CITATION: IPEX v. AT Plastics, 2015 ONSC 6844
DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: 71/15 DATE: 20151208
ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE DIVISIONAL COURT
Leitch, Sanderson, Sachs JJ.
BETWEEN:
IPEX INC.
Plaintiff/Respondent
– and –
AT PLASTICS INC.
Defendant/Appellant
Jessica A. Kimmel, Suzy Kauffman, for the Respondent
Lawrence G. Theall, Jeffrey Brown, Appellant
HEARD at Toronto: October 22, 2015
M.A. SANDERSON J.
REASONS FOR DECISION
Introduction
[1] This appeal involves orders of Master Graham and Whitaker J. refusing to direct the Plaintiff/Respondent IPEX to seek answers from its insurers to a question posed at AT Plastics Inc.’s discovery (hereinafter “Refusal 9”).
[2] The appellant, AT Plastics Inc. (“ATP”), appeals from the decision of Whitaker J. dated January 28, 2015, which dismissed ATP’s appeal from a decision of Master Graham dated March 7, 2014. Leave was granted by Molloy J. on April 22, 2015.
[3] ATP asks this Court to direct IPEX to provide ATP with full and complete answers to Refusal 9.
[4] IPEX maintains that Refusal 9 was appropriate and that ATP’s appeal should be dismissed.
Refusal 9
[5] Refusal 9 was made in respect of the following question taken under advisement during the examination of IPEX's representative, Andre Battistin, on September 21, 2012:
To advise whether IPEX's insurers contributed a portion or all of the funds towards the class action settlement, and to identify which insurer(s) were involved in the settlement of the class action or the settlement of any of the other legal proceedings for which IPEX is claiming against the AT Plastics and/or Lubrizol. With respect to each insurer to:
i. advise who was involved-and participated in the settlement of the class action or any of the other legal proceedings;
ii. identify who at those insurers was involved in handling the claim(s);
iii. identify who at the insurers would have been instructing that person or giving them authority to settle;
iv. advise who attended the mediations on behalf of the insurer and the chain of command through which the reporting was made in order to obtain the necessary approvals to settle each particular claim (this will include a list of the individuals at that insurer with relevant or potentially relevant documents and information);
v. for each individual involved, to make inquiries and ask them to ensure that all relevant documents in the possession, control- and power of the insurer, relevant to these proceedings are identified and produced (relevance to include anything relating to the lawsuits, including investigations, options, analysis and requests for settlement authority;
vi. inquiries to be made of the claims representatives who were responsible for the file and ask them to advise if they recommended that the insurer participate in the settlement of the class action or any of the other litigation, and if so, to provide full details of the reasons why that person decided to recommend the settlement; and
vii. to provide details of who they made that recommendation to, whether the recommendation was made verbally or in writing or both. If verbally, to provide full particulars of the communications between that person and whoever they spoke to. If in writing, to produce the documents.
BACKGROUND:
The Parties
[6] IPEX is a manufacturer of a flexible composite plastic pipe for municipal, industrial, commercial, and residential applications, marketed as "Kitec". The two primary components of Kitec are the pipe and the fittings used to connect the pipe.
[7] ATP is a manufacturer of resin marketed as "Flexet". ATP supplied Flexet to IPEX, and IPEX in turn used it to manufacture Kitec. ATP had no involvement with the Kitec fittings.
[8] During the period when ATP supplied resin to IPEX, many claims were brought against IPEX for Kitec failures. As their number increased, class actions were started against IPEX in the United States and Canada. IPEX participated in an extensive cross-border mediation process (spanning an 18 month period) that ultimately resulted in a payment by IPEX of $125,000,000. Of the $125,000,000, $25,000,000 was paid as fees to Class counsel. The balance was paid into a settlement fund, out of which individual claims were to be assessed and paid by a claims administrator. After eight years, if any funds were remaining in the settlement fund, they were to revert to IPEX.
[9] In March of 2011, at around the same time as it made the Class Action Settlement, IPEX settled with its insurers and entered into Claim Release Agreements. Ipex’s insurers agreed to make payments as part of the Class Action Settlement and to relinquish their rights to subrogate any portion of IPEX's recoveries in actions brought by IPEX against third parties.
This Action
[10] In this action, IPEX is suing ATP for damages allegedly caused by ATP's supply of defective raw materials. IPEX is seeking indemnity for the $125,000,000 it paid to investigate, defend and settle the Class Actions and for amounts it has paid to settle other legal proceedings.
