Commitments, Contingencies and Guarantees	9 Months Ended
Sep. 30, 2019
Commitments And Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments, Contingencies and Guarantees	7. Commitments, Contingencies and Guarantees Commitments In the ordinary course of business, the Company enters into contractual agreements with third parties that include non-cancellable payment obligations, for which it is liable in future periods. These arrangements can include terms binding the Company to minimum payments and/or penalties if it terminates the agreement for any reason other than an event of default as described by the agreement. Contingencies and guarantees The Company is involved in lawsuits, claims, and proceedings, including those identified below, which arise in the ordinary course of business. In accordance with the Contingencies Topic of the FASB ASC, the Company will make a provision for a liability when it is both probable that a loss has been incurred and the amount of the loss can be reasonably estimated. The Company believes it has adequate provisions for any such matters. The Company reviews these provisions in conjunction with any related provisions on assets related to the claims at least quarterly and adjusts these provisions to reflect the impacts of negotiations, settlements, rulings, advice of legal counsel and other pertinent information related to the case. Should developments in any of these matters outlined below cause a change in the Company’s determination as to an unfavorable outcome and result in the need to recognize a material provision, or, should any of these matters result in a final adverse judgment or be settled for significant amounts, they could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s results of operations, cash flows, and financial position in the period or periods in which such a change in determination, settlement or judgment occurs. The Company expenses legal costs relating to its lawsuits, claim and proceedings as incurred. (a)In January 2004, the Company and IMAX Theatre Services Ltd., a subsidiary of the Company, commenced an arbitration seeking damages before the International Court of Arbitration of the International Chamber of Commerce (the “ICC”) with respect to the breach by Electronic Media Limited (“EML”) of its December 2000 agreement with the Company. In June 2004, the Company commenced a related arbitration before the ICC against EML’s affiliate, E-City Entertainment (I) PVT Limited (“E-City”). On March 27, 2008, the arbitration panel issued a final award in favor of the Company in the amount of $11.3 million, consisting of past and future rents owed to the Company, plus interest and costs, as well as an additional $2,512 each day in interest from October 1, 2007 until the date the award is paid. In July 2008, E-City commenced a proceeding in Mumbai, India seeking an order that the ICC award may not be recognized in India and on June 10, 2013, the Bombay High Court ruled that it had jurisdiction over the proceeding filed by E-City. The Company appealed that ruling to the Supreme Court of India, and on March 10, 2017, the Supreme Court set aside the Bombay High Court’s judgement and dismissed E-City’s petition. On March 29, 2017, the Company filed an Execution Application in the Bombay High Court seeking to enforce the ICC award against E-City and several related parties. That matter is currently pending. The Company has also taken steps to enforce the ICC final award outside of India. In December 2011, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice issued an order recognizing the final award and requiring E-City to pay the Company $30,000 to cover the costs of the application, and in October 2015, the New York Supreme Court recognized the Canadian judgment and entered it as a New York judgment. The Company intends to continue pursuing its rights and seeking to enforce the award, although no assurances can be given with respect to the ultimate outcome. (b)On November 11, 2013, Giencourt Investments, S.A. (“Giencourt”) initiated arbitration before the International Centre for Dispute Resolution in Miami, Florida, based on alleged breaches by the Company of its theater agreement and related license agreement with Giencourt. An arbitration hearing for witness testimony was held during the week of December 14, 2015. At the hearing, Giencourt’s expert identified monetary damages of up to approximately $10.4 million, which Giencourt sought to recover from the Company. The Company asserted a counterclaim against Giencourt for breach of contract and sought to recover lost profits in excess of $24.0 million under the agreements. Subsequently, in December 2015, Giencourt made a motion to the panel seeking to enforce a purported settlement of the matter based on negotiations between Giencourt and the Company. The panel held a final hearing with closing arguments in October 2016. On February 7, 2017, the panel issued a Partial Final Award and on July 21, 2017, the panel issued a Final Award (collectively, the “Award”), which held that the parties had reached a binding settlement, and therefore the panel did not reach the merits of the dispute. The Company