Mertex Canada Inc. v. Evraz Inc. Na Canada

Mertex Canada Inc. v. Evraz Inc. Na Canada
Court (s) Database
Federal Court of Appeal Decisions
Date
2016-10-25
Neutral citation
2016 FCA 262
File numbers
A-177-15
Decision Content
Date: 20161025
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.
Date: 20161025
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"
J.A.
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,