A British Columbia court has ordered a former firearms instructor to pay his onetime employer more than $60,000 in damages after a protracted legal battle over control of social media accounts, defamation claims and alleged breaches of trust.
The plaintiff, a firearms training business owned by T.B. (male co-owner) and T.B. (female co-owner), sued former employee E.B. and others, alleging multiple causes of action stemming from his departure from the company.
The court found the plaintiff was entitled to damages of $35,000 for conversion of property and $25,000 for defamation, while dismissing E.B.’s counterclaim for defamation.
Tensions after years of trust
According to the court’s reasons, the owners had operated their firearms training company for well over a decade. E.B. joined in 2007, initially as an instructor, and later took on expanded duties while the owners were preoccupied by separate legal issues involving law enforcement.
E.B. “was trusted with significant responsibility” to manage operations and social media, the court noted, and effectively handled day-to-day tasks.
However, once the owners re-engaged with running the business, “E.B. felt stymied” and believed his role was being undercut. The court heard evidence that the owners were also frustrated by what they saw as E.B.’s reluctance to share information on key operational matters. In 2017, E.B. signed a formal employment agreement, but its enforceability was challenged at trial, largely because it was introduced without clear fresh consideration.
Social media and confidential materials at issue
One focal point of the dispute was the ownership and control of social media and online accounts. E.B. claimed some of the accounts had been his personal pages or hobby projects. The plaintiff countered that E.B. had “created and maintained these accounts as part of his employment” and that “all posts were clearly part of his role.”
Shortly after E.B. resigned, the plaintiff “lost access” to its website for about two days, causing significant alarm. Although the court noted there was no direct claim that E.B. had intentionally disabled the site, the shutdown heightened the company’s concern that its digital assets were vulnerable.
E.B. acknowledged he changed some passwords and administrator emails but testified he did so to protect or reclaim personal accounts. Ultimately, many online pages were turned back over to the plaintiff after police and legal counsel intervened.
Departure and conversion claims
Upon E.B.’s abrupt resignation, the plaintiff demanded return of a company laptop, iPhone, firearms and other materials. E.B. insisted the laptop and phone were gifts, but the court found this position unpersuasive, ruling that E.B. had no right to withhold them or reset them to factory defaults without ensuring the plaintiff’s business data had been preserved.
“While I am not convinced that the wholesale recreation of course materials was necessary,” the court said, it found that the sudden departure and factory resets created “an atmosphere of fear and confusion that was unnecessary and costly.” The court awarded $35,000 in damages under the heading of conversion and breach of contract, capturing outlays for forensic analysis and additional time spent recovering data.
Defamation allegations on both sides
The plaintiff claimed E.B. defamed the company by contacting law enforcement, regulatory agencies and certain business partners with allegations of “harassment,” “attacks” and other misconduct. The court carefully reviewed nearly two dozen alleged defamatory publications.
Much of E.B.’s communication involved emailing regulatory authorities about what he perceived to be ongoing interference by the owners. In one email to a firearms regulator, he asserted that the plaintiff’s owners had been “escalating their harassment” and “unlawfully bribing and threatening” business contacts. Elsewhere, he accused the owners of “accosting” a store manager.
The court found that not all communications rose to the level of defamation, and some were protected by qualified privilege if they were sent to authorities with a legitimate interest in receiving the information. However, three communications went too far, carrying statements that the court held would lower the training firm’s reputation and were not fully justified. For those, the court awarded $25,000 in damages.
E.B. brought a counterclaim accusing T.B. (male co-owner) of defamation, pointing to instances where the owner allegedly told others that E.B. was “trying to hurt” the company and had “absconded with” social media accounts. The court rejected E.B.’s counterclaim, finding the firm’s principal had an honest belief he had been wronged and that his statements were either protected by justification or did not amount to actionable defamation.
No injunctive relief, no punitive damages
The plaintiff also sought injunctions to prevent further misuse of its material. Yet the court noted that “the events at issue took place several years ago,” and no ongoing risk of wrongdoing was demonstrated. As a result, it declined to order any injunction.
Punitive or aggravated damages were likewise deemed inappropriate. While the litigation was described as highly personal, with each side believing “they are the victim to the other’s villain,” the court was satisfied that the compensatory award covered the harm done.
In total, E.B. was ordered to pay $60,000 to the plaintiff for conversion and defamation. The decision highlights the potential risks when work-related online assets intermingle with personal platforms, particularly in heavily regulated industries where reputational damage can have serious business consequences.
For more information, see Silvercore Advanced Training Systems Inc. v Beer, 2025 BCSC 538 (CanLII).
