Date: 20001102
Docket: A-236-99
CORAM: THE CHIEF JUSTICE
McDONALD J.A.
SHARLOW J.A.
BETWEEN:
COMPANHIA SIDERÚRGICA NACIONAL
Applicant
- and -
DOFASCO INC., STELCO INC., SOREVCO INC.,
UNITED STATES STEEL INTERNATIONAL INC.,
LTV STEEL COMPANY, INC., BETHLEHEM STEEL EXPORT
CORPORATION, NATIONAL STEEL CORPORATION, ISPAT INLAND,
INC., AK STEEL CORPORATION, TITAN TOOL & DIE LTD., MAGNA
INTERNATIONAL INC., KRUPP FABCO INC., NARMCO GROUP OF
COMPANIES, A.G. SIMPSON CO. LTD., BRITISH STEEL CANADA INC.,
MAKSTEEL INC., ACIERS FRANCOSTEEL CANADA INC., SOLLAC,
ACIERS D'USINOR, THYSSEN KRUPP STAHL AG, EKO STAHL GMBH,
SALZGITTER AG, STAHLWERKE BREMEN GMBH, UNION STEEL MFG.
CO., LTD., POHANG IRON & STEEL CO., LTD., ACERALIA
CORPORACIÓN SIDERÚRGICA
Respondents
Heard at Ottawa, Ontario, on Thursday, November 2nd, 2000.
| Judgment delivered from the Bench at Ottawa, Ontario |
on Thursday, November 2nd, 2000.
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED BY: RICHARD C.J.
Date: 20001102
Docket: A-236-99
CORAM: THE CHIEF JUSTICE
McDONALD J.A.
SHARLOW J.A.
BETWEEN:
COMPANHIA SIDERÚRGICA NACIONAL
Applicant
- and -
DOFASCO INC., STELCO INC., SOREVCO INC.,
UNITED STATES STEEL INTERNATIONAL INC.,
LTV STEEL COMPANY, INC., BETHLEHEM STEEL EXPORT
CORPORATION, NATIONAL STEEL CORPORATION, ISPAT INLAND,
INC., AK STEEL CORPORATION, TITAN TOOL & DIE LTD., MAGNA
INTERNATIONAL INC., KRUPP FABCO INC., NARMCO GROUP OF
COMPANIES, A.G. SIMPSON CO. LTD., BRITISH STEEL CANADA INC.,
MAKSTEEL INC., ACIERS FRANCOSTEEL CANADA INC., SOLLAC,
ACIERS D'USINOR, THYSSEN KRUPP STAHL AG, EKO STAHL GMBH,
SALZGITTER AG, STAHLWERKE BREMEN GMBH, UNION STEEL MFG.
CO., LTD., POHANG IRON & STEEL CO., LTD., ACERALIA
CORPORACIÓN SIDERÚRGICA
Respondents
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
(Delivered from the Bench at Ottawa, Ontario
on Thursday, November 2, 2000.)
THE CHIEF JUSTICE
[1] The Tribunal did not commit a breach of natural justice and therefore an excess of jurisdiction, in the circumstances of this case, in refusing to allow the applicant to file, during the course of the hearing, a further economic study.
[2] The Tribunal noted that there was already considerable documentary evidence on the record with respect to the applicant's view of the market.
[3] The Tribunal was not persuaded that the need for this information outweighed the prejudice and disruption to the proceedings that such late filing caused.
[4] Nor did the Tribunal commit a breach of natural justice in refusing to allow the filing of a newspaper article published during the course of the hearing.
[5] In arriving at this ruling, the Tribunal did not exhibit formalism and inflexibility.
[6] Accordingly, the application for judicial review is dismissed with costs.
"J. Richard"
Chief Justice
Email this Content