Publication
La Cour suprême du Canada tranche : les cadres ne pourront se syndiquer au Québec
Le 19 avril dernier, la Cour suprême du Canada a rendu une décision fort attendue en matière de syndicalisation des cadres.
Mondial | Publication | February 2016
On February 18, 2016, the Supreme Court of Canada granted leave to Google Inc. to appeal the decision in Equustek Solutions Inc. v. Google Inc., 2015 BCCA 265, an important decision regarding the power of Canadian courts to grant orders with worldwide effect.
In Equustek, the BC Court of Appeal upheld an injunction restraining Google from referencing a number of websites in its search results. The Court awarded the injunction in order to limit public access to websites that the defendants had been using to advertise and sell products in breach of the plaintiffs’ intellectual property rights. Google was not a party to the underlying litigation. The injunction was designed to ensure that court orders already granted against the defendants would be effective.
The injunction required compliance not only with Google results displayed in Canada, but results displayed anywhere in the world.
As we wrote in our previous post concerning Equustek, the Court of Appeal’s decision was significant for several reasons. First, it outlined a two-step approach for courts considering an injunction sought against a non-party, such as a search engine: determining the power of the court over the dispute generally, and then determining if the court has jurisdiction over the third party.
In Equustek, both requirements were met. Most interestingly, the basis for determining jurisdiction over Google, the third party, did not turn on the facts of the case, but instead turned on Google’s business conduct in BC—a determination unlikely to change in later cases.
The decision has significant consequences for comity concerns and BC courts’ relationship with international third parties. It is also important for entities and individuals looking for tools to protect their intellectual property rights in an era where cross-border advertising and product distribution are frequently done with ease—and can often be done with impunity.
In granting leave, the Supreme Court of Canada has implicitly agreed that these issues are of national importance. We agree with the Court and will be following the appeal with great interest.
Click here to read our previous post on the Court of Appeal’s decision.
Click here to read the BC Court of Appeal’s reasons in Equustek.
Publication
Le 19 avril dernier, la Cour suprême du Canada a rendu une décision fort attendue en matière de syndicalisation des cadres.
Publication
Le budget 2024 propose d’élargir la portée de certains pouvoirs permettant à l’ARC de demander des renseignements aux contribuables tout en prévoyant de nouvelles conséquences pour les contribuables contrevenants.
Publication
L'impôt minimum de remplacement (IMR) est un impôt sur le revenu additionnel prévu dans la Loi de l’impôt sur le revenu (Canada) (la « Loi ») auquel sont assujettis les particuliers et certaines fiducies qui pourraient autrement avoir recours à certaines déductions et exemptions et à certains crédits pour réduire leur impôt sur le revenu fédéral canadien régulier.
Abonnez-vous et restez à l’affût des nouvelles juridiques, informations et événements les plus récents...
© Norton Rose Fulbright LLP 2023