Docket: A-46-16
Citation:
2017 FCA 166
|
CORAM:
|
BOIVIN J.A.
DE MONTIGNY J.A.
WOODS J.A.
|
|
BETWEEN:
|
|
ESSAR STEEL
ALGOMA INC.
|
|
Applicant
|
|
and
|
|
JINDAL STEEL
AND POWER LIMITED, STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LTD., HIGH COMMISSION OF INDIA,
MINISTRY OF INDUSTRY AND TRADE OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION, MINISTRY OF
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION and SSAB CENTRAL INC.
|
|
Respondents
|
REASONS
FOR JUDGMENT
BOIVIN J.A.
I.
Introduction
[1]
The applicant, Essar Steel Algoma Inc. (Essar
Algoma), seeks judicial review of the Canadian International Trade Tribunal’s (the
CITT) Finding dated January 6, 2016 in Inquiry No. NQ‑2015‑001 pursuant
to section 96.1 of the Special Import Measures Act, R.S.C., 1985, c.
S-15 (the SIMA). As part of its Statement of reasons (the reasons), issued
January 20, 2016, in support of its Finding, the CITT found that hot-rolled
carbon steel plate and high-strength low-alloy steel plate imports (the Subject
Goods) dumped from the Russian Federation (Russia) and dumped and subsidized
from the Republic of India (India) had not caused injury and were not
threatening to cause injury to the domestic steel industry.
[2]
For the reasons that follow, I would dismiss the
application with costs.
II.
Background
[3]
On April 20, 2015, Essar Algoma and two other
steel mills filed a complaint with the President of the Canada Border Services
Agency (the CBSA), requesting a dumping and subsidy investigation into the
Subject Goods, which the CBSA President initiated on June 10, 2015. The CBSA’s
decision to initiate dumping and subsidy investigations triggered a preliminary
inquiry by the CITT under subsection 34(2) of the SIMA. On June 11, 2015, the
CITT undertook a preliminary injury and threat of injuring inquiry and on
August 10, 2015, it found sufficient evidence to proceed with a full inquiry into
whether the dumping and subsidizing had caused injury or threatened to cause
injury to the domestic industry.
[4]
On September 8, 2015, the CBSA made preliminary
findings of dumping and subsidizing. It accordingly imposed provisional
anti-dumping measures and countervailing duties on the Subject Goods. The next
day, on September 9, 2015, the CITT initiated a notice of commencement of
inquiry.
[5]
On December 7, 2015, the CBSA made a final
determination of dumping in respect of the Subject Goods from both Russia and
India, and a final determination of subsidizing in respect of the Subject Goods
from India. It estimated that 100 percent of the Subject Goods released into
Canada between January 1, 2014 and March 31, 2015 were dumped. The CBSA further
found the subsidy relating to the Subject Goods from Russia was minimal (0.2
percent) whereas the Subject Goods from India were subsidized at 20.3 percent
of the export price. Finally, the CBSA considered the subsidy in respect of the
Subject Goods from India to be “significant”.
III.
The CITT’s decision
[6]
The CITT held that while the Subject Goods might
negatively affect the domestic industry, they neither caused nor threatened to
cause injury in the present case. In reaching its conclusion, the CITT
conducted a six-step inquiry determining: 1) what constitutes “Like Goods” pursuant to subsection 2(1) of the SIMA
(i.e. domestic goods that are identical in all respects to the Subject Goods,
or goods the uses and other characteristics of which closely resemble those of
the Subject Goods); 2) the scope of the “domestic
industry”; 3) whether it should assess the dumping’s effect on a
cumulative basis (i.e. considering both Russian and Indian Subject Goods
together); 4) whether cross-cumulation is appropriate (i.e. considering the
effects of dumping and subsidization together); 5) whether the
dumping/subsidization caused injury to the domestic industry; and 6) absent injury,
whether a threat of injury to the domestic industry exists.
