Date: 20060607
Docket: A-335-05
Citation: 2006 FCA 212
CORAM: LÉTOURNEAU J.A.
NOËL J.A.
PELLETIER J.A.
BETWEEN:
M.V. "ANANGEL SPLENDOUR"
THE OWNERS AND ALL OTHERS INTERESTED
IN THE SHIP "ANANGEL SPLENDOUR",
ANANGEL SHIPPING ENTERPRISES S.A.,
GREYWING SHIPPING
Appellants
and
THE ADMINISTRATOR OF THE SHIP SOURCE OIL POLLUTION FUND
Respondent
Heard at Ottawa, Ontario, on June 7, 2006.
Judgment delivered from the Bench at Ottawa, Ontario, on June 7, 2006.
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT BY: LÉTOURNEAU J.A.
Date: 20060607
Docket: A-335-05
Citation: 2006 FCA 212
CORAM: LÉTOURNEAU J.A.
NOËL J.A.
PELLETIER J.A.
BETWEEN:
M.V. "ANANGEL SPLENDOUR"
THE OWNERS AND ALL OTHERS INTERESTED
IN THE SHIP "ANANGEL SPLENDOUR",
ANANGEL SHIPPING ENTERPRISES S.A.,
GREYWING SHIPPING
Appellants
and
THE ADMINISTRATOR OF THE SHIP SOURCE OIL POLLUTION FUND
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
(Delivered from the Bench at Ottawa, Ontario, on June 7, 2006)
LÉTOURNEAU J.A.
Proceedings leading to the present appeal
[1] The appellants by way of a motion filed in the Federal Court requested that suitable representatives of Compagnie Minière Cartier Québec (Quebec Cartier) and the Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada (Fisheries) be put forward as discovery representatives of the respondent, the Administrator of the Ship Source Oil Pollution Fund (Fund).
[2] The motion was made pursuant to Rule 237 of the Federal Courts Rules which reads:
|
Representative selected
237. (1) A corporation, partnership or unincorporated association that is to be examined for discovery shall select a representative to be examined on its behalf.
Examination of Crown
(2) Where the Crown is to be examined for discovery, the Attorney General of Canada shall select a representative to be examined on its behalf.
Order for substitution
(3) The Court may, on the motion of a party entitled to examine a person selected under subsection (1) or (2), order that some other person be examined.
Examination of assignee
(4) Where an assignee is a party to an action, the assignor may also be examined for discovery.
Examination of trustee in bankruptcy
(5) Where a trustee in bankruptcy is a party to an action, the bankrupt may also be examined for discovery.
Examination of party under legal disability
(6) Where a party intends to examine for discovery a person appointed under rule 121 to act on behalf of a person under legal disability, with leave of the Court, the party may also examine the person under disability.
Examination of nominal party
(7) Where a party intends to examine for discovery a person bringing or defending an action on behalf of another person who is not a party, with leave of the Court, the party may also examine that other person.
|
Interrogatoire d'une personne morale
237. (1) La personne morale, la société de personnes ou l'association sans personnalité morale qui est soumise à un interrogatoire préalable désigne un représentant pour répondre en son nom.
Interrogatoire de la Couronne
(2) Lorsque la Couronne est soumise à un interrogatoire préalable, le procureur général du Canada désigne un représentant pour répondre en son nom.
Substitution ordonnée
(3) La Cour peut, sur requête d'une partie ayant le droit d'interroger une personne désignée conformément aux paragraphes (1) ou (2), ordonner qu'une autre personne soit interrogée à sa place.
Interrogatoire du cessionnaire
(4) Lorsqu'un cessionnaire est partie à l'action, le cédant peut également être soumis à un interrogatoire préalable.
Interrogatoire du syndic
(5) Lorsqu'un syndic de faillite est partie à l'action, le failli peut aussi être soumis à un interrogatoire préalable.
Interrogatoire d'une personne sans capacité d'ester en justice
(6) La partie qui entend soumettre à un interrogatoire préalable la personne nommée, en application de la règle 121, pour agir au nom d'une personne qui n'a pas la capacité d'ester en justice peut aussi, avec l'autorisation de la Cour, soumettre cette dernière à un interrogatoire préalable.