Production and Discoveries
[11] At the outset of the Action, ATP moved against IPEX for production of all documents IPEX sent or received from third party claimants. ATP's rationale was that those documents would be relevant to a key issue in the Action, i.e. whether the settlements that had been made had been reasonable.
[12] IPEX took the position that the documents ATP had requested from IPEX were privileged and confidential.
[13] On February 25, 2011, Master Graham made a broad Order requiring IPEX to produce all documents produced or created in the US actions. IPEX appealed. Strathy J. (as he then was) heard the motion.
Strathy J.’s Order
[14] Strathy J. ordered the production of offers to settle, mediation materials, and settlement agreements that IPEX had exchanged with the Plaintiffs (the "Mediation Briefs") as well as pleadings and depositions in the underlying claims for which IPEX was seeking to hold ATP accountable.
[15] His Reasons included the following:
I turn then to the benefit to be achieved from the correct disposal of this litigation if the Mediation Briefs are produced. IPEX's claim against ATP will be based on the settlements. Production of the Mediation Briefs is therefore essential to permit ATP to defend the claim. Without that information, it will simply be presented with a dollar amount and told:
We are claiming this amount, which we had to pay to settle litigation brought against us, because the material you sold us was defective. Pay up.
Since the actions were settled, there will be no reasons for judgment or jury findings to explain why IPEX was found liable to the plaintiff. It will be impossible to know the extent to which the settlement was due to deficiencies in the pipe caused by the materials supplied by ATP or due to factors, such as dezincification, that had nothing to do with ATP. Unless ATP is permitted to lift the veil on the settlements, and to understand the evidence and arguments that caused IPEX to agree to pay the settlement amounts, it will be unable to defend itself.
Unlike many claims for indemnity, which are capable of independent determination, an ex post facto claim for recovery of settlement amounts can only be resolved based on an analysis of the terms of the settlement and the circumstances and considerations that led to it. To what extent did it reflect matters for which the defendant had responsibility and to what extent did it reflect other factors including: (a) the fault of other tortfeasors; (b) the contributory fault of the plaintiff; (c) goodwill, contingencies, other risk factors?
As there has been no trial on the merits supporting the result, the only way to understand the basis of IPEX's liability, and the quantum claimed, is to examine the evidence, arguments and authorities advanced by the parties to the settlement negotiations. Production of the Mediation Briefs is essential for that purpose.
IPEX has put the settlements in issue. The Mediation Briefs have relevance in their own right, not because they contain admissions but because the settlements that flowed from them are the basis of the claim against ATP. The trial judge will be required to determine not only whether the settlements were reasonable, but also whether some or all of the settlement amounts should be recoverable from ATP. In order to defend itself, ATP must be permitted to explore the settlements, must be permitted to review the factual and expert evidence, the arguments and the law that was presented by both parties and must be entitled to assess what factors, on both sides, were taken into account in coming to the settlement.
[16] When exploring IPEX’s position on discovery, ATP asked Battistin to disclose the identity of the attendees at the mediations and other settlement meetings and to ask them who made the decision to settle the class actions, what their reasons were for that decision, and what they relied on. In response to this question, IPEX disclosed that this decision made by IPEX’s then CEO, Paul Graddon, included, among other things, consideration of the following factors:
…an assessment of the exposure that IPEX faced as a result of the claims due to anti-oxidant depletion caused by substandard resin which was in an amount significantly higher than the settlement that was available for acceptance through the mediation process; the desire for finality to the exposure for Kitec Pipe failures; the susceptibility of Kitec Pipe, given the sub-standard resin which greatly increased the assessed exposure to catastrophic failures; the expected defence costs, management time and resources that would otherwise be spent on the defence; and the financial and reputational exposure IPEX was facing at the time, due to the Kitec Pipe failures.
Proceedings in this Action Specifically with Respect to Refusal 9
Master Graham’s Order
[17] Before ATP moved for information from IPEX’s insurers, IPEX provided the names of the insurer’s representatives and the insurer’s legal counsel present at the mediations. IPEX also named the insurers that contributed to the settlement. It produced the highly redacted claims releases of GCan Insurance Company, Allianz, US Unsur Co., Temple Insurance, Scottish and York, Employers Re Corp Lloyds Underwriters and Elliot Special Risk Pool.