[7]
In identifying the Like Goods of domestic
producers in relation to the Subject Goods pursuant to subsection 2(1) of the
SIMA, the CITT included hot-rolled steel plate produced by steel mills and
smaller entities known as service centers. For the purpose of this appeal, it
suffices to mention that steel mills – such as Essar Algoma – commonly produce
large steel plate sheets measuring 96 inches in width or greater (Discrete
Plate). They also produce plates from steel coils that are then cut to length
(Cut-to-Length Plate). As for service centers, they do not produce Discrete
Plate, working mainly with Cut-to-Length Plate and mainly in widths of 72
inches and narrower. Some service centers also import Discrete Plate (CITT’s reasons
at para. 52). Despite the difference in width of hot-rolled steel plate
produced by the steel mills and the service centers, the CITT was satisfied
that “the domestic industry, as a whole, produces the
same range of hot-rolled steel plate products as the subject goods” and
that both Discrete Plate and Cut-to-Length Plate are comprised in “a single class of goods” (CITT’s reasons at paras.
35, 38, 44 and 45). The CITT concluded that both steel mills and service centers
were producers of Like Goods.
[8]
In addressing the issue of which domestic
producers should be included in the domestic industry, the CITT turned to the “domestic industry” definition as set forth in
subsection 2(1) of the SIMA.
[9]
In this regard, Essar Algoma acknowledged before
the CITT, that service centers generally form part of the domestic industry,
but urged the CITT to exclude three of them from the injury analysis, namely:
Samuel, Son & Co., Limited (Samuel), Varsteel Ltd. (Varsteel) and Russel
Metals. Specifically, Essar Algoma claimed that Samuel and Varsteel imported
Subject Goods in substantial volumes, injuring domestic steel mills. As for Russel
Metals, Essar Algoma argued that it should be excluded due to its relation to
Acier Wirth Steel (Wirth), a company that imports the Subject Goods.
[10]
In deciding whether to exclude the three service
centers from the analysis, the CITT applied the structural/behavioural
analysis. It thus examined each of the service centers in light of the “structural” factors (e.g. the ratio of the service
center’s sales of the Subject Goods to its total sales in the domestic market)
and the “behavioural” factors (e.g.
whether the service center imported the Subject Goods as a defensive measure
against other Subject Goods or as an aggressive measure to capture market
share). From the outset, the CITT observed that it retains discretion to
include any producer as part of the domestic industry, irrespective of the
outcome on the structural/behavioural analysis (CITT’s reasons at paras.
56-58). After putting each of the three impugned service centers (Samuel,
Varsteel and Russel Metals) through the structural/behavioural analysis, the
CITT ultimately declined Essar Algoma’s request. It found that all three
service centers were properly included within the domestic industry for the
purposes of the inquiry (CITT’s reasons at paras. 59-68).
[11]
Turning to the issue of cumulation, the CITT assessed
the effects of the dumped goods from Russia and from India on a cumulative
basis. In so doing, the CITT noted that subsection 42(3) of the SIMA directs it
to consider dumping cumulatively if (i) the margin of dumping from each country
“is not insignificant” and the volume of the
goods from each country “is not negligible” and,
(ii) cumulation is appropriate taking into account the conditions of
competition between the Subject Goods and the Like Goods of domestic producers or
between Subject Goods and goods imported into Canada from different countries
under investigation. The CITT found that the margins of dumping were “not insignificant” as they exceed 2 percent. It also
found that the volume of the Subject Goods from both Russia and India was “not negligible”. With respect to the conditions of
competition, the CITT found that the Like Goods at issues are sold through the
same or similar distribution channels as the Subject Goods, and that these
commodity products compete in the Canadian marketplace (CITT’s reasons at
paras. 83-92).
[12]
The CITT observed that the SIMA is silent on
cross-cumulation. In considering whether cross-cumulation was appropriate, the
CITT remained mindful of the leading World Trade Organization Appellate Body (the
WTO Appellate Body) report addressing cross-cumulation (United States -
Countervailing Measures on Certain Hot-rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products From
India (8 December 2014), WTO Doc. WT/DS436/AB/R). In that case, the WTO Appellate
Body found it inappropriate to cross-cumulate the effects of dumping from one
country and subsidization by another. The CITT deemed the present case to be distinguishable
in this respect given that the Subject Goods at issue are dumped from two
countries, creating an analytical link, but only subsidized in one of them.
Concerned about falling out of line with the WTO Appellate Body’s ruling, the
CITT decided to perform its analysis on a cross-cumulated basis in the present
case but added that, if necessary, it could consider whether the Indian
subsidizing effects ought to be segregated from those caused by dumping (CITT’s
reasons at paras. 88-92).
