NOTES TO CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

(Tabular amounts in thousands of U.S. dollars unless otherwise stated)

(Unaudited)

1. Basis of Presentation

IMAX Corporation, together with its wholly-owned subsidiaries (the “Company”), prepares its financial statements in accordance with United States Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (“U.S. GAAP”).

The condensed consolidated financial statements include the accounts of the Company together with its wholly-owned subsidiaries, except for subsidiaries which the Company has identified as variable interest entities (“VIEs”) where the Company is not the primary beneficiary. The nature of the Company’s business is such that the results of operations for the interim periods presented are not necessarily indicative of results to be expected for the fiscal year. In the opinion of management, the information contained herein reflects all normal and recurring adjustments necessary to make the results of operations for the interim periods a fair statement of such operations.

The Company has evaluated its various variable interests to determine whether they are VIEs as required by the Consolidation Topic of the Financial Accounting Standards Board (“FASB”) Accounting Standards Codification (“ASC” or “Codification”). The Company has 10 film production companies that are VIEs. For 4 of the Company’s film production companies, the Company has determined that it is the primary beneficiary of these entities as the Company has the power to direct the activities of the respective VIE that most significantly impact the respective VIE’s economic performance and has the obligation to absorb losses of the VIE that could potentially be significant to the respective VIE or the right to receive benefits from the respective VIE that could potentially be significant to the respective VIE. The Company continues to consolidate these entities, with no material impact on the operating results or financial condition of the Company, as these production companies have total assets of $0.8 million and total liabilities of $0.8 million as at September 30, 2014 (December 31, 2013 — assets and liabilities of $nil, respectively). For the other 6 film production companies which are VIEs, the Company did not consolidate these film entities since it does not have the power to direct activities and does not absorb the majority of the expected losses or expected residual returns. The Company equity accounts for these entities. As at September 30, 2014, these 6 VIEs have total assets of $0.8 million (December 31, 2013 — $5.2 million) and total liabilities of $0.8 million (December 31, 2013 — $5.2 million). Earnings of the investees included in the Company’s condensed consolidated statement of operations amounted to $nil and $nil for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2014, respectively (2013 — $nil and $nil, respectively). The carrying value of these investments in VIEs that are not consolidated is $nil at September 30, 2014 (December 31, 2013 — $nil). A loss in value of an investment other than a temporary decline is recognized as a charge to the condensed consolidated statement of operations. The Company’s exposure, which is determined based on the level of funding contributed by the Company and the development stage of the respective film, is $nil at September 30, 2014 (December 31, 2013 — $1.5 million).

The Company accounts for investments in new business ventures using the guidance of ASC 323 “Investments – Equity Method and Joint Ventures” (“ASC 323”) or ASC 320 – “Investments in Debt and Equity Securities” (“ASC 320”), as appropriate. At September 30, 2014, the equity method of accounting is being utilized for investments with a total carrying value of $3.4 million (December 31, 2013 – $0.4 million). In 2013, the Company contributed $1.4 million, net of its share of costs, to a new business venture in the early-stage of start-up. In the first quarter of 2014, this new business venture was operational. The Company has determined it is not the primary beneficiary of these VIEs, and therefore these entities have not been consolidated. In addition, the Company has an investment in preferred stock of another business venture with a total cost of $1.5 million which meets the criteria for classification as a debt security under ASC 320 and is recorded at a total fair value of $0.7 million at September 30, 2014 (December 31, 2013 – $1.0 million). This investment is classified as an available-for-sale investment. The Company has invested $2.5 million in the preferred shares of an enterprise which meet the criteria for classification as an equity security under ASC 325 – “Investments – Others” (“ASC 325”) (December 31, 2013 – investment of $2.5 million and $0.5 million pertaining to warrants). The total carrying value of investments in new business ventures at September 30, 2014 and December 31, 2013, is $6.6 million and $5.8 million, respectively, and is recorded in Other Assets.

All significant intercompany accounts and transactions, including all unrealized intercompany profits on transactions with equity-accounted investees, have been eliminated.

The year-end condensed consolidated balance sheet data was derived from audited financial statements, but does not include all disclosures required by U.S. GAAP.

9

Table of Contents

These interim financial statements should be read in conjunction with the consolidated financial statements included in the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2013 (“the 2013 Form 10-K”) which should be consulted for a summary of the significant accounting policies utilized by the Company. These interim financial statements are prepared following accounting policies consistent with the Company’s financial statements for the year ended December 31, 2013, except as noted below.