strongly disputes that discussions about a potential resolution of this matter amounted to an enforceable settlement. In October 2017, the Company filed a petition to vacate the arbitration award in the United States Court for the Southern District of Florida on various grounds, including that the panel exceeded its jurisdiction, and a hearing was held on June 27, 2019. On September 27, 2019, a Magistrate Judge filed a non-binding recommendation that the Company’s petition be dismissed. On October 14, 2019, the Company filed an objection to that recommendation. The Company’s petition to vacate the arbitration award is still pending a final review and decision by the District Judge. At this time, the Company is unable to determine the amounts that it may owe pursuant to the Award, or the timing of any such payments, and therefore no assurances can be given with respect to the ultimate outcome of the matter. (c)In addition to the matters described above, the Company is currently involved in other legal proceedings or governmental inquiries which, in the opinion of the Company’s management, will not materially affect the Company’s financial position or future operating results, although no assurance can be given with respect to the ultimate outcome of any such proceedings. (d)In the normal course of business, the Company enters into agreements that may contain features that meet the definition of a guarantee. The Guarantees Topic of the FASB ASC defines a guarantee to be a contract (including an indemnity) that contingently requires the Company to make payments (either in cash, financial instruments, other assets, shares of its stock or provision of services) to a third party based on (a) changes in an underlying interest rate, foreign exchange rate, equity or commodity instrument, index or other variable, that is related to an asset, a liability or an equity security of the counterparty, (b) failure of another party to perform under an obligating agreement or (c) failure of another third party to pay its indebtedness when due. Financial Guarantees The Company has provided no significant financial guarantees to third parties. Product Warranties The Company’s accrual for product warranties, which was recorded as part of accrued and other liabilities in the condensed consolidated balance sheets, was $0.2 million and $0.2 million at September 30, 2019 and December 31, 2018, respectively. Director/Officer Indemnifications The Company’s General By-law contains an indemnification of its directors/officers, former directors/officers and persons who have acted at its request to be a director/officer of an entity in which the Company is a shareholder or creditor, to indemnify them, to the extent permitted by the Canada Business Corporations Act, against expenses (including legal fees), judgments, fines and any amounts actually and reasonably incurred by them in connection with any action, suit or proceeding in which the directors and/or officers are sued as a result of their service, if they acted honestly and in good faith with a view to the best interests of the Company. In addition, the Company has entered into indemnification agreements with each of its directors in order to effectuate the foregoing. The nature of the indemnification prevents the Company from making a reasonable estimate of the maximum potential amount it could be required to pay to counterparties. The Company has purchased directors’ and officers’ liability insurance. No amount has been accrued in the condensed consolidated balance sheets as at September 30, 2019 and December 31, 2018, with respect to this indemnity. Other Indemnification Agreements In the normal course of the Company’s operations, the Company provides indemnifications to counterparties in transactions such as: theater system lease and sale agreements and the supervision of installation or servicing of the theater systems; film production, exhibition and distribution agreements; real property lease agreements; and employment agreements. These indemnification agreements require the Company to compensate the counterparties for costs incurred as a result of litigation claims that may be suffered by the counterparty as a consequence of the transaction or the Company’s breach or non-performance under these agreements. While the terms of these indemnification agreements vary based upon the contract, they normally extend for the life of the agreements. A small number of agreements do not provide for any limit on the maximum potential amount of indemnification; however, virtually all of the Company’s system lease and sale agreements limit such maximum potential liability to the purchase price of the system. The fact that the maximum potential amount of indemnification required by the Company is not specified in some cases prevents the Company from making a reasonable estimate of the maximum potential amount it could be required to pay to counterparties. Historically, the Company has not made any significant payments under such indemnifications and no amounts have been accrued in the condensed consolidated financial statements with respect to the contingent aspect of these indemnities.

