T-1738-96
MONTRÉAL, QUEBEC, THIS 14th DAY OF AUGUST 1997
PRESENT: RICHARD MORNEAU, ESQ., PROTHONOTARY
| ACTION IN REM AGAINST THE VESSEL "CANMAR PRIDE" AND IN PERSONAM AGAINST THE OWNERS AND CHARTERERS OF THE VESSEL "CANMAR PRIDE" |
BETWEEN:
IMPORTATION DUCALE INC.,
-and-
SIGE S.p.A.,
-and-
CALZATURIFICIO ZI. CO. SPORT,
di ZINGRILLO VINCENZO,
-and-
CALZATURIFICIO SAN GIORGIO s.r.l.,
-and-
F.L.L.I. SAGRIPANTI S.p.A.,
-and-
ALL OTHERS HAVING AN INTEREST IN THE
CARGO LADEN ON BOARD THE M.V. "CANMAR PRIDE",
Plaintiffs,
AND
DSR-SENATOR LINES GMBH.,
-and-
EUROLINE NAVIGATION INC.,
-and-
DIORYX MARITIME CORP.,
-and-
THE OWNERS AND CHARTERERS OF
THE VESSEL "CANMAR PRIDE",
-AND-
THE VESSEL "CANMAR PRIDE",
Defendants.
ORDER
This motion for an extension of time is dismissed.
Richard Morneau
Prothonotary
Certified true translation
C. Delon, LL.L.
T-1738-96
| ACTION IN REM AGAINST THE VESSEL "CANMAR PRIDE" AND IN PERSONAM AGAINST THE OWNERS AND CHARTERERS OF THE VESSEL "CANMAR PRIDE" |
BETWEEN:
IMPORTATION DUCALE INC.,
-and-
SIGE S.p.A.,
-and-
CALZATURIFICIO ZI. CO. SPORT,
di ZINGRILLO VINCENZO,
-and-
CALZATURIFICIO SAN GIORGIO s.r.l.,
-and-
F.L.L.I. SAGRIPANTI S.p.A.,
-and-
ALL OTHERS HAVING AN INTEREST IN THE
CARGO LADEN ON BOARD THE M.V. "CANMAR PRIDE",
Plaintiffs,
AND
DSR-SENATOR LINES GMBH.,
-and-
EUROLINE NAVIGATION INC.,
-and-
DIORYX MARITIME CORP.,
-and-
THE OWNERS AND CHARTERERS OF
THE VESSEL "CANMAR PRIDE",
-and-
THE VESSEL "CANMAR PRIDE",
Defendants.
REASONS FOR ORDER
RICHARD MORNEAU, ESQ.,
PROTHONOTARY:
This is a motion by the plaintiffs under Rule 306 of the Federal Court Rules (the "Rules") for an order allowing them an additional six months to serve their statement of claim, filed on July 23, 1996, on the vessel in rem and the defendants Euroline Navigation Inc. and Dioryx Maritime Corp. (the "defendants") personally.
The facts
On July 23, 1996, the defendants brought their action against another defendant, DSR-Senator Lines GMBH (hereinafter "DSR"), in addition to the defendants.
However, to date only DSR has been served with the statement of claim within the time allowed by Rule 306.
It appears from the affidavit submitted in support of the motion and the comments of counsel for the plaintiffs that the plaintiffs chose not to serve the defendants since the plaintiffs were confident that DSR would acknowledge its status as carrier in the dispute and that this would then be sufficient for the plaintiffs. Having regard to the amount in issue, the plaintiffs were thereby avoiding the cost of serving the defendants, who are domiciled in a foreign country.
DSR filed a defence in the record of the Court in which it does not deny its status as carrier. It was only when the bills of lading in issue were produced that the plaintiffs unilaterally concluded, after reading them, that DSR might attempt to deny its status as carrier, whence the necessity, in the plaintiffs' view, for them now to serve the statement of claim on the defendants.
