A B.C. Supreme Court judge has awarded $156,570.91 in damages in an assault and battery lawsuit related to what was undoubtedly the strangest neighbourhood protest in Surrey’s history.
In 2021 a Guildford street was besieged for 77 days, in the 9700-block of 149 Street, when members of a group calling themselves the New Federal State of China targeted a resident and Chinese language newspaper journalist there named Bingchen (Benson) Gao, accusing him of being a Chinese spy.
They returned on Jan. 20, 2023 for a second round – this time for 15 days – until a man who boldly identified as a leader of the group, Shiliang Yin, suddenly did a 180-degree recant of the accusation and apologized to Gao, his family and neighbours, claiming, “I got brainwashed.”
Yin and Mu Bai were defendants in a civil case heard by Justice Scott Morishita, in B.C. Supreme Court in New Westminster, during a four-day trial this past January.
Ning Yu Louis Huang, the plaintiff, sought damages from Yin and Bai related to an alleged assault and battery on Nov. 25, 2020 in Surrey, in Gao’s cul-de-sac, of which there was video footage. Bai represented himself, through a translator but Yin didn’t participate in the trial or file a response to Huang’s claim.
Morishita delivered his reasons for judgment on May 15.
“I pause to note that some evidence was presented during the trial regarding the political views of the parties and Mr. Gao. The respective political views of the parties and Mr. Gao are not relevant to any of the issues in dispute in this lawsuit,” the judge noted.
On the day of the incident Gao asked Huang, 51, to go with him to the police station to lodge a complaint about the protesters. Huang drove to Gao’s house and waited in this car while Gao got ready.
“While waiting, Mr. Yin and Mr. Bai asked to speak with the plaintiff in the middle of the road in front of Mr. Gao’s house. Shortly thereafter, the incident occurred, causing the plaintiff to suffer a number of injuries,” Morishita said.
Yin and Bai were charged with committing assault causing bodily harm, pleaded guilty, and Yin received a seven-month conditional sentence (house arrest), followed by 12 months of probation while Bai received a conditional discharge, with 12 months of probation.
Morishita described in his reasons how the incident played out. The three men stood face to face – less than a foot apart.
“In essence, they got into each other’s faces,” the judge observed. “The plaintiff exhaled cigarette smoke towards Mr. Yin’s face. Almost immediately after the plaintiff exhaled cigarette smoke, Mr. Yin punched the plaintiff in the head/face area with his right hand and then advanced towards the plaintiff. The first punch could be characterized as a ‘sucker punch.’
“The plaintiff backs up almost immediately after being punched,” he continued. “Mr. Yin continues to advance and throws and lands two punches on the plaintiff’s face. The plaintiff turns around and continues to walk in the opposite direction. Mr. Yin continues to advance and throws and lands a fourth punch on the back of the plaintiff’s head. The plaintiff continues to walk away from Mr. Yin, who, from behind, puts his right arm around the plaintiff’s neck and chest area and pulls the plaintiff backwards to the ground – in a wrestling-like move.
“Mr. Yin gets up, and the plaintiff remains on the ground. Mr. Yin slaps the plaintiff on the top of the plaintiff’s head. Mr. Yin then aggressively kicks the plaintiff with his right foot four times. All four kicks are directed at and land on the plaintiff’s face.”
The judge said from the video footage it was “more difficult” to see Bai’s actions, as he was at times partly obscured by Huang and Yin.
”Nevertheless, after Mr. Yin’s initial punch, Mr. Bai advances towards the plaintiff alongside Mr. Yin. He appears to throw one or two punches at the plaintiff, but it is not clear whether they make contact. He also appears to assist Mr. Yin in bringing the plaintiff to the ground. Once the plaintiff is on the ground, Mr. Bai throws a punch that appears to be directed at the back or side of the plaintiff’s head, but because of the plaintiff’s movement, it lands on the plaintiff’s chest in more of a glancing blow. Mr. Bai kicks the plaintiff once, around the time that Mr. Yin delivers his third kick. Mr. Bai’s kick strikes the back of the plaintiff’s head.”
Morishita noted that at no point in the video did Huang try to punch or make any “non-defensive physical contact” with the defendants.
“At no point did the plaintiff pose any physical threat to the defendants, nor do I find that the defendants could reasonably believe they were, or would be, under attack by the plaintiff.”
The judge found Bai and Yin jointly liable for the attack. “While Mr. Yin threw more punches and kicks and was primarily responsible for tackling the plaintiff from behind, bringing the plaintiff to the ground, both defendants engaged in a common enterprise to assault and batter the plaintiff, and both threw punches and kicked the plaintiff in a very short period of time for a common purpose,” he noted.
Morishita divided the liability at 65 per cent Yin, 35 per cent Bai.
Huang sought $150,000 in non-pecuniary damages, $74,000 in past loss of income earning capacity, $50,000 in future loss of income earning capacity, $632.49 in special damages, $10,000 for cost of future care, $10,000 in aggravated damages and $860.13 in health care costs to a total $295,492.62.
Morishita awarded Huang, now 57, $100,000 in non-pecuniary damages, $45,182.18 for future loss of income earning capacity, $528.60 in special damages, $10,000 in aggravated damages, and $860.13 in health care costs, to a total of $156,570.91