2. New Accounting Standards and Accounting Changes

In May 2014, the FASB issued ASU No. 2014-09, “Revenue from Contract with Customers (Topic 606)” (“ASU 2014-09”). The purpose of the amendment is to clarify the principles for recognizing revenue and developing common revenue standards between US GAAP and IFRS, through the application of a single comprehensive model for companies to use in accounting for revenue arising from contracts with customers. Under this amended standard, the Company will recognize revenue to depict the transfer of promised goods or services to customers in an amount that reflects the consideration to which the Company expects to be entitled in exchange for those goods or services. For public entities, the amendments are effective for interim and annual reporting periods beginning after December 15, 2016. The Company is currently assessing the impact of ASU 2014-09 on its consolidated financial statements.

The adoption of new accounting policies and recently issued FASB accounting standard codification updates, except for ASU No. 2014-09, were not material to the Company’s condensed consolidated financial statements for the period ended September 30, 2014.

3. Financing Receivables

Financing receivables, consisting of net investment in sales-type leases and receivables from financed sales of theater systems are as follows:

As at September 30, 2014, the financed sale receivables had a weighted average effective interest rate of 10.2% (December 31, 2013 — 9.8%).

10

Table of Contents

4. Inventories

At September 30, 2014, finished goods inventory for which title had passed to the customer and revenue was deferred amounted to $3.7 million (December 31, 2013 — $1.7 million).

During the three and nine months ended September 30, 2014, the Company had write-downs for excess and obsolete inventory based upon current estimates of net realizable value considering future events and conditions of less than $0.1 million and $0.1 million, respectively (2013 — $nil and $nil, respectively).

5. Property, Plant and Equipment

11

Table of Contents

6. Other Intangible Assets

Other intangible assets of $9.3 million are comprised mainly of the Company’s investment in an enterprise resource planning system. Fully amortized other intangible assets are still in use by the Company.

During the nine months ended September 30, 2014, the Company acquired $2.0 million in other intangible assets. The weighted average amortization period for these additions was 10 years.

During the three and nine months ended September 30, 2014, the Company incurred costs of less than $0.1 million and $0.1 million, respectively, to renew or extend the term of acquired other intangible assets which were recorded in selling, general and administrative expenses (2013 – less than $0.1 million and $0.1 million, respectively).

As at September 30, 2014, estimated amortization expense for each of the years ended December 31, are as follows:

12

Table of Contents

7. Credit Facility and Playa Vista Construction Loan

On February 7, 2013, the Company amended and restated the terms of its existing senior secured credit facility (the “Prior Credit Facility”). The amended and restated facility (the “Credit Facility”), with a scheduled maturity of February 7, 2018, has a maximum borrowing capacity of $200.0 million. The Prior Credit Facility had a maximum borrowing capacity of $110.0 million. Certain of the Company’s subsidiaries serve as guarantors (the “Guarantors”) of the Company’s obligations under the Credit Facility. The Credit Facility is collateralized by a first priority security interest in substantially all of the present and future assets of the Company and the Guarantors. On March 14, 2014, the Company amended the terms of the Credit Facility (“Amendment No.1”) to obtain consents from the lenders named therein to allow it to enter into certain corporate transactions, including the sale of a 20.0% interest in IMAX China Holding, Inc. (“IMAX China”).

The terms of the Credit Facility are set forth in the Third Amended and Restated Credit Agreement (as amended, the “Credit Agreement”), dated February 7, 2013, among the Company, the Guarantors, the lenders named therein, Wells Fargo Bank, National Association (“Wells Fargo”), as agent and issuing lender (Wells Fargo, together with the lenders named therein, the “Lenders”) and Wells Fargo Securities, LLC, as Sole Lead Arranger and Sole Bookrunner and in various collateral and security documents entered into by the Company and the Guarantors. Each of the Guarantors has also entered into a guarantee in respect of the Company’s obligations under the Credit Facility.

Under the Credit Facility, the effective interest rate for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2014 for the revolving loan portion was nil and nil, respectively, as no amounts were outstanding during the period (2013 – 1.95% and 2.26%, respectively).

The Company was in compliance with all of its requirements at September 30, 2014.

Total amounts drawn and available under the Credit Facility at September 30, 2014 were $nil and $200.0 million, respectively (December 31, 2013 — $nil and $200.0 million, respectively).

Wells Fargo Foreign Exchange Facility

Within the Credit Facility, the Company is able to purchase foreign currency forward contracts and/or other swap arrangements. The settlement risk on its foreign currency forward contracts was $0.8 million as at September 30, 2014 as the notional value exceeded the fair value of the forward contracts. As at September 30, 2014, the Company has $29.5 million of such arrangements outstanding.

Bank of Montreal Facility

As at September 30, 2014, the Company has available a $10.0 million facility (December 31, 2013 — $10.0 million) with the Bank of Montreal for use solely in conjunction with the issuance of performance guarantees and letters of credit fully insured by EDC (the “Bank of Montreal Facility”). As at September 30, 2014, the Company has letters of credit and advance payment guarantees outstanding of $0.3 million (December 31, 2013 — $0.3 million) under the Bank of Montreal Facility.