[18] At discovery, IPEX refused to request the information ATP had asked it to request from its insurers in Refusal 9.
[19] Counsel for ATP sought information on the quantum of the settlement payments made by IPEX’s insurers.
[20] In subparagraphs (i), (ii), (iii) and (iv) of Refusal 9, counsel for ATP sought the identity of insurer representatives so that they could be asked to produce relevant documents. [Specifically, which insurer representatives participated in the settlement of the Class Action or other legal proceedings, handled the claims, provided instructions, attended the mediations. He requested information on the chain of command.] In subparagraph (v) he requested documents in the possession, control or power of those insurer representatives. In subparagraphs (vi) and (vii) he requested each of the insurer representatives to provide full details about why they recommended the settlement and the circumstances surrounding their recommendations. Counsel for ATP submitted that subparagraphs (v), (vi) and (vii) of the Refusal are relevant to the issue of the insurer’s motivation to settle and the reasonableness of the settlement itself. IPEX has claimed that it paid $125,000,000 to settle the Class Actions in order to avoid paying a significantly greater amount in the event the Class Actions proceeded to judgment. Because IPEX has put its state of mind in issue, ATP is entitled to information as to whether the insurers shared that view, particularly given that they were present at the mediations as part of the IPEX settlement team.
[21] ATP’s motion in respect of Refusal 9 was heard by Master Graham on March 7, 2014.
[22] IPEX submitted that confidentiality provisions prohibited IPEX from disclosing the redacted portions in the Claim Release Agreements (including the amounts contributed by its insurers).
[23] Master Graham made the following endorsement with respect to Refusal 9:
Any contribution by IPEX’s insurers to the settlement is not relevant based on the private insurance exception (see Krawchuk v. Scherbak (2011), 2011 ONCA 352, 106 O.R. (3d) 598 at para. 99). Refusal upheld.
The identity of the insurers’ representatives who participated in either the settlement of the class action claims against IPEX or IPEX’s claims against the insurers is relevant under Rule 31.06(2) as disclosure of persons with knowledge of transactions or occurrences. This information shall be provided to the extent that it is within IPEX’s knowledge.
As IPEX has stated that the claim is not a subrogated claim, and in any event any indemnity received from insurers is irrelevant, the refusal is upheld re: 9.(v), (vi) and (vii).
[24] Counsel for ATP submitted that having found that IPEX’s insurers had relevant information, Master Graham erred in law in denying ATP’s request for an order compelling disclosure.
[25] Since ATP was not seeking a credit for payments made by IPEX’s insurers, counsel for ATP submitted that the private insurance exception was inapplicable to the issues in this case.
[26] Counsel for IPEX submitted that the private insurance exception was not mentioned to bar the production of relevant documents. It was mentioned because one aspect of the private insurance exception is that any settlement between the insurer and the insured is irrelevant to an insured’s cause of action against a third party. A settlement between an insured and an insurer will only reflect their evaluations of their claims as against each other. An insurer’s documents pertaining to its settlement with its insured have been held not to be relevant to an insured’s claim against a third party.
Whitaker J.’s Order
[27] ATP appealed Master Graham’s Order and continued to seek a full answer to Refusal 9.
[28] Whitaker dismissed the appeal for the following reasons:
I accept the characterization of this request from respondent counsel that ATP was essentially attempting to get an affidavit of documents from a non-party without bringing a motion. The questions are set out in ATP's factum at page 5-6, paragraphs 15 (i) to (vii).
The refusals raise issues of mixed fact and law. The standard of review which should apply to an appeal of a refusals motion before a Master, includes an error of law, the exercise of discretion on the wrong principles or a misapprehension of the evidence such that there is a palpable and overriding error.
The Master turned his mind to the relevant facts and law. The Master should be granted a significant amount of deference, particularly as here; the Master had worked with the parties in this litigation, was familiar with their issues and disputes and has been the front line person who will very likely continue to deal with the parties after this appeal is settled.
In any event, I conclude that whatever the standard of review is, the Master was correct. The Master considered and directly applied the insurance exception. The issues to be determined here as set out in the moving parties' factum at paragraph 18, have been addressed. There was no palpable and overriding error.
Appeal to this Court
[29] ATP then sought leave to appeal and Molloy J. granted leave.
