Niemela v. Malamas 2. Google’s Application to Dismiss In the Google Action in which it is a defendant, Google applies for summary judgment under Rule 9-6(4) of the Supreme Court Civil Rules, B.C. Reg. 168/2009: Application by answering party (4) In an action, an answering party may, after serving a responding pleading on a claiming party, apply under this rule for judgment dismissing all or part of a claim in the claiming party's originating pleading. Rule 9-6(5) provides the following three distinct bases for granting summary judgement under Rule 9-6(4): (a) there is no genuine issue for trial with respect to a claim or defence; (b) the only genuine issue is the amount to which the claiming party is entitled; or, (c) the only genuine issue is a question of law. [37] In this case Rule 9-6(5)(b) is not applicable. The distinction between Rule 9- 6(5)(a) and (c) was recently summarized by Madam Justice Russell in Edgar v. The British Columbia Institute of Technology, 2015 BCSC 710 at para. 9: [9] On application for summary dismissal under Rule 9-6, evidence is not only admissible, but may be required. The analysis under Rule 9-6(5)(a) is concerned with whether, based on all the material, the claim is so factually without merit that it is manifestly clear that there is no genuine issue to be tried. If the court reaches that conclusion, it must dismiss the claim; there is no discretion. Alternatively, under Rule 9-6(5)(c), the court may consider whether, by answering a straightforward legal question, it could dispose of the claim. If the court is so satisfied, it has the discretion to dismiss the claim. [38] On applications for summary judgment, the Court will not weigh evidence, assess credibility, or draw inferences against the party defending the application. The Court will only decide issues of law where there is no dispute about the material facts. [39] Google applies for summary judgment dismissing Mr. Niemela’s claims under four causes of action: 2015 BCSC 1024 (CanLII) [36] Page 12