A complex legal dispute between two former friends, rooted in a wedding in Cameroon, has concluded in a Prince Edward Island court1. The Honourable Justice Sophie MacDonald of the Supreme Court of Prince Edward Island has ordered Aritho Olivain Sylvain Amfoubalela to pay his former friend, Noël Ayangma, a total of $8,048.50 for a loan and expenses related to the wedding. The decision, released on August 11, 2025, also saw the dismissal of mutual defamation claims that had been filed by both men, bringing an end to a bitter conflict that shattered a thirteen year friendship. The case involved four separate legal actions which were consolidated and heard over six days of trial.
The saga began with a friendship established around 2008. The court heard that Ayangma had acted as a mentor and protector for Amfoubalela over the years, assisting him with various legal matters, including cases before the Human Rights Commission and retaining a lawyer for him during a criminal charge. In turn, Amfoubalela assisted Ayangma with tasks like filing court documents and providing transportation. Their relationship was close, with each having stayed at the other’s home at various times. This long standing bond dissolved in the spring and summer of 2021, following events surrounding Amfoubalela’s marriage to Ayangma’s niece, Lethicia Ayangma.
According to evidence presented at trial, Ayangma introduced Amfoubalela to his niece, who lived in Cameroon, in March 2021. The two began a virtual courtship. From this point, the two men’s accounts of what happened next diverged completely. Ayangma testified that Amfoubalela quickly expressed a desire to marry Lethicia. He claimed that despite some initial caution, he supported the marriage. Family introductions were made via video conference in early April 2021, where wedding preparations and the traditional dowry were discussed. Ayangma presented evidence of text messages, including one where Amfoubalela appeared to confirm to Ayangma’s wife that he would be married by the end of the summer. He stated that Amfoubalela asked him for a $5,000 loan to cover the wedding costs, promising to repay it from his teacher’s vacation pay, and also asked him to travel to Cameroon to act as his representative and witness.
In contrast, Amfoubalela argued he was pressured, manipulated, and ultimately tricked into a wedding he never planned. He testified that Ayangma organized the family video calls and presented him as a future son in law, and that he went along with it to avoid embarrassment. He claimed a text message about getting married was merely a joke. Amfoubalela’s position was that Ayangma proposed the trip to Cameroon and offered to pay for his ticket. He contended that the $5,000 he received from Ayangma was not a personal loan. Instead, he claimed he was acting as an agent for Ayangma, simply forwarding money to Ayangma’s family in Cameroon on Ayangma’s behalf, a type of favour he had done before. He denied knowing about any wedding plans before travelling and felt pressured by Ayangma to make the trip.
Justice MacDonald ultimately found Ayangma’s version of events to be more reliable and consistent with the evidence as a whole. The court did not accept Amfoubalela’s argument that he was unaware of the wedding. Justice MacDonald pointed to several key pieces of evidence, including text message exchanges between Amfoubalela and Lethicia. In one exchange from May 2021, Lethicia specifically mentioned a dowry ceremony on July 9 and a wedding on July 10. Amfoubalela responded by discussing how he would inform his siblings. The court also noted text conversations about wedding attire, where Amfoubalela provided his clothing size, and the fact that he was photographed at the ceremonies wearing outfits that closely resembled those discussed.
The court found that Ayangma had e transferred a total of $5,000 to Amfoubalela in three installments between May and June 2021. The e-transfer memos included French words such as “pret” (loan), “Deuxieme portion du pret” (second part of the loan), and “Relicat des 5000 dollars” (remainder of the $5,000). Amfoubalela subsequently transferred these exact amounts to Lethicia’s father in Cameroon. Justice MacDonald found these notations, combined with Amfoubalela’s subsequent text to Lethicia telling her she could now “sleep peacefully,” supported the conclusion that the funds were a loan for wedding purposes.
The two men travelled to Cameroon together on July 3, 2021. A traditional dowry ceremony was held on July 9, followed by a civil wedding ceremony at City Hall in Douala on July 10. Both events were captured on video and presented at trial. The footage showed Amfoubalela actively participating. After the wedding, a videographer interviewed the newly married couple, during which Amfoubalela expressed his joy. It was only after the ceremony, upon learning the marriage contract included a “community of property” clause, that Amfoubalela began expressing his displeasure, claiming he felt manipulated. He stated that he had reluctantly agreed to the wedding on the condition that the matrimonial regime was “separate assets”.
Upon returning to Canada, the friendship completely fell apart. Ayangma testified he became aware of rumors that Amfoubalela was telling people, including his ex girlfriends, that he had been coerced into the marriage and only went through with it because he feared for his life. In response, Ayangma invited several of Amfoubalela’s friends and ex girlfriends to his home to show them the wedding videos and photos to counter what he believed were false statements. This situation led to the first of four legal actions, a defamation claim by Ayangma against Amfoubalela. Amfoubalela filed a counterclaim for defamation, alleging Ayangma contacted his friends and family to ruin his reputation and that Ayangma was behind fake, harassing Facebook accounts created in his name.
In her decision, Justice MacDonald dismissed both defamation claims. For Ayangma’s claim, the court needed proof that Amfoubalela had actually published the defamatory statements, meaning he communicated them to a third party. Ayangma relied on the testimony of Heraldine Porrett, who recalled another friend, Rosette Bobo, stating at the gathering that Amfoubalela had told her he was coerced. However, when Ms. Bobo testified, she directly contradicted this. While she confirmed Amfoubalela was upset upon his return, she consistently denied he ever said he was forced or coerced by Ayangma. The court accepted Ms. Bobo’s evidence on this point, finding Ayangma had not proven his case.
The court also dismissed Amfoubalela’s defamation claims. Justice MacDonald found there was no evidence to prove Ayangma had created the fake Facebook profiles or had made the other alleged statements. She noted that informing people that Amfoubalela had gotten married was not defamatory, as it was a true statement. Any allegations of defamation based on statements made within the court proceedings themselves were dismissed on the basis of absolute privilege, a legal principle that protects statements made during judicial proceedings from forming the basis of a defamation lawsuit.
In addition to the defamation suits, the men also filed claims against each other for unpaid debts. Amfoubalela claimed Ayangma owed him $7,700 for loans made back in 2013 and 2014. The court quickly dismissed this claim, finding it was “statute barred.” Justice MacDonald explained that under Prince Edward Island’s Statute of Limitations, there is a six year time limit to commence an action for debt. Since Amfoubalela filed his claim in January 2022, well after the six year period had expired, the court could not hear it.
Conversely, the court sided with Ayangma on his debt claim. After finding the $5,000 was a loan for the wedding, the court also ordered Amfoubalela to repay the costs of his $1,714 airline ticket, a $64.50 ticket change fee, a $220 travel visa fee, and $1,050 for his half of the accommodation and wedding venue rentals. The total judgment in favor of Ayangma was $8,048.50. The court also ordered Amfoubalela to pay Ayangma $500 in costs, noting that both self represented litigants contributed to the length and complexity of the proceeding.
