Niemela v. Malamas Page 13 i. Slander; iii. Libel; and iv. Injurious Falsehood. [40] I will consider each cause of action in turn. i. [41] Slander Slander by definition is an oral communication that is defamatory. The plaintiff’s claim for slander is bound to fail because he neither pleads nor provides any evidence of oral communications by Google and its representatives. Indeed Mr. Niemela acknowledges this to be so. After receiving Google’s notice of application he brought a third notice of application to amend his notice of civil claim to delete the claim in slander. [42] This claim has no prospect of succeeding and I therefore dismiss it. ii. [43] Breach of the Privacy Act Mr. Niemela claims that the snippets contained in Google’s search results violate his right to privacy under the Privacy Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 373. Section 1 of that Act provides: Violation of privacy actionable 1(1) It is a tort, actionable without proof of damage, for a person, wilfully and without a claim of right, to violate the privacy of another. (2) The nature and degree of privacy to which a person is entitled in a situation or in relation to a matter is that which is reasonable in the circumstances, giving due regard to the lawful interests of others. (3) In determining whether the act or conduct of a person is a violation of another's privacy, regard must be given to the nature, incidence and occasion of the act or conduct and to any domestic or other relationship between the parties. 2015 BCSC 1024 (CanLII) ii. Breach of the Privacy Act;