Agree 100% that this test sounds like asking someone to prove a negative in order to force action at their expense.
The retailer in this case is Google, and their entire business model rides on being able to ship an information product worldwide - that is, their index.
How is it Google's responsibility to no longer aggregate their index, since they are now expected to deviate from the information generated from the expressions of others' statements, upon which its index was originally based? Is a quotation no longer an acceptable device to publish or derive information, in Canada?
Unless Google is committing a crime by repeating what was said, or pointing to someone who said something, then why is it legally permissible for Canada to order Google to do anything at all here?
Even if Google is citing someone who did something illegally in their index, is it a crime for Google to quote what was said, and to publish the fact that persons said something -- nationally, let alone internationally?
It sounds like this defense was screwed up on two fronts:
1) Where does Canadian law allow anyone to remove or suppress what was recorded in a non-binding quote containing what was previously observed to have been published by others, in a civil trial?
2) Freedom of speech, as a form of detailing quotes in the aggregate, in any other country in the world is not compatible with the idea of removing recorded quotes from the aggregate product of what was internationally found in a survey. That is the precedent. What was and will be found on the internet from the standpoint of other countries Internet connections, does not change just because Canada doesn't like it.
Pursuing #2 seems be the best option since the courts completely breezed over #1. The need to stick to the fundamentals that their product has never actually guaranteed correctness or truth, nationally or internationally. The Google product guarantees an aggregation of quotes. The product attempts to arrive at correctness or truth by algorithmic-ally deriving meaning from the aggregate, not the other way around.
... Google (the product) does not derive the aggregate by manually specifying exceptions one after the other whenever John Doe catches someone lying on the internet. To do so on an international scale would forcefully change Google (the product), not in compliance with any Canadian law (afaik), and not in compliance with any international precedent.
It would be akin to suing a newspaper to have information forcefully removed, in all countries of the world, even though it was published with valid quotes and perfect reporting. If Google (the product) wanted to do this in a way that was respectful of the nature of the request, that it is based on a quote, it would be better to think of the court's decision as being a qualifier on the nature of the information -- "This website may be untrustworthy. (Legal Information: ...). But this request cannot be compelled internationally, because it is not Google's responsibility to ascertain correctness of the contents of a quote. For something that was internationally said of the quote, Google can internationally do with that information whatever they please.
The fact that the Google product is an aggregation of quotes, I think, has escaped the courts. And that may be what they are accidentally glossing over when trying to compel Google to change those quotes, internationally, in a civil trial.