Niemela v. Malamas 3. Page 33 Google’s Application to Strike Portions of the Notice of Civil Claim consider its alternative application under Rule 9-5 to strike portions of the plaintiff’s notice of civil claim. 4. Plaintiff’s Application to Amend his Notice of Civil Claim [112] I have already addressed the plaintiff’s application to amend his notice of civil claim to remove the pleading for slander. The balance of the proposed amendments alleges further acts of defamation by Google as a publisher of snippets and search results. [113] An application to amend a pleading should not be permitted where the proposed amendment fails to state a reasonable cause of action and would fall to be struck on application by the opposing party: Virk v. Brar, 2011 BCSC 301 at para. 6. [114] Since I have concluded that Google is not in law a publisher by virtue of the passive instrument test, the allegations contained in those proposed amendments cannot succeed and the application should therefore be dismissed. COSTS [115] In the unique circumstances of this case, and bearing in mind the novel form of publication raised on these applications, I conclude the parties should bear their own costs. The Honourable Madam Justice L.A. Fenlon 2015 BCSC 1024 (CanLII) [111] As Google has succeeded in its application for summary judgment, I need not