Subsequent Event – Playa Vista Construction Financing

On October 6, 2014, IMAX PV Development Inc., a Delaware corporation (“Borrower”) and direct wholly-owned subsidiary of IMAX U.S.A. Inc., a Delaware corporation and direct wholly-owned subsidiary of the Company, entered into a construction loan agreement with Wells Fargo. The construction loan will be used to fund up to $25.7 million (the “Playa Vista Loan”) of the costs of development and construction of the previously announced new West Coast headquarters of the Company, to be located in a new office facility in the Playa Vista neighborhood of Los Angeles, California (the “Playa Vista Project”).

The total cost of development of the Playa Vista Project is expected to be approximately $50.0 million, with all costs in excess of the Playa Vista Loan being provided through funding by the Company.

The Playa Vista Loan is secured by a deed of trust from Borrower in favor of Wells Fargo, granting a first lien on and security interest in the Playa Vista property and the Playa Vista Project, including all improvements to be constructed thereon, and other documents evidencing and securing the loan (the “Loan Documents”). The Loan Documents include absolute and unconditional payment and completion guarantees provided by the Company to Wells Fargo for the performance by Borrower of all the terms and

13

Table of Contents

provisions of the Playa Vista Loan and the construction and completion of the Playa Vista Project, and an environmental indemnity also provided by the Company.

Unless converted from a construction to permanent loan as described below, the Playa Vista Loan will be fully due and payable on April 6, 2016 (the “Maturity Date”).

Absent a default, the Playa Vista Loan will bear interest at a variable interest rate per annum equal to 2.25% above the 30-day LIBOR rate. The interest rate is subject to adjustment monthly based on the latest 30-day LIBOR rate. Prior to the Maturity Date, Borrower will be required to make monthly payments of interest only. The Playa Vista Loan may be prepaid at any time without premium, but with all accrued interest and other applicable payments.

The Loan Documents require the completion of construction no later than 90 days prior to the Maturity Date, subject to delays for certain unforeseeable events. The Loan Documents contain affirmative, negative and financial covenants (including compliance with the financial covenants of the Company’s outstanding revolving and term senior secured facility with Wells Fargo), agreements, representations, warranties, borrowing conditions, and events of default customary for development projects such as the Playa Vista Project.

Borrower has the right to convert the Playa Vista Loan from a construction to a permanent loan with a term of 120 months (from the date of conversion), subject to the satisfaction of conditions to conversion including prior notice, the absence of a default under the Loan Documents, completion of the Playa Vista Project and the issuance of a certificate of occupancy or its legal equivalent. If Borrower converts the Playa Vista Loan to a permanent loan, Borrower will have the right, subject to certain conditions, to increase the principal balance of the loan up to but not in excess of $30.0 million. Upon conversion, the interest rate under the permanent loan will decrease from 2.25% to 2.0% above the 30-day LIBOR rate and Borrower will be required to make monthly payments of combined principal and interest sufficient to fully amortize the loan based on a 15-year straight line amortization.

8. Commitments

As at September 30, 2014, the Company’s committed investment for the construction of the Playa Vista Project is expected to be approximately $50.0 million, of which $21.9 million has been capitalized to-date. The Company anticipates that construction of the Playa Vista Project will be completed in 2015. A significant portion of the project is expected to be financed through the Playa Vista Loan. See note 7. Credit Facility for additional information.

14

Table of Contents

9. 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, claims and proceedings as incurred.

(a) In March 2005, the Company, together with Three-Dimensional Media Group, Ltd. (“3DMG”), filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, Western Division, against In-Three, Inc. (“In-Three”) alleging patent infringement. On March 10, 2006, the Company and In-Three entered into a settlement agreement settling the dispute between the Company and In-Three. Despite the settlement reached between the Company and In-Three, co-plaintiff 3DMG refused to dismiss its claims against In-Three. Accordingly, the Company and In-Three moved jointly for a motion to dismiss the Company’s and In-Three’s claims. On August 24, 2010, the Court dismissed all of the claims pending between the Company and In-Three, thus dismissing the Company from the litigation.

On May 15, 2006, the Company initiated arbitration against 3DMG before the International Centre for Dispute Resolution in New York (the “ICDR”), alleging breaches of the license and consulting agreements between the Company and 3DMG. On June 15, 2006, 3DMG filed an answer denying any breaches and asserting counterclaims that the Company breached the parties’ license agreement. On June 21, 2007, the ICDR unanimously denied 3DMG’s Motion for Summary Judgment filed on April 11, 2007 concerning the Company’s claims and 3DMG’s counterclaims. The proceeding was suspended on May 4, 2009 due to failure of 3DMG to pay fees associated with the proceeding. The proceeding was further suspended on October 11, 2010 pending resolution of reexamination proceedings currently pending involving one of 3DMG’s patents. The Company will continue to pursue its claims vigorously and believes that all allegations made by 3DMG are without merit. The Company further believes that the amount of loss, if any, suffered in connection with the counterclaims would not have a material impact on the financial position or results of operations of the Company, although no assurance can be given with respect to the ultimate outcome of the arbitration.

