Skip to main content

The Google logo is seen in this file photo.

LEON NEAL/AFP/Getty Images

The Supreme Court of Canada will hear an appeal of a case in which Google was ordered to block certain search-engine results worldwide – and experts say the case, which originated in British Columbia, will determine whether courts in this country can control what appears on screens in others.

The case, which is believed to be the only one of its kind in Canada, began five years ago as a trademark-infringement dispute between two companies. A B.C. Supreme Court judge granted an injunction in 2014 that ordered Google to stop listing the firm accused of the trademark violations. The B.C. Court of Appeal upheld that ruling last year.

But the high court announced Thursday it would hear Google's appeal, and a Google Canada spokesperson said the company was "pleased" with the decision.

Story continues below advertisement

"This case raises important questions about the freedom to access information on the Internet, and whether one country can determine what the rest of the world can see online," a statement from the spokesperson said.

Equustek Solutions Inc., a company that sells industrial networking devices and is based near Vancouver, filed suit against Datalink Technologies Gateways Inc. in 2011, accusing the latter of relabelling its products and passing them off as its own. Equustek also accused Datalink of unlawfully acquiring confidential information and using it to manufacture a competing product, in violation of Equustek's trademarks.

Datalink, which only operates online, stopped responding to the lawsuit within a year of it being filed.

Michael Geist, a University of Ottawa law professor who also holds the Canada Research Chair in Internet and E-commerce Law, said the Supreme Court of Canada case will have "huge implications for the Internet in Canada."

"Many courts and countries are struggling to identify how far their legal reach should extend," he wrote in an e-mail.

"This becomes particularly relevant in cases like Equustek, where a Canadian court effectively decides what search results people in other countries can access," Mr. Geist said.

Cara Zwibel, director of the fundamental freedoms program at the Canadian Civil Liberties Association (CCLA), said Canadians would be very concerned if a court in another country – particularly one that doesn't value freedom of expression – ordered content removed from the Internet.

Story continues below advertisement

"The potential implications of a court saying that a Canadian court can order certain things off the Internet, worldwide, are huge," she said in an interview. "It suggests that Canadian courts would have to respect similar orders made by other countries that may not have the same kind of protections for freedom of expression that we have."

The CCLA was an intervener in the B.C. Court of Appeal case, and Ms. Zwibel said it's likely it will seek leave to intervene at the Supreme Court of Canada, as well.

A request for comment from Equustek was referred to the company's lawyer. The lawyer declined to comment. Datalink could not be reached.

In 2012, Google voluntarily removed some mentions of Datalink on its Canadian portal, google.ca. Equustek, however, said that did not go far enough. It said Datalink would just set up new websites, which could again be found through the search engine. Equustek argued the majority of Datalink's sales were to purchasers outside Canada, so blocking search results in this country alone served little purpose.

Google argued the injunction opened the door to it facing restrictive orders from courts around the world, each with its own domestic law.

The Court of Appeal was not swayed and said that, while Google does not have employees, offices or servers in B.C., it does target Internet users through advertising and sell advertising services to local companies.

Story continues below advertisement

That, the ruling said, gave B.C. Supreme Court a level of jurisdiction.

Report an error Editorial code of conduct
Due to technical reasons, we have temporarily removed commenting from our articles. We hope to have this fixed soon. Thank you for your patience. If you are looking to give feedback on our new site, please send it along to feedback@globeandmail.com. If you want to write a letter to the editor, please forward to letters@globeandmail.com.

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff. Non-subscribers can read and sort comments but will not be able to engage with them in any way. Click here to subscribe.

If you would like to write a letter to the editor, please forward it to letters@globeandmail.com. Readers can also interact with The Globe on Facebook and Twitter .

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff. Non-subscribers can read and sort comments but will not be able to engage with them in any way. Click here to subscribe.

If you would like to write a letter to the editor, please forward it to letters@globeandmail.com. Readers can also interact with The Globe on Facebook and Twitter .

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff.

We aim to create a safe and valuable space for discussion and debate. That means:

  • Treat others as you wish to be treated
  • Criticize ideas, not people
  • Stay on topic
  • Avoid the use of toxic and offensive language
  • Flag bad behaviour

Comments that violate our community guidelines will be removed.

Read our community guidelines here

Discussion loading ...

Cannabis pro newsletter