Commitments, Contingencies and Guarantees

9 Months Ended

Sep. 30, 2019

Commitments And Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]

Commitments, Contingencies and Guarantees

7. Commitments, Contingencies and Guarantees

Commitments

In the ordinary course of business, the Company enters into contractual agreements with third parties that include non-cancellable payment obligations, for which it is liable in future periods. These arrangements can include terms binding the Company to minimum payments and/or penalties if it terminates the agreement for any reason other than an event of default as described by the agreement.

Contingencies and guarantees

The Company is involved in lawsuits, claims, and proceedings, including those identified below, which arise in the ordinary course of business. In accordance with the Contingencies Topic of the FASB ASC, the Company will make a provision for a liability when it is both probable that a loss has been incurred and the amount of the loss can be reasonably estimated. The Company believes it has adequate provisions for any such matters. The Company reviews these provisions in conjunction with any related provisions on assets related to the claims at least quarterly and adjusts these provisions to reflect the impacts of negotiations, settlements, rulings, advice of legal counsel and other pertinent information related to the case. Should developments in any of these matters outlined below cause a change in the Company’s determination as to an unfavorable outcome and result in the need to recognize a material provision, or, should any of these matters result in a final adverse judgment or be settled for significant amounts, they could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s results of operations, cash flows, and financial position in the period or periods in which such a change in determination, settlement or judgment occurs.

The Company expenses legal costs relating to its lawsuits, claim and proceedings as incurred.

(a)In January 2004, the Company and IMAX Theatre Services Ltd., a subsidiary of the Company, commenced an arbitration seeking damages before the International Court of Arbitration of the International Chamber of Commerce (the “ICC”) with respect to the breach by Electronic Media Limited (“EML”) of its December 2000 agreement with the Company. In June 2004, the Company commenced a related arbitration before the ICC against EML’s affiliate, E-City Entertainment (I) PVT Limited (“E-City”). On March 27, 2008, the arbitration panel issued a final award in favor of the Company in the amount of $11.3 million, consisting of past and future rents owed to the Company, plus interest and costs, as well as an additional $2,512 each day in interest from October 1, 2007 until the date the award is paid. In July 2008, E-City commenced a proceeding in Mumbai, India seeking an order that the ICC award may not be recognized in India and on June 10, 2013, the Bombay High Court ruled that it had jurisdiction over the proceeding filed by E-City. The Company appealed that ruling to the Supreme Court of India, and on March 10, 2017, the Supreme Court set aside the Bombay High Court’s judgement and dismissed E-City’s petition. On March 29, 2017, the Company filed an Execution Application in the Bombay High Court seeking to enforce the ICC award against E-City and several related parties. That matter is currently pending. The Company has also taken steps to enforce the ICC final award outside of India. In December 2011, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice issued an order recognizing the final award and requiring E-City to pay the Company $30,000 to cover the costs of the application, and in October 2015, the New York Supreme Court recognized the Canadian judgment and entered it as a New York judgment. The Company intends to continue pursuing its rights and seeking to enforce the award, although no assurances can be given with respect to the ultimate outcome.

(b)On November 11, 2013, Giencourt Investments, S.A. (“Giencourt”) initiated arbitration before the International Centre for Dispute Resolution in Miami, Florida, based on alleged breaches by the Company of its theater agreement and related license agreement with Giencourt. An arbitration hearing for witness testimony was held during the week of December 14, 2015. At the hearing, Giencourt’s expert identified monetary damages of up to approximately $10.4 million, which Giencourt sought to recover from the Company. The Company asserted a counterclaim against Giencourt for breach of contract and sought to recover lost profits in excess of $24.0 million under the agreements. Subsequently, in December 2015, Giencourt made a motion to the panel seeking to enforce a purported settlement of the matter based on negotiations between Giencourt and the Company. The panel held a final hearing with closing arguments in October 2016. On February 7, 2017, the panel issued a Partial Final Award and on July 21, 2017, the panel issued a Final Award (collectively, the “Award”), which held that the parties had reached a binding settlement, and therefore the panel did not reach the merits of the dispute. The Company strongly disputes that discussions about a potential resolution of this matter amounted to an enforceable settlement. In October 2017, the Company filed a petition to vacate the arbitration award in the United States Court for the Southern District of Florida on various grounds, including that the panel exceeded its jurisdiction, and a hearing was held on June 27, 2019. On September 27, 2019, a Magistrate Judge filed a non-binding recommendation that the Company’s petition be dismissed. On October 14, 2019, the Company filed an objection to that recommendation. The Company’s petition to vacate the arbitration award is still pending a final review and decision by the District Judge. At this time, the Company is unable to determine the amounts that it may owe pursuant to the Award, or the timing of any such payments, and therefore no assurances can be given with respect to the ultimate outcome of the matter.