(b) 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 Chambers 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. The Company has opposed that application on a number of grounds and seeks to have the ICC award recognized in India. On June 24, 2011, the Company commenced an application to the Ontario Superior Court of Justice for recognition of the final award. On December 2, 2011, the Ontario court issued an order recognizing the final award and requiring E-City to pay the Company $30,000 to cover the costs of the application. On July 29, 2014, the Company commenced a proceeding to have the Canadian judgment recognized in New York. On January 30, 2013, the Company filed another action in the New York Supreme Court seeking to collect the amount due under the New York judgment from certain entities and individuals affiliated with E-City. The Respondents in the New York action have answered and objected to the Company’s petition, and they have moved to dismiss for improper service of process. The New York Court heard oral arguments on August 20, 2013 and April 3, 2014 and has not yet issued a decision. On June 13, 2013, the Bombay High Court ruled that it has jurisdiction over the proceeding but on November 19, 2013, the Supreme Court of India stayed proceedings in the High Court pending Supreme Court review of the High Court’s ruling. On July 11, 2014, the Company moved to amend its petition to have the Canadian judgment recognized as part of this proceeding.

(c) The Company and certain of its officers and directors were named as defendants in eight purported class action lawsuits filed between August 11, 2006 and September 18, 2006, alleging violations of U.S. federal securities laws. These eight actions were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (the “Court”) and were subsequently consolidated by the Court. The

15

Table of Contents

plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended class action complaint on October 2, 2007, which added PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, the Company’s auditors, as a defendant. The amended complaint, brought on behalf of shareholders who purchased the Company’s common stock on the NASDAQ between February 27, 2003 and July 20, 2007 (the “U.S. Class”), alleged primarily that the defendants engaged in securities fraud by disseminating materially false and misleading statements during the class period regarding the Company’s revenue recognition of theater system installations, and failing to disclose material information concerning the Company’s revenue recognition practices. On March 26, 2012, the parties executed and filed with the Court an amended formal stipulation of settlement and proposed form of notice to the class. On June 20, 2012 the Court issued an order granting final approval of the settlement. Under the terms of the settlement, members of the U.S. Class who did not opt out of the settlement released defendants from liability for all claims that were alleged in this action or could have been alleged in this action or any other proceeding (including the action in Canada as described in (d) of this note (the “Canadian Action”) relating to the purchase of the Company’s securities on the NASDAQ between February 27, 2003 and July 20, 2007 or the subject matter and facts relating to this action. As part of the settlement and in exchange for the release, defendants agreed to pay $12.0 million to a settlement fund which amount was funded by the carriers of the Company’s directors and officers insurance policy and by PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP. The settlement was distributed to the U.S. Class on May 5, 2014.

(d) A class action lawsuit was filed on September 20, 2006 in the Canadian Court against the Company and certain of its officers and directors, alleging violations of Canadian securities laws. This lawsuit was brought on behalf of shareholders who acquired the Company’s securities between February 17, 2006 and August 9, 2006. The lawsuit seeks $210.0 million in compensatory and punitive damages, as well as costs. For reasons released December 14, 2009, the Canadian Court granted leave to the plaintiffs to amend their statement of claim to plead certain claims pursuant to the Securities Act (Ontario) against the Company and certain individuals (“the Defendants”) and granted certification of the action as a class proceeding. These are procedural decisions, and do not contain any conclusions binding on a judge at trial as to the factual or legal merits of the claim. Leave to appeal those decisions was denied. In March 2013, the Defendants obtained an Order enforcing the settlement Order in the parallel class action in the United States in this Canadian class action lawsuit, with the result that the class in this case was reduced in size by approximately 85%. A motion by the Plaintiffs for leave to appeal that Order was dismissed. The Company believes the allegations made against it in the statement of claim are meritless and will vigorously defend the matter, although no assurance can be given with respect to the ultimate outcome of such proceedings. The Company’s directors’ and officers’ insurance policy provides for reimbursement of costs and expenses incurred in connection with this lawsuit as well as potential damages awarded, if any, subject to certain policy limits, exclusions and deductibles.