Analysis
Under Rule 306, the Court must be given sufficient reason to make an order extending the one-year time for service allowed by that rule.
In the circumstances, I cannot conclude that the approach or strategy adopted by the plaintiffs in failing to serve their statement of claim on the defendants constitutes sufficient reason such as would persuade this Court to grant them additional time for doing so.
It has not been established that DSR has expressly, or even implicitly, sought to deny its status as carrier. The only thing that has prompted the plaintiffs to change their approach in terms of service at this time is their own reading. As well, it was not established that DSR was anything but diligent in producing the bills of lading to the plaintiffs. I believe that it is now too late for the plaintiffs to try to arm themselves against a future situation that is still hypothetical.
The fact that DSR - the only party that has been served with the instant motion - is not opposed to allowing the motion is not material, in my opinion. Here, DSR is not really the respondent to the motion and it would be only logical that it would take a favourable view of adding other defendants to the action.
In addition, the cost of serving the other parties, which the plaintiffs initially avoided, is not, in my view, either alone or in combination with the other grounds herein, sufficient reason within the meaning of Rule 306.
This motion for an extension of time will therefore be dismissed.
Richard Morneau
Prothonotary
Montréal, Quebec
August 14, 1997
Certified true translation
C. Delon, LL.L.
Federal Court of Canada
Court file No. T-1738-96
between
| IMPORTATION DUCALE INC. -and- |
| SIGE S.p.A. -and- |
| CALZATURIFICIO ZI. CO. SPORT, di ZINGRILLO VINCENZO -and- |
| CALZATURIFICIO SAN GIORGIO s.r.l. -and- |
| F.L.L.I. SAGRIPANTI S.p.A. -and- |
| ALL OTHERS HAVING AN INTEREST IN THE CARGO LADEN ON BOARD THE M.V. "CANMAR PRIDE", |
Plaintiffs,
" and "
| DSR-SENATOR LINES GMBH. -and- |
| EUROLINE NAVIGATION INC. -and- |
| DIORYX MARITIME CORP. -and- |
| THE OWNERS AND CHARTERERS OF THE VESSEL "CANMAR PRIDE" -and- |
| THE VESSEL "CANMAR PRIDE", |
Defendants.
REASONS FOR ORDER
| FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA |
| NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD |
| COURT FILE NO: T-1738-96 |
| STYLE OF CAUSE: IMPORTATION DUCALE INC. -and- |
| SIGE S.p.A. -and- |
| CALZATURIFICIO ZI. CO. SPORT, di ZINGRILLO VINCENZO -and- |
| CALZATURIFICIO SAN GIORGIO s.r.l. -and- |
| F.L.L.I. SAGRIPANTI S.p.A. -and- |
| ALL OTHERS HAVING AN INTEREST IN THE CARGO LADEN ON BOARD THE M.V. "CANMAR PRIDE", |
| Plaintiffs, |
| AND |
| DSR-SENATOR LINES GMBH. -and- |
| EUROLINE NAVIGATION INC. -and- |
| DIORYX MARITIME CORP. -and- |
| THE OWNERS AND CHARTERERS OF THE VESSEL "CANMAR PRIDE" -and- |
| THE VESSEL "CANMAR PRIDE", |
| Defendants. |
| PLACE OF HEARING: Montréal, Quebec |
| DATE OF HEARING: August 11, 1997 |
| REASONS FOR ORDER BY: Richard Morneau, Esq., Prothonotary |
| DATE OF REASONS FOR ORDER: August 14, 1997 |
| APPEARANCE: |
| Fawaz El Malki for the plaintiffs |
| SOLICITORS OF RECORD: |
| Fawaz El Malki for the plaintiffs |
| Sproule, Castonguay, Pollack |
| Montréal, Quebec |
| Victor De Marco for the defendants |
| Brisset Bishop |
| Montréal, Quebec |