ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
COURT FILE NO.: 02-CV-298897PD3
DATE: 20130417
BETWEEN:
Jema International Food Products Inc.
Plaintiff/Defendant by Counterclaim
– and –
Scholle Canada Limited
Defendant/Plaintiff by Counterclaim
Nawaz Tahir and Brent Hodge, for the Plaintiff/Defendant by Counterclaim
Kelly Smith and Thomas Whillier, for the Defendant/Plaintiff by Counterclaim
HEARD: March 6-8 and 11, 2013
Morgan J.
I. The Question
[1] This three day trial explored the sticky question of how over 1,200 50-gallon containers of tomato sauce spilled in storage. The containers were made of corrugated boxes lined with aseptic bags, comprising a storage system known as the bag-in-box.
[2] In a warm July of 2000, something in the Plaintiff’s warehouse went terribly wrong. Was it the bags or was it the boxes?
II. The Parties
[3] The Plaintiff is the owner and operator of a tomato processing plant and storage facility in Leamington, Ontario. According to Michael Mazzaferro, the president of the Plaintiff, Leamington is site of the largest tomato harvesting and processing operations in Canada. It is known as the tomato capital of the country.
[4] The annual tomato harvest and processing season is relatively short. It lasts from the beginning of August to the beginning of October. The Plaintiff processes the newly harvested tomatoes in its Leamington plant, packaging and wholesaling products such as pizza sauce, tomato paste, and crushed tomatoes. The entire manufacturing process has to be done in the short period from August to October, after which the processed tomato products are stored in the warehouse for sale throughout the coming year.
[5] The Defendant is a pioneer of the bag-in-box storage system. It manufactures aseptic bags that line the inside of the boxes. The bags are not designed to be used alone, but rather are part of the two-part system when used together with corrugated boxes. The Defendant does not make the boxes that go with the aseptic bags, but recommends box manufacturers whom it knows to have products that are compatible with its liner bags.
[6] The Defendant supplied the bags in issue to the Plaintiff. It did not supply the boxes. Further, although a representative of the Defendant has seen and visited the Plaintiff’s plant, the Defendant was not involved in any aspect of the Plaintiff’s tomato processing, sales, or storage operations.
III. The Spill
[7] In late June and early July 2000, the Plaintiff had several thousand containers of concentrated tomato sauce stored in its warehouse. Mr. Mazzaferro testified that the Plaintiff had produced between 7,000 and 8,000 50 gallon boxes of tomato produce in the 1999-2000 year. The Defendant’s invoice shows that the Plaintiff ordered 12,000 liner bags that year. Whatever the precise figure, the Plaintiff clearly had a large number of anticipated orders that year, and the stock of bags and boxes was well above the previous year’s order of 5000 container units.
[8] Mr. Mazzaferro was not yet the corporate president of the Plaintiff in 2000, but he was working in the business. He testified that in early July what started as a small problem with leaking boxes of tomato sauce escalated quickly into a major disaster. He described what he called a “domino effect” in which sauce leaked out of the corrugated containers, causing the boxes to explode and the pallets on which they rested in the warehouse to collapse. Contemporaneous photographs in the record show pallets stacked with large corrugated boxes saturated with a dark, thick liquid leaking through the cardboard.
[9] The Plaintiff’s plant manager at the time, Jim DiMenna, estimated at his examination for discovery that somewhere around 1,200 boxes of sauce were damaged. The staff tried to re-package the damaged containers in other types of receptacles (tins, jars, etc.), and were able to salvage 500 containers of sauce in that way. The accounting records show that 1,404 boxes were ultimately destroyed.
[10] Plaintiff’s management saw red. Mr. Mazzaferro described not only a major financial loss but a serious mess. The cleanup lasted many days, as there were gallons of pizza sauce on the floor and all over the warehouse. Specialized cleaning and moving equipment had to be rented to facilitate restoring the premises to a point where product could be stored there again.
[11] In the heat of the summer, the situation was a rather unhygienic one for a food processing plant. It was imperative that the cleanup be as thorough and as expeditious as possible. There were, in Mr. Mazzaferro’s words, “fruit flies everywhere”.
