This case arose from a trade secret dispute between plaintiffs and their former employee, who allegedly worked with a competing firm to create and sell a knock-off of plaintiffs' computer hardware product. Defendants fled Canadian jurisdiction rather than defend the case. Google was not a party, but became involved based on plaintiffs' demand that Google de-list search results. One key question was whether Google, as a non-party facing no liability claims of its own, could be ordered to take down search results for defendants’ websites in the first place. The other key issue was the global scope of plaintiffs' demands: while Google agreed to de-list results on the search engine's Canadian version at www.google.ca, plaintiffs sought - and lower courts granted - orders to de-list on all versions of web search globally. In this ruling, the Canadian Supreme Court upholds that outcome and endorses the global de-listing order.
The ruling focuses rather mechanically on Canada’s interlocutory injunction standard. (Interestingly, in a later ruling the Court clarifies that it might have applied a different and more stringent standard, but did not do so because Google failed to raise the issue earlier in the case). It also discusses at some length courts’ equitable powers to enjoin non-parties. Although Google's brief and many amicus briefs argued that the case raised free expression concerns, the Court dismisses these, saying that Google did not establish any clear conflict with the laws of other countries. The Court leaves open the possibility that Google may re-raise the issue on remand. Google presumably will do so, relying on an injunction it subsequently sought and received in US court.
As Michael Geist notes in a blog post and CIS discusses in its own post, the Canadian court does not grapple with a deeper policy issue: if Canada can enforce its laws to limit speech and information access in other countries, does it accept that other countries may do the same? Nor does it address the complexity of comparing national law and interests through the lens of private company obligations. The Court asks only whether Google would violate laws in other countries by complying with the Canadian injunction -- not whether laws in the US or other countries prohibit state action, like that of the Canadian court, to compel de-listing.
Further wrinkles in this case will likely develop in lower Canadian courts in 2018 and later.