[13]
In conducting its injury analysis, the CITT then
turned to the criteria set out at subsection 37.1(1) of the Special Import
Measures Regulations, S.O.R./84-927 (the SIMR): 1) the import volume of
dumped or subsidized goods; 2) the price effect of dumped or subsidized goods,
including price undercutting, depression and suppression; and 3) the resulting
impact of the dumped or subsidized goods on the domestic industry, including
economic factors (e.g. decline in output, sales, market share, profits,
productivity, return on investments or the use of industrial capacity). The
CITT analyzed each criterion in detail, referring to various documents and viva
voce evidence. It found the Subject Goods adversely affected the domestic
industry. The impact was nevertheless principally limited to steel mills, and Essar
Algoma specifically, rather than the domestic industry as a whole. The CITT
also determined that other factors were responsible for some of the injury,
including poor market conditions and a raw material shortage for Essar Algoma
caused by a dispute with a supplier. As a result, the CITT concluded that the
Subject Goods did not cause material injury to the domestic industry.
[14]
Finally, having found no injury, the CITT
queried whether the Subject Goods threatened future injury. It established a
12-18-month-threat assessment window and found both: 1) a likelihood that
import of Subject Goods would substantially increase; and 2) that the Subject
Goods could undercut domestic prices (CITT’s reasons at paras. 183-206). The
CITT nonetheless concluded, as in the injury analysis, that although some
producers (especially Essar Algoma) might be threatened with injury, it could
not extrapolate from that conclusion a threat to the domestic industry as a
whole. Again, significant factors unrelated to the Subject Goods were at play,
and it was primarily Essar Algoma that stood to sustain injury.
IV.
Issues and Standard of Review
[15]
This Court has previously observed that the CITT
is a highly specialized tribunal and that as such, its decisions are entitled
to deference and will be reviewed on the reasonableness standard (MAAX Bath
Inc. v. Almag Aluminum Inc., 2010 FCA 62, [2010] F.C.J. No. 275 (QL) at
paras. 31-33; Rio Tinto Alcan Inc. v. Québec Silicon Limited Partnership
(QSLP), 2015 FCA 72, [2015] F.C.J. No. 1559 (QL) at para. 35). In this
appeal, the role of our Court is therefore not to re-weigh the evidence that
was before the CITT but to determine whether the CITT’s decision falls within a
range of possible and acceptable outcomes (Dunsmuir v. New Brunswick,
2008 SCC 9, [2008] 1 S.C.R. 190).
[16]
Essar Algoma’s judicial review application gives
rise to two issues stemming from the CITT’s analysis:
(1)
Was the CITT analysis regarding the domestic
industry reasonable?
(2)
Was the CITT analysis regarding injury and
threat of injury reasonable?
V.
Analysis
A.
Review of the CITT’s analysis regarding the
domestic industry
[17]
Essar Algoma challenges the CITT’s interpretation
of the “domestic industry” as defined at
subsection 2(1) of SIMA. Specifically, Essar Algoma submits that the CITT erred
in law when it assessed injury or threat of injury only in view of the domestic
industry as a whole without further inquiring as to whether a “major proportion” of the “domestic
industry” faced injury or threat of injury. The SIMA defines “domestic industry” at subsection 2(1) as follows:
|
domestic industry means, other than for the purposes of section 31 and subject to
subsection (1.1), the domestic producers as a whole of the like goods or
those domestic producers whose collective production of the like goods
constitutes a major proportion of the total domestic production of the like goods
except that, where a domestic producer is related to an exporter or importer
of dumped or subsidized goods, or is an importer of such goods, domestic
industry may be interpreted as meaning the rest of those domestic
producers; (branche de production nationale)
|
branche de production
nationale Sauf pour l’application de l’article 31
et sous réserve du paragraphe (1.1), l’ensemble des producteurs nationaux de
marchandises similaires ou les producteurs nationaux dont la
production totale de marchandises similaires constitue une proportion majeure
de la production collective nationale des marchandises similaires. Peut
toutefois en être exclu le producteur national qui est lié à un exportateur
ou à un importateur de marchandises sous-évaluées ou subventionnées, ou qui
est lui-même un importateur de telles marchandises. (domestic
industry)
|
|
[Underlined added. Bold in the original]
|
[Mon soulignement.]