The Standard of Review
[30] ATP and IPEX agreed that on this appeal, this Court should be guided by the principle that a Master’s decision, may be only be interfered with if the Master erred in law, exercised his or her discretion on the wrong principles, or misapprehended the evidence such that there was a palpable and overriding error.
[31] Counsel for IPEX also submitted that deference is owed to Masters on matters of discovery, especially given this Master’s case management role.
Submissions on This Motion in this Court
By Counsel for ATP
[32] Counsel for ATP submitted that ATP was entitled to know the information of each insurer that participated in the settlement, the reasons why each endorsed the settlement, contributed the amount that it did, and its views on the reasonableness of the settlement. It was entitled to receive and review each insurer’s documents and information.
[33] Using the words of Strathy J. in ordering IPEX to produce documents, he submitted that ATP was entitled to learn to what extent the settlement was thought by the insurers to be “due to deficiencies in the pipe caused by the materials supplied by ATP or due to factors, such as dezincification, that had nothing to do with ATP”. To what extent did it reflect matters for which the defendant had responsibility and to what extent did it reflect other factors including: (a) the fault of other tortfeasors; (b) the contributory fault of the plaintiff; (c) goodwill, contingencies, other risk factors?”
[34] Counsel for ATP submitted that the following excerpt from IPEX’s Answers to Undertakings, confirmed that IPEX’s insurers have information relevant to the issues between the parties:
The decision to settle the class action…on behalf of IPEX was made by Paul Graddon, after consultation with his management team…his legal advisors and insurance representatives…. By the time that the MDL and Ontario class actions were in mediation, however, it became clear that the plaintiffs' legal team had become aware of the anti-oxidant depletion problems with the pipe. IPEX and its insurers had also furthered their research with respect to this problem, including the history of claims, the amount of pipe estimated to be in the market that was prone to such failures, and projected failure rates.
IPEX took into consideration the materials exchanged between the parties at the mediations (including any preliminary findings, opinions and conclusions of the parties' experts expressed therein), its knowledge about the extent of its Kitec product that had been sold into the North American market and estimates as to the different types of applications that it was installed in, its historical claims experience and associated costs, the economic impact of even the most conservatively predicted failure rates, and the work and preliminary findings, opinions, conclusions and advice of the Kitec task force. IPEX also considered input from legal advisors, the expected defence costs, management time and resources that would otherwise be spent on the defence, and the fact that IPEX’s insurers, were willing to support and contributed to the settlement….(emphasis added)
[35] Counsel for ATP submitted that in the circumstances here, it would be reasonable for IPEX to expect that its own insurers, who had participated in the settlement discussions, would cooperate in providing IPEX with any information that IPEX had requested.
[36] Counsel for ATP argued that at least until IPEX had requested its insurers to provide relevant information and they had refused to do so, ATP should not be required to bring a Rule 30.10 motion that would be more expensive, onerous and time-consuming.
[37] He submitted that it is common practice for a party to be ordered to make requests of non-parties in order to obtain relevant information. He quoted the following reasoning of Hugessen J. in Eli Lilly & Co. v. Apotex Inc. :
It seems to me that where one may reasonably expect, because of a relationship existing between a party and some third party, that a request for information will be honoured, it is proper to require that party to make such a request.
By Counsel for IPEX
[38] Counsel for IPEX argued that ATP is asking this Court to overlook a key issue, namely whether the documents and information in Refusal 9 are in the "possession, control or power" of IPEX, such that is appropriate to order IPEX to make efforts to obtain them.
[39] IPEX submitted that as the insurers are non-parties to this litigation, their documents are not within IPEX’s power, possession or control. To require IPEX to seek such broad production from them would be unreasonable. To make such a request would conflict with the principles set out in Rule 1.04(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.
[40] The Master held that the documents of the insurers were not within the power, possession or control of IPEX. Counsel for IPEX submitted that ATP should be required in all the circumstances here to bring a motion for production from insurers that are non-parties to the Action.
[41] IPEX’s claim is not being brought by the insurers in IPEX's name. IPEX is bringing its claim in its own right. It is not relying on any assignment or transfer of any subrogated claim.
[42] The insurers settled with IPEX, not with the class action claimants. ATP has not put forward any authority making the subjective motivations of the insurers or their reasons for settling with their insured, IPEX, relevant to determining whether IPEX's Class Action Settlement with other parties was objectively reasonable.