(e) The Company is also involved in litigation against Gary Tsui (“Tsui”) and related parties in both Canada and China based on Tsui’s theft and use of the Company’s trade secrets. The Company filed a lawsuit against Tsui and other related individuals and entities in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice on December 8, 2009, through which the Company sought injunctive relief to prohibit Tsui from disclosing or using the Company’s confidential and proprietary information and from competing with the Company. The Company is also seeking compensatory and punitive damages. The Ontario Court awarded the injunctive relief sought by the Company on December 22, 2009. On April 30, 2013, a warrant was issued for Tsui’s arrest based on his refusal to comply with the orders of the Ontario court, including with respect to the continued use of the Company’s trade secrets. The Ontario action was heard in June 2014 and judgment was rendered in the Company’s favor. The Court awarded the Company $6.0 million in damages against all defendants for conversion and misuse of confidential information, $456,000 against all defendants for disgorgement of profits from the lost business opportunity, $50,000 from Tsui in punitive damages of prejudgment interest on the forgoing and $300,000 in costs against all defendants. The Company also initiated suits against Tsui in Beijing No. 1 Intermediate People’s Court in Beijing, China on February 16, 2013 and December 3, 2013, seeking relief similar to that sought in the Ontario action. In October, 2013, Jiangsu Sunway Digital Technology Co. Ltd (a company incorporated by Tsui), commenced an action against the Company in Zhenjiang Intermediate People’s Court, in Zhenjiang, China, alleging that the Company defamed and slandered the plaintiff through the commencement of the actions against Tsui in Canada and China referred to above, as well as several written communications to third parties. The plaintiff claims damages in the preliminary amount of 6.0 million Chinese Yuan Renminbi plus costs. The Company is vigorously defending this action. The actions in China remain ongoing.

(f) In March 2013, IMAX (Shanghai) Multimedia Technology Co., Ltd., the Company’s wholly-owned subsidiary in China, received notice from the Shanghai office of the General Administration of Customs that it had been selected for a customs audit. The Company is unable to assess the potential impact, if any, of the audit at this time.

(g) 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.

16

Table of Contents

(h) 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 following summarizes the accrual for product warranties that was recorded as part of accrued liabilities in the condensed consolidated balance sheets:

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 amount 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. 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, 2014 and December 31, 2013 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.

17

Table of Contents

10. Condensed Consolidated Statements of Operations Supplemental Information

The Company defers direct selling costs such as sales commissions and other amounts related to its sale and sales-type lease arrangements until the related revenue is recognized. These costs and direct advertising and marketing, included in costs and expenses applicable to revenues-equipment and product sales, totaled $0.6 million and $1.5 million for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2014, respectively (2013 — $0.2 million and $0.9 million, respectively).

Film exploitation costs, including advertising and marketing, totaled $2.4 million and $6.0 million for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2014, respectively (2013 — $0.9 million and $3.3 million, respectively) and are recorded in costs and expenses applicable to revenues-services as incurred.

Commissions are recognized as costs and expenses applicable to revenues-rentals in the month they are earned. These costs totaled $0.2 million and $0.7 million for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2014, respectively (2013 — $0.4 million and $0.9 million, respectively). Direct advertising and marketing costs for each theater are charged to costs and expenses applicable to revenues-rentals as incurred. These costs totaled $0.4 million and $1.1 million for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2014, respectively (2013 — $0.5 million and $1.1 million, respectively).

Included in selling, general and administrative expenses for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2014 is a loss of $1.1 million and a loss of $1.0 million, respectively, for net foreign exchange gains/losses related to the translation of foreign currency denominated monetary assets and liabilities compared with a gain of $0.8 million and a loss of less than $0.1 million in the three and nine months ended September 30, 2013, respectively. See note 17(d) for additional information.

Joint Revenue Sharing Arrangements

In a joint revenue sharing arrangement, the Company receives a portion of a theater’s box-office and concession revenues and, in some cases a small upfront or initial payment, in exchange for placing a theater system at the theater operator’s venue. Under joint revenue sharing arrangements, the customer has the right and the ability to operate the hardware components or direct others to operate them in a manner determined by the customer. The Company’s joint revenue sharing arrangements are typically non-cancellable for 10 years or longer with renewal provisions. Title to equipment under joint revenue sharing arrangements generally does not transfer to the customer. The Company’s joint revenue sharing arrangements do not contain a guarantee of residual value at the end of the term. The customer is required to pay for executory costs such as insurance and taxes and is required to pay the Company for maintenance and extended warranty throughout the term. The customer is responsible for obtaining insurance coverage for the theater systems commencing on the date specified in the arrangement’s shipping terms and ending on the date the theater systems are delivered back to the Company.

The Company has signed joint revenue sharing agreements with 40 exhibitors for a total of 670 theater systems, of which 422 theaters were operating as of September 30, 2014. The terms of the Company’s joint revenue sharing arrangements are similar in nature, rights and obligations. The accounting policy for the Company’s joint revenue sharing arrangements is disclosed in note 2(m) of the Company’s 2013 Form 10-K.

Amounts attributable to transactions arising between the Company and its customers under joint revenue sharing arrangements are included in Rentals revenue and, for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2014, amounted to $15.3 million and $45.5 million, respectively (2013 — $12.0 million and $39.7 million, respectively).

