence that Mr. Liu and Ms. Song operated with an improper motive: to pressure the plaintiffs into paying for a full repaving of the shared driveway, even though both properties benefited from it. Mr. Liu’s threats to defame the plaintiffs unless they agreed to pay 100% of the cost were substantiated by his subsequent social media posts. The court rejected the defendants’ claim that the posts were vague and not identifiable, finding that context in the close-knit WeChat group made the plaintiffs clearly recognizable.

The court also determined that Mr. Liu’s trench digging and installation of signage—without professional consultation or consent—violated the Easement Agreement. His refusal to stop until a court injunction was issued, combined with derogatory submissions questioning Ms. David’s cancer diagnosis and credibility, further evidenced his intent to exhaust and discredit the plaintiffs.

Outcome and award of special costs

The court concluded that the defendants’ litigation conduct met the threshold of "reprehensible" behavior. As such, the plaintiffs were awarded special costs for the entire trial, except for one day (December 20, 2024), which was excluded due to a judicial oversight concerning the Apology Act.

The defendants were held jointly and severally liable for the special costs, with the Registrar directed to assess the quantum. The ruling emphasized that even self-represented litigants are not excused from compliance with procedural fairness and the Rules of Court.

In summary, this case underscores the court’s readiness to sanction parties who misuse the litigation process, especially where actions are motivated by bad faith, intimidation, or reputational harm.