Date: 20001027
Docket: IMM-352-00
Ottawa, Ontario, this 27th day of October, 2000
| PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JOHN A. O'KEEFE |
BETWEEN:
NORTH FISHING LIMITED,
a body corporate
Applicant
- and -
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER
O'KEEFE J.
[1] This is an application by North Fishing Limited (the "applicant") for judicial review of the decision to issue a Notice of Detention of the M/V ERLA and the requirement of the payment of a $15,000 security deposit to release the vessel.
[2] The M/V ERLA ("ERLA") arrived in Argentia, Newfoundland on July 1, 1999 and at this point in time the beneficial owner of the ERLA was Fanney Ltd. ("Fanney"). Eimskip Newfoundland ("Eimskip") is the official agent and the Latvian crewman who would later make application for refugee status is on board the ERLA.
[3] On November 5, 1999 this Court ordered the judicial sale of the ERLA from Fanney to North Fishing Limited ("North Fishing").
[4] Senior immigration officials confirmed on November 10, 1999 that they were aware that a Latvian crew member of the ERLA had made application for refugee status.
[5] On November 18, 1999 property in the ERLA passed to North Fishing from Fanney by virtue of a bill of sale bearing that date.
[6] On December 21, 1999 the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration issued a Direction for Security Deposit against the believed owner of the ERLA, Fanney, and its local agent, Eimskip. By this date, the owner of the ERLA was North Fishing and not Fanney. Eimskip was no longer the official agent of the ERLA.
[7] The Latvian crewman deserted the ERLA on or about November 10, 1999. Eimskip had ceased to be agent for the ERLA on or about June 10, 1999 and did not become agent again until November 15, 1999.
[8] By virtue of an Order of this Court dated November 5, 1999, the ERLA was ordered to be sold to North Fishing Limited by private sale.
[9] By the terms of the Marshall's Notice to Creditors, creditors had until November 15, 1999 to file claims and any application to dispute a filed claim was to be made no later than November 29, 1999.
[10] Citizenship and Immigration Canada's request to Eimskip to deposit security in the amount of $15,000 pursuant to subsection 92(2) of the Immigration Act was dated December 21, 1999. The ERLA was detained by the respondent on December 22, 1999 pursuant to a Detention Order made under section 92 of the Act.
[11] The sum of $15,000 was paid by the applicant through Eimskip and the ERLA was released.
ISSUE
[12] Should the decision of Paul Ennis, Senior Immigration Officer, to issue a Notice of Detention of the M/V ERLA and to require payment of $15,000 be set aside?
LAW
[13] The following provisions of the Immigration Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. I-2 (the "Act") have application to this application:
| 2.(1) "transportation company" (a) means a person or group of persons, including any agent thereof and the government of Canada, a province or a municipality in Canada, transporting or providing for the transportation of persons or goods by vehicle or otherwise, and "member of a crew" means, except as otherwise prescribed, a person, including a master, who is employed on a vehicle to perform duties during a voyage or trip related to the operation of the vehicle or the provision of services to passengers; |
2.(1) « _transporteur_ » Personne ou groupement, y compris leurs mandataires, qui assurent un service de transport de voyageurs ou de marchandises par véhicule ou tout autre moyen. S'entend en outre, pour l'application des paragraphes 89(2) à (7), des articles 92 et 93 et de l'alinéa 114(1)cc), de l'exploitant d'un pont ou d'un tunnel ou d'une administration aéroportuaire désignée aux termes de la Loi relative aux cessions d'aéroports. La présente définition s'applique aux gouvernements fédéral et provinciaux ainsi qu'aux municipalités, dans la mesure où ils exploitent ou fournissent un tel service. « _membre du personnel_ » Sauf disposition contraire des règlements, toute personne employée à bord d'un véhicule en déplacement pour occuper un poste lié à son fonctionnement ou au service des passagers, y compris le responsable du véhicule. |
| 85(1) General liability for removal Subject to subsection (2), a transportation company that has brought a person to Canada may be required by the Minister to convey that person, or cause that person to be conveyed, (a) to the country from which that person came to Canada or to such other country as the Minister may approve at the request of the company, in the case of a person who is allowed to leave Canada pursuant to subsection 20(1) or 23(4), (4.01) or (4.2) or who is required to leave Canada by reason of the making of a rejection order; |