|
[18]
Essar Algoma contends that the CITT should not
have ended its analysis upon concluding that the dumping did not injure or threaten
injury to the “domestic industry” as a whole. It
affirms that following its analysis on the domestic industry as a whole, the
CITT should have then moved to consider whether a “major
proportion” of the domestic industry was injured or threatened in the
circumstances. According to Essar Algoma, the term “or”
(“ou” in French) used in subsection 2(1) of the
SIMA between “domestic producers as a whole” and
“those domestic producers whose collective production
of the Like Goods constitutes a major proportion of the total domestic
production” must be interpreted as being conjunctive rather than
disjunctive. Essar Algoma argues that its contention in this regard is supported
by the provision’s plain meaning, the SIMA’s overall purpose and this Court’s
jurisprudence.
[19]
In my opinion, Essar Algoma’s contention fails. Essar
Algoma has not demonstrated that the CITT’s interpretation of the “domestic industry” as defined at subsection 2(1) of
the SIMA is unreasonable.
[20]
Essar Algoma argues that its position is supported
by the provision’s plain meaning without explaining how this is so. Since the
term “or” can be read conjunctively or
disjunctively depending on the context, Essar Algoma’s contention that the
analysis should end here is unpersuasive. Essar Algoma also argues that the
CITT’s disjunctive reading of the domestic industry definition is inconsistent
with the SIMA’s purpose given that the SIMA is a remedial legislation and
requires a broad reading pursuant to section 12 of the Interpretation Act,
R.S.C., 1985, c. I-21. But again, Essar Algoma’s argument fails to persuade. Logically,
given that Parliament provided a two-part definition for domestic industry at
subsection 2(1) of the SIMA - i.e. “as a whole”
or “major proportion” - it cannot follow that Parliament
would direct the CITT to consider injury to the domestic industry as a whole
if, to fulfill the SIMA’s purpose, the CITT must act even when only a major
proportion suffers injury. Why would the CITT even examine the industry as a
whole if it was sufficient to show harm to a major proportion of the domestic
industry? Although it is true that remedial legislation must receive a large
and liberal interpretation, that interpretation cannot come at the cost of
rendering statutory language superfluous.
[21]
In support of its challenge to the CITT’s
interpretation of the “domestic industry”, Essar
Algoma also draws from the decisions in Japan Electrical Manufacturers Assn.
v. Canada (Anti-Dumping Tribunal) (F.C.A.), 32 D.L.R. (4th) 222, [1986]
F.C.J. No. 652 (QL) [Japan Electrical]; and Brunswick International
(Canada) Ltd. v. Canada (Anti-Dumping Tribunal), 108 D.L.R. (3d) 216,
[1979] F.C.J. No. 1114 (QL) [Brunswick]. Yet, both of these decisions
are distinguishable.
[22]
Indeed, in Japan Electrical, the Anti-dumping
Tribunal - i.e. the CITT prior to its name change - chose from the
outset to apply the major proportion definition. It thus seems that the
Tribunal never turned its mind to whether the domestic industry as a whole
would suffer injury. Unlike Japan Electrical, the CITT in the present
matter elected to assess injury and threat of injury based on the domestic
industry as a whole.
[23]
Likewise in Brunswick, the Anti-dumping Tribunal
decided from the start to assess injury based on a subset of the domestic
industry, excluding from the inquiry producers accounting for 30% of domestic
production. As it already chose the major proportion standard, it was thus open
to the Anti-dumping Tribunal to determine that one producer, standing alone,
represented a major proportion. Again, and in contrast, the CITT chose in this
case to assess the domestic industry as a whole.
[24]
The wording of subsection 2(1) of the SIMA
leaves it open, depending on the circumstances, to consider “domestic producers” as a whole or a “major proportion” thereof for purposes of making a
determination regarding the domestic industry. The interpretation adopted by
the CITT in the present case, on the basis of the record before it, is
therefore reasonable in my view.
