This was a motion for an order that an in rem statement of claim and warrant of arrest be struck. Amongst other things, the applicant argued that the following provision from the statement of claim be struck:
[T]he provision of the fishing licence to the Defendant ship, a fishing ship, is the supply of a necessary, or in the alternative, is the supply of goods, materials or services to the Defendant ship.
Without giving any reasons, the court accepted the applicant’s argument and struck the above described portion of the statement of claim. It also followed Bornstein Seafoods Canada Ltd. v. Hutcheon (1997), 140 F.T.R. 241 (digested herein) to hold that the court did not have any jurisdiction over the claim pursuant to section 22(1).
Editor’s note: It is unfortunate that the court did not give any explanation for striking the portion of the statement of claim set out above. While a fishing licence does not fit neatly into any of the categories set out in section 22(2)(m) of the Federal Court Act, a fishing licence is clearly necessary for the operation of a fishing vessel.