IMAX DMR

In an IMAX DMR arrangement, the Company converts conventional motion pictures into the Company’s large screen format, enabling the release of Hollywood content to the global IMAX theater network. In a typical IMAX DMR film arrangement, the Company will absorb its costs for the digital re-mastering and then recoup this cost from a percentage of the gross box-office receipts

18

Table of Contents

of the film, which generally range from 10-15%. The Company does not typically hold distribution rights or the copyright to these films.

For the nine months ended September 30, 2014, the majority of IMAX DMR revenue was earned from the exhibition of 36 IMAX DMR films throughout the IMAX theater network. The Company has entered into arrangements with film producers to convert 7 additional films, which are expected to be released during the remainder of 2014, the terms of which are substantially similar in nature, rights and obligations. The accounting policy for the Company’s IMAX DMR arrangements is disclosed in note 2(m) of the Company’s 2013 Form 10-K.

Amounts attributable to transactions arising between the Company and its customers under IMAX DMR arrangements are included in Services revenue and for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2014 amounted to $18.4 million and $57.6 million, respectively (2013 — $14.5 million and $54.9 million, respectively).

Co-Produced Film Arrangements

In certain film arrangements, the Company co-produces a film with a third party whereby the third party retains the copyright and certain rights to the film other than exclusive theatrical distribution rights to the film, which are held by the Company. Under these arrangements, both parties contribute funding to the Company’s wholly-owned production company for the production of the film and for associated exploitation costs. Clauses in these arrangements generally provide for the third party to take over the production of the film if the cost of the production exceeds its approved budget or if it appears as though the film will not be delivered on a timely basis.

The accounting policies relating to co-produced film arrangements are disclosed in notes 2(a) and 2(m) of the Company’s 2013 Form 10-K.

At September 30, 2014, the Company had one significant co-produced film arrangement which primarily represents the VIE total assets and liabilities balance of $0.8 million and 5 other co-produced film arrangements, the terms of which are similar.

For the three and nine months ended September 30, 2014, amounts totaling $1.2 million and $3.1 million, respectively (2013 — $0.7 million and $2.8 million, respectively) attributable to transactions between the Company and other parties involved in the production of the films have been included in cost and expenses applicable to revenues-services.

19

Table of Contents

11. Condensed Consolidated Statements of Cash Flows Supplemental Information

(a) Changes in other non-cash operating assets and liabilities are comprised of the following:

(b) Cash payments made on account of:

(c) Depreciation and amortization are comprised of the following:

20

Table of Contents

(d) Write-downs, net of recoveries, are comprised of the following:

12. Receivable Provisions, Net of Recoveries

The following table reflects the Company’s receivable provisions net of recoveries recorded in the condensed consolidated statements of operations:

21

Table of Contents

13. Income Taxes

The Company’s effective tax rate differs from the statutory tax rate and varies from year to year primarily as a result of permanent differences, investment and other tax credits, the provision for income taxes at different rates in foreign and other provincial jurisdictions, enacted statutory tax rate increases or reductions in the year, changes due to foreign exchange, changes in the Company’s valuation allowance based on the Company’s recoverability assessments of deferred tax assets, and favorable or unfavorable resolution of various tax examinations. During the three months ended September 30, 2014, the Company released a valuation allowance of $0.6 million related to New York state tax loss carryforwards. Due to an assessment of recent New York state corporate tax reform and expected future profitability estimates, the Company released the allowance.

As at September 30, 2014, the Company had net deferred income tax assets after valuation allowance of $20.9 million (December 31, 2013 — $24.3 million), which consists of a gross deferred income tax asset of $25.1 million (December 31, 2013 — $29.1 million), against which the Company is carrying a $4.2 million valuation allowance (December 31, 2013 — $4.8 million). Tax attributes covered by the majority of the existing valuation allowances originated through equity and therefore a related release of the valuation allowance would be recorded against other equity.

The income tax benefit (expense) related to the following items included in the Company’s other comprehensive (loss) income are:

22

Table of Contents

14. Capital Stock

The compensation costs recorded in the condensed consolidated statement of operations for the Company’s stock-based compensation plans were $3.4 million and $11.3 million for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2014, respectively (2013 — $2.8 million and $8.8 million, respectively).

As at September 30, 2014, the Company has reserved a total of 9,676,106 (December 31, 2013 — 10,530,723) common shares for future issuance under the Company’s Stock Option Plan (“SOP”) and the IMAX 2013 Long-Term Incentive Plan (“IMAX LTIP”). Of the common shares reserved for issuance, there are options in respect of 6,379,864 common shares and restricted share units (“RSUs”) in respect of 611,026 common shares outstanding at September 30, 2014. At September 30, 2014, options in respect of 3,620,742 common shares were vested and exercisable.

Stock Option Plan

The Company recorded an expense of $2.1 million and $6.5 million for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2014, respectively (2013 — $1.9 million and $6.3 million, respectively), related to stock option grants issued to employees and directors in the IMAX LTIP and SOP plans. An income tax benefit is recorded in the condensed consolidated statements of operations of $0.4 million and $1.3 million for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2014, respectively, for these costs.

