Equustek Solutions Inc. et al. v. Jack et al., (2015) 373 B.C.A.C. 240 (CA)

• Judge: Frankel, Groberman and Harris, JJ.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (British Columbia)
• Case Date: June 11, 2015
• Jurisdiction: British Columbia
• Citations: (2015), 373 B.C.A.C. 240 (CA);2015 BCCA 265

Equustek Solutions Inc. v. Jack (2015), 373 B.C.A.C. 240 (CA);

    641 W.A.C. 240

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2015] B.C.A.C. TBEd. JN.039

Equustek Solutions Inc., Robert Angus and Clarma Enterprises Inc. (respondents/plaintiffs) v. Morgan Jack, Datalink Technologies Gateways Inc. and Datalink Technologies Gateways LLC (respondents/defendants) and Google Inc. (appellant/respondent) and Canadian Civil Liberties Association, Electronic Frontier Foundation, International Federation of Film Producers Associations and International Federation of the Phonographic Industry (intervenors)

(CA41923; 2015 BCCA 265)

Indexed As: Equustek Solutions Inc. et al. v. Jack et al.

British Columbia Court of Appeal

Frankel, Groberman and Harris, JJ.A.

June 11, 2015.

Summary:

The plaintiff, Equustek Solutions Inc., obtained an interim injunction restraining Google Inc. (a non-resident non-party) from indexing or referencing specific web sites in search results on its search engines. The order was made with a view toward limiting access to web sites through which the defendants in the underlying action had been advertising and selling products in breach of the plaintiff's intellectual property rights and contrary to court orders. (See [2014] B.C.T.C. Uned. 1063; 2014 BCSC 1063). Google Inc. applied for leave to appeal, and in the event leave was granted, for a partial interim stay of the order pending the hearing of the appeal.

The British Columbia Court of Appeal, per Willock, J.A., in a decision reported 358 B.C.A.C. 311; 614 W.A.C. 311, granted leave to appeal but dismissed the application for the stay. The appeal was not without merit and raised novel and important issues. As to the stay, Google Inc. was unable to demonstrate irreparable harm. The appeal proceeded on the issues of whether the injunction was beyond the jurisdiction of the court, whether it improperly operated against an innocent third party and whether it had inappropriate extraterritorial reach and violated the rules of comity.

The British Columbia Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal. The court held that the injunction was within the competence (i.e., jurisdiction) of the Supreme Court of British Columbia. The order did not violate any principles applicable to the granting of injunctions, nor did it violate norms of freedom of speech. The judge had evidence before her from which she was entitled to find the test for an injunction to have been made out.

Conflict of Laws - Topic 8

General - Doctrine of comity - See paragraphs 88 to 99.

Conflict of Laws - Topic 603

Jurisdiction - General principles - Jurisdiction simpliciter (territorial competence) - See paragraphs 29 to 113.

Courts - Topic 8629

Provincial courts - British Columbia - Supreme Court - Jurisdiction - Territorial competence - See paragraphs 29 to 113.

Courts - Topic 8630

Provincial courts - British Columbia - Supreme Court - Jurisdiction - Injunctions - See paragraphs 57 to 80.

Injunctions - Topic 301

Jurisdiction - General - See paragraphs 57 to 80.

Injunctions - Topic 302

Jurisdiction - Against foreign corporations - See paragraphs 29 to 113.

Injunctions - Topic 1609

Interlocutory or interim injunctions - General principles - Circumstances when injunction will issue - See paragraphs 100 to 113.

Injunctions - Topic 4606

Operation of injunctions - Territorial application - Re internet sites - See paragraphs 29 to 45.

Injunctions - Topic 4647

Operation of injunctions - Persons bound - Nonparties - See paragraphs 29 to 113.

Words and Phrases

Proceeding - The British Columbia Court of Appeal discussed the meaning of the word "proceeding" in s. 3(e) of the Court Jurisdiction and Proceedings Transfer Act, S.B.C. 2003, c. 28 - See paragraphs 29 to 45.

Cases Noticed:

Van Breda et al. v. Village Resorts Ltd., [2012] 1 S.C.R. 572; 429 N.R. 217; 291 O.A.C. 201; 2012 SCC 17, refd to. [para. 46].

