Equustek Solutions Inc. et al. v. Jack et al., 2014 BCCA 295

• Judge: Willcock, J.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (British Columbia)
• Case Date: July 08, 2014
• Jurisdiction: British Columbia
• Citations: 2014 BCCA 295;(2014), 358 B.C.A.C. 311 (CA)

Equustek Solutions Inc. v. Jack (2014), 358 B.C.A.C. 311 (CA);

    614 W.A.C. 311

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2014] B.C.A.C. TBEd. JL.050

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)

(CA041923; 2014 BCCA 295)

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

British Columbia Court of Appeal

Willcock, J.A.

July 23, 2014.

Summary:

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

Injunctions - Topic 1724

Interlocutory or interim injunctions - Stay of interim or interlocutory injunction - Pending appeal - See paragraphs 22 to 37.

Injunctions - Topic 1936

Interlocutory or interim injunctions - Practice - Appeals - Leave to appeal - See paragraphs 8 to 21.

Injunctions - Topic 4606

Operation of injunctions - Territorial application - Re internet sites - See paragraphs 8 to 21.

Injunctions - Topic 4545

Operation of injunctions - Suspension - Stay pending appeal - When available - See paragraphs 22 to 37.

Injunctions - Topic 4647

Operation of injunctions - Persons bound - Nonparties - See paragraphs 8 to 21.

Cases Noticed:

Power Consolidated (China) Pulp Inc. v. B.C. Resources Investment Corp. (1988), 19 C.P.C.(3d) 396 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 8].

Google Spain SL and Google Inc. v. Agencia Espaňola de Protección de Datos (AEPD) and Mario Costeja González, C-131/12 (European Union Court of Justice), refd to. [para. 15].

Mooney v. Orr (1994), 98 B.C.L.R.(2d) 318 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 16].

Reynolds v. Harmanis (1995), 39 C.P.C.(3d) 364 (B.C.S.C.), refd to. [para. 16].

Milk Marketing Board (B.C.) et al. v. Grisnich et al. (1996), 70 B.C.A.C. 142; 115 W.A.C. 142; 50 C.P.C.(3d) 249 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 23].

British Columbia (Attorney General) v. Wale et al. (1986), 9 B.C.L.R.(2d) 333 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 27].

Canadian Federation of Students (B.C.) et al. v. Greater Vancouver Transportation Authority et al. (2007), 239 B.C.A.C. 301; 396 W.A.C. 301; 282 D.L.R.(4th) 170; 2007 BCCA 221, refd to. [para. 30].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Black, Vaughan, and Babin, Edward, Mareva Injunctions in Canada: Territorial Aspects (1997), 28 Can. Bus. L.J. 430, pp. 453, 454 [para. 17].

Sharpe, Robert J., Injunctions and Specific Performance (2013 Looseleaf Supp.), paras. 2.41 to 2.43 [para. 35].

Counsel:

S.R. Schacter, Q.C., G.B. Gomery, Q.C., J. Bunting and P.R. Senkpiel, for the appellant;

R. Fleming, for the respondent Equustek Solutions Inc.

This matter was heard in chambers, in Vancouver, B.C., on July 8, 2014, before Willcock, J.A., of the British Columbia Court of Appeal, who delivered the following decision on July 23, 2014.