Source: http://lawsdocbox.com/Politics/66861494-Canadian-tire-corporation-limited-and-koolatron-corporation-heard-at-toronto-ontario-on-october-1-2015.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-24 14:29:47+00:00

Document:
CANADIAN TIRE CORPORATION, LIMITED. and KOOLATRON CORPORATION. Heard at Toronto, Ontario, on October 1, 2015.
Download "CANADIAN TIRE CORPORATION, LIMITED. and KOOLATRON CORPORATION. Heard at Toronto, Ontario, on October 1, 2015."
1 Date: Docket: A Citation: 2016 FCA 2 CORAM: GAUTHIER J.A. WEBB J.A. NEAR J.A. BETWEEN: CANADIAN TIRE CORPORATION, LIMITED Applicant and KOOLATRON CORPORATION Respondent Heard at Toronto, Ontario, on October 1, Judgment delivered at Ottawa, Ontario, on January 8, REASONS FOR JUDGMENT BY: CONCURRED IN BY: CONCURRING REASONS BY: NEAR J.A. GAUTHIER J.A. WEBB J.A.
6 Page: 5 the volume of imports of the subject goods both in absolute and relative terms (Expiry Review at para. 62).  The Tribunal next considered whether the dumping and/or subsidizing of the subject goods was likely to significantly undercut the prices of the like goods, depress those prices, or suppress them by preventing price increases that would likely have otherwise occurred. The Tribunal anticipated that in absence of the finding, the intense price-based competition among big box retailers, coupled with sustained competition from U.S. imports, would likely exert significant downward pressure on the prices of like goods (Expiry Review at para. 71). It also held that Koolatron would experience price suppression, as the significantly depressed prices for like goods would prevent Koolatron from passing on future increases to production costs (Expiry Review at para. 75). The Tribunal held that there would likely be a material deterioration of Koolatron s performance if the finding were allowed to expire (Expiry Review at para. 91).  Before this Court, the applicant submits that the Tribunal erred in three ways: first, by not basing its finding on positive evidence; second, by basing its decision on unreasonable findings of facts and inferences; and third, by failing to allow the applicant certain procedural fairness entitlements. The respondent s position is that the applicant s first two arguments amount to a disagreement with the manner in which the Tribunal assessed the evidence and do not identify any reviewable errors that warrant intervention. It submits that the applicant s third complaint stands at odds with what the record discloses actually took place at the proceeding. III. Issues 1) Did the Tribunal err by not basing its findings on positive evidence?
7 Page: 6 2) Did the Tribunal base its decision on unreasonable findings of fact or on inferences not supported by sufficient evidence? 3) Did the Tribunal err by breaching certain procedural fairness entitlements owed to the applicant? IV. Standard of Review  The standard of review framework to be followed is that of Dunsmuir v. New Brunswick, 2008 SCC 9,  1 S.C.R  Canadian Tire submits that its first argument that the Tribunal did not base its findings on positive evidence is a question of law, and that accordingly, the standard of review is correctness. It relies on Infasco Division of Ifastgroupe & Co LP v. Canada (International Trade Tribunal), 2006 FCA 130 at paras 3-4, 347 N.R. 111 [Infasco], in which this Court held that the Tribunal s decision should not stand if it did not apply the correct test for causation under section 42(1) of SIMA. I do not agree that Infasco is helpful to the applicant. In Infasco, the question was whether the Tribunal had applied the proper test; not whether it had applied the test properly. In Owen & Co v. Globe Spring & Cushion Co, 2010 FCA 288, 414 N.R. 114, Layden-Stevenson J.A. (as she was then) held: The tribunal is highly specialized and is entitled to significant deference. Only questions related to its jurisdiction are reviewed on a standard of correctness. All other questions attract a standard of reasonableness (at para. 4; see also Canadian Sugar Institute v. Canada, 2012 FCA 163 at para. 2,  F.C.J No. 668). Pursuant to Owen & Co, the standard of review for the first issue is reasonableness.
8 Page: 7  The parties agree that the standard of review on the second issue, as to whether the Tribunal s findings were based on unreasonable findings of fact or on inferences not supported by the evidence, is reasonableness. I share that view.  The applicant argues that the standard of review on the third issue is correctness, because it deals with procedural fairness issues. The respondent agrees that the standard of review is correctness, but argues that a degree of deference is nonetheless warranted, based on Stratas J.A. s statement in Bergeron v. Canada (AG), 2015 FCA 160, 255 A.C.W.S. (3d) 955 that this Court review procedural fairness issues in a manner that is respectful of the [decision-maker s] choices with a degree of deference (at para. 69, citing Re: Sound v. Fitness Industry Council of Canada, 2014 FCA 48 at para. 42, 455 N.R. 87). While I agree that procedural issues generally attract considerable deference, I do not agree that this is so when the issue involves a breach of procedural fairness. V. Analysis (1) Did the Tribunal err by not basing its findings on positive evidence?  In order to succeed, the applicant must show that the Tribunal did not rely on positive evidence in arriving at its findings. In large measure, the applicant is asking the Court to reweigh the evidence considered by the Tribunal and determine that either the positive evidence before it was completely lacking or sufficiently weak to warrant the intervention of the Court.