| 85(1) Responsabilité en matière d'envoi Sous réserve du paragraphe (2), le transporteur qui a amené une personne au Canada peut être tenu responsable par le ministre du transport de celle-ci à destination_: a) du pays d'où elle est arrivée, ou du pays approuvé par le ministre à la demande du transporteur, dans le cas d'une personne qui est autorisée à quitter le Canada en vertu des paragraphes 20(1) ou 23(4), (4.01) ou (4.2) ou qui est forcée de le quitter par suite d'une mesure de refoulement; |
| 86 Liability for removal of members of crew Where a person enters Canada as or to become a member of a crew of a vehicle and ceases to be a visitor pursuant to subsection 26(1), the transportation company that operates that vehicle may be required by the Minister to convey that person, or cause that person to be conveyed, to the country from which that person came to Canada, or to such other country as the Minister may approve at the request of the company, and the company is liable to pay all removal costs in respect of that person. |
86 Renvoi des membres du personnel des véhicules Dans le cas où une personne entre au Canada à titre de membre du personnel d'un véhicule ou pour le devenir et perd la qualité de visiteur aux termes du paragraphe 26(1), le transporteur qui exploite le véhicule peut être tenu responsable par le ministre du transport de la personne à destination du pays d'où elle est arrivée, ou du pays agréé par le ministre à la demande du transporteur, ainsi que des frais de renvoi de la personne. |
| 92(1) General security The Deputy Minister may issue a direction to any transportation company requiring it to deposit with Her Majesty in right of Canada such sum of money, in Canadian currency, or such other prescribed security as the Deputy Minister deems necessary as a guarantee that the company will pay all amounts for which it may become liable under this Act after the direction is issued. 92(2) Special purpose security Where a vehicle owned or operated by a transportation company that has not deposited the required sum of money or other security pursuant to a direction issued under subsection (1) comes into Canada, the Deputy Minister may issue a direction to the master of the vehicle or to the transportation company requiring the master or company to deposit with Her Majesty in right of Canada such sum of money, in Canadian currency, or such other prescribed security as the Deputy Minister deems necessary as a guarantee that the company will pay all amounts for which it may become liable under this Act in respect of that vehicle after the direction is issued. 92(3) Additional security Where the Deputy Minister is of the opinion that any security deposited pursuant to a direction under subsection (1) or (2) does not provide a sufficient guarantee that the transportation company will pay the amounts, the Deputy Minister may issue a direction to the master or the company that deposited the security requiring the master or company to deposit with Her Majesty in right of Canada such sum of money, in Canadian currency, as the Deputy Minister deems necessary as additional security. 92(4) Failure to comply with directions Where a master or transportation company fails to comply with a direction under subsection (1), (2) or (3), the Minister may direct an immigration officer (a) to detain any vehicle of the transportation company for a period of not more than forty-eight hours; or (b) to seize and hold any vehicle of the company, including any vehicle detained pursuant to paragraph (a). 92(5) Failure to pay amounts Where a transportation company becomes liable to pay any amount under this Act and the required sum of money or prescribed security has not been deposited in respect of the transportation company pursuant to a direction under subsection (1), (2) or (3), the Minister may direct that an immigration officer (a) detain any vehicle of the company for a period of not more than forty-eight hours; or (b) seize and hold any vehicle of the company, including any vehicle detained pursuant to paragraph (a). 92(5.1) Detention of vehicles A transportation company shall comply with the orders of an immigration officer given pursuant to a direction to detain a vehicle of the company under subsection (4) or (5). |
92(1) Cautionnement général Le sous-ministre peut ordonner aux transporteurs de déposer auprès de Sa Majesté du chef du Canada une somme d'argent, en monnaie canadienne, ou tout autre cautionnement réglementaire qu'il estime nécessaire pour garantir le paiement des frais qui pourraient être mis à leur charge aux termes de la présente loi après qu'il en a été ainsi ordonné. 92(2) Cautionnement particulier En l'absence du cautionnement visé au paragraphe (1), le sous-ministre peut, à l'arrivée d'un véhicule au Canada, ordonner au responsable de celui-ci, ou au transporteur, qu'il soit propriétaire ou exploitant du véhicule, de déposer auprès de Sa Majesté du chef du Canada une somme d'argent, en monnaie canadienne, ou tout autre cautionnement réglementaire qu'il estime nécessaire pour garantir le paiement par le transporteur des frais qui pourraient, du fait du véhicule, être mis à sa charge conformément à la présente loi après qu'il en a été ainsi ordonné. 