The fact that they arrived at this by purely legal logic is surprising to me.
Assuming Canadian court systems work more or less like those in the US, it makes sense. Courts of appeal aren't there to rule on matters of fact. That was already done by the initial trial court (or should have been, at least). The appeals court, in this case, was looking at the legal question of whether or not it was reasonable for the lower court to deny default judgement against the people who never showed up to court.
And it doesn't raise red flags that someone was pissy enough over bad reviews to go and publish an entire article to cry that everyone leaving bad reviews is just racist?
I mean yeah, user reviews aren't perfect, but this mess of a show doesn't prove it any more than literally every other piece of media people leave reviews for.
Isn't it "digital rights management"?