Not a lawyer, so I'm happy to see that the passage that caught my eye also caught yours.
Other bits that I found interesting:
> [107] Google asserts that the Court does not have the authority to make an order of the kind sought. In issue is whether the Court has “subject matter competence”. The plaintiffs and Google agree that the type of order I am asked to make has never before been made by a Canadian court.
> [119] I do not accept Google’s submission that the Court only has authority to make an order against a non-party in relation to contempt or to further fact finding necessary to effect justice. Lack of precedent should not be confused with lack of subject matter competence.
> [133] I conclude that the Court has authority to grant an injunction against a non-party resident in a foreign jurisdiction in appropriate circumstances.
=====
Something I have to wonder about: there's nothing here that speaks to the technical difficulties intrinsic to the process of de-listing a website.
Say Google blacklists "www.very-obviously-illegal-under-canadian-law.com". The offending party then registers "www.completely-irrelevant-url-1.com" and "www.irrelevant-url-2.ca" and so on. Is Google expected to permanently block these URLs? What if some of these URLs were obtained illegally (or more generally, what burden of proof must be achieved to demonstrate that a website should be blacklisted)? Is there some way for people - especially prospective buyers for these DNS records - to know that these URLs have been blacklisted?
Other bits that I found interesting:
> [107] Google asserts that the Court does not have the authority to make an order of the kind sought. In issue is whether the Court has “subject matter competence”. The plaintiffs and Google agree that the type of order I am asked to make has never before been made by a Canadian court.
> [119] I do not accept Google’s submission that the Court only has authority to make an order against a non-party in relation to contempt or to further fact finding necessary to effect justice. Lack of precedent should not be confused with lack of subject matter competence.
> [133] I conclude that the Court has authority to grant an injunction against a non-party resident in a foreign jurisdiction in appropriate circumstances.
=====
Something I have to wonder about: there's nothing here that speaks to the technical difficulties intrinsic to the process of de-listing a website.
Say Google blacklists "www.very-obviously-illegal-under-canadian-law.com". The offending party then registers "www.completely-irrelevant-url-1.com" and "www.irrelevant-url-2.ca" and so on. Is Google expected to permanently block these URLs? What if some of these URLs were obtained illegally (or more generally, what burden of proof must be achieved to demonstrate that a website should be blacklisted)? Is there some way for people - especially prospective buyers for these DNS records - to know that these URLs have been blacklisted?
=====
Ruling link: http://www.courts.gov.bc.ca/jdb-txt/SC/14/10/2014BCSC1063.ht...