Interrogatoire d'une personne qui n'est pas une partie
(7) Si une partie entend soumettre à un interrogatoire préalable une partie qui introduit ou conteste l'action pour le compte d'une personne qui n'est pas une partie, elle peut aussi, avec l'autorisation de la Cour, soumettre cette personne à un interrogatoire préalable.
|
[3] The motion was heard and denied by prothonotary Morneau who also considered the alternative suggested by the appellants that the representatives of Quebec Cartier and Fisheries be examined pursuant to Rule 238. That Rule provides upon leave of the court for the examination of non-parties to proceedings. It reads:
| Examination of non-parties with leave
238. (1) A party to an action may bring a motion for leave to examine for discovery any person not a party to the action, other than an expert witness for a party, who might have information on an issue in the action.
Personal service on non-party
(2) On a motion under subsection (1), the notice of motion shall be served on the other parties and personally served on the person to be examined.
Where Court may grant leave
(3) The Court may, on a motion under subsection (1), grant leave to examine a person and determine the time and manner of conducting the examination, if it is satisfied that
(a) the person may have information on an issue in the action;
(b) the party has been unable to obtain the information informally from the person or from another source by any other reasonable means;
(c) it would be unfair not to allow the party an opportunity to question the person before trial; and
(d) the questioning will not cause undue delay, inconvenience or expense to the person or to the other parties.
|
Interrogatoire d'un tiers
238. (1) Une partie à une action peut, par voie de requête, demander l'autorisation de procéder à l'interrogatoire préalable d'une personne qui n'est pas une partie, autre qu'un témoin expert d'une partie, qui pourrait posséder des renseignements sur une question litigieuse soulevée dans l'action.
Signification de l'avis de requête
(2) L'avis de la requête visée au paragraphe (1) est signifié aux autres parties et, par voie de signification à personne, à la personne que la partie se propose d'interroger.
Autorisation de la Cour
(3) Par suite de la requête visée au paragraphe (1), la Cour peut autoriser la partie à interroger une personne et fixer la date et l'heure de l'interrogatoire et la façon de procéder, si elle est convaincue, à la fois :
a) que la personne peut posséder des renseignements sur une question litigieuse soulevée dans l'action;
b) que la partie n'a pu obtenir ces renseignements de la personne de façon informelle ou d'une autre source par des moyens raisonnables;
c) qu'il serait injuste de ne pas permettre à la partie d'interroger la personne avant l'instruction;
d) que l'interrogatoire n'occasionnera pas de retards, d'inconvénients ou de frais déraisonnables à la personne ou aux autres parties.
|
[4] In relation to the appellants' request based on Rule 238, the prothonotary ruled that the condition found in Rule 238(3)(b) had not been met and took steps in the form of an Order to ensure that the condition will be satisfied. Paragraph (b) required the appellants to show that they had been unable to obtain the information informally from Quebec Cartier and Fisheries.
[5] The appellants appealed the prothonotary's decision to the Federal Court. Pinard J. (judge) denied the appellants' demand for an Order reversing the Order issued by the prothonotary and for an Order that the Administrator of the Fund, as previously mentioned, put forward suitable representatives of Quebec Cartier and Fisheries as his discovery representatives.
Background information
[6] The Administrator of the Fund in these proceedings is the plaintiff in an action brought against the appellants. The Fund is established under subsection 77(1) of the Marine Liability Act, L.C. 2001, c. 6 (Act). It is a funding mechanism of first and last resort for marine pollution claims under the Act.
[7] Following an oil spill incident which occurred in Port Cartier in Quebec, on or about 12 or 13 May 2000, Quebec Cartier and Fisheries incurred expenses related to the clean-up of the spill and claimed reimbursement from the Fund pursuant to section 85 of the Act. The Port Cartier harbour is owned and managed by Quebec Cartier. Upon receipt of the two claims, the Administrator of the Fund proceeded to a thorough investigation as to the source of the pollution and the reasonableness of the clean-up expenses claimed by Quebec Cartier and Fisheries, pursuant to subsection 86(2) of the Act. As the Administrator was satisfied under subsection 86(4) of the Act that the pollution did not originate from a land source, he offered Quebec Cartier and Fisheries compensation for the clean-up expenses and damages they both incurred, which they eventually accepted.
