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”
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.
|
Email this Content