State of Alaska v. John Doe et.al, 1997 CanLII 5772

In Admiralty Practice, Parties on (Updated )

This is the second volley in the litigation surrounding the blockade of the Alaskan ferry "Malaspina" by B.C. fishermen in July of 1997. The motion was brought by various fishermen for an order that the action was not properly commenced as against them. The Statement of Claim initially named 17 vessels, John Doe, Jane Doe, and other persons and ships …

Full Summary

CSL Group Inc. v. Canada, 1997 CanLII 5616

In Admiralty Practice, Costs and Security for Costs on (Updated )

This was an application by the Defendant for increased costs. The Defendant had been successful in its defence of an action brought by the Plaintiff. The action had been a test case in which the Plaintiff sought to recover substantial damages for delays experienced by its ships in the transit of the St. Lawrence Seaway during November and December, 1989. …

Full Summary

Amican Navigation Inc. v. The "Necat A" et al., 1997 CanLII 6185

In Admiralty Practice, In Rem Actions and Arrest on (Updated )

This was an appeal from the Prothonotary. The original motion was by the shipowner to reduce the amount of bail that had been posted to secure the release of the ship from arrest. The underlying action was for breach of charterparty. The Plaintiff alleged the Defendant failed to provide a ship to load a cargo the Plaintiff had undertaken to …

Full Summary

Margem Chartering Co. Inc v. Cosena SRL and The "Bocsa", No. T-2418-96

In Admiralty Practice, Costs and Security for Costs on (Updated )

This was an application by the Defendant to have the Plaintiff’s action dismissed for failing to provide security for costs as required by a previous peremptory order. The Court considered the test to be applied when a party fails to comply with a peremptory order (also referred to as an "unless" order). The Court noted that there were two different …

Full Summary

Armada Lines Ltd. v. Chaleur Fertilizers Ltd., [1997] 2 SCR 617

In Admiralty Practice, In Rem Actions and Arrest on (Updated )

This important case concerns when an arresting party is liable for wrongful arrest. In a ground breaking decision reported at [1995] 1 F.C. 3, the Federal Court of Appeal held that an arresting party could be liable for wrongful arrest merely upon a finding that the arrest was "illegal" or "without legal justification". The Supreme Court of Canada, however, reversed …

Full Summary

Navi Mont Inc. v. Rigel Shipping Canada Inc., 1997 CanLII 5130

In Admiralty Practice, Injunctions on (Updated )

This was an application for an interlocutory injunction directing the Defendant to continue to operate various ships in accordance with a contract of affreightment. The underlying issue in the action was whether one of the Plaintiffs was entitled to assign its interest in the contract of affreightment to the other Plaintiff that was specifically created for that purpose. The Court …

Full Summary

Belgo Nineira Commercial Exportadora S.A. et. al. v. Hadley Shipping Co. Ltd. et.al., 1997 CanLII 5133

In Admiralty Practice, In Rem Actions and Arrest on (Updated )

In this matter the Plaintiff had commenced action against the wrong-doing vessel and three sister ships. One of the sister ships had been in the jurisdiction but it had not been served by the Plaintiff who subsequently obtained an order extending the time for service of the Statement of Claim. The same sister ship later returned to the jurisdiction. The …

Full Summary

Domtar Inc. v. Lineas De Navigation Gema S.A. et.al., 1997 CanLII 5004

In Admiralty Practice, In Rem Actions and Arrest on (Updated )

This was a motion by the Defendant shipowner to set aside an arrest and strike the in rem portions of the claim. The Plaintiff’s action was for breach of a booking note contract. The Defendant shipowner argued that the vessel could not be arrested as it was not a party to the booking note contract. The shipowner argued the booking …

Full Summary

Baldwin v. The "Jennifer Martha", 1997 CanLII 4912

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

This was an application to dismiss the underlying action for want of prosecution. The action involved a collision which had occurred on May 15, 1989, and the action was commenced on May 11, 1990. The Court cited the applicable test as being threefold: whether there has been inordinate delay, whether the delay is inexcusable, and whether the defendants are likely …

Full Summary