Law360 Canada ( March 13, 2018, 8:45 AM EDT) -- Appeal by Bell et al from a judge’s decision to vacate an Anton Piller order and to dismiss the appellants’ motion for an interlocutory injunction to restrain Lackman from operating TVAddons. Lackman was involved in the creation and operation of the TVAddons website, a repository for software used to supplement other applications with additional functions or features. One such application was the KODI media player, a software application installed on electronic devices to allow users to play multimedia content. When used in conjunction with add-ons, the KODI media player could be used to access and stream multimedia content hosted on the Internet. Some add-ons directed users toward legitimate websites, while others directed users toward copyrighted content where the user had no authorized access. TVAddons had both infringing and non-infringing add-ons. The appellants characterized the site as a platform for copyright piracy. The add-ons found on the site could be used to access Canadian television stations and live sports as well as on-demand TV and motion pictures. Following ex parte and in camera motions, a judge issued an interim injunction enjoining Lackman from communicating or making available to the public the appellants’ programs, and from inducing anyone to initiate acts of infringement of the appellants’ rights to communicate their programs to the public by telecommunication. Lackman was ordered to provide his login credentials for modification by a computer forensics expert and deactivation of the website. Solicitors for the appellants were authorized, pursuant to an Anton Piller order, to inspect Lackman’s residence, make copies of documents pertaining to the website and financial records, remove materials, and make mirror images of digital devices, as well as to question Lackman in regards to the location of information relating to the development and operation of the website. The orders were valid for 14 days. In the impugned decision, another judge, critical of the manner in which the Anton Piller order was carried out, found that the true purpose and effect of the order was to destroy Lackman’s livelihood, deny him the financial resources to finance a defence to the copyright infringement claim by the appellants, and to provide an opportunity to discover Lackman without procedural safeguards. This judge found that the appellants lacked a strong prima facie case of infringement, vacated the Anton Piller order and denied the appellants an interim injunction....