[25]
There are two further factors that convince me
that the CITT’s interpretation of the domestic industry definition was
reasonable. First, this interpretation is consistent with the CITT’s determinations
in seven previous cases dealing with hot-rolled steel plate (Inquiry No.:
NQ-92-007, [1993] C.I.T.T. No. 70 (QL), 5 T.T.R. (2d) 272 [Plate I];
Inquiry No.: NQ-93-004, [1994] C.I.T.T. No. 104 (QL) [Plate II]; Inquiry
No.: NQ-97-001, [1997] C.I.T.T. No. 114 (QL) at paras. 59-60 [Plate III];
Inquiry No.: NQ-99-004, [2000] C.I.T.T. No. 47 (QL) at paras. 104-106 [Plate
IV]; Inquiry No.: NQ-2003-002, [2004] C.I.T.T. No. 2 (QL), 8 T.T.R. (2d)
483 at paras. 47-48 [Plate V]; Inquiry No.: NQ-2009-003, [2010] C.I.T.T.
No. 10 (QL), 14 T.T.R. (2d) 260 at paras. 67-70 [Plate VI]; Inquiry No.:
NQ-2013-005, [2014] C.I.T.T. No. 64 (QL), 18 T.T.R. (2d) 641 at paras. 49-54 [Plate
VII]). In each one of these decisions, the CITT chose, on the facts of each
case, to examine either the domestic industry as a whole or some subset of the
industry making up a major proportion, but never both. When queried at the
hearing, Essar Algoma could not direct this Court to an authority supporting
its interpretation over the one the CITT appears to have consistently applied
in the past.
[26]
Second, the CITT’s reading is also reasonable in
light of our international commitments. The definition of “domestic industry” set forth in subsection 2(1) of
the SIMA is derived from Part I, article 4.1 of the Agreement on
Implementation of Article VI of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994
(Anti-Dumping Agreement) as observed by counsel for the appellant in oral
submissions before our Court. The CITT recognized, at paragraph 70 of its
reasons, that articles 3.1 of the Anti-dumping Agreement and 15.1 of the
Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures require the CITT to
objectively assess the injury that is caused to the domestic industry by the
dumping and subsidizing. In reference to article 3.1 of the Anti-Dumping
Agreement, the CITT noted that the “requirement to
conduct an objective assessment across the entire domestic industry is a key
obligation for Canada”.
[27]
I also note that the WTO Appellate Body’s report
in WTO – United States – Anti-Dumping Measures on Certain Hot-rolled
Steel Products From Japan (24 July 2001), WTO Doc. WT/DS184/AB/R, explained
that article 3.1 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement requires a national
investigating authority to consider the whole domestic industry wherever possible,
and if not, to explain why. In the words of the WTO Appellate Body:
204. … Article
3.1 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement requires that such a sectoral examination be
conducted in an “objective” manner. In our view, this requirement means
that, where investigating authorities undertake an examination of one part of a
domestic industry, they should, in principle, examine, in like manner, all of
the other parts that make up the industry, as well as examine the industry as a
whole. Or, in the alternative, the investigating authorities should provide a
satisfactory explanation as to why it is not necessary to examine directly or
specifically the other parts of the domestic industry. Different parts of an
industry may exhibit quite different economic performance during any given
period. Some parts may be performing well, while others are performing poorly.
To examine only the poorly performing parts of an industry, even if coupled
with an examination of the whole industry, may give a misleading impression of
the data relating to the industry as a whole, and may overlook positive
developments in other parts of the industry. Such an examination may result
in highlighting the negative data in the poorly performing part, without
drawing attention to the positive data in other parts of the industry. We note
that the reverse may also be true – to examine only the parts of an industry
which are performing well may lead to overlooking the significance of
deteriorating performance in other parts of the industry.
[Emphasis added.]
[28]
While it may have been preferable for the CITT in
the present case to provide a more explicit rationale analysis for interpreting
the “domestic industry” definition as
disjunctive rather than conjunctive, and hence limiting its determination to
the industry as a whole without turning to the “major
proportion” thereof, I am satisfied that, in light of the foregoing, the
CITT’s analysis regarding the domestic industry is nonetheless reasonable.
[29]
Also, in making its determination on the Like
Goods as they correlate with domestic producers, the CITT carefully considered
the evidence. The CITT’s conclusion to include service centers within the
domestic industry is based on the Subject Goods as defined in the CBSA President’s
preliminary dumping determination (Applicant’s Record, Vol. 1, Tab 10 at p.
