Date: 20000112
Docket: T-1840-99
MONTRÉAL, QUEBEC, JANUARY 12, 2000
| BEFORE: RICHARD MORNEAU, PROTHONOTARY |
ACTION IN REM IN ADMIRALTY,
Between:
9049-7959 QUEBEC INC. (LOCATION RTM),
Plaintiff,
AND
THE VESSEL "CAPITAINE DUVAL"
and
THE OWNERS AND ALL OTHERS INTERESTED
IN THE VESSEL "CAPITAINE DUVAL",
Defendants.
REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER
RICHARD MORNEAU, PROTHONOTARY:
[1] For the purposes of the hearing of their motion on January 10, 2000 the defendants divided the motion and only submitted the part thereof involving s. 221(1)(a) of the Federal Court Rules (1998) ("the Rules").
[2] Rule 221 reads as follows:
| 221. (1) On motion, the Court may, at any time, order that a pleading, or anything contained therein, be struck out, with or without leave to amend, on the ground that it |
| ( a) discloses no reasonable cause of action or defence, as the case may be, |
| ( b) is immaterial or redundant, |
| ( c) is scandalous, frivolous or vexatious, |
| ( d) may prejudice or delay the fair trial of the action, |
| ( e) constitutes a departure from a previous pleading, or |
| ( f) is otherwise an abuse of the process of the Court, |
| and may order the action be dismissed or judgment entered accordingly. |
| (2) No evidence shall be heard on a motion for an order under paragraph (1)(a). |
[3] This rule is the equivalent of Rule 419 of the Federal Court Rules. The case law developed under that rule is accordingly applicable to Rule 221.
[4] Under s. 221(1)(a) it must be plain and obvious (see Canada (A.G.) v. Inuit Tapirisat, [1980] 2 S.C.R. 735, at 740) that the in rem part of the plaintiff's statement of claim discloses no reasonable cause of action.
[5] Essentially, the defendants are asking the Court to strike the plaintiff's statement of claim on the ground that it can be seen from reading the latter that it discloses no reasonable cause of action which is within this Court's jurisdiction pursuant to s. 22 of the Federal Court Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. F-7 ("the Act").
[6] If that is our conclusion, the warrant to arrest the vessel seized, the "Capitaine Duval", will accordingly fail.
[7] It must be noted that it cannot be determined from a review of that statement of claim whether it falls under any of the various paragraphs of s. 22(2) of the Act raised by the plaintiff.
[8] Further, for the purposes of s. 22(1) of the Act, the same exercise does not allow the Court to conclude that the plaintiff's cause of action in the case at bar "is so integrally connected to maritime matters as to be legitimate Canadian maritime law within federal legislative competence" (ITO-International Terminal Operators v. Miida Electronics, [1986] 1 S.C.R. 752, at 774).
[9] As the defendants maintained, the plaintiff's cause of action turns out to be in the nature of an action for unfair competition which is within the jurisdiction of the provincial courts, despite the fact that this action involves persons working in the maritime area (see Bornstein Seafoods Canada Ltd. v. Fred Hutcheon et al., Federal Court Trial Division, T-2059-97, Gibson J., December 30, 1997).
[10] It therefore seems to the Court that it is plain and obvious that the plaintiff's statement of claim discloses no reasonable cause of action within the jurisdiction of this Court pursuant to s. 22 of the Act. It is accordingly struck out and the warrant of seizure of the vessel in question, the "Capitaine Duval", is quashed.
[11] Since costs on the motion at bar will be argued subsequently with other aspects of the latter, there will be no award of costs here.
| Richard Morneau Prothonotary |
Certified true translation
Bernard Olivier, LL. B.
| Federal Court of Canada Trial Division Date: 20000112 Docket: T-1840-99 Between: 9049-7959 QUEBEC INC. (LOCATION RTM), Plaintiff, AND THE VESSEL "CAPITAINE DUVAL" and THE OWNERS AND ALL OTHERS INTERESTED IN THE VESSEL "CAPITAINE DUVAL", Defendants. REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER |
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
| COURT FILE No.: T-1840-99 |
| STYLE OF CAUSE: 9049-7959 QUEBEC INC. (LOCATION RTM), |
Plaintiff,
AND
THE VESSEL "CAPITAINE DUVAL"
and
| THE OWNERS AND ALL OTHERS INTERESTED IN THE VESSEL "CAPITAINE DUVAL", |
Defendants.
PLACE OF HEARING: Montréal, Quebec
| DATE OF HEARING: January 10, 2000 |
| REASONS FOR ORDER BY: RICHARD MORNEAU, PROTHONOTARY |
DATE OF REASONS FOR ORDER: January 12, 2000
APPEARANCES:
| Louise Laflamme for the plaintiff |
| Louis Buteau for the defendants |
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
| Chouinard, Cardinal for the plaintiff |
Sainte-Foy, Quebec
| Sproule, Castonguay, Pollack for the defendants |
Montréal, Quebec