92(3) Cautionnement supplémentaire S'il estime que le cautionnement déposé conformément aux paragraphes (1) ou (2) ne constitue pas une garantie suffisante du paiement des frais, le sous-ministre peut ordonner au transporteur ou au responsable du véhicule de déposer auprès de Sa Majesté du chef du Canada la somme d'argent, en monnaie canadienne, qu'il estime nécessaire à titre de cautionnement supplémentaire. 92(4) Inobservation des ordres En cas d'inobservation des ordres visés aux paragraphes (1), (2) ou (3) par le transporteur ou le responsable, le ministre peut ordonner à un agent d'immigration soit de retenir un véhicule du transporteur pour une période maximale de quarante-huit heures, soit de saisir et de retenir un tel véhicule, y compris celui qui est déjà retenu. 92(5) Défaut de paiement Dans le cas où le transporteur est responsable du paiement de frais en vertu de la présente loi et qu'il a omis de déposer la somme d'argent ou le cautionnement réglementaire visés aux paragraphes (1), (2) ou (3), le ministre peut ordonner à un agent d'immigration soit de retenir un véhicule du transporteur pour une période maximale de quarante-huit heures, soit de saisir et retenir un tel véhicule, y compris celui qui est déjà retenu. 92(5.1) Rétention du véhicule Le transporteur doit se conformer aux instructions que lui donne l'agent d'immigration relativement à la rétention d'un véhicule en vertu des paragraphes (4) ou (5). |
| [14] Rule 490 of the Federal Court Rules, 1998 states in part: |
| Sale of Arrested Property Disposition of arrested property 490. (1) On motion, the Court may order, in respect of property under arrest, that (a) the property be appraised and sold, or sold without appraisal, by public auction or private contract; (b) the property be advertised for sale in accordance with such directions as may be set out in the order, which may include a direction that (i) offers to purchase be under seal and addressed to the sheriff, (ii) offers to purchase all be opened at the same time in open court, that the parties be notified of that time and that the sale be made pursuant to an order of the Court made at that time or after the parties have had an opportunity to be heard, (iii) the sale not necessarily be to the highest or any other bidder, or (iv) after the opening of the offers and after hearing from the parties, if it is doubtful that a fair price has been offered, the amount of the highest offer be communicated to the other persons who made offers or to some other class of persons or that other steps be taken to obtain a higher offer; (c) the property be sold without advertisement; (d) an agent be employed to sell the property, subject to such conditions as are stipulated in the order or subject to subsequent approval by the Court, on such terms as to compensation of the agent as may be stipulated in the order; (e) any steps be taken for the safety and preservation of the property; (f) where the property is deteriorating in value, it be sold forthwith; (g) where the property is on board a ship, it be removed or discharged; (h) where the property is perishable, it be disposed of on such terms as the Court may order; or (i) the property be inspected in accordance with rule 249. Commission |
| (2) The appraisal or sale of property under arrest shall be effected under the authority of a commission addressed to the sheriff in Form 490. Sale free from liens (3) Property sold under subsection (1) is free of any liens under Canadian maritime law. |
Vente des biens saisis Sort des biens saisis 490. (1) La Cour peut, sur requête, ordonner que les biens saisis, selon le cas : a) soient évalués et vendus, ou soient vendus sans avoir été évalués, soit aux enchères publiques, soit par contrat privé; b) soient mis en vente par des avis publics conformes aux directives données dans l'ordonnance, laquelle peut prescrire notamment : |
| (i) que les offres d'achat doivent être scellées et adressées au shérif, (ii) que les offres d'achat doivent être toutes décachetées au même moment à une audience publique, que les parties doivent être avisées de ce moment et que la vente doit être faite en vertu d'une ordonnance de la Cour rendue à cette occasion ou après que les parties ont eu l'occasion de se faire entendre, (iii) qu'il n'est pas obligatoire de vendre les biens au plus haut enchérisseur ou autre enchérisseur, (iv) que, après l'ouverture des offres d'achat et audition des parties, s'il y a un doute sur la justesse du prix offert, le montant de l'offre la plus élevée doit être communiqué aux autres personnes qui ont fait des offres ou à une autre classe de personnes, ou d'autres dispositions doivent être prises pour qu'on obtienne