Federal Court Decisions

Decision Information

Z.I. Pompey Industrie v. Ecu-Line N.V.

Court (s) Database Federal Court Decisions
Date 2006-11-02
Neutral citation 2006 FC 1328
File numbers T-98-98

Decision Content

 

 

 

 

Date: 20061102

Docket: T-98-98

Citation: 2006 FC 1328

 

ACTION IN REM AGAINST THE VESSEL”CANMAR FORTUNE”

AND IN PERSONAM AGAINST THE OWNERS AND CHARTERERS

OF THE VESSEL “CANMAR FORTUNE”

 

 

BETWEEN:

 

Z.I. POMPEY INDUSTRIE, SOCIÉTÉ LYONNAISE

DE MESSAGERIES NATIONALES, JOHN S. JAMES CO.

POLYFIBRON TECHNOLOGIES INC.

ELLEHAMMER PACKAGING INC., ALL OTHERS

HAVING AN INTEREST IN THE CARGO LADEN

ON BOARD THE M.V. “CANMAR FORTUNE”

 

Plaintiffs

and

 

 

ECU-LINE N.V., CANADA MARITIME LTD.

ANGLO-EASTERN SHIP MANAGEMENT LTD.

THE OWNERS AND CHARTERERS OF THE VESSEL

“CANMAR FORTUNE,” AND THE VESSEL “CANMAR FORTUNE”

 

Defendants

 

 

 

ASESSMENT OF COSTS - REASONS

Charles E. Stinson

Assessment Officer

[1]               A copy of these Reasons is filed today in Federal Court of Appeal file A-29-00 (Ecu-Line N.V. v. Z.I. Pompey Industrie et al.) and applies there accordingly.

[2]               The Defendant, Ecu-Line N.V. (the Ecu Defendant), was unsuccessful before the Federal Court and before the Federal Court of Appeal concerning respectively its motions for stay of claim for damage to cargo and its appeal of the decisions denying a stay. The decision of the Supreme Court of Canada dated May 1, 2003, overturned the decisions in the courts below, issued the stay of proceedings and awarded costs in the courts below. I issued a timetable for written disposition of the assessment of the Ecu Defendant’s bill of costs, which addressed proceedings in the Federal Court and in the Federal Court of Appeal.

 

[3]               The Plaintiffs did not file any materials in response to the Ecu Defendant’s materials. My view, often expressed in comparable circumstances, is that the Federal Courts Rules do not contemplate a litigant benefiting by an assessment officer stepping away from a position of neutrality to act as the litigant’s advocate in challenging given items in a bill of costs. However, the assessment officer cannot certify unlawful items, i.e. those outside the authority of the judgment and the tariff. I examined each item claimed in the bill of costs and the supporting materials within those parameters. There were items which might have attracted disagreement, but the amount claimed in total in the bill of costs is generally arguable within the limits of the award of costs as reasonable in the circumstances of this litigation. The Ecu Defendant’s bill of costs is assessed and allowed as presented at $11,657.65.

 

 

“Charles E. Stinson”

Assessment Officer

FEDERAL COURT

 

SOLICITORS OF RECORD

 

 

 

DOCKET:                                          T-98-98

 

STYLE OF CAUSE:                          Z.I. POMPEY INDUSTRIE et al.

 

-         and –

 

                                                            ECU-LINE N.V. et al.

 

 

ASSESSMENT OF COSTS IN WRITING WITHOUT PERSONAL APPEARANCE OF THE PARTIES

 

 

REASONS FOR ASSESSMENT OF COSTS:                    CHARLES E. STINSON

 

DATED:                                                                                 November 2, 2006

 

 

 

WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS BY:

 

n/a

FOR THE PLAINTIFFS

 

Peter Swanson

 

FOR THE DEFENDANT,

Ecu Line N.V.

 

 

SOLICITORS OF RECORD:

 

Davies Ward Phillips & Vineberg LLP

Montreal, QC

 

FOR THE PLAINTIFFS

Bernard & Partners

Vancouver, BC

 

FOR THE DEFENDANT,

Ecu-Line N.V.

 

 You are being directed to the most recent version of the statute which may not be the version considered at the time of the judgment.