Putjotik Fisheries Ltd. v. The "Mersey Viking", 2006 FC 491

In Admiralty Practice, Delay and Time Extensions on (Updated )

In this matter the Court dismissed the action of the Plaintiff for undue delay. In dismissing the action the Court agreed with the Defendant that the Plaintiff had demonstrated a lack of interest in advancing the claim both prior to and subsequent to a status review. In particular, the Plaintiff failed to produce a meaningful affidavit of documents as required …

Full Summary

Haylock et al. v. Norwegian Cruise Lines, 2005 FC 501

In Admiralty Practice, Delay and Time Extensions on (Updated )

This was an application by the Defendants to dismiss the actions of several of the Plaintiffs for failure to deliver written answers to examination questions on the date specified in the case management schedule. The answers were to be delivered by 1 November 2004 but by 1 April 2005 they still had not been delivered and the Plaintiffs had taken …

Full Summary

Intertech Marine Limited v. The "Nautica" et al., 2004 FC 1456

In Admiralty Practice, Delay and Time Extensions on (Updated )

This was an application by the Defendant to dismiss the Plaintiff’s action for delay or alternatively for security for costs. The motions Judge noted that there had been significant delay in moving the action forward and further noted that the Plaintiff had failed to comply with a number of court orders and directions. She referred to the decision of the …

Full Summary

Parrish & Heimbecker Limited v. The "Mapleglen" et al., 2004 FC 1197

In Admiralty Practice, Delay and Time Extensions on (Updated )

This was an application by the Plaintiff to adjourn the trial which was scheduled to commence in approximately two months time. The underlying action concerned short delivery of a cargo of grain. The reason for the requested adjournment was that the Plaintiff had recently obtained scale tickets from the discharging terminal which indicated that the discharging terminal might be responsible …

Full Summary

Fish Maker LLC v. The "Zodiak" et al., 2004 FC 1057

In Admiralty Practice, Delay and Time Extensions on (Updated )

The Plaintiff in this matter had been ordered to post security for costs within a specified time. It failed to do so and the Defendant brought an application to dismiss the action for delay. The Plaintiff also brought an application for a 60 day extension of time within which to post the security. The Court set out the test for …

Full Summary

Precision Drilling International B.V. v. The "BBC Japan" et al., 2004 FC 701

In Admiralty Practice, Delay and Time Extensions on (Updated )

This was an appeal from an order of a Prothonotary dismissing the action for delay after a status review. The only explanation for the delay was that the Plaintiff had been negotiating a settlement with one of the Defendants. The appeal Judge considered first whether discretion should be exercised de novo on the appeal and held that it should since …

Full Summary

Budget Steel Ltd. v. Seaspan International Ltd., 2003 FCT 610

In Admiralty Practice, Delay and Time Extensions on (Updated )

This was an appeal to the Federal Court of a Prothonotary’s order granting the Plaintiffs an extension of time to file a defence to counterclaim. The Plaintiffs claimed damages for the loss of a cargo of scrap steel when the Defendant’s barge capsized. The Defendant filed a defence and counterclaimed for loss of freight and damage to the barge as …

Full Summary

Global Enterprises International v. The "Aquarius", 2002 FCT 193

In Admiralty Practice, Delay and Time Extensions on (Updated )

This was an application by the Polish trustee in bankruptcy of the Defendant shipowner for an extension of time in which to file appeal of an order striking the trustee’s affidavit of claim and of an order refusing the appointment of pro bono counsel. The Prothonotary dismissed the application on the grounds that there was not a continuing intention to …

Full Summary

Ferrostaal Metals Ltd. v. The "Herakles" et al., 2001 FCA 297

In Admiralty Practice, Delay and Time Extensions on (Updated )

This was an appeal from an order made by the Prothonotary and affirmed by the Motions Judge dismissing the action for delay. The facts were that the Statement of Claim was filed on December 12, 1995 but was not served until a year later. The Plaintiff further delayed in waiting almost one year to file a Reply to a Statement …

Full Summary