The decision did discuss that hypothetical, though the linked article doesn't. The court said that if Google presented evidence that complying with a specific Canadian order might violate the law of a specific other country, the Canadian court would take that into account, and that might well be a good reason for modifying the order. But since in this case there wasn't any such evidence presented, they felt the hypothetical in itself wasn't sufficient reason to modify the order.
So to rephrase my question(s), "Who wins in the global context? Whichever can/will enforce the most?", the answer is yes? "This is enforceable worldwide until you show that it isn't" doesn't seem sane to me. It's backwards. You should not have to provide somewhere where a ruling is illegal to prevent that ruling from applying worldwide.
So a government can censor a website worldwide because the company can't provide a law saying it's illegal for them to self-censor?
edit: More extensive discussion in this comment and its follow-ups: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14657979