SCC 5,  1 S.C.R. 196, at para. 13 [CBC], after it described
the test in RJR — MacDonald:
This general framework is, however, just that — general. (Indeed,
in RJR — MacDonald, the Court identified two exceptions which
may call for “an extensive review of the merits” at the first stage of
the analysis.) In this case, the parties have at every level of court
agreed that, where a mandatory interlocutory injunction is sought,
the appropriate inquiry at the first stage of the RJR — MacDonald
test is into whether the applicants have shown a strong prima facie
case. I note that this heightened threshold was not applied by this
Court in upholding such an injunction in Google Inc. v. Equustek
Solutions Inc. In Google, however, the appellant did not argue that
the first stage of the RJR — MacDonald test should be modified.
Rather, the appellant agreed that only a “serious issue to be tried”
needed to be shown and therefore the Court was not asked to
consider whether a heightened threshold should apply. By contrast,
in this case, the application by the courts below of a heightened
threshold raises for the first time the question of just what
threshold ought to be applied at the first stage where the applicant
seeks a mandatory interlocutory injunction.
 The fundamental question is whether it is “just and equitable in all of the circumstances”
that an injunction should issue. This is necessarily context-specific (Google at para 25).
 In GoldTV FC, the Court accepted that it was appropriate to seek guidance from relevant
United Kingdom jurisprudence on site-blocking orders, in particular the factors set out in Cartier
International AG v British Sky Broadcasting Ltd.,  EWCA Civ 658 [Cartier]. This was
endorsed by the Federal Court of Appeal in GoldTV FCA (at paras 76-77), and so I will consider
these principles in the analysis that follows.
 The following summary of the Cartier factors borrows from GoldTV FC at paragraph 52
and GoldTV FCA at para 74. The factors to be considered are:
A. Necessity –the extent to which the relief is necessary to
protect the plaintiff’s rights. The relief need not be