"On second thought, maybe someone has "
The Canadian federal government, through CRA, studied eBay's business over ten years ago and determined through a ruling that the service was provided in the USA.
Good Luck to anyone going against their opinion.
@angus_coin_shop wrote:quebec and ontario law do not mix, just like apple and oranges.
you could file in manitoba and see if they would stay or they would motion to transfer it.
i currently have a court order against a BC resident, i have the choice to have a writ against his property in my province or go to BC and enforce via BC court.
I think you get the idea, some provinces will cross others wont.
You are probably right about Quebec legal decisions having little effect in the rest of Canada (unless those cases are elevated to the Supreme Court of Canada), but I'm afraid you misunderstand the legal system in English Canada. Civil disputes or legal claims between two litigants over property issues or personal injury, at least in English Canada, can be brought either in the province where the Plaintiff resides (you, in this case), or where the event occurred (BC in your case).
This is completely different from jurisdictional competence in contract cases, where a court must decide jurisdiction based on the wording of the contract itself between the two parties. Usually in commercial contracts, both parties understand and agree to which jurisdiction will apply to the contract. In the Quebec case the court takes the position that eBay's unilateral imposition of Santa Barbara, California as the sole jurisdiction for suits under the user agreement is effectively illegal under Quebec law, and so the Quebec court should be able to set the jurisdiction, in this case, Quebec (Montreal).
Now this will likely not help the rest of us in Canada unless the case is elevated to the Supreme Court of Canada, or unless, as I said, someone comes along who has the money (and the reason) to fight the issue of jurisdiction in eBay's contract in a province other than Quebec. If that sort of case were to be won in a court outside Quebec, eBay would have a real problem with its user agreement as it pertained to all Canadian users, since, as I mentioned, the Canadian case would apply everywhere in Canada (outside Quebec, unless Mr. Moko wins there too), and would also set a worrisome precedent for U.S. lawsuits under eBay's contract (user agreement).
'cumos' -- Do you have deep enough pockets to challenge the jurisdiction issue in the the eBay contract? You would have to find a breach of contract issue under the user agreement to bring forward in the Manitoba courts, and a good lawyer to argue that the matter should be heard in Manitoba, not Ontario. But with enough money and time, I imagine it could be done. Maybe one of the "Dragons" would like to use their excess money in this consumer-friendly fight! 
"and they do have a GST/HST #"
What does that have to do with anything? It is irrelevant to the discussion. Many businesses in Canada are GST/HST registered with a GST/HST number yet do NOT charge GST/HST on non-taxable goods and services.
Your own business works that way according to your eBay listings. Many items you sell are not taxable, even though you have a GST/HST number. The same applies to a lot of businesses dealing on both taxable and non-taxable goods and/or services. It has nothing to do with this discussion.
@i*m-still-here wrote:I'm not sure what makes this case so fascinating.
Unless we know why the listing was pulled by eBay, then there is really nothing to discuss.
What makes this case so fascinating from a legal point of view has nothing to do with Moko's claims of loss or why eBay pulled the listing. Those may be important factors for the Plaintiffs themselves, but the truly critical issue for all consumers of such services is the question of jurisdiction for suits brought by consumers under a "check the box" type user agreement. If, as I said, this case had been brought outside Quebec, it may have had serious implications for eBay throughout Canada, and probably even in the U.S. because of our similar civil legal systems. The fact that the decision regarding jurisdiction occurred in a Quebec court will unfortunately have little impact for consumers elsewhere .
Think of it this way: If Moko et al had brought their case in the jurisdiction stipulated unilaterally by eBay in the user agreement (i.e. Santa Barbara, CA), this claim of loss of profit (or whatever Moko et al) are after, would have been just another blip on the radar, with little meaning for most users -- after all, who is realistically likely to find themselves in a similar situation with a listing for a $50,000 US pair of shoes that gets removed by eBay? Not too many, I would think.
Yet how many users of eBay and other internet provider services have more or less unwittingly clicked on that little box that says "Yes I agree" when presented with the user agreement, not having read it, let alone understood it? Now you're talking about potentially millions.
If a court outside Quebec were to decide that a suit brought against eBay did not have to be heard in Santa Barbara, CA, and perhaps even went as far as the Quebec court did in calling such "check the box" agreements which impose a jurisdiction illegal, or at best abusive, then you suddenly have a massive legal shift that has to be confronted by such companies as eBay, Amazon, and many other internet service providers. Consumers might actually find that jurisdictions stated in user agreements would become, at worst, country-specific, or at best, regionally specific to, for example, the nearest civil court registry. There might be some other consumer-friendly compromise (such as leaving the choice of jurisdiction to the consumer of the services -- that would be a radical development in favour of the users).
Please read my post above about why setting a "familiar" local jurisdiction is so favourable for these big companies and why this is such an important issue legally.
Having that particular advantage ripped away from big companies might at least remove some of the handicap that the ordinary person has in trying to get redress for losses or breaches by a big company under a user agreement (with any internet service provider). It wouldn't entirely level the playing field, because these companies still have massive amounts of money to throw at lawsuits that could set "dangerous" precedents for them, but it would at least mean a better chance of a fair hearing.
So, from a legal perspective, nobody will care much whether Moko et al win their case and get their losses paid by eBay or not, because it's such an odd situation and unlikely to occur again. What matters, and what signals the possibility of a precedent elsewhere, is that the Moko case was allowed to be heard in a jurisdiction other than that imposed by the eBay user agreement. I expect that's the reason CBC decided to run it as news, not just because of the rather ludicrous facts of the case.
In a very real sense, the drama ended once the Quebec court made the finding on jurisdiction. The rest is rather meaningless fluff (unless Moko loses and the case is taken to the Supreme Court of Canada by an intervenor interested primarily in the jurisdictional question).
I think many consumer organizations and corporate lawyers will be paying attention to see if anything further happens now on the question of jurisdiction in cases under user agreements, i.e. if this issue is taken up in some court other than in Quebec. Anybody well-heeled enough and interested in trying? 
