Page 26 hardly realistic to attribute responsibility for the content of those books to the compiler(s) of the catalogue. On the other hand, if the compilers have made an effort to be more informative, by quoting brief snippets from the book, the position may be different. Suppose the catalogue records that a particular book contains allegations of corruption against a living politician, or perhaps it goes further and spells out a particular activity, such as "flipping" homes to avoid capital gains tax, then there could be legal liability on the part of the compiler under the "repetition rule": see e.g. Gatley on Libel and Slander (11th edn) at paras 11.4 and 32.8. 53. No doubt it would be said here too, by analogy, that the Third Defendant should be liable for repeating the "scam" allegations against the Claimant. Yet, whereas a compiler of a conventional library catalogue will consciously at some point have chosen the wording of any "snippet" or summary included, that is not so in the case of a search engine. There will have been no intervention on the part of any human agent. It has all been done by the web-crawling "robots". [Emphasis added.] [85] Thus, the English decisions of Bunt v. Tilley and Metropolitan narrowed the scope of what amounts to publication sufficient to establish a prima facie case of defamation, through the development of a “passive instrument” test. [86] As I have noted in disposing of Mr. Niemela’s claim that Google is a publisher of the hyperlinks contained in its search results, Metropolitan was considered by the Supreme Court of Canada in Crookes, a defamation case originating in British Columbia. At para. 21 Abella J. speaking for six judges approved the approach taken in Bunt v. Tilley and Metropolitan: [21] Recently, jurisprudence has emerged suggesting that some acts are so passive that they should not be held to be publication. In Bunt v. Tilley, [2006] EWHC 407, [2006] 3 All E.R. 336 (Q.B.), considering the potential liability of an Internet service provider, the court held that in order to hold someone liable as a publisher, “[i]t is not enough that a person merely plays a passive instrumental role in the process”; there must be “knowing involvement in the process of publication of the relevant words” (para. 23 (emphasis in original); see also Metropolitan International Schools Ltd. v. Designtechnica Corpn., [2009] EWHC 1765, [2011] 1 W.L.R. 1743 (Q.B.)). [87] In Crookes there were two additional judgments concurring in the result but differing slightly in their analysis. Yet all of the judges in Crookes accepted the principle that publication requires a deliberate act in relation to the words in question. 2015 BCSC 1024 (CanLII) Niemela v. Malamas