une offre plus élevée; c) soient vendus sans préavis de vente; d) soient vendus, sous réserve des conditions précisées dans l'ordonnance ou de l'approbation subséquente de la Cour, par l'entremise d'un agent ou courtier rémunéré au taux fixé dans l'ordonnance; e) fassent l'objet de mesures assurant leur sécurité et leur conservation; f) s'ils perdent de leur valeur, soient vendus immédiatement; g) s'ils sont à bord d'un navire, en soient enlevés ou déchargés; h) s'ils sont de nature périssable, soient aliénés de la manière qu'elle ordonne; i) soient examinés aux termes de la règle 249. Commission (2) L'évaluation et la vente de biens s'effectuent en vertu d'une commission adressée au shérif selon la formule 490. Produit de la vente (3) Les biens vendus aux termes du paragraphe (1) sont libres de toute charge imposée selon le droit maritime canadien. |
| ANALYSIS AND DECISION |
| [15] It is important to note that in this particular case, when the respondent gave its |
| Direction for Security on December 21, 1999 and when it issued its Notice of Detention on December 22, 1999, the ERLA had already been sold pursuant to a judicial sale ordered by the Federal Court. In Osborne Refrigeration Sales and Services Inc. v. The Ship "Atlantean I" et al (1982) 7 D.L.R. (4th) 395 (F.C.A.) Pratte J. stated at page 402: |
| When a ship is sold by the court in in rem proceedings, the buyer acquires complete title; all the creditors who up to that time had been entitled to sue the ship and cause it to be seized lose their rights to do so, and henceforth are only entitled to participate, in accordance with the ranking of their respective debts, in the distribution of the ship's selling price. On the other hand, anyone who after the sale acquires a debt on the basis of which they can sue the ship or its owners cannot obtain payment of that debt from the proceeds of the sale: their right must be exercised against the ship itself and its new owners. It is therefore of the first importance, in a case like the one at bar, to determine the date on which the judicial sale of the ship took effect, that is the date on which ownership of the ship was transferred to its new owner. In principle, creditors after that date may not participate in distribution of the selling price: only prior creditors will be eligible for that distribution. So far as I know the only case in which an exception is made to this rule is where the marshal or one of the prior creditors, after the sale has taken place, incurs expenses to benefit all the prior creditors, for example, to administer and invest the proceeds of the sale; in such a case these expenses, though incurred after the sale, must be paid for from the proceeds of the sale (see The "Leoborg" (No. 2), [1964] 1 Lloyd's Rep. 380 at p. 384), because they contributed to creating the fund which is to be distributed between the creditors. |
| I adopt this statement of the law and I believe that it applies in this case (see also Canada Deputy Marshal, Federal Court of Canada v. Galaxias (The) [1989] 1 F.C. 375 (F.C.T.D.). |
| [16] It should be noted that section 87 of the Act only states that the transportation |
| company may be required by the Minister to bear the removal costs of the crew members who cease to be visitors. As far as can be determined from the evidence, the Minister had not made a decision to hold the transportation company liable for the removal costs until after the ERLA was sold. This Court ordered that a Notice to Creditors be published so that other creditors could make their claim on the proceeds from the sale of the ship. The respondent had until November 15, 1999 to file its claim against the proceeds of the sale of the ship. It did not do this, therefore, the claim is invalid against the proceeds of the ship. |
| [17] I do not believe that the provisions of section 86 or section 92 of the Act create |
| any kind of lien that attaches to the ship itself so as to be able to by-pass the law that says a judicial sale of a ship extinguishes the rights of creditors who were, prior to the sale, able to sue or cause the ship to be seized. In my opinion, very clear language would be required in a statute to produce this result. That type of language is not contained in the Act. |
| [18] As I am of the opinion that the respondent's claim did not remain against the |
ERLA, I will grant the application for judicial review and set aside the decision of the tribunal and order the return of the $15,000 to Eimskip, the agent for the applicant.
| [19] I have reviewed the question submitted for certification and I do not find that it is |
a serious question of general importance, therefore, I am not prepared to certify a question.
ORDER
| [20] IT IS ORDERED that the application for judicial review is allowed as outlined |
in paragraph [18] of this decision.
"John A. O'Keefe"
J.F.C.C.
Ottawa, Ontario
October 27, 2000