(c)In addition to the matters described above, the Company is currently involved in other legal proceedings or governmental inquiries which, in the opinion of the Company’s management, will not materially affect the Company’s financial position or future operating results, although no assurance can be given with respect to the ultimate outcome of any such proceedings.

(d)In the normal course of business, the Company enters into agreements that may contain features that meet the definition of a guarantee. The Guarantees Topic of the FASB ASC defines a guarantee to be a contract (including an indemnity) that contingently requires the Company to make payments (either in cash, financial instruments, other assets, shares of its stock or provision of services) to a third party based on (a) changes in an underlying interest rate, foreign exchange rate, equity or commodity instrument, index or other variable, that is related to an asset, a liability or an equity security of the counterparty, (b) failure of another party to perform under an obligating agreement or (c) failure of another third party to pay its indebtedness when due.

Financial Guarantees

The Company has provided no significant financial guarantees to third parties.

Product Warranties

The Company’s accrual for product warranties, which was recorded as part of accrued and other liabilities in the condensed consolidated balance sheets, was $0.2 million and $0.2 million at September 30, 2019 and December 31, 2018, respectively.

Director/Officer Indemnifications

The Company’s General By-law contains an indemnification of its directors/officers, former directors/officers and persons who have acted at its request to be a director/officer of an entity in which the Company is a shareholder or creditor, to indemnify them, to the extent permitted by the Canada Business Corporations Act, against expenses (including legal fees), judgments, fines and any amounts actually and reasonably incurred by them in connection with any action, suit or proceeding in which the directors and/or officers are sued as a result of their service, if they acted honestly and in good faith with a view to the best interests of the Company. In addition, the Company has entered into indemnification agreements with each of its directors in order to effectuate the foregoing. The nature of the indemnification prevents the Company from making a reasonable estimate of the maximum potential amount it could be required to pay to counterparties. The Company has purchased directors’ and officers’ liability insurance. No amount has been accrued in the condensed consolidated balance sheets as at September 30, 2019 and December 31, 2018, with respect to this indemnity.

Other Indemnification Agreements

In the normal course of the Company’s operations, the Company provides indemnifications to counterparties in transactions such as: theater system lease and sale agreements and the supervision of installation or servicing of the theater systems; film production, exhibition and distribution agreements; real property lease agreements; and employment agreements. These indemnification agreements require the Company to compensate the counterparties for costs incurred as a result of litigation claims that may be suffered by the counterparty as a consequence of the transaction or the Company’s breach or non-performance under these agreements. While the terms of these indemnification agreements vary based upon the contract, they normally extend for the life of the agreements. A small number of agreements do not provide for any limit on the maximum potential amount of indemnification; however, virtually all of the Company’s system lease and sale agreements limit such maximum potential liability to the purchase price of the system. The fact that the maximum potential amount of indemnification required by the Company is not specified in some cases prevents the Company from making a reasonable estimate of the maximum potential amount it could be required to pay to counterparties. Historically, the Company has not made any significant payments under such indemnifications and no amounts have been accrued in the condensed consolidated financial statements with respect to the contingent aspect of these indemnities.