9 Page: 8  The applicant argues the evidence relied upon by the Tribunal for the total production of the subject goods in China was weak and inconclusive, based on the fact that no Chinese manufacturers filled out the questionnaire sent to them by the Tribunal and because the Tribunal extrapolated China s total production volume from the information of two companies. However: The unchallenged evidence filed by the respondent confirmed that the total production capabilities of just Mobicool and Fuxin was 2.74 million units (Expiry Review at para. 51; Public Applicant s Record (AR), Vol. II, Tab 12 at 617, 620, Exhibit RR A-0 Vol. 11). At the hearing, the applicant submitted that the Tribunal had been too vague as to whether the production information that was relied on concerned refrigerators or travel coolers. The respondent replied that even if the Tribunal was to take account of only a part of the total production capacity (so as to isolate units deemed to be refrigerators), the production capacity of Chinese manufacturers remained overwhelming. I agree with the respondent that the Tribunal s finding of fact was open to it on the evidentiary record. The evidence of Mobicool and Fuxin s production capacities meant to the Tribunal that the capacity of these two manufacturers alone was 14 times the size of the Canadian domestic industry (Expiry Review at para. 52). In addition, the Tribunal received unchallenged evidence that there are between 15 and 20 Chinese manufacturers of the subject goods (Expiry Review at para. 50).
10 Page: 9  In my view, the applicant s assertion that there was no evidence or that the evidence was so weak that it could not conclude that there existed within China a substantial amount of capacity to produce the subject goods is without any merit.  The applicant also argues that the Tribunal s findings with respect to excess capacity in the Chinese market and the ability of Chinese producers to export to foreign markets was similarly lacking. However, there was evidence before the Tribunal in these regards. In particular: There was evidence concerning the willingness of Chinese producers to price aggressively and sell the subject goods in foreign markets at prices significantly lower than in China (Expiry review at para. 55; Confidential AR, Vol. II, Tab 13 at 671, , Exhibit RR A-04 (protected) Vol. 12). Further, there was evidence that just 40 to 50 percent of Fuxin s production is consumed by the domestic market (Public Hearing transcript, October 15, 2013, Public AR, Vol I, Tab 9 at p. 151). In addition, there was evidence that between the first half of 2007 and the first half of 2008, the volume of imports of the subject goods virtually eliminated the like goods from the domestic market (Expiry review at para. 59).
12 Page: 11 The Tribunal received unchallenged evidence that following decades of strong economic growth in China, household spending had increased, with wine consumption and automobile ownership increasing substantially in recent years (Expiry Review at para. 36; Public AR, Vol. II, Tab 14 at , Exhibit RR , Vol. 3; Public AR, Vol. II, Tab 14 at , Exhibit RR A, Vol. 3B). The Tribunal received unchallenged evidence that Chinese growth was expected to continue to slow or remain flat (Expiry Review at para. 35). The Tribunal heard evidence from the Koolatron representative explaining why interest in like goods was likely to remain strong in Canada even in an economic recession. This evidence included the fact that Canadians are travelling more by car in the face of rising airline costs, and the fact that like goods are useful for cross-border shopping in the U.S. (Expiry Review at para. 41; Public AR, Vol. I, Tab 9 at , Transcript of the Public Hearing of the 2013 Expiry Review Decision).  In my view, this evidence is sufficient to ground the Tribunal s finding on the likely relationship between growth and consumption in Canada and China. The applicant s assertion that there was no evidence or that the evidence was too weak on these points is without merit. (2) Did the Tribunal base its decision on unreasonable findings of fact or on inferences not supported by sufficient evidence?
14 Page: 13 some of whom are Koolatron customers, would return to importing the subject goods at low prices to try to regain their share of the market and improve their margins, and as a result, Koolatron remained vulnerable (Expiry Review at para. 94).  The applicant also argues that Koolatron s expansion into the U.S. demonstrates its ability to successfully compete with Chinese and U.S. suppliers without any anti-dumping or countervailing duties on Chinese thermoelectric containers. It made this argument before the Tribunal, and the Tribunal explicitly considered it (Expiry Review at para. 88). The Tribunal went on to provide two evidence-based reasons for why Canada and the U.S operate as separate paradigms and cannot be compared (Expiry Review at para. 89). The Tribunal also found that Canadian Tire provided no clear evidence other than oral assertions for why Koolatron s success in the U.S. demonstrates that it is no longer vulnerable in Canada (Expiry Review at para. 90). I find that the Tribunal s finding on this point is reasonable, and based on sufficient evidence.  Further, the applicant argues that the Tribunal failed to focus on the near to medium term when assessing the likelihood of injury. The Tribunal allegedly did not consider that at the time of the expiry review, the applicant had already placed its orders for 2014, and hence was effectively bound to purchase its thermoelectric containers from Mobicool for at least 15 months following the 2013 hearing. First, I note that the Tribunal was cognizant of the fact that the focus should be on circumstances that can reasonably be expected to exist in the near to medium term, which is generally considered to be 18 to 24 months from the expiry of a finding or an order (Expiry Review at para. 30). Second, the applicant s argument that it was bound to purchase from Mobicool is in fact contradicted by the testimony of its own witness.