The weighted average fair value of all stock options, granted to employees and directors for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2014 at the grant date was not applicable and $8.33 per share, respectively (2013 — $7.67 per share and $7.10 per share, respectively). The following assumptions were used to estimate the average fair value of the stock options:

Stock options to Non-Employees

During the three and nine months ended September 30, 2014, an aggregate of 10,000 and 10,000, respectively, (2013 — nil and 2,500, respectively) stock options to purchase the Company’s common stock with an average exercise price of $26.47 and $26.47, respectively, (2013 — n/a and $26.28, respectively) were granted to certain advisors and strategic partners of the Company. These stock options granted have a maximum contractual life of 7 years. The stock options were granted under the IMAX LTIP.

As at September 30, 2014, non-employee stock options outstanding amounted to 31,500 stock options (2013 — 75,501) with a weighted average exercise price of $21.75 (2013 — $15.06). 16,100 stock options (2013 — 29,009) were exercisable with an average weighted exercise price of $18.14 (2013 — $10.72) and the vested stock options have an aggregate intrinsic value of $0.2 million (2013 — $0.6 million). The weighted average fair value of stock options granted to non-employees during the three and nine months ended September 30, 2014 at the measurement date was $4.84 and $4.84, respectively, (2013 — n/a and $11.50 per share, respectively) utilizing a Binomial Model with the following underlying assumptions:

23

Table of Contents

For the three and nine months ended September 30, 2014, the Company recorded a charge of less than $0.1 million, respectively (2013 — less than $0.1 million and $0.2 million, respectively) to cost and expenses related to revenues – services and selling, general and administrative expenses related to the non-employee stock options. Included in accrued liabilities is an accrual of less than $0.1 million for non-employee stock options (December 31, 2013 – $0.1 million).

China Long Term Incentive Plan (“China LTIP”)

Each stock option issued under the China LTIP represents an opportunity to participate economically in the future growth and value creation of the subsidiary. The China LTIP options issued by IMAX China (“China Options”) operate in tandem with options granted to certain employees of the subsidiary under the Company’s SOP and IMAX LTIP (“Tandem Options”).

In 2012, an aggregate of 146,623 Tandem Options were granted to certain employees in conjunction with China Options with an average price of $22.39 per share in accordance with the China LTIP. During the three and nine months ended September 30, 2014, an additional nil and 6,021, respectively, Tandem Options were granted in conjunction with China Options with an average price of $nil and $27.20 per share, respectively. The Tandem Options have a maximum contractual life of 7 years. As at September 30, 2014, there were 152,644 (December 31, 2013 — 146,623) outstanding and unvested Tandem Options issued under the China LTIP with a weighted average exercise price of $22.58 per share (December 31, 2013 — $22.39 per share). The weighted average fair value of the Tandem Options granted during the three and nine months ended September 30, 2014 was n/a and $7.02 per share, respectively. The total fair value of the Tandem Options granted with respect to the China LTIP was $1.6 million. The Company is recognizing this expense over a 5 year period. If a performance event occurs, including upon the occurrence of a qualified initial public offering or upon a change in control on or prior to the fifth anniversary of the grant date, the 152,644 Tandem Options issued forfeit immediately and the related charge would be reversed. There were no option awards issued under the China LTIP during the three and nine months ended September 30, 2013.

The Company has recorded an expense of $0.1 million and $0.2 million for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2014 (September 30, 2013 — $0.1 million and $0.2 million, respectively) related to Tandem Options issued under the China LTIP.

24

Table of Contents

The Company cancelled n/a and 23,787 stock options from its SOP (2013 — 2,110 and 3,660, respectively) surrendered by Company employees during the three and nine months ended September 30, 2014, respectively.

As at September 30, 2014, 6,027,362 options were fully vested or are expected to vest with a weighted average exercise price of $23.37, aggregate intrinsic value of $28.9 million and weighted average remaining contractual life of 4.7 years. As at September 30, 2014, options that are exercisable have an intrinsic value of $22.0 million and a weighted average remaining contractual life of 4.4 years. The intrinsic value of options exercised in the three and nine months ended September 30, 2014 was $3.3 million and $14.4 million, respectively (2013 — $8.4 million and $19.4 million, respectively).

Restricted Share Units

RSUs have been granted to employees, consultants and directors under the IMAX LTIP. Each RSU represents a contingent right to receive one common share and is the economic equivalent of one common share. The grant date fair value of each RSU is equal to the share price of the Company’s stock at the grant date. The Company recorded an expense of $1.2 million and $4.5 million for the three and nine month period ended September 30, 2014, respectively (2013 — $0.6 million and $1.7 million, respectively), related to RSU grants issued to employees and directors in the plan. The annual termination probability assumed for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2014, was n/a and ranged from 0% to 9.46%, respectively. In addition, the Company recorded an expense of less than $0.1 million and less than $0.1 million for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2014, respectively (2013 — less than $0.1 million and less than $0.1 million, respectively), related to RSU grants issued to certain advisors and strategic partners of the Company.

