The semantics of "winning" an election are rhetorically important. Winning an election is how a government achieves legitimacy. It's usually simple, but parties use that rhetoric to influence opinion. Theresa May wanted a big electoral win to force her Brexit negotiation tactics. She would have used to that win to achieve her goals, even though she already had a majority in Parliament and was a long way from an election.
In their throne speech, the BC Liberals used the election results to justify shifting their policies towards what the NDP and Greens campaigned on. They declared themselves the winners but recognizing losing their majority was an obvious defeat, justified their continued government by adopting new policies.
The semantics are important. The BC Liberals say they won because winning mean they should be allowed to run the government. They say the most seats means they're the winner because it benefits them. If the roles were reversed, they would say the most seats doesn't matter, so long as they can control the legislature, which is the rhetoric the NDP and Greens are using.
Because the election was so close, it's uncertain who can control the legislature and for how long. People choose which rhetoric to believe based on their biases. But if look beyond partisanship, it's clear that no one can comfortably control the legislature and so no one can run the government with any stability. Which means that no one won the election.