15 Page: 14 [REDACTED] (Confidential AR, Vol. I, Tab 10 at 253). Third, the Tribunal noted that the applicant engages in annual reviews of its product lines and that it has no written agreement with Mobicool (Expiry Review at para. 72).  With respect to the Tribunal s assessment of whether the resumed dumping of the subject goods was likely to significantly undercut, depress or suppress the prices of the like goods, the applicant argues, among other things, that the Tribunal overemphasized the importance of pricing for the applicant. This was allegedly evidenced when the Tribunal determined that the applicant could appropriate to itself the margin space that the elimination of countervailing duties would create, in an effort to realize higher margins. In my view, it was open to the Tribunal to conclude as it did. Indeed, the applicant s witness clearly stated that price points and margins are two considerations albeit of many that the applicant takes into account, and that price points can be important (Expiry review at paras. 67, 72; Public AR, Vol. I, Tab 9 at p. 207).  In a related vein, the applicant argues that the Tribunal failed to adequately consider the importance of non-price factors to its purchase decisions. It is true that the Tribunal heard evidence that price is not the only aspect considered by the applicant when sourcing its products. Nevertheless, the Tribunal s conclusion that price points are important to the applicant does not negate the importance of non-price factors in the applicant s purchase decisions.  In sum, I conclude that the Tribunal adequately considered the evidence before it, and that its conclusions were reasonable.
17 Page: 16 serve as a witness. Rather, it wanted the representative to be available to the Canadian Tire witness to assist in answering questions. The Tribunal rejected the applicant s request on the basis that it would allow the Mobicool representative to indirectly testify without being subject to cross-examination (Expiry Review at para. 29). I find no error in this decision.  The applicant s third procedural argument is that the hearing was unreasonably compressed and that this served to further minimize the scope of the record before the Tribunal. I do not accept this argument. The parties submitted a large portion of their evidence through written witness statements, which were adopted at the hearing. In addition, if Canadian Tire felt that it needed more time at the hearing, it could have raised this issue before the Tribunal. It did not do so. In fact, counsel for the applicant stated during the expiry review hearing, and upon completing his cross-examination of the respondent s witness, that [t]hose [were] all [his] questions. Confidential AR, Vol. I, Tab 10 at 249). The same principle from Johnson v. Canada referenced above applies here: Canadian Tire may not raise an issue of procedural fairness here that it could have raised, and failed to raise, before the Tribunal. VI. Conclusion  For the foregoing reasons, I would dismiss the application with costs. I agree. Johanne Gauthier J.A. I agree. Wyman W. Webb J.A. "David G. Near" J.A.
18 Page: 17 Appendix 1 Legislative Framework Special Import Measures Act Section 2(1) provides the statutory definitions for SIMA: 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; dumped, in relation to any goods, means that the normal value of the goods exceeds the export price thereof; injury means material injury to a domestic industry; like goods, in relation to any other goods, means (a) goods that are identical in all respects to the other goods, or (b) in the absence of any goods described in paragraph (a), goods the uses and other characteristics of which closely resemble those of the other «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. «sous-évalué» Qualificatif de marchandises dont la valeur normale est supérieure à leur prix à l exportation. [ ] «dommage» Le dommage sensible causé à une branche de production nationale. [ ] «marchandises similaires» Selon le cas : a) marchandises identiques aux marchandises en cause; b) à défaut, marchandises dont l utilisation et les autres caractéristiques sont très proches de celles des marchandises en cause.