During the three and nine month period ended September 30, 2014, in connection with the vesting of RSUs, the Company delivered 25,932 and 130,456, respectively, common shares to IMAX LTIP participants, of which 102,640 common shares were issued from treasury and 27,816 common shares were purchased in the open market by the IMAX LTIP trustee.

Total stock-based compensation expense related to non-vested RSU’s not yet recognized at September 30, 2014 and the weighted average period over which the awards are expected to be recognized is $12.1 million and 2.9 years. The Company’s actual tax benefits realized for the tax deductions related to the vesting of RSUs was $0.2 million and $0.7 million for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2014, respectively.

RSUs granted under the IMAX LTIP vest between one and four years from the date granted. Vesting of the RSUs is subject to continued employment or service with the Company.

The following table summarizes certain information in respect of RSU activity under the IMAX LTIP for the nine months ended September 30, 2014:

Stock Appreciation Rights

There have been no stock appreciation rights (“SARs”) granted since 2007. As at September 30, 2014 and December 31, 2013, no SARS were outstanding. For the three and nine months ended September 30, 2013, 50,000 and 100,000 SARs were cash settled for $1.0 million and $2.0 million, respectively. The average exercise price for the settled SARs for the three and nine months ended

25

Table of Contents

September 30, 2013 was $6.86 and $6.86 per SAR. None of the SARs were forfeited, cancelled, or expired for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2013. The Company recorded an expense of $0.2 million and $0.5 million for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2013, respectively, to selling, general and administrative expenses related to these SARs.

Issuer Purchases of Equity Securities

On June 16, 2014, the Company’s board of directors approved a new $150.0 million share repurchase program for shares of the Company’s common stock. Purchases under the program commenced during the third quarter of 2014. The share repurchase program expires on June 30, 2017. The repurchases may be made either in the open market or through private transactions, subject to market conditions, applicable legal requirements and other relevant factors. The Company has no obligation to repurchase shares and the share repurchase program may be suspended or discontinued by the Company at any time. In the third quarter of 2014, the Company repurchased 85,405 common shares at an average price of $27.71 per share. The retired shares were repurchased for $2.4 million. The average carrying value of the stock retired was deducted from common stock and the remaining excess over the average carrying value of stock was charged to accumulated deficit.

The total number of shares purchased during the three months ended September 30, 2014 does not include any shares received in the administration of employee share-based compensation plans.

Reconciliations of the numerator and denominator of the basic and diluted per-share computations are comprised of the following:

The calculation of diluted earnings per share excludes 4,278,053 and 4,187,476 shares, respectively that are issuable upon exercise of 104,960 and 14,383 RSUs, respectively and stock options of 4,173,093, respectively, for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2014, as the impact of these exercises would be antidilutive.

26

Table of Contents

The following summarizes the movement of Shareholders’ Equity for the nine months ended September 30, 2014:

15. Segmented Information

The Company has seven reportable segments identified by category of product sold or service provided: IMAX systems; theater system maintenance; joint revenue sharing arrangements; film production and IMAX DMR; film distribution; film post-production; and other. The IMAX systems segment designs, manufactures, sells or leases IMAX theater projection system equipment. The theater system maintenance segment maintains IMAX theater projection system equipment in the IMAX theater network. The joint revenue sharing arrangements segment provides IMAX theater projection system equipment to an exhibitor in exchange for a share of the box-office and concession revenues. The film production and IMAX DMR segment produces films and performs film re-mastering services. The film distribution segment distributes films for which the Company has distribution rights. The film post-production segment provides film post-production and film print services. The Company refers to all theaters using the IMAX theater system as “IMAX theaters”. The other segment includes certain IMAX theaters that the Company owns and operates, camera rentals and other miscellaneous items. The accounting policies of the segments are the same as those described in note 2 to the audited consolidated financial statements included in the Company’s 2013 Form 10-K.

Management, including the Company’s Chief Executive Officer (“CEO”) who is the Company’s Chief Operating Decision Maker (as defined in the Segment Reporting Topic of the FASB ASC), assesses segment performance based on segment revenues, gross margins and film performance. Selling, general and administrative expenses, research and development costs, amortization of intangibles, receivables provisions (recoveries), write-downs net of recoveries, interest income, interest expense and tax (provision) recovery are not allocated to the segments.

Transactions between the film production and IMAX DMR segment and the film post-production segment are valued at exchange value. Inter-segment profits are eliminated upon consolidation, as well as for the disclosures below.

Transactions among the other segments are not significant.

27

Table of Contents