[8] The Administrator's further investigation of the source of the pollution provided evidence, which led him to conclude that the pollution damage had been caused by the appellants' vessel, while docked in Port Cartier. On the basis of that evidence, the Administrator instituted the present proceedings against the appellants pursuant to paragraphs 87(3)(c) and (d) of the Act. He seeks to recover the amounts that he paid to Quebec Cartier and Fisheries.
[9] The Administrator of the Fund was subrogated in the rights of Quebec Cartier and Fisheries. As permitted by paragraph 87(3)(d) of the Act, he undertook the proceedings against the appellants in his own name rather than in the name of Quebec Cartier and Fisheries.
Decision of the judge
[10] Essentially, the judge ruled that Rule 237(3) invoked by the appellants in support of their motion has no application in the present instance.
[11] The judge was of the view that Rule 237(3) allows for the substitution of representatives of the same party for the purpose of an examination for discovery. According to him, Rule 237(3) does not allow, for that purpose, the substitution of a person who is not a party to the proceedings, except in the specific and limited circumstances described in Rule 237(4), (5), (6) and (7). The subrogators, i.e. Quebec Cartier and Fisheries, are not persons envisaged by subsections 4 to 7. Rather, it is Rule 238 that applies as it deals expressly and in a general manner with the examination for discovery of persons who are not a party to the proceedings.
Decision
[12] Notwithstanding the arguments of counsel for the appellants, we have not been convinced that the judge erred in his interpretation of Rule 237(3) and Rule 238. It is obvious that the "other person to be examined" mentioned in subsection 237(3) is a representative of the corporation, partnership or unincorporated association mentioned in subsection 237(1) or of the Crown in subsection 237(2).
[13] In fact, the appellants are asking us to create a new exception in Rule 237 by adding to it a subsection 8 that would include as persons representative of those mentioned in Rule 237(1) the subrogators of the claims who are not parties to the proceedings. In doing so, this Court would not only be circumventing and usurping the role of the Rules Committee, it would also ignore the specific provision enacted by the Rules Committee, and approved by the Governor in Council, in Rule 238 with respect to the examination of non-parties.
[14] Furthermore, it is not obvious to us that the Administrator of the Fund is a "corporation, partnership or unincorporated association" within the meaning of Rule 237(1).
[15] The appeal will be dismissed with costs to the respondent, Quebec Cartier and Fisheries, to be assessed at the lower end of Column III of Tariff B.
"Gilles Létourneau"
FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: A-335-05
STYLE OF CAUSE: M.V. "ANANGEL SPLENDOUR" et al. v.
THE ADMINISTRATOR OF THE SHIP
SOURCE OIL POLLUTION FUND
PLACE OF HEARING: Ottawa, Ontario
DATE OF HEARING: June 7, 2006
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT LÉTOURNEAU J.A.
OF THE COURT BY: NOËL J.A.
PELLETIER J.A.
DELIVERED FROM THE BENCH BY: LÉTOURNEAU J.A.
APPEARANCES:
| Mr. Nicholas Spillane
|
FOR THE APPELLANTS
|
| Mr. Azim Hussain
Mr. Simon Clément
Mr. Sébastien Gagné
|
FOR THE RESPONDENT
FOR COMPAGNIE MINIÈRE CARTIER QUÉBEC
FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF FISHERIES AND OCEANS
|
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
| BRISSET BISHOP s.e.n.c.
Montreal, Quebec
|
FOR THE APPELLANTS
|
| OGILVY RENAULT LLP
Montreal, Quebec
LANGLOIS GAUDREAU O'CONNOR
Quebec, Quebec
John Sims, Q.C.
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
Ottawa, Ontario
|
FOR THE RESPONDENT
FOR COMPAGNIE MINIÈRE CARTIER QUÉBEC
FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF FISHERIES AND OCEANS
|
Email this Content