The issue here is that IPs are dynamic and the list will by design incidentally block reassigned IPs and thus noninfringing content. One could write an order c

The issue here is that IPs are dynamic and the list will by design incidentally block reassigned IPs and thus noninfringing content. One could write an order creating draconian penalties for incidentally blocking noninfringing content, but the judge instead almost certainly will give plaintiffs a "pass" for interfering with the ability of Canadians to incidentally access noninfringing content. He'll do that because he feels responsible for crafting the remedy, even if it's one that isn't suitable to be deployed. My guess is this ends badly for the judge in terms of eventually accidentally blocking some popular nonifringing content, and he receives an unexpected level of popular attention. Since he is responsible for a dynamic interference with information available to nonparties I hope he is making his contact information available to people whose browsing he interferes with.