Date: 19980603
Docket: T-1057-98
MONTRÉAL, QUEBEC, THE 3rd DAY OF JUNE 1998
Present: RICHARD MORNEAU, PROTHONOTARY
ADMIRALTY ACTION IN REM AGAINST THE SHIPS
"GIUSEPPE DI VITTORIO", "ODESSA",
"MEKHANIK P. KILIMENCHUK" AND "LYNX"
BETWEEN:
NORTH STAR SHIP CHANDLER INC.
Plaintiff
AND
THE OWNERS AND ALL OTHERS INTERESTED IN
THE SHIPS "GIUSEPPE DI VITTORIO", "ODESSA",
"MEKHANIK P. KILIMENCHUK" AND "LYNX"
and
BLACK SEA SHIPPING CO. (BLASCO)
Defendants
ORDER
The motion by Stockwell Holding Co. is dismissed with costs.
Richard Morneau
Prothonotary
Certified true translation
Peter Douglas
Date: 19980603
Docket: T-1057-98
ADMIRALTY ACTION IN REM AGAINST THE SHIPS
"GIUSEPPE DI VITTORIO", "ODESSA",
"MEKHANIK P. KILIMENCHUK" AND "LYNX"
BETWEEN:
NORTH STAR SHIP CHANDLER INC.
Plaintiff
AND
THE OWNERS AND ALL OTHERS INTERESTED IN
THE SHIPS "GIUSEPPE DI VITTORIO", "ODESSA",
"MEKHANIK P. KILIMENCHUK" AND "LYNX"
and
BLACK SEA SHIPPING CO. (BLASCO)
Defendants
REASONS FOR ORDER
RICHARD MORNEAU, PROTHONOTARY
1 This is a motion by Stockwell Holding Co. (Stockwell) under rule 208(a) of the Federal Court Rules, 1998 to dismiss the action in rem brought by the plaintiff against the ship "LYNX" and to quash the arrest of the ship.
2 In short, the question is whether the LYNX could be regarded as a sister ship to the other three ships that are the subject of the action.
3 It must be noted that the LYNX can also be regarded as a debtor ship for which goods were directly supplied by the plaintiff. However, because the outstanding debt in this regard is relatively minor, these reasons will first deal with the status of the LYNX as a sister ship.
Stockwell's submissions
4 Stockwell appears as the owner of the LYNX. In its motion, the corporation submits that the Affidavit to Lead Warrant against the ship is deficient in that its contents and the evidence to which it refers do not support the statement which the plaintiff's deponent makes therein at paragraph 6.
5 In that paragraph, the deponent states that he has reasonable grounds to believe that the LYNX is beneficially owned by the same owner as the other ships that are the subject of the action. That owner is Black Sea Shipping Co.
6 According to counsel for Stockwell, if the plaintiff's deponent had looked to certain reference materials which it is apparently common to consult in the maritime community-in this instance, the monthly supplement of the 1997/1998 edition of "Lloyd's Register of Ships" and the "List of Ship Owners 1997/1998"-he would have seen that Lloyd's Register refers to Stockwell as the owner, and that the List of Ship Owners does not mention the LYNX in the list of ships belonging to Black Sea Shipping Co.
7 In the opinion of counsel for Stockwell, the plaintiff, through its deponent, had only a suspicion, not credible and sufficient evidence, that the LYNX could reasonably be regarded as being beneficially owned by Black Sea Shipping Co.
Plaintiff's submissions
8 According to counsel for the plaintiff, the deponent's statements in his affidavit, and his examination on that affidavit, must lead us to conclude that the deponent was justified in thinking he had the reasonable grounds mentioned in rule 481(2)(e).
9 If I have properly grasped the evidence, the plaintiff's deponent consulted the main volume of Lloyd's Register for 1997/1998, but not the monthly supplement, since he did not have it. The main volume of Lloyd's Register does not show who owns the LYNX.
10 With respect to the documents on which he relied instead, we note that in addition to an invoice which the deponent filed as Exhibit E and which mentions Black Sea Shipping Co., he refers us to Exhibit D, an excerpt from "Lloyd's Maritime Directory 1998". In this excerpt, under the name of Black Sea Shipping Co., we find a list of ships, including the other ships that are the subject of the action, and a reference to the LYNX. Although Stockwell's name is mentioned here in parentheses, the plaintiff's deponent apparently gathered from this that Black Sea Shipping Co. ought to be regarded as the beneficial owner and Stockwell as the registered owner.
Analysis
11 I am not satisfied, in the circumstances, that the fact that the plaintiff's deponent did not obtain the supplement to Lloyd's Register was a major omission. Furthermore, although Stockwell sees in them only a suspicion and not sufficient evidence, I am of the view, in the circumstances, that Exhibits D and E filed by the plaintiff in bringing its application for an arrest warrant contain sufficient evidence for the plaintiff's deponent to conclude that the LYNX and the other ships that are the subject of the action had the same beneficial owner.
12 In the result, in view of the fact that it has been established that the LYNX and the other ships are sister ships, the action against the LYNX and the arrest of this ship must be sustained, and thus there is no need to deal with the motion by Stockwell from the angle of the liability of the ship LYNX for a debt owed in part to the plaintiff.
13 The motion by Stockwell will therefore be dismissed with costs.
Richard Morneau
Prothonotary
MONTRÉAL, QUEBEC
June 3, 1998
Certified true translation
Peter Douglas
Federal Court of Canada
Court No. T-1057-98
ADMIRALTY ACTION IN REM AGAINST
THE SHIPS "GIUSEPPE DI VITTORIO",
"ODESSA", "MEKHANIK P. KILIMENCHUK"
AND "LYNX"
BETWEEN:
NORTH STAR SHIP CHANDLER INC.
Plaintiff
- and -
THE OWNERS AND ALL OTHERS
INTERESTED IN THE SHIPS "GIUSEPPE DI
VITTORIO", "ODESSA", "MEKHANIK P.
KILIMENCHUK" AND "LYNX"
and
BLACK SEA SHIPPING CO. (BLASCO)
Defendants
REASONS FOR ORDER
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
COURT FILE NO.:
STYLE OF CAUSE:
T-1057-98
ADMIRALTY ACTION IN REM AGAINST THE SHIPS "GIUSEPPE DI VITTORIO", "ODESSA", "MEKHANIK P. KILIMENCHUK" AND "LYNX"
BETWEEN:
NORTH STAR SHIP CHANDLER INC.
Plaintiff
AND
THE OWNERS AND ALL OTHERS INTERESTED IN THE SHIPS "GIUSEPPE DI VITTORIO", "ODESSA", "MEKHANIK P. KILIMENCHUK" AND "LYNX"
and
BLACK SEA SHIPPING CO. (BLASCO)
Defendants
PLACE OF HEARING:Montréal, Quebec
DATE OF HEARING:June 1, 1998
REASONS FOR ORDER BY RICHARD MORNEAU, PROTHONOTARY
DATE OF REASONS FOR ORDER:June 3, 1998
APPEARANCES:
Peter J. Cullen for the plaintiff
Edouard Baudry/François Touchette for the defendants
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Peter J. Cullen for the plaintiff
Stikeman, Elliott
Montréal, Quebec
Edouard Baudry/François Touchette for the defendants
Lavery, de Billy
Montréal, Quebec
Email this Content