IV. The Bags
[12] The Plaintiff had a consulting engineer, Neil Stone, examine the some of the leaking bags that the Plaintiff had purchased from the Defendant. Mr. Stone was produced by the Plaintiff as an expert witness at trial. He was qualified to testify as an expert process engineer. The majority of his professional experience, however, is as a chemical engineer for the food industry, with a focus on pickling systems. He has limited experience with packaging and materials engineering.
[13] Nevertheless, Mr. Stone did perform a first-hand examination of the damaged linings in 2000, and was able to describe in detail the state of these bags just after the spill.
[14] In testing the failed bags, he found that there were weak zones in the side seams of the bags where the seams could be pulled apart by hand. In the strong parts, he could not pull the bag apart. This led him to the conclusion that the seams had intermittent bonding problems resulting in some sections of the seam being weak while most of the seam was quite strong.
[15] In his testimony, Mr. Stone also pointed out that the failures in the bags all appeared to be on the side seams, not the bottom of the bags. He also tested some of the undamaged bags by filling them with water under pressure, and found that none of them ruptured upon filling. This conformed with the Plaintiff’s own experience, as none of the sauce-filled bags had burst when being filled; rather, all of the leaking and tearing of bags had occurred while stored in the corrugated boxes in the warehouse.
[16] In Mr. Stone’s testimony and his report, which was admitted into evidence, he did not address any issues about the way in which the boxes were stored in the Plaintiff’s premises. He did observe that the boxes were somewhat larger than the bags that lined their interior, and that the sides of the bags therefore were not well supported within the boxes. He stated that it would have been better if the top of the boxes had been filled to the top with packing filler to prevent the sauce in the bags from “sloshing about”.
[17] To be clear, Mr. Stone never spoke with the box suppliers and never got any of the box specifications. He did not know the material strength of the corrugated material, and had no particular insight into how, or whether, they should be stacked when stored.
[18] Mr. Stone did observe that the boxes “bowed” outward in the middle when full. He opined that the boxes would have provided better support for the sauce-filled bags if they had stiff corner posts for side support, but he did not go so far as to say that the design of the boxes caused the bags to burst at the seams. Rather, to the extent that he had studied the matter, he indicated that he would put the fault squarely on the bags themselves.
[19] Mr. Stone did not know a great deal about the Defendant’s manufacturing process for the bags. Indeed, although he surmised that the problem was with the joint seals, he did not know whether the joints are made with adhesive or with a heat seal. But he reasoned that there must have been some sporadically faulty seaming when the failed bags were made.
[20] In Mr. Stone’s view, the possible causes of seam failure were: a) contamination of the seam area when the bag was being made; or b) an intermittent problem with the seaming equipment (whether it be heat sealed with intermittent failure of heat, or intermittent pressure issues with the sealing equipment, or intermittent contamination of the seal causing a faulty adhesive seal). He conceded that this was conjecture on his part – although in his view a logical conjecture – as he had never inspected or even seen a picture of the Defendant’s manufacturing equipment and assembly line.
V. The Boxes
[21] In response to the expert evidence of Neil Stone, who addressed what he saw as problems with the bags, the Defendant produced Ralph Young, a packaging expert who addressed what he saw as problems with the boxes. Mr. Young is not a professional engineer, but he has substantial industry experience in product development with respect to corrugated containers. He was qualified to testify as an expert packaging consultant.
[22] Mr. Young was not retained at the time of the spill in 2000, but rather was brought in years later by the Defendant in the run-up to trial. Accordingly, he did not have the opportunity to study first-hand any of the boxes used by the Plaintiff. In addition, the Defendant could not provide him with any samples of the boxes in issue, as they were manufactured by another company and were ordered directly from that company by the Plaintiff.
[23] What Mr. Young did have was a series of photographs taken by the Plaintiff in July 2000. These photos showed the leaking boxes as stored in the Plaintiff’s warehouse. On the witness stand he used the photos as a visual aid, and pointed out that in these photos there is ample evidence of bulging boxes. Mr. Young explained that this is a sign that they were not compatible with their contents or with the way they were being stored, as packaging should be designed for bulge resistance and top-to-bottom compression. This is especially true for a product like tomato sauce, which is heavy and stresses the bottom part of the boxes.
[24] He also indicated that a few of the boxes have visible corner posts, but that these appear to have been placed in the containers as an afterthought. The Plaintiff conceded that after the spill, it had ordered corner posts from the box manufacturer in an effort to salvage the containers that were left undamaged. Mr. Young stated that with vertical compression – especially with stacked boxes – the corners or columns of the box support about 2/3 of its strength. He opined that the internal corner posts should always have been there, and must go from the bottom vertical edge to the top vertical edge in order to become rigid and integral to the box.
