A Surrey woman being sued by Surrey Animal Hospital for defamation has filed a response in court claiming defences of fair comment and qualified privilege.

The veterinary hospital filed its civil claim in August against Victoria Veira, seeking general, special, aggravated and punitive damages against her, an interlocutory and permanent injunction to restrain her from further publication of what it claims to be defamatory statements made on social media, and a court order requiring her to permanently remove the statements.

The case stems from Veira attending the clinic in Newton in March to get her dog neutered, and subsequent visits. According to the notice of civil claim, she then posted a series of videos on TikTok that led to this lawsuit. The claim, filed in B.C. Supreme Court in New Westminster, states one of the videos had been viewed more than 800,000 times. The allegedly defamatory statements, which Surrey Animal Hospital states are also 鈥渇alse鈥� and 鈥渕alicious,鈥� were according to the plaintiff disseminated over the internet from April 2, 2022 to June 26, 2022.

It claims Veira knew TikTok has an 鈥渋mmense reach鈥� and published the allegedly defamatory statements 鈥渨ith repeated consistency for the predominant purpose of injuring not only the plaintiff, but also its staff members, owner and associated individuals.

鈥淎ccordingly,鈥� the civil claim alleges, 鈥渢he defendant is guilty of reprehensible, high-handed, spiteful, malicious and oppressive conduct鈥� for which the court, it adds, would be justified in imposing a 鈥渟ubstantial鈥� penalty.

Veira filed a response to the civil claim in October, claiming the videos she posted to TikTok are not defamatory because statements she made about the veterinary hospital 鈥渁re substantially true or are the reasonably-held opinion of Ms. Veira.鈥� Her response also states she 鈥渄enies maliciously posting any videos to TikTok with the knowledge that, or reckless indifference as to whether, the videos contained false information鈥� and that she 鈥渄enies seeking to damage鈥� Surrey Animal Hospital 鈥渋n any way.鈥�

鈥淧osting videos to TikTok is a normal part of Ms. Veira鈥檚 daily life, and Ms. Veira has no control over whether one video she posts to TikTok is viewed more times than any other video she posts to TikTok,鈥� her response states.

Veira鈥檚 response claims she should be entitled to special costs, alleging the plaintiff has 鈥渨ith an improper motive, intentionally and strategically planned to damage the reputation of Ms. Veira in the eyes of the public by making false claims against her and without giving Ms. Veira any opportunity to provide her version of facts to the public.鈥�

The hospital then filed a reply in court in November, stating that 鈥渂efore the incident with the defendant, the plaintiff had a Google rating of 2.9. As a result of the incident with the defendant, the plaintiff鈥檚 rating has now been reduced to 2.1.鈥�

None of the claims from either side of this case have yet been proven or disproven in a court of law. The case has not yet gone to trial.