Date: 20111130
Docket: A-42-11
Citation: 2011 FCA 334
CORAM: NOËL J.A.
PELLETIER
J.A.
TRUDEL J.A.
BETWEEN:
CALOGERAS
& MASTER SUPPLIES INC.
Appellant
and
CERES HELLENIC SHIPPING
ENTERPRISES LTD. and
THE OWNERS AND ALL OTHER INTERESTED IN
THE SHIP "CAP LAURENT " and THE
SHIP “CAP LAURENT”
and THE OWNERS AND ALL OTHERS INTERESTED
IN THE SHIP “CAP ROMUALD” and THE SHIP
“CAP ROMUALD”
and THE OWNERS AND ALL OTHERS INTERESTED
IN
THE SHIP “CAP GEORGES” and THE SHIP “CAP
GEORGES”
and OWNERS AND ALL OTHERS INTERESTED
IN THE SHIP “CAP LEON” and THE SHIP “CAP LEON”
and ALL OWNERS AND OTHERS INTERESTED
IN THE SHIP “CAP JEAN” and THE SHIP “CAP
JEAN”
and THE OWNERS AND ALL OTHERS INTERESTED
IN THE SHIP “CAP DIAMANT” and THE SHIP
“CAP DIAMANT”
and THE OWNERS AND ALL OTHERS INTERESTED
IN THE SHIP “CAP PIERRE” and THE SHIP “CAP PIERRE”
Respondents
Heard at Montréal,
Quebec, on November 30,
2011.
Judgment
delivered from the Bench at Montréal, Quebec, on November
30, 2011.
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT BY: PELLETIER
J.A.
Date:
20111130
Docket:
A-42-11
Citation: 2011
FCA 334
CORAM: NOËL
J.A.
PELLETIER
J.A.
TRUDEL
J.A.
BETWEEN:
CALOGERAS
& MASTER SUPPLIES INC.
Appellant
and
CERES HELLENIC SHIPPING ENTERPRISES LTD.
and
THE OWNERS AND ALL OTHER INTERESTED IN
THE SHIP "CAP LAURENT " and THE
SHIP “CAP LAURENT”
and THE OWNERS AND ALL OTHERS INTERESTED
IN THE SHIP “CAP ROMUALD” and THE SHIP
“CAP ROMUALD”
and THE OWNERS AND ALL OTHERS INTERESTED
IN
THE SHIP “CAP GEORGES” and THE SHIP “CAP
GEORGES”
and OWNERS AND ALL OTHERS INTERESTED
IN THE SHIP “CAP LEON” and THE SHIP “CAP LEON”
and ALL OWNERS AND OTHERS INTERESTED
IN THE SHIP “CAP JEAN” and THE SHIP “CAP JEAN”
and THE OWNERS AND ALL OTHERS INTERESTED
IN THE SHIP “CAP DIAMANT” and THE SHIP
“CAP DIAMANT”
and THE OWNERS AND ALL OTHERS INTERESTED
IN THE SHIP “CAP PIERRE” and THE SHIP “CAP PIERRE”
Respondents
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE
COURT
(Delivered
from the Bench at Montréal, Quebec, on November 30, 2011)
PELLETIER
J.A.
[1]
This
is an appeal from the decision of Madam Justice Gauthier in an action for the
price of goods sold and delivered. In a decision reported as Calogeras &
Master Supplies Inc. v. Ceres Hellenic Shipping Enterprises Ltd et al.,
2010 FC 1318, the trial judge granted the appellant judgment for an amount
equal to approximately 1/10 of its original demand plus pre- and post-judgment
interest at a rate of 5% from March 1, 2010, the date at which the invoices
which evidenced the amount owing were filed as exhibits in the trial. The
appellant appeals from the trial judge’s conclusion with respect to interest,
arguing that she erred in not awarding interest at the rate and for the period
provided in the appellant’s General Terms and Conditions.
[2]
The
trial judge concluded that the appellant waived its right to interest on the
amounts owing to it from time to time. This is a finding of fact which the
trial judge was entitled to make on the basis of the record before her.
Although counsel for the appellant correctly stated that a waiver must be
unambiguous, the trial judge did not consider that the evidence gave rise to an
ambiguity, a conclusion which was open to her in light of the whole of the evidence.
[3]
The
trial judge made adverse findings of credibility against the appellant’s
witnesses and made findings of fact based on those credibility findings. The
standard of review in such cases is that of palpable and overriding error, a
burden which the appellant has been unable to discharge.
[4]
In
awarding pre- and post-judgement interest on the amount which the respondent
admitted it owed to the appellant, the trial judge did not explain why she
limited the payment of interest from the date of filing of certain invoices as
exhibits at the trial. In the absence of an explanation, it is not possible
for us to determine if the judge exercised her discretion according to settled
principles. Having decided to award interest, we are unable to determine why the
judge did not award it from a date computed by reference to the date of the
invoices.
[5]
To
the extent that the issue of prescription was raised, it is not a factor in
this case in light of the evidence of the respondent’s waiver by its witness
Lagonikas.
[6]
Exercising
our discretion, we would allow the appeal in part and order that interest at 5%
be paid from a date 60 days after the date of issuance of each invoice which
the respondent admitted was unpaid.
[7]
Given
the circumstances, each party should bear its own costs of the appeal.
“J.D.
Denis Pelletier”
FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND
SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: A-42-11
(APPEAL
FROM A DECISION OF THE FEDERAL COURT DATED DECEMBER 22, 2010, DOCKET NO. T-1478-05)
STYLE OF CAUSE: CALOGERAS
& MASTER SUPPLIES INC. and
CERES HELLENIC SHIPPING
ENTERPRISES LTD. ET AL.
PLACE OF HEARING: Montréal,
Quebec
DATE OF HEARING: November 30, 2011
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE
COURT BY: NOEL, PELLETIER,
TRUDEL JJA.
DELIVERED FROM THE BENCH BY: PELLETIER J.A.
APPEARANCES:
|
Jean-Marie Fontaine
Mark
Phillips
|
FOR
THE APPELLANT
|
|
André A. Lévesque
|
FOR
THE RESPONDENTS
|
SOLICITORS
OF RECORD:
|
Borden Ladner Gervais
Montréal, Quebec
|
FOR THE APPELLANT
|
|
André A. Lévesque
Montréal, Quebec
|
FOR THE RESPONDENTS
|