[25] The photos also depict the boxes stored on wooden pallets in the Plaintiff’s warehouse. These pallets often supported two and sometimes with three tiers of boxes stacked on top of each other. Mr. Young pointed out that with this vertical compression comes the most severe bulging of the boxes.
[26] Mr. Young also noted numerous instances in the photos where the boxes were not sitting flush on the pallets. When the box hangs over the edge of the pallet, Mr. Young explained, it stresses the corrugated walls of the box; and when another box is then loaded vertically on top of the first one, container failure is likely to occur.
[27] Finally, Mr. Young noted that time is not friendly to corrugated containers. The Fibre Box Association, an industry group of which Mr. Young is a member, states that a box under load will lose 40% of its initial compression strength in the first 30 days after being packed.
[28] Moreover, there is a tendency for corrugated boxes to break down with the change from winter to summer (i.e. from the dry air of a heated warehouse to the humid air of July). In Mr. Young’s view, it is not surprising that the spill occurred at the beginning of July, the most humid month in southern Ontario, and after the boxes had sat in the warehouse some 8 to 9 months.
[29] It was put to Mr. Young on the stand that the numbers of boxes in storage had increased over the two previous years in which the bag-in-box system was used by the Plaintiff, and that while there was single tier storage in previous years there was double and triple tier stacking in 1999-2000. Mr. Young responded to this information rather forcefully and without hesitation: “You can’t do that.”
[30] The multiple stacking was, in Mr. Young’s view, the major cause of the rupture in the bags. He opined that the increase in vertical compression, in combination with the humidity, length of storage time, and bulging of the boxes due to their oversized construction and lack of corner support, combined to cause the failure of the bag-in-box units.
VI. The Contest
[31] In the contest between bags and boxes, there is no 100% winner.
[32] In terms of aseptic bag production, the most knowledgeable witness was Steven Falk, the Defendant’s in-house technical support specialist during in the late 1990’s and 2000. Mr. Falk was quite familiar with the Defendant’s manufacturing process, and had spent much time looking after problems with bags in the field. He explained that problems generally occurred because of incompatibility with a customer’s equipment or storage vessels that were not manufactured by the Defendant.
[33] Mr. Falk recalled visiting the Plaintiff’s warehouse on July 18, 2000. In his testimony he described it as being “a mess”. He inspected a number of leaking containers as well as non-leaking containers, and discussed the leakage problem with Jim DiMenna, who at the time was the Plaintiff’s manager.
[34] Mr. DiMenna said that he had initially moved from metal drums to the bag-in-box system as a more up to date means of storage. On inspection, it was Mr. Falk’s view that the problem was the compatibility of the bag with the size of the box. He recalled explaining this to Mr. DiMenna, and that it was Mr. DiMenna himself who had proposed using cardboard corner posts as a possible solution.
[35] Mr. Falk testified that there were large gaps in the corners of the boxes when the bags were full, evidencing the incompatibility of the boxes with the bags. He took some measurements of the full boxes, and advised Mr. DiMenna that the boxes might need even bigger corner posts than he was suggesting.
[36] In cross-examination, Mr. Falk conceded that the material that the aseptic bags are made from often doesn’t seal well on its own. For that reason, the Defendant encapsulates each bag with polyethylene on the sides, which reinforces the sealing at the seams. An extra layer of plastic is then added to tie the two layers together, and through this co-excrusion process the seams of the bags come together into a single material.
[37] After Mr. Falk’s visit to the Plaintiff’s premises in July 2000, he sent a Quality Variance Report to the Defendant’s office in Chicago, along with a sample bag from the Plaintiff’s batch. The quality experts in Chicago checked the sample, and found no issue with the seals.
[38] The Defendant’s manager for Canada, Michael Doucas, also testified at trial. He briefly described the process by which the Defendant manufactures the bags in their plant in California. He indicated, among other things, that the horizontal seals along the top and bottom of the bags are identical to the vertical seals along the sides. This is significant since the damaged bags, as described by Neil Stone, were all torn along the side seams. If there were problems in the Defendant’s sealing process, one would surmise that all the seams would potentially be damaged, not just the side seams.
