Date: 20000725
Docket: T-1942-98
ADMIRALTY ACTION IN REM AND IN PERSONAM
BETWEEN:
STELLA-JONES INC.
-and-
AXA BOREAL ASSURANCES INC.
Plaintiffs
AND
HAWKNET LTD.
-and-
SUNLIGHT COMPANIA NAVIERA S.A.
-and-
SEBILAN COMPANIA NAVIERA S.A.
-and-
THE OWNERS AND ALL OTHERS INTERESTED
IN THE SHIP MARIANA (Ex "ANAMELI")
Defendants
Motion on behalf of Defendant MARIANA MARITIME S.A., Owners of the Ship MARIANA (Ex. "ANAMELI") in appeal of the Order of Prothonotary Richard Morneau dated June 21st , 2000.
[Rules 51, 53, 54 and 398 of the Federal Court Rules (1998)
and Sections 27 and 50 of the Federal Court Act]
TEITELBAUM, J.:
REASONS FOR ORDER
[1] On June 21, 2000, the Prothonotary Me Morneau issued an Order and Reasons for the Order in the present case (see decision at tab 14 of Respondents" Motion Record).
[2] The Prothonotary had before him an application by the Plaintiffs for a judgment by default or alternatively, that the Prothonotary issue an Order of stay of the proceedings until such time as the Defendants request and obtain a stay of Defendants" request for arbitration until the Federal Court decides the outstanding issue of jurisdiction.
[3] The Prothonotary states, in paragraph 2 of his decision:
| Je n"entends pas rejeter carrément la présente requête ni par ailleurs accorder le remède extrême inverse, soit l"octroi d"un jugement par défaut. |
Furthermore, in paragraphs 3, 4 and 5, he states:
| Après avoir écouté les procureurs des parties et avoir lu leurs représentations écrites, il m"apparaît qu"il a existé entre les parties pour une longue période (28 août 1998 au 4 avril 2000) une certaine entente entre les parties qui complétait somme toute la lettre d"entente du 28 août 1998 - qui elle strictement ne semble pas inclure la réclamation d"avarie commune (general average) des propriétaires du navire - et qui était à l"effet de laisser la Cour fédérale décider en premier de la question de juridiction. |
| Je pense que l"intérêt de la justice commande que cette entente prévale. Toutefois je n"entends pas émettre la suspension temporaire que recherchent les demanderesses puisque la condition qui y est rattachée revient à émettre indirectement une injonction contre les poursuites au sens de l"arrêt Amchem Products Inc. c. Colombie-Britannique (Workers" Compensation Board), [1993] 1 R.C.S. 897. |
| Fort de la règle 53 des Règles de la Cour fédérale (1998), j"entends ordonner que si d"ici le 4 juillet 2000, les défendeurs n"ont pas obtenu la garantie de suspension prévue au point b) de l"avis de requête des demanderesses, c"est-à-dire de façon plus précise la "condition precedent" y citée, ils devront le ou avant le 11 juillet 2000 signifier et déposer leur défense à l"action des demanderesses devant cette Cour, à défaut de quoi les demanderesses pourront rechercher immédiatement un jugement par défaut contre eux. |
[4] The following grounds are given for the present appeal.
| The conditions laid down by the Prothonotary that the defendants stay their counterclaim for general average contribution in London arbitration is not a condition or direction pursuant to Rule 53, but is in reality an anti-suit injunction which is beyond his jurisdiction as set out in Rule 50; |
| By requiring the defendant to file a Statement of Defence or face a default judgment, and without providing that any such Statement of Defence would be without prejudice to their right to seek a stay of proceedings, he has prejudiced their appeal from the Order of Mr. Justice Blais dated January 21st, 2000, which has yet to be heard, and has prejudiced their right to seek a stay of proceedings, which application has yet to be heard on the merits, the whole contrary to Sections 27 and 50 of the Federal Court Act; |
| By ordering the defendant to produce evidence from two foreign arbitrators that they accepted the stay, he acted extra-territorially and required foreigners who were not before this Court, and not in the control of the defendant to do something. |
[5] With regard to the third ground above stated, counsel for both parties have informed me that for the time being the request for arbitration by the Mariana Maritime S.A. has been stayed. (see paragraph 3 of affidavit of Frances E. Gregory).
[6] I cannot and do not agree with the submission of the Appellant (Defendant) found at paragraph 15 of his written submissions which states:
| The prothonotary relied upon Rule 53 to state that the requirement that the owners of the MARIANA suspend their counter-claim in London arbitration, or file a Statement of Defence if they wanted to avoid a default judgment in Canada. It is respectfully submitted that in reality the condition is an anti-suit injunction, which is beyond the prothonotary"s jurisdiction as set forth in Rule 50. |
[7] I cannot do any better than to quote the Respondents" counsel and say that I am satisfied the Prothonotary"s decision is not an injunction.
[8] The Prothonotary had before him an application for a judgment by default. It was for him to decide to grant the application or to refuse it or to issue a decision in which he could grant part of the application. He may also set those conditions he thinks would serve the interests of justice.
[9] The decision is a discretionary decision of the Prothonotary entirely within his jurisdiction.
[10] I can see no reason to interfere with the decision.
[11] The appeal is denied, with costs.
MAX M. TEITELBAUM
Judge
Montreal, Quebec
July 25, 2000