Date: 20020208
Docket: T-1620-01
Neutral Citation: 2002 FCT 151
ADMIRALTY ACTION IN REM AND IN PERSONAM
BETWEEN:
EVANGELOS PANAGIOTAKIS, STYLIANOS DIMITRIDIS,
ELEFTERIOS ZEIBEKIS, PANAGIOTIS TZANETOPOULOS,
KONSTADINOS PAVLIDIS, ANDREAS PALIOURAS,
PANAGIOTIS KARAGANIS AND ZLATA DUKIC
Plaintiffs
AND:
ATTIKA SHIPPING CORP.
and
GOLDEN SUN CRUISES
and
THE OWNERS AND ALL OTHERS INTERESTED
IN THE BUNKERS ABOARD THE VESSEL
"ARCADIA" AND THE FREIGHTS AND SUB-FREIGHTS
FOR THE VESSEL "ARCADIA"
and
THE VESSEL "ARCADIA"
Defendants
PINARD J.
[1] The sole issue raised by counsel for the Bank is whether the Prothonotary erred in law in giving his direction as to the procedure to be followed for the filing of the claims to the proceeds of sale of the vessel "ARCADIA" in this matter. More specifically, counsel for the Bank submits that in not requiring that each claimant file a separate individual claim, the Prothonotary acted in breach of rule 492(1)(c) of the Federal Court Rules, 1998, SOR/DORS 98-106. I do not agree.
[2] In my view, there is nothing in rule 492 which requires that a claimant file a separate individual claim. Rule 492 reads as follows:
|
492. (1) The Court may, in making an order under rule 490 or 491 or at any time thereafter, give directions as to (a) notice to be given to possible claimants to the proceeds of sale; (b) advertising for other such claimants; (c) the time within which claimants must file their claims; and (d) the procedure to be followed in determining the rights of the parties.
|
492. (1) La Cour peut, au moment où elle rend l'ordonnance de vente des biens, au moment où elle statue sur la requête visée à la règle 491 ou à tout moment ultérieur, donner des directives au sujet : a) des avis à donner aux personnes qui pourraient réclamer un droit sur le produit de la vente; b) de la publicité à faire à leur intention; c) du délai dans lequel ces personnes doivent déposer leur réclamation; d) de la procédure à suivre pour déterminer les droits des parties. |
|
(2) A claim that is not made within the time limited and in the manner prescribed by an order of the Court under subsection (1) is barred, and the Court may proceed to determine other claims and distribute the money among the parties entitled thereto without reference to any claim so barred. |
(2) Une fin de non-recevoir est opposée à toute réclamation qui n'est pas déposée dans le délai et de la manière prévus dans l'ordonnance rendue en vertu du paragraphe (1), et la Cour peut statuer sur les autres réclamations et répartir le produit de la vente entre les parties qui y ont droit sans tenir compte de la réclamation à laquelle une fin de non-recevoir a été opposée. |
[3] Furthermore, rule 492 grants the Court discretion with respect to the giving of directions as to the process to be followed by possible claimants, and not as to the merit of the claims. As correctly stated by the Prothonotary in a decision he made on December 20, 2001, wherein he dismissed a motion on behalf of the Bank for an order reconsidering his impugned Order of November 20, 2001, "...the sufficiency of evidence by the Plaintiffs to sustain their claim is a matter which could be raised later in the process". Indeed, a previous Order made by the Prothonotary on September 19, 2001, included the following:
All questions relating to the right of any claimant in rem against the ship or the proceeds of sale on all questions respecting the priority of all in rem creditors shall be reserved until further order of the capital Court.
[4] The latter provision with respect to questions relating to the rights of the claimants was in no way affected by the Order under appeal.
[5] It appears, therefore, from all the relevant Prothonotary's Orders in these proceedings, that proper directions were given pursuant to rule 492. I must reemphasize that this rule merely grants the Court discretion to give directions so as to process concerning: (a) notice to be given to possible claimants; (b) advertising for such claimants; (c) the time within which to file the claims; and (d) the procedure to be followed in determining the rights of the parties.
[6] It may be that following the application of such a process, the merit of one or more claims will not be sufficiently established. However, as all questions relating to the right of any claimant against the proceeds of the sale have already been reserved until further order, it would be obviously premature to determine the merit of such claims at this time.
[7] For the foregoing reasons, the motion is dismissed with costs.
JUDGE
OTTAWA, ONTARIO
February 8, 2002
TRIAL DIVISION
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: T-1620-01
STYLE OF CAUSE:EVANGELOS PANAGIOTAKIS ET AL. v. THE SHIP
"ARCADIA" ET AL.
PLACE OF HEARING: MONTRÉAL
DATE OF HEARING: FEBRUARY 4, 2002
REASONS FOR ORDER : PINARD, J.
DATED: FEBRUARY 8, 2002
APPEARANCES:
GEORGE J. POLLACK FOR THE PLAINTIFFS
GARY H. WAXMAN FOR THE CLAIMANTS
DAVID G. COLFORD FOR THE CAVEATOR HELLENIC INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT BANK, S.A.
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
GOWLING LAFLEUR HENDERSON LLP FOR THE PLAINTIFFS
MONTRÉAL
MITCHELL GATTUSO FOR THE CLAIMANTS
MONTRÉAL
BRISSET BISHOP FOR THE CAVEATOR
MONTRÉAL HELLENIC INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT BANK, S.A.