[43] IPEX has already produced the information and documents relating to the reasonableness of its Class Action Settlement within its own power, possession or control. ATP already has the information and documents it needs to meet IPEX's case. It already has the Mediation Briefs and documents relevant to IPEX's agreement to settle. ATP already knows why IPEX agreed to pay the settlement amounts.
[44] The insurers' documents and knowledge were never at issue before Strathy J. IPEX’s documents were. In submitting that Strathy J. held the insurer’s documents were relevant, ATP failed to make the important distinction between a party’s/IPEX’s obligations to produce its own relevant documents and a party’s/IPEX’s obligations in respect of the documents of non-parties. Different rules apply to the required production on discovery by each. A party may be required to request a non-party to provide certain information but a party cannot require that production.
[45] In any event, for IPEX to request such broad production from its insurers would likely be fruitless.
Application of the Standard of Review
[46] Counsel for ATP submitted that the decisions of Master Graham and of Whitaker J. conflict with settled precedent requiring parties to obtain relevant evidence from non-parties. They erred in law in ruling as they did.
[47] Counsel for IPEX submitted that the Master addressed the relevant issues, including whether the relationship between IPEX and the insurers was such as to make the requests made in Refusal 9 appropriate, and whether the information requested was relevant. He considered Refusal 9 in the context of the circumstances as a whole and in his role as Case Management Master. He properly considered the role of the insurers i.e. non-parties and whether the claim was a subrogated one. There was no basis in evidence or in the authorities for this Court to hold that he erred in deciding the legal issues or that he made any palpable and overriding error in making the findings of fact that he did.
[48] Counsel for IPEX submitted that the reference to the insurance exception was not made to suggest that material otherwise relevant to IPEX’s claims in the Class Action should not be produced. Reference to the insurance exception was apt in respect to IPEX’s refusal to produce documents of its insurers pertaining to the settlements between IPEX and its insurers. They are irrelevant to IPEX’s reasons for settling its claims against third parties i.e. irrelevant to the settlement of its claims in the Class Action.
[49] He submitted that the Master and Whitaker J. did not err in law in taking this principle into account. The difference between contractual agreements between an insured and its insurer and a tortious claim between an insured and a tortfeasor has been recognized in Krawchuk v. Scherbak, a decision to which the Master specifically referred in his Endorsement.
[50] On appeal, Whitaker J. upheld the Master's decision. He agreed with IPEX's counsel's characterization of ATP's request as an attempt to obtain an affidavit of documents from a non-party without bringing a motion. He noted that the Master had worked with the parties in the litigation, was familiar with their issues and disputes, and had been the "front line person" who would likely continue to deal with the parties in this "prolonged and complex" litigation after the appeal was settled. He correctly observed that the Master’s decision was owed significant deference.
[51] Counsel for IPEX submitted that a number the submissions made by counsel for ATP were made in respect of general principles that apply to information that must be provided by parties to other parties in the litigation, not to information that must be provided by non-parties.
[52] She submitted that counsel for ATP, in referring to authorities that relate to the discovery obligations of parties to the litigation, did not clearly differentiate between discovery obligations of parties and of non-parties. He referred to the relevance of the insurers’ information as if the information within their power, possession and control were IPEX’s information, or within IPEX’s power, possession, and control. For example, counsel for ATP submitted that since IPEX has put the state of mind of the settling parties directly in issue, the information of the insurers who participated in the mediations must be produced.
Conclusion
[53] I am of the view that there is no sufficient basis to overturn the decisions below. They do not disclose an error in law, an error in principle or a palpable and overriding error of fact.
[54] Different principles apply to information within the power, possession and control of parties than to non-parties.
[55] In argument, counsel for ATP did not compare the specific information requested in Refusal 9 to the types of requests for information that Courts have ordered parties to request of non-parties [without requiring the party to bring a Rule 30.10 motion].
[56] While parties to litigation have regularly been required to request entities with whom they have certain kinds of relationships to answer questions and to produce documents relevant to issues in a lawsuit, I am of the view that the questions asked and the information sought in Refusal 9 are qualitatively and quantitatively different.
[57] Where that has happened, the questions asked have usually been clearly delineated. There have been no requests that the non-party undertake a broad ranging and rigorous production process tantamount to the preparation of an affidavit of documents.
[58] The scope of the request ATP is asking IPEX to make of its insurers, [non-parties to this action] extends well beyond requesting answers to clear questions and the production of specified documents.