Canadian Human Rights Commission v. Canadian Liberty Net et al., [1998] 1 S.C.R. 626; 224 N.R. 241, refd to. [para. 47].

Norwich Pharmacal Co. v. Customs and Excise Commissioners, [1974] A.C. 133 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 64].

Siskina (Owners of cargo lately laden on board) v. Distos Compania Naviera S.A., [1979] A.C. 210 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 65].

South Carolina Insurance Co. v. Assurantie Maatschappij "de Zeven Provincien" N.V., [1987] A.C. 24 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 65].

Channel Tunnel Group Ltd. v. Balfour Beatty Construction Ltd., [1993] A.C. 334 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 67].

Cartier International AG v. British Sky Broadcasting Ltd., [2014] E.W.H.C. 3354 (Ch.), refd to. [para. 69].

Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees v. Canadian Pacific Ltd., [1996] 2 S.C.R. 495; 198 N.R. 161; 78 B.C.A.C. 162; 128 W.A.C. 162, refd to. [para. 76].

Bartle & Gibson v. Retail Wholesale and Department Store Union, Local 580 (1971), 18 D.L.R.(3d) 232 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 77].

United Services Fund (Trustee of) v. Richardson Greenshields of Canada Ltd. (1988), 23 B.C.L.R.(2d) 1 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 82].

Zellers Inc. v. Doobay (1989), 34 B.C.L.R.(2d) 187 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 86].

Derby & Co. v. Weldon, [1990] Ch. 65, refd to. [para. 86].

British Columbia v. Shah, [1991] B.C.J. No. 3994, refd to. [para. 86].

Mooney v. Orr (1994), 98 B.C.L.R.(2d) 318 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 86].

Mooney v. Orr (1994), 100 B.C.L.R.(2d) 335 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 86].

Minera Aquiline Argentina SA v. IMA Exploration Inc. et al. (2007), 246 B.C.A.C. 1; 406 W.A.C. 1; 2007 BCCA 319, refd to. [para. 87].

R. v. Spencer, [1985] 2 S.C.R. 278; 62 N.R. 81; 11 O.A.C. 207, refd to. [para. 89].

Morguard Investments Ltd. et al. v. De Savoye, [1990] 3 S.C.R. 1077; 122 N.R. 81, refd to. [para. 90].

Amchem Products Inc. et al. v. Workers' Compensation Board (B.C.), [1993] 1 S.C.R. 897; 150 N.R. 321; 23 B.C.A.C. 1; 39 W.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 90].

Pro Swing Inc. v. Elta Golf Inc., [2006] 2 S.C.R. 612; 354 N.R. 201; 218 O.A.C. 339; 2006 SCC 52, refd to. [para. 90].

Yahoo! Inc. v. La Ligue contre le racisme et l'antisémitisme (2001), 169 F. Supp. 2d 1181 (N. Dist. Cal.), revd. (2004), 379 F.3d 1120 (9th Cir.), refd to. [para. 96].

Yahoo! Inc. v. La Ligue contre le racisme et l'antisémitisme (2006), 433 F.3d 1199 (9th Cir.), refd to. [para. 96].

RJR-MacDonald Inc. et Imperial Tobacco Ltd. v. Canada (Procureur général), [1994] 1 S.C.R. 311; 164 N.R. 1, refd to. [para. 100].

Statutes Noticed:

Court Jurisdiction and Proceedings Transfer Act, S.B.C. 2003, c. 28, sect. 3(e) [para. 29].

Counsel:

S.R. Schachter, Q.C., G.B. Gomery, Q.C., and J.D. Bunting, for the appellant;

R.S. Fleming and J. Zeljkovich, for the respondent plaintiffs;

J.C. McArthur and T.A. Posyniak, for the intervenor, Canadian Civil Liberties Association;

D.K. Wotherspoon and D.A. Byma, for the intervenor, Electronic Frontier Foundation;

B.B. Sookman and M.L. Lam, for the intervenors, International Federation of Film Producers Assoc. and International Federation of the Phonographic Industry;

No one appeared for the defendants.

This appeal was heard on October 27 and 28, 2014, before Frankel, Groberman and Harris, JJ.A., of the British Columbia Court of Appeal. The decision of the court was delivered by Groberman, J.A., on June 11, 2015.