20 Page: 19 exempted or have been or will be relieved by means of remission, refund or drawback, (ii) energy, fuel, oil and catalysts that are used or consumed in the production of exported goods and that have been exempted or have been or will be relieved by means of remission, refund or drawback, or (iii) goods incorporated into exported goods and that have been exempted or have been or will be relieved by means of remission, refund or drawback, or (b) any form of income or price support within the meaning of Article XVI of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, 1994, being part of Annex 1A to the WTO Agreement, that confers a benefit; exonérées ou en ont été ou en seront libérées par remise, remboursement ou drawback, (ii) sur l énergie, les combustibles, l huile et les catalyseurs utilisés ou consommés dans le cadre de la production de marchandises exportées et qui en ont été exonérés ou en ont été ou en seront libérés par remise, remboursement ou drawback, (iii) sur des marchandises qui entrent dans la fabrication de marchandises exportées et qui en ont été exonérées ou en ont été ou en seront libérées par remise, remboursement ou drawback; b) toute forme de soutien du revenu ou des prix, au sens de l article XVI de l Accord général sur les tarifs douaniers et le commerce de 1994 figurant à l annexe 1A de l Accord sur l OMC, qui confère un avantage [ ] The Tribunal conducts expiry reviews pursuant to section of SIMA: (1) If the Tribunal has not initiated an expiry review under subsection (3) with respect to an order or finding described in any of sections 3 to 6 before the expiry of five years after whichever of the following days is applicable, the order or finding is deemed to have been rescinded as of the expiry of the five years: (a) if no order continuing the order or finding has been made under paragraph (12)(b), the day on which the order or finding was made; and (b) if one or more orders continuing the order or finding have been made under paragraph (12)(b), the day on (1) À défaut de réexamen relatif à l expiration aux termes du paragraphe (3), l ordonnance ou les conclusions sont réputées annulées à l expiration de cinq ans suivant : a) la date de l ordonnance ou des conclusions, si aucune ordonnance de prorogation n a été rendue en vertu de l alinéa (12)b); b) la date de la dernière ordonnance de prorogation, dans les autres cas.
21 Page: 20 which the last order was made. (6) If the Tribunal decides to initiate an expiry review, it shall without delay (a) cause notice of the Tribunal s decision to be given to (i) the President, and [ ] (6) Lorsque le Tribunal décide de procéder au réexamen relatif à l expiration, il doit sans délai : a) fournir un avis de la décision au président et à toute autre personne ou à un gouvernement que peuvent préciser ses règles; (ii) all other persons and governments specified in the rules of the Tribunal; (b) provide the President with a copy of the administrative record on which it based its decision to initiate a review under subsection (3); and (c) cause to be published in the Canada Gazette notice of initiation of the review that includes the information set out in the rules of the Tribunal. (7) If the Tribunal decides to initiate an expiry review, the President shall b) fournir au président copie du dossier administratif sur lequel il a fondé sa décision de procéder au réexamen; c) faire paraître dans la Gazette du Canada un avis de réexamen qui renferme les renseignements mentionnés dans les règles du Tribunal. (7) Lorsque le Tribunal décide de procéder au réexamen relatif à l expiration, le président : a) dans les cent vingt jours de la réception de l avis prévu à l alinéa (6) (a) within one hundred and twenty days after receiving notice under subparagraph (6)(a)(i), determine whether the expiry of the order or finding in respect of goods of a country or countries is likely to result in the continuation or resumption of dumping or subsidizing of the goods; and (b) provide the Tribunal with notice of the determination without delay after making it. a), décide si l expiration de l ordonnance ou des conclusions concernant les marchandises d un ou de plusieurs pays causera vraisemblablement la poursuite ou la reprise du dumping ou du subventionnement des marchandises; b) avise sans délai le Tribunal de sa décision.
26 Page: 25 courtier ou d un négociant en particulier. Canadian International Trade Tribunal Rules Section 20(1) authorizes the Tribunal to issue subpoenas by its own initiative or at the request of a party: 20. (1) The Tribunal may, on its own initiative or at the request of any party, summon before it by subpoena any person to attend a hearing and require that person to give evidence on oath or affirmation and to produce documents or other things. 20. (1) Le Tribunal peut, de son propre chef ou à la demande d une partie, assigner une personne à comparaître à une audience et requérir qu elle dépose sous serment ou affirmation solennelle et produise des documents ou autres objets.
JESUS ERNESTO PONCE URIBE JUAN EDUARDO PONCE URIBE IVONE MONSIVAIS GONZALEZ JESUS EDUARDO PONCE MONSIVAIS IVONE ARELY PONCE MONSIVAIS.
AIR CANADA. and. MICHEL THIBODEAU and LYNDA THIBODEAU. and THE COMMISSIONER OF OFFICIAL LANGUAGES. Heard at Ottawa, Ontario, on April 25, 2012.
and THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION Heard at Toronto, Ontario, on December 14, 2010.
CORPORAL ALEXIS LEBLANC. and HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN. Hearing held at Québec, Quebec, on April 29, 2011.
Anti-Dumping and Countervailing Duties Chap. 78:05 41 SUBSIDIARY LEGISLATION REGULATION ANTI-DUMPING AND COUNTERVAILING nllttf.s RF.GllT,ATTONS I. Citation. ARRANGEMENT OF REGULATIONS 2. Complaints 3.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 V. 
 v.