[59] Non-party insurers would be justified in refusing such requests.
[60] I have no hesitation in concluding that IPEX should not be required to request the insurers to comply with the requests set out in Refusal 9 for the following reasons::
(i) In my view, Strathy J.’s comments with respect to the importance of information available at the time of the settlement related to IPEX’s information. He did not mention the insurer’s information.
(ii) IPEX’s information has already been produced to ATP.
(iii) The detailed information requested in Refusal 9 is in the possession, power and control of non-parties to this action. The insurers had no direct relationship with, or direct liability to any of the class members. Rather, their obligations were owed only to IPEX.
(iv) The insurers have not been given notice of ATP’s request. They have had no opportunity to make submissions, for instance, with respect to any privilege and or confidentiality concerns they may have.
(v) The refusal to answer Refusal 9 cannot be considered in isolation. The discoveries were many days in duration. The undertakings and refusals motions were heard over several days by a case management Master familiar with the issues in the action, the totality of the production requests and the numerous other production orders that he had already made [including Refusal 10]. Master Graham was entitled to deference in this regard.
(vi) While I am of the view that the insurance exception should not be used as a reason to deny production of otherwise producible documents, that is not what happened here.
(vii) An issue in this litigation is whether the Class Action Settlement was an objectively reasonable one for IPEX to make. The subjective reasons that may have driven IPEX’s insurers to contribute to the settlement (as opposed to the objective evidence they did have in their possession, discussed in paragraphs 66 to 69 below) are not relevant.
Was a Narrower Order Appropriate?
[61] During the hearing, members of the panel considered crafting and substituting an Order requiring IPEX to request specified information and documents of the insurers, making an Order that would have been more in keeping with the types of orders other courts have made when requiring parties to seek information from non-parties.
[62] Counsel for IPEX candidly conceded during argument that if counsel for ATP were to request her to do so, she would not foreclose the possibility of agreeing to make further requests for information from IPEX’s insurers, for instance with respect to their documents available at the mediation.
[63] During the hearing we invited counsel for ATP to pare down/clarify/simplify his requests in order to assist this court in crafting such an order. He declined, submitting that IPEX should be required to request its insurers to fully answer all the questions set out in Refusal 9.
[64] In those circumstances, we decided that it would be inappropriate to make a narrower order.
Summary
[65] In summary, given the overbroad nature of the request that IPEX was being asked to make of non-parties, amounting to a request that they prepare affidavits of documents, the absence of any error of law affecting the result, the deference properly owed to a case management master on discovery matters, the refusal of counsel for ATP to narrow his request, and the availability of the Rule 30.10 remedy, the appeal is dismissed.
[66] However, I observe that in these circumstances these insurers are not like most other non-parties. IPEX has stated at Tab 12 p.87-88 that the insurers participated in the settlement discussions. The insurers conducted their own investigations and commissioned their own experts. They gathered their own information to inform themselves with respect to potential liability. They furthered the research with respect to IPEX’s problem, including a history of claims, the amount of pipe estimated to be in the market that was prone to failure and projected failure rates….IPEX’s insurers with their own legal advisors were willing to support and made payments to the fund to be distributed to class members.
[67] In my view, those documents in the power, possession and control of the insurers prepared for instance, to assess IPEX’s risk, are relevant, not only to the reasonableness of the Class Action Settlement but also to IPEX’s state of mind in entering into the Class Action Settlement. IPEX’s state of mind cannot be fully understood unless those documents are produced.
[68] Given their participation in the negotiation of the Class Action Settlement, these insurers clearly do have information in their power, possession and control that is relevant to the issues in this Action.
[69] I have included these observations to hopefully assist the parties to resolve the issues that arise on a motion pursuant to Rule 30.10.
Disposition
[70] The appeal is dismissed.
[71] The parties have agreed on costs to the successful party of $9000.
___________________________ M.A. SANDERSON J.
LEITCH J.
SACHS J.
Released: December 8, 2015
CITATION: IPEX v. AT Plastics, 2015 ONSC 6844
DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: 71/15
DATE: 20151208
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
DIVISIONAL COURT
Leitch, Sanderson, Sachs JJ.
BETWEEN:
IPEX INC.
Plaintiff/Respondent
– and –
AT PLASTICS INC.
Defendant/Appellant
REASONS FOR DECISION
M.A. SANDERSON J.
Released: December 8, 2015