Docket: A-177-15
Citation: 2016 FCA 262
|
CORAM:
|
NADON J.A.
TRUDEL J.A.
SCOTT J.A.
|
|
BETWEEN:
|
|
MERTEX CANADA
INC.
|
|
Applicant
|
|
and
|
|
EVRAZ INC. NA CANADA, ALGOMA TUBES INC., PRUDENTIAL STEEL ULC,
WELDED TUBE OF CANADA CORPORATION, ENERGEX TUBE
AND THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA
|
|
Respondents
|
Heard at Montréal, Quebec, on October 25, 2016.
Judgment delivered from the Bench at Montréal, Quebec, on October
25, 2016.
|
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT BY:
|
TRUDEL
J.A.
|
Docket: A-177-15
Citation:
2016 FCA 262
|
CORAM:
|
NADON J.A.
TRUDEL J.A.
SCOTT J.A.
|
|
BETWEEN:
|
|
MERTEX CANADA
INC.
|
|
Applicant
|
|
and
|
|
EVRAZ INC. NA CANADA, ALGOMA TUBES INC., PRUDENTIAL STEEL ULC,
WELDED TUBE OF CANADA CORPORATION, ENERGEX TUBE
AND THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA
|
|
Respondents
|
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
(Delivered from the Bench at Montréal, Quebec, on
October 25, 2016).
TRUDEL J.A.
[1]
Mertex Canada Inc. (or the applicant) has filed
for judicial review of an Order of the Canadian International Trade Tribunal
issued on March 2, 2015 (Expiry Review no. RR-2014-003, reasons issued on March
23, 2015). With this Order, the Tribunal continued its 2010 findings concerning
the dumping of subsidized oil country tubular goods (OCTGs) from the People’s
Republic of China.
[2]
The applicant’s theory of the case is that the
Tribunal unreasonably exercised its discretion when considering whether injury
would result to the domestic industry in the event that green tubes were
excluded from the general class of OCTGs (see paragraphs 172-179 of the
Tribunal’s decision).
[3]
Indeed, Mertex does not seriously contest the
other findings made by the Tribunal.
[4]
We have not been persuaded to intervene, despite
the able submissions of counsel for Mertex. The impugned paragraphs of the
Tribunal’s decision merely constitute a “what if” analysis done after the
Tribunal had decided that green tubes were OCTGs and that the likely resumption
or continuation of the dumping and subsidizing of the subject goods (OCTGs,
including green tubes) would likely cause material injury to the domestic
industry (Tribunal’s decision at paragraph 156).
[5]
As a result, the injury analysis conducted in
the course of examining Mertex’s exclusion request, although of interest to the
domestic industry, is not relevant for deciding whether or not the Tribunal’s
decision should be quashed because it is unreasonable.
[6]
This said, we find that the Tribunal’s Order
contains no reviewable error. Consequently, this application for judicial
review will be dismissed with costs.
"Johanne Trudel"
FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
|
Docket:
|
A-177-15
|
|
STYLE OF
CAUSE:
|
MERTEX CANADA INC. v. EVRAZ INC. NA CANADA, ALGOMA TUBES INC., PRUDENTIAL STEEL ULC, WELDED TUBE OF
CANADA CORPORATION, ENERGEX TUBE AND THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA
|
|
|
PLACE OF
HEARING:
|
Montréal, Quebec
|
|
DATE OF
HEARING:
|
October 25, 2016
|
|
REASONS
FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT BY:
|
NADON J.A.
TRUDEL J.A.
SCOTT J.A.
|
|
DELIVERED
FROM THE BENCH BY:
|
TRUDEL J.A.
|
|
|
|
|
APPEARANCES:
|
Vincent Routhier
Patrick Goudreau
|
For The
Applicant
MERTEX CANADA INC.
|
|
Christopher R.N. McLeod
|
For The
Respondent
EVRAZ INC. NA CANADA
|
|
Geoffrey C. Kubrick
Jonathan P. O'Hara
|
For The
Respondents
ALGOMA TUBES INC., PRUDENTIAL STEEL ULC
|
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
|
DS LAWYERS CANADA LLP
Montréal, Quebec
|
For The
Applicant
MERTEX CANADA INC.
|
|
Cassidy Levy Kent (Canada) LLP
Ottawa, Ontario
|
For The
Respondents
EVRAZ INC. NA CANADA
|
|
McMillan LLP
Ottawa, Ontario
|
For The
Respondents
ALGOMA TUBES INC., PRUDENTIAL STEEL ULC,
|
Email this Content