Some more context from the actual opinion. Sounds like Ginther (the reviewer) had two separate orders he was considering, he gave the go ahead on one, but the l

Some more context from the actual opinion. Sounds like Ginther (the reviewer) had two separate orders he was considering, he gave the go ahead on one, but the lumber company misunderstood and charged him for both. The court found that Ginther knew it was a mistake and not "Fraud" so the allegation was defamatory. There's a bunch more in there - Ginther had received an invoice for both charges but didn't read it, and lied about not receiving it, etc etc. https://www.bccourts.ca/jdb-txt/sc/22/14/2022BCSC1461cor1.htm https://www.bccourts.ca/jdb-txt/sc/22/14/2022BCSC1461cor1.ht... [22] On February 18, Ms. Jenkins emailed Mr. Ginther stating that she was attaching his invoice for the hemlock soffits, which she said would be delivered the next day. Ms. Jenkins stated: I will process your credit card for the balance tomorrow unless I hear from you. If you prefer you may give a cheque to the driver. We will hold the Cedar until you are ready for a colour and delivery. No Rush. It is safely stored and covered in our warehouse. [23] Mr. Ginther responded the same day, directing Ms. Jenkins to “pay the balance on our visa (less the $7500 deposit)”. He added: “Will let you know on the cedar when we make a decision.” [24] Longhouse charged Mr. Ginther’s credit card with the balance for both invoices, less the $7500 deposit, for a total of $14,428.62 on February 19, 2016. [25] When the soffits were delivered, Mr. Ginther was very unhappy with the quality of the stain. He complained to Mr. Jenkins. Longhouse retrieved the soffits, re-stained them, and redelivered them to the site in mid-March. Mr. Ginther said he was still very dissatisfied with the stain. However, he accepted delivery and installed them because he did not want to delay construction. [26] On March 31, 2016, Mr. Ginther noticed the charge from Longhouse on his credit card statement, which included both the soffits and the siding. He contacted Ms. Jenkins by phone and email. He said that he had not ordered the cedar siding and that the quality of stain on the soffits was unacceptable. He demanded a refund of the charge for the siding ($6,902.07) plus an additional $1,000, which was his estimate of 50% of the cost of re-staining the hemlock soffits. He added that if the refund was not processed by the next day, he would be calling “visa fraud”. [27] Matters deteriorated from there. On April 1, the two men had a heated text exchange, which quickly escalated to crude insults. Each gave as good as he got. Later that day, Mr. Jenkins emailed Mr. Ginther, warning him that he considered his reference to fraud defamatory, and stating the plaintiffs’ position that Mr. Ginther had ordered the cedar in December 2015. Mr. Jenkins asked Mr. Ginther to arrange to pick up the cedar siding and advised him that he would be charged a storage fee commencing April 6. [28] Mr. Ginther did not respond. On April 28, Longhouse attempted to deliver the cedar to the site but Mr. Ginther refused to take it. The delivery company returned it to Longhouse. [29] In early April, Mr. Ginther and his wife complained to their credit card company about the transaction. It investigated and ultimately dismissed their complaint. [30] Mr. Ginther posted the Google review some 16 months later, in November 2017. He posted the Yelp review on January 3, 2018. [31] These facts do not prove that Mr. and Ms. Jenkins intended to and did charge Mr. Ginther $6,902 for cedar siding they knew he had not ordered. At most, they prove that the plaintiffs mistakenly believed that Mr. Ginther wanted to order the cedar and charged him for it.