I've been trying to follow this case, and I'd love for someone with actual legal background to correct me if I'm wrong. But as far I can tell from reading the r

I've been trying to follow this case, and I'd love for someone with actual legal background to correct me if I'm wrong. But as far I can tell from reading the rulings and PIPEDA is that technically all the courts have said so far is that commercial search engines are not blanket exempt from PIPEDA, and that they are not exempt from PIPEDA in the context of the original complaint (the actual guy complaining that his name is giving untrue and damaging results on google). Google has been trying to argue that the Privacy Commissioner needs to consider charter implications of PIPEDA applying (and allowing right to be forgotten), while the Commissioner and the courts have been stating that they will first rule on if google search engine results are in scope of PIPEDA before considering if delisting would unduly limit Charter rights. Finally, as I understand it, PIPEDA effectively grants the Privacy Commissioner investigatory powers, and that enforcement and remedies are supposed to be enforced by courts (ie, another lawsuit). That said, the Privacy Commissioner has published a draft position on online reputation that says it does believe that delisting/deindexing can sometimes be an appropriate remedy, so the obvious follow up steps would be the Privacy Comissioner/original complaint proceeding. In other words, even if Google fails to win an appeal on this set of rulings, there will almost certainly be another round of court cases on if delisting ("right to be forgotten") is actually Charter compliant.