[39] Most importantly, Mr. Doucas testified that the bags are made on continuous runs, such that one purchaser’s bags are produced at the same time as those of other purchasers. There are no custom orders, and there is not a separate run of the machinery in the Defendant’s plant for each customer who buys the aseptic bags.
[40] For this reason, Mr. Doucas explained, it does not make sense that there was a defect in the bags purchased by the Plaintiff but no defect in the bags purchased by any other customer. The Defendant’s plant in California produces 700,000 bags annually; in 1999, 12,000 of these bags were sold to the Plaintiff. No other customer complained about spillage or leaks in 1999-2000.
[41] Like Mr. Falk, Mr. Doucas had also visited the Plaintiff’s warehouse during the July 2000 cleanup. He also recalled that the full boxes bulged in the centre.
[42] The one witness who may have been able to shed more light on the problem would have been the Plaintiff’s plant manager, Mr. DiMenna. However, he has ceased working for the Plaintiff and was not produced as a witness.
[43] Counsel for the Defendant has asked me to draw an adverse inference from Mr. DiMenna’s absence, but I find there is no need to do so. Mr. DiMenna was examined for discovery on behalf of the Plaintiff, and Defendant’s counsel read portions of his transcript into evidence. That transcript provides more than sufficient insight into Mr. DiMenna’s view of the bag vs. box controversy.
[44] Mr. DiMenna confirmed in discovery that he was the one in charge of selecting the boxes for the Plaintiff. The Defendant had recommended one manufacturer of corrugated containers – a company called Wilomet Industries Inc. that produced a box called the Wil Pac. Mr. DiMenna had briefly considered ordering the Wil Pac boxes, but opted against it when he discovered that another manufacturer, Noram Pak, produced much cheaper boxes. Noram Pak is located in the southern United States and ultimately was selected by the Plaintiff to supply the boxes in issue.
[45] At his examination for discovery Mr. DiMenna also conceded that he had initially considered smaller boxes that would have been sturdier and more compatible with the Defendant’s bags. He changed his mind and ultimately chose the larger Noram Pak boxes, however, because they displayed better for customers when stacked on pallets.
[46] One series of answers given by Mr. DiMenna on discovery is particularly revealing:
Q. …You said you did testing on that and I’m just wondering what testing. I mean, you could see the bag was unsupported couldn’t you?
A. Yes.
Q. And wouldn’t it have been apparent that you could have used a smaller box?
A. It fit the pallet perfectly, provided very good stacking in the warehouse. If you look at the photos of the stretch-wrapped finished product on the pallet, it’s beautiful. It’s very attractive. So it made the stacking very simple for the warehouse, for the forklift driver.
Q. Well, there’s some competition between the prettiness of the pallet stack and the ethicacy [sic] of the packaging, and the cost of the packaging was, obviously, you’ve said it a few times, important. Less cardboard, cheaper box. You turned down the Wil Pac because it was too expensive.
A. Yes. Because it was six to seven times more expensive.
[47] In other words, the Plaintiff was focused on the price and presentation of the boxes more than it was on the efficacy and physical integrity of the bag-in-box system. The Wil Pac boxes recommended by the Defendant were rejected, and the further testing of the storage system recommended by the Defendant was curtailed, all due to the Plaintiff’s non-structural considerations.
VII. The Onus
[48] I cannot rule out that the bags may have suffered intermittent seam failure due to a faulty sealing process in the Defendant’s plant. Mr. Stone’s testing of the bags suggests that possibility. At the same time, I cannot rule out that the boxes may have been the wrong size and stored or stacked in a way that made them structurally unsound. Mr. Young’s analysis of the 2000 photos suggests that possibility.
[49] The expert witnesses – Mr. Stone for the Plaintiff and Mr. Young for the Defendant – each expressed compelling opinions pointing in opposite directions. Looking at the experts alone, the contest comes out more or less even.
[50] The testimony supplied by Mr. Falk and Mr. Ducous must also be factored into this equation. Both of those witnesses cast doubt on the Plaintiff’s theory about the failed sealant on the seams of the bags. It is difficult to understand how the same manufacturing process that produced an annual run of 700,000 bags could have failed in sealing 1,200 to 1,400 of them, all belonging to the Plaintiff.
