-

Galerie au Chocolat Inc. v. Orient Overseas Container Line Ltd., 2010 FC 327 (CanLII)

In Admiralty Practice, Discovery on (Updated )

Technically this was an application to appeal a case management order of a prothonotary, however, it raised issues relating to discovery. Specifically, the defendant had requested a case management conference to address whether the plaintiff had failed to provide satisfactory answers to requests/undertakings given at discovery. The prothonotary refused the request and ordered the defendant to produce a pre-trial conference …

Full Summary
-

The Administrator of the Ship-Source Oil Pollution Fund v. The "Anangel Splendour",, 2006 FCA 212

In Admiralty Practice, Discovery on (Updated )

This was an action by the Administrator of the Ship-Source Oil Pollution Fund to recover pollution clean-up costs it had paid to two claimants, QCM and the Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO), pursuant to the statutory scheme in the Marine Liability Act. The Defendant brought this motion for an order that the Administrator put forward as its discovery representatives …

Full Summary
-

Thyssenkrupp Materials NA Inc. v. The "Stewart Island", 2005 FC 23

In Admiralty Practice, Discovery on (Updated )

The Plaintiff brought this application for leave to examine the Chief Engineer of the Defendant vessel under Rule 238 of the Federal Court Rules, 1998. The Prothonotary at first instance accepted that the Chief Engineer had relevant information and that his examination would not cause undue delay, inconvenience or expense but nevertheless denied the application on the grounds that the …

Full Summary
- -

N.M. Patterson & Sons Limited v. The St. Lawrence Seaway Mgt. Corp., 2004 FCA 210

In Admiralty Practice, Discovery on (Updated )

This was an appeal from a motion in which a solicitor was found in contempt of court for disclosing to the media information obtained on examination for discovery. The appeal was dismissed. This important case reminds practitioners that documents and information received through the discovery process are subject to an implied obligation of confidentiality. Such documents and information may not …

Full Summary
- -

Seaspan International Ltd. et al. v. The Ship "Ewa", 2004 FC 124

In Admiralty Practice, Discovery on (Updated )

This was a motion by the Defendant to compel the re-attendance of various discovery witnesses to answer questions which had been refused at examinations for discovery. The questions related generally to claims and settlement agreements as between the Plaintiffs and sought the production of any settlement agreements. As a preliminary point the Prothonotary considered whether the scope of production of …

Full Summary
- -

Seatech Construction Ltd. v. "Inlet Challenger", 2003 FC 1186

In Admiralty Practice, Discovery on (Updated )

This was an application by the Defendant for an order that the Plaintiff’s representative re-attend to answer questions objected to at the examination for discovery. The case involved a claim by the Plaintiff for damage to a barge towed from Campbell River to Mimmo Bay. The Plaintiff was not required to answer questions related to its prior practices or that …

Full Summary
-

Haylock et al. v. Norwegian Cruise Lines et al., 2003 FC 932

In Admiralty Practice, Discovery on (Updated )

This was an application by the Defendant shipowner in two actions for an Order that examinations for discovery of the 16 Plaintiffs, all cruise ship medical officers claiming wages for overtime, take place by way of written examination and then by such oral examination as the Defendant may reasonably require. The Prothonotary acknowledged that this was not a usual approach …

Full Summary