195; CITT’s reasons at para. 17), which itself is based on Essar Algoma’s description
in its complaint (Applicant’s Record, Vol. 1, Tab 10 at p. 190). In deciding that
the steel mills and the service centers were producers of the Like Goods, the
CITT found the following at paragraphs 34 to 38 of its reasons (see also:
Respondents’ Memorandum of Fact and Law at para. 29):
-
Domestic mills, like Essar Algoma, produce
discrete plate in widths of 96 inches up to 152 inches. For their part, the
service centers produce cut-to-length plate and concentrate their activities on
plate between 24 and 72 inches (CITT’s reasons at para. 34);
-
While imports of the subject goods were found to
be mostly in widths of 96 inches and wider, they were also found to be
occasionally imported in widths of 72 inches and narrower. Service centers
focus on the production of plate measuring 72 inches and narrower but some
service centers have the capacity of producing plate in widths of 96 inches and
thus both steel mills and service centers are producers of Like Goods (CITT’s reasons
at para. 35);
-
Both the steel mills and the service centers use
essentially the same manufacturing process as used in the production of Subject
Goods (CITT’s reasons at para. 36);
-
In terms of market characteristics, the
domestically produced goods and the Subject Goods generally fulfil the same
customer needs, compete directly with each other and rely on the same channels
of distribution (CITT’s reasons at para. 37);
-
Although the service centers may tend to
concentrate on narrower widths and steel mills tend to concentrate on wider
widths, both produce a full range of Like Goods that compete with the Subject
Goods of the same description and can thus be considered a single industry
(CITT’s reasons at para. 38).
[30]
It is also noteworthy that the CITT’s conclusion
to include service centers as part of the domestic industry is consistent with other
recent decisions rendered by the CITT (Hot-rolled Carbon Steel Plate and
High-strength Low-alloy Steel Plate (30 January 2015), RR-2014-002 (CITT’s reasons
at para. 30); Hot-rolled Carbon Steel Plate (20 May 2014), NQ-2013-005
(CITT’s reasons at para. 53). Furthermore, it was open to Essar Algoma to
oppose the inclusion of the service centers within the domestic industry but it
chose not to:
The Tribunal finds
that service centres are an increasingly important part of the domestic
industry. The evidence is unequivocal that, although they tend to use different
production processes and have different business models than the domestic
mills, service centres produce goods falling within the definition of the
subject goods. As in previous plate cases, the Tribunal finds it appropriate to
continue to include service centres within the scope of the domestic industry. This
has not been disputed by Essar Algoma. [Emphasis added.]
(CITT’s reasons at
para. 51)
[31]
It follows that the CITT’s inclusion of the
service centers as part of the domestic industry is reasonable.
[32]
I also find no error in the CITT’s conclusion to
include Samuel, Varsteel and Russel Metals in the domestic industry. In this
regard, Essar Algoma argues that the CITT abandoned its structural/behavioural
analysis in favour of a more onerous standard, namely whether the service
centers at issue were “first and foremost conduits for
the importation of subject goods.” The CITT’s decision to include the
service centers does not render its conclusion unreasonable. While the
structural/behavioural analysis provides the CITT with factors to consider, it
does not set a threshold for exclusion. It is therefore inaccurate to
characterize the CITT’s so-called “first and foremost”
determination as inconsistent with the structural/behavioural factors. Rather,
the CITT espoused a standard against which it could apply the
structural/behavioural factors to determine whether the service centers at
issue ought to be excluded and to do so did not constitute an error (CITT’s reasons
at paras. 56-58). In short, Essar Algoma has failed to persuade this Court that
it should intervene.
B.
Review of the CITT’s analysis regarding the injury
and threat of injury analyses
[33]
Essar Algoma did not insist on its challenge to
the injury and threat of injury analyses in its oral submissions but asserts in
its Memorandum of Fact and Law that the CITT committed a number of reviewable
errors (Applicant’s Memorandum of Fact and Law at paras. 104-128). Be that as
it may, upon reviewing the CITT’s consideration and examination of the
evidence, I am of the view that its analysis in this regard is justified,
intelligible and transparent and its ultimate decision falls within the range of
reasonable and possible outcomes.
VI.
Conclusion
[34]
I would dismiss the application for judicial
review with costs in the amount of $8,500 inclusive of disbursements and taxes.
“Richard Boivin”
“I agree.
Yves de Montigny J.A.”
“I agree.
Judith Woods J.A.”
Email this Content