[51] In addition, I must take into account the evidence given by Mr. DiMenna at discoveries. It is clear that he was aware that a smaller size box, or a box with sturdier corner support, would be more suitable to the bags supplied by the Defendant.
[52] It is also clear that Mr. DiMenna rejected the box company recommended by the Defendant for reasons of price and aesthetics. In choosing the Noram Pak boxes, the Plaintiff opted for corrugated containers containing less cardboard (making them cheaper) and that fit squarely onto its pallets (making them neatly stackable in tiers). Both of these considerations point to problems with the boxes and storage identified by Mr. Young, and point away from problems with the bags and seams identified by Mr. Stone.
[53] On the evidence before me I cannot conclude definitively that the Plaintiff’s choice of boxes and its method of stacking them was the sole cause of the spill in July 2000. What I can certainly conclude, however, is that the Plaintiff has not proved on the balance of probabilities that the bags were defective and that they caused the spill.
[54] There are two possible explanations in evidence; but once all of the evidence is reviewed, the more likely explanation is that it was the ill-fitting boxes stacked on top of each other that caused the spill. That does not fully explain Mr. Stone’s findings that some of the bags had intermittent weak spots, but it does explain why of all the Defendant’s customers for aseptic bag liners in 1999-2000, only the Plaintiff suffered torn bags and leakage.
[55] Needless to say, the onus of proof is on the Plaintiff. The Defendant does not have to prove that its theory about the boxes is correct. It is sufficient to dismiss the claim that the Plaintiff has not proved on a balance of probabilities that its own theory about the bags is correct.
VIII. The Warning
[56] The Plaintiff further argues that the Defendant failed to warn the Plaintiff of the danger of storing the boxes in a way which might burst the bags. Counsel for the Plaintiff points to Lambert v Lastoplex Chemicals Co., 1971 27 (SCC), [1972] SCR 569 for the proposition that a manufacturer must warn of the dangers that arise due to the fault of the purchaser itself if that fault is reasonably foreseeable.
[57] I agree that manufacturers have a duty to warn their customers of the inherent risks of a given product. Generally, only if the consumer voluntarily assumed the risks of the injury caused by the product is the manufacturer absolved of the duty to warn of all dangers in the product that it puts into the stream of commerce. Siemens v Pfizer C & G Inc., 1988 5698 (MB CA), [1988] 3 WWR 577 (Man CA).
[58] Under the circumstances, however, I cannot see how the Defendant failed in any legal duty to warn the Plaintiff. In the Plaintiff’s view, the Defendant would have had to warn it of the danger of ordering ill-fitting boxes, or the risk it was taking in stacking 50 gallon boxes two and three tiers high. That view of the duty to warn seems to stretch the legal duty to the breaking point.
[59] The important point here is that the Plaintiff specifically rejected the Defendant’s recommendation in selecting its boxes. Without consulting with the Defendant, it purchased a box that was inferior in quality to the one that the Defendant recommended and that did not suit the bags. The Plaintiff was free to make this choice, but in doing so it assumed the risk that the choice would cause it harm.
[60] Furthermore, the evidence of Mr. DiMenna was that the Plaintiff disregarded all of the Defendant’s advice regarding the boxes specifically because it wanted to stack the boxes on pallets as a visually pleasing form of display. The Defendant had nothing to do with the stacking of the boxes in the Plaintiff’s warehouse. The Plaintiff cannot complain that the Defendant failed to advise it on its storage method when the Plaintiff failed to consult the Defendant on that very storage method.
[61] It is one thing for a manufacturer to be under an obligation to warn of dangers inherent in its own product; however, the law does not impose a duty on a manufacturer to warn of dangers inherent in another manufacturer’s product that it did not recommend, or to warn of the self-evident risk of storing very heavy cardboard containers on top of each other.
[62] The Plaintiff cannot shift the cost of its own cavalier attitude to box selection and storage by arguing that the Defendant should somehow have warned it. In fact, one might say that in recommending a sturdier, more expensive box, the Defendant had in effect warned the Plaintiff of the risks of its choice. The loss must lie where it spilled.
IX. The Counterclaim
[63] Despite the Plaintiff’s complaint that the Defendant’s bags caused the spill, the Plaintiff re-ordered bags from the Defendant for the 2000-2001 year. In his testimony, Mr. Ducous identified the invoice issued by the Defendant to the Plaintiff in the amount of $81,932.04 dated May 9, 2000. This invoice was for 10,800 bags, which Mr. Ducous testified were delivered to the Plaintiff for the upcoming season.
