Canada's top court backs order for Google to remove firm's website from searches
Tremendously impactful decision, regardless of which side of the case you support.<p>Interestingly, the majority addressed a Google argument centered upon concerns regarding the possibility of international censorship:<p>&quot;Google’s argument that a global injunction violates international comity because it is possible that the order could not have been obtained in a foreign jurisdiction, or that to comply with it would result in Google violating the laws of that jurisdiction, is theoretical. If Google has evidence that complying with such an injunction would require it to violate the laws of another jurisdiction, including interfering with freedom of expression, it is always free to apply to the British Columbia courts to vary the interlocutory order accordingly. To date, Google has made no such application. In the absence of an evidentiary foundation, and given Google’s right to seek a rectifying order, it is not equitable to deny E the extraterritorial scope it needs to make the remedy effective, or even to put the onus on it to demonstrate, country by country, where such an order is legally permissible.&quot;<p>In other words, if an interlocutory order with international scope would violate foreign freedom of expression legislation (or other legislation in general), it would be possible to seek to vary the interlocutory order by raising those issues specifically.<p>This framework should be familiar to jurists in Canada, as it resembles the Paramountcy doctrine.<p>Whether or not this case will be widely used is unclear. This case is nearly 100% fact-perfect for the Respondent - it honestly looks like a civil-rights test case. It is very possible that imperfect everyday facts provide sufficient fuel for judges to distinguish this case from the case in front of them.<p>The dissent is interesting because it lists a number of pieces of evidence the dissenters would have needed to see before moving forward, including the impact of the first order on sales figures. These dissents often provide counsel with information regarding how to structure future cases in order to avoid outstanding concerns.<p>These are my first pass thoughts. I&#x27;ll probably read it through another two times before the day is done.