In Equustek, the BC Court of Appeal upheld an
injunction restraining Google from referencing a number of websites
in its search results. The Court awarded the injunction in order to
limit public access to websites that the defendants had been using
to advertise and sell products in breach of the plaintiffs'
intellectual property rights. Google was not a party to the
underlying litigation. The injunction was designed to ensure that
court orders already granted against the defendants would be
The injunction required compliance not only with Google
results displayed in Canada, but results displayed anywhere in the
As we wrote in our previous post concerning Equustek,
the Court of Appeal's decision was significant for several
reasons. First, it outlined a two-step approach for courts
considering an injunction sought against a non-party, such as a
search engine: determining the power of the court over the dispute
generally, and then determining if the court has jurisdiction over
the third party.
In Equustek, both requirements were met. Most
interestingly, the basis for determining jurisdiction over Google,
the third party, did not turn on the facts of the case, but instead
turned on Google's business conduct in BC—a determination
unlikely to change in later cases.
The decision has significant consequences for comity concerns
and BC courts' relationship with international third parties.
It is also important for entities and individuals looking for tools
to protect their intellectual property rights in an era where
cross-border advertising and product distribution are frequently
done with ease—and can often be done with impunity.
In granting leave, the Supreme Court of Canada has implicitly
agreed that these issues are of national importance. We agree with
the Court and will be following the appeal with great interest.
Click here to read our previous post on the Court of
Click here to read the BC Court of Appeal's reasons in
The content of this article is intended to provide a general
guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought
about your specific circumstances.
To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.
Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.
In Irwin v. Alberta Veterinary Medical Association, 2015 ABCA 396, the Alberta Court of Appeal found that the "ABVMA" failed to afford procedural fairness to a veterinarian undergoing an incapacity assessment.
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).