Page 18 publication is to expand that publication’s audience, his or her participation is merely ancillary to that of the initial publisher: with or without the reference, the allegedly defamatory information has already been made available to the public by the initial publisher or publishers’ acts. These features of references distinguish them from acts in the publication process like creating or posting the defamatory publication, and from repetition. [Emphasis in original.] [60] Here, the URLs in the search results (identified by the plaintiff as leading to defamatory text) are hyperlinks to websites. Following Crookes, Google has not published the content of the text accessible through the URLs. As a result, it is manifestly clear that the plaintiff’s defamation claim arising from the URL’s listed in Google’s search results cannot succeed, and I dismiss that claim. b) [61] Can the question of whether Google is a publisher of the snippets be determined by summary judgement? The plaintiff submits that Crookes did not consider whether an internet search engine such as Google is a publisher of snippets. Google acknowledges that the narrow ratio of Crookes is that the provision of hyperlinks does not constitute publication of the material to which reference is made. Google contends, however, that the underlying principles adopted by the Supreme Court of Canada in Crookes, in conjunction with the English decisions specifically addressing snippets, establish that, in law, Google is not a publisher of search results or snippets. [62] The specific question of whether snippets in a search result constitute publication is a novel one in British Columbia. Mr. Niemela asserts that on this basis alone, the issue should not be determined on a chambers application for summary judgment. He relies on L.D. (Guardian ad litem of) v. Provincial Health Services Authority, 2011 BCSC 628, in which Mr. Justice Sewell cautioned against interpreting Rule 9-6(5)(c) too broadly and concluded at para. 20 that a court should decide an issue of law only if there is no real dispute about material facts and the issue of law is well settled: [20] I think I should also be cautious about deciding issues of law on this application. I am of the view that I should decide an issue of law only if I am satisfied that there is no real dispute about the material facts and that the 2015 BCSC 1024 (CanLII) Niemela v. Malamas