[64] The Defendant’s bill was never paid and is the subject of the counterclaim. On the merits, the Plaintiff has no real defense to this counterclaim. The bags were ordered and delivered, but not paid for.
[65] However, at the opening of trial I was advised by Plaintiff’s counsel that the Plaintiff has filed a Notice of Intention to make a proposal to its creditors under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, RSC 1985, c B-3 (“BIA”). Section 69(1)(a) of the BIA imposes a stay on any claim by a creditor claiming against the Plaintiff. Across the country courts have consistently held that, “[t]he stay of proceedings imposed by the BIA does not affect proceedings brought by [the debtor] but does stay the proceedings against [the debtor].” Re Navionics Inc., 2005 NLTD 137, 251 Nfld & PEI R 216 (Nfld SC). That would include the counterclaim in these proceedings.
[66] The Defendant also raises a defence of set off, proposing to deduct the 2000 invoice from any amount found owing to the Plaintiff. However, set off only arises where the claims to be set off against each other exist in the same right.
[67] The Plaintiff produced as a damages witness James Hoare, who was hired by Canadian General Insurance to calculate the losses suffered by the Plaintiff as a result of the spill, and who made it clear that the Plaintiff’s claim is a subrogated insurance claim. The Court of Appeal has specifically held that, “as a result of subrogation the claims sought to be set off do not exist in the same right” as the main claim. Colonial Furniture Co. v Saul Tanner Realty Limited, 2001 24148 (ON CA), 52 OR (3d) 539, at para 22. Therefore, as a matter of law no defence of set off can apply here.
[68] In any case, I have found that the Defendant is not liable for the Plaintiff’s losses. Accordingly, no question of set off arises.
[69] Finally, Defendant’s counsel submits that the court has discretion to permit its counterclaim to proceed. Section 69.4 of the BIA provides that the court has discretion to lift a stay if a creditor can show that it is especially prejudiced or if there are other equitable grounds to do so. In particular, counsel complains that the Defendant was not given timely notice of the Plaintiff’s Notice of Intention to make a proposal. Apparently, the Plaintiff’s Notice was issued on October 10, 2012, but the Defendant was not served with it until after the pre-trial of this matter on January 22, 2013.
[70] Frustrating at a stay of proceedings under section 69(1)(a) might be for a creditor of an insolvent party, the Defendant has not presented adequate grounds for lifting the stay. Lifting a stay impacts on the position of other creditors, and so is not something that the court can do without “sound reasons, consistent with the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act.” Re Ma, 2001 24076 (ON CA), [2001] OJ No 1189, at para 3 (Ont CA).
[71] The British Columbia Supreme Court has confirmed that, “knowledge of the filing of the Notice of Intention to make a proposal is not necessary for the stay to be effective.” Sartek Computer Inc. v Samtack Computer Inc., 2000 BCSC 1316, 20 CBR (4th) 166, at para 12. The fact that the Defendant was only notified late in the day of the Plaintiff’s proposal to its creditors is disconcerting to the Defendant, but it does not affect the within counterclaim or remove it from the ambit of the stay of proceedings.
[72] Moreover, the counterclaim is a claim provable in the bankruptcy. The court hearing the Plaintiff’s bankruptcy proceeding, which according to the Notice of Intention is the Quebec Superior Court, is the appropriate forum for that claim. The discretion found in section 69.4 of the BIA is to exercised, if at all, by the bankruptcy court. It is only that court that can consider the claimant’s request in the context of the overall position of the debtor and all of its creditors.
X. The Disposition
[73] The Plaintiff’s claim is dismissed. The Defendant’s counterclaim is stayed.
[74] The parties may make written submissions on costs. I would ask that they be sent directly to my attention within two weeks of the release of these reasons for judgment.
Morgan J.
Released: April 17, 2013
COURT FILE NO.: 02-CV-298897PD3
DATE: 20130417
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
BETWEEN:
Jema International Food Products Inc.
Plaintiff/Defendant by Counterclaim
– and –
Scholle Canada Limted
Defendant/Plaintiff by Counterclaim
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
E.M. Morgan J.
Released: April 17, 2013