Date: 19980209
Docket: A-491-97
CORAM: DENAULT J.A.
IN THE MATTER of an application for judicial review pursuant to paragraph 28(1)(e) of the Federal Court Act
AND IN THE MATTER of a recommencement of inquiry by the Canadian International Trade Tribunal under section 44 of the Special Imports Measures Act respecting the dumping and subsidization of dry pasta, not stuffed or otherwise prepared, and not containing eggs, in packages up to and including 2.3 kg in weight, originating in or exported from Italy.
BETWEEN:
THE CANADIAN WHEAT BOARD and THE CANADIAN PASTA MANUFACTURERS' ASSOCIATION
Applicants
AND:
UNICONE INDUSTRIALI PASTAI ITALIANI, BARILLA ALIMENTARE S.p.A., DELVERDE, S.R.L., LA MOLISANA INDUSTRIE ALIMENTARI S.p.A., F.LLI DE CECCO DI FILIPPO S.p.A., NESTLÉ ITALIANA S.p.A., PASTIFICIO FABIANELLI, S.p.A., ITALFINA INC., MOLISANA IMPORTS, NUMAGE TRADING INC., SA-GER FOOD PRODUCTS INC., SANTA MARIA FOODS LTD., BERTOLLI CANADA INC., UNICO INC.
Respondents
Heard at Ottawa on Tuesday, January 27, 1998
Judgment rendered at Ottawa on Monday, February 9, 1998
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT BY: DENAULT J.A.
CONCURRED IN BY: DESJARDINS J.A.
LINDEN J.A.
Date: 19980209
Docket: A-491-97
CORAM: DENAULT J.A.
IN THE MATTER of an application for judicial review pursuant to paragraph 28(1)(e) of the Federal Court Act
AND IN THE MATTER of a recommencement of inquiry by the Canadian International Trade Tribunal under section 44 of the Special Imports Measures Act respecting the dumping and subsidization of dry pasta, not stuffed or otherwise prepared, and not containing eggs, in packages up to and including 2.3 kg in weight, originating in or exported from Italy.
BETWEEN:
THE CANADIAN WHEAT BOARD and THE CANADIAN PASTA MANUFACTURERS' ASSOCIATION
Applicants
AND:
UNICONE INDUSTRIALI PASTAI ITALIANI, BARILLA ALIMENTARE S.p.A., DELVERDE, S.R.L., LA MOLISANA INDUSTRIE ALIMENTARI S.p.A., F.LLI DE CECCO DI FILIPPO S.p.A., NESTLÉ ITALIANA S.p.A., PASTIFICIO FABIANELLI, S.p.A., ITALFINA INC., MOLISANA IMPORTS, NUMAGE TRADING INC., SA-GER FOOD PRODUCTS INC., SANTA MARIA FOODS LTD., BERTOLLI CANADA INC., UNICO INC.
Respondents
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
DENAULT J.A.
[1] I am of the view that this application for judicial review of the decision of the Canadian International Trade Tribunal (the "Tribunal"), dated June 2, 1997,1 must be dismissed.
[2] A previous judgment of this Court2 set aside a finding3 by the Tribunal following an inquiry under section 41 of the Special Import Measures Act (SIMA) that the dumping and subsidizing of certain dry pasta originating in or exported from Italy had not caused and was not threatening material injury to the domestic industry. Having found that the Tribunal had made contradictory and irreconcilable findings - a manifest error - in its assessment of the non-premium brands of Italian pastas, the Court set aside the Tribunal's finding and instructed that the matter be reheard "on the basis of the existing record although [the Court] would not exclude the possibility of the Tribunal in the exercise of its discretion calling or allowing new evidence".
[3] Having reheard the matter, the Tribunal made the same finding as previously.
[4] The applicants seek an order setting aside the new finding of the Tribunal. The Tribunal, they say, unduly restricted the scope of the new hearing and failed to observe the principles of natural justice and procedural fairness with regard to its negative finding of threat of material injury, by refusing to admit evidence arising after May 13, 1996, the date of its first finding. They further argue that in its new finding and statement of reasons, the Tribunal made patently unreasonable findings of fact.
[5] With respect to the applicant's first argument, insofar as the Tribunal allowed the filing of new evidence, which related to the original period of inquiry, but refused to file new evidence related to the period after its May 13, 1996 finding, I am of the view that it complied with the previous judgment of this Court and judicially exercised its discretion pursuant to section 44 of SIMA. There is no evidence that the Tribunal acted in bad faith, made any error of principle, or relied on irrelevant considerations. On the contrary, it was open to the Tribunal to determine that if it enlarged the time period for evidence, it would have been embarking on a different inquiry than the one it conducted in Inquiry NQ-95-003.
[6] Besides, what the Tribunal is being criticized for is unrelated to the failure noted in this Court's decision of January 31, 1997. If, on every rehearing, a Tribunal were under a legal obligation to review all aspects of its earlier finding, there would be no finality to its task. A return by this Court in the case at bar, for instance, might again oblige the Tribunal to look at evidence posterior to its finding of June 2, 1997.
[7] With respect to the argument that the Tribunal made patently unreasonable findings of fact, I am not convinced that this specialized tribunal, acting within its area of expertise and jurisdiction and entitled to curial deference, made patently unreasonable errors.4 The Tribunal considered numerous factors, not necessarily in dispute. With the evidence it had before it, it was not unreasonable for it to conclude that the pasta imported from Italy by the respondents did not cause or threaten to cause injury to the Canadian market.
[8] The application should be dismissed.
"Pierre Denault" J.A.
"I agree
A.M. Linden, J.A."
"I agree
A. Desjardins, J.A."
__________________
1 Inquiry No. NQ-95-003R. Statement of reasons (17 June 1997).
2 (31 January 1997), A-473-96 (C.A.).
3 Inquiry No. NQ-95-003 (13 May 1996) and statement of reasons (28 May 1996).
4[1992] S.C.R. 1324"> National Corn Growers v. Canada Import Tribunal, [1992] S.C.R. 1324. See also the judgment of this Court (31 January 1997), A-473-96.
Email this Content