I agree! This is part of why I am skeptical about the application of this law to other factual scenarios. The court is ruling in the basis of the absence of any evidence provided by Google to rectify the order.
Had they pleaded the above law and indicated that there were real and substantial concerns in this case, the outcome may have been different. I think Google didn't because this is a picture perfect passing-off case which is illegal straight across the WTO.
---
Edit: This passage from the ruling makes it clear that a key piece of the SCC rationale is very, very specific to this case:
"D and its representatives have ignored all previous court orders made against them, have left British Columbia, and continue to operate their business from unknown locations outside Canada. E has made efforts to locate D with limited success. D is only able to survive — at the expense of E’s survival — on Google’s search engine which directs potential customers to D’s websites. This makes Google the determinative player in allowing the harm to occur. On balance, since the world‑wide injunction is the only effective way to mitigate the harm to E pending the trial, the only way, in fact, to preserve E itself pending the resolution of the underlying litigation, and since any countervailing harm to Google is minimal to non‑existent, the interlocutory injunction should be upheld." [Emphasis added]
There are a number of requirements for obtaining an injunction. The key case for determining if an injunction will be granted itself is RJR Macdonald. It provides a fairly large bulwark to stopping stupid injunctions from being used. It requires that the issue be serious, that the harm caused by it be irreparable, and that the balance of convenience favor the arrangement sought. These aren't easy hurdles to jump over.
Had they pleaded the above law and indicated that there were real and substantial concerns in this case, the outcome may have been different. I think Google didn't because this is a picture perfect passing-off case which is illegal straight across the WTO.
---
Edit: This passage from the ruling makes it clear that a key piece of the SCC rationale is very, very specific to this case:
"D and its representatives have ignored all previous court orders made against them, have left British Columbia, and continue to operate their business from unknown locations outside Canada. E has made efforts to locate D with limited success. D is only able to survive — at the expense of E’s survival — on Google’s search engine which directs potential customers to D’s websites. This makes Google the determinative player in allowing the harm to occur. On balance, since the world‑wide injunction is the only effective way to mitigate the harm to E pending the trial, the only way, in fact, to preserve E itself pending the resolution of the underlying litigation, and since any countervailing harm to Google is minimal to non‑existent, the interlocutory injunction should be upheld." [Emphasis added]
There are a number of requirements for obtaining an injunction. The key case for determining if an injunction will be granted itself is RJR Macdonald. It provides a fairly large bulwark to stopping stupid injunctions from being used. It requires that the issue be serious, that the harm caused by it be irreparable, and that the balance of convenience favor the arrangement sought. These aren't easy hurdles to jump over.