Aquavita International S.A. v. Ship M/V Pantelis et al., [2015] F.T.R. TBEd. JL.062

• Judge: Harrington, J.
• Court: Federal Court (Canada)
• Case Date: February 06, 2015
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: [2015] F.T.R. TBEd. JL.062;2015 FC 180

Aquavita Intl. SA v. Ship M/V Pantelis, [2015] F.T.R. TBEd. JL.062

MLB being edited

Currently being edited for F.T.R. - judgment temporarily in rough form.

Temp. Cite: [2015] F.T.R. TBEd. JL.062

Aquavita International S.A. (plaintiff) v. The Ship M/V Pantelis, and the Owners and All Others Interested in the Ship M/V Pantelis, and Pantelis Shipping Ltd. (defendant)

(T-1754-14; 2015 FC 180)

Indexed As: Aquavita International S.A. v. Ship M/V Pantelis et al.

Federal Court

Harrington, J.

February 13, 2015.

Summary:

The plaintiff claimed to have been the owner of the bunkers on board the ship M/V Pantelis when she was redelivered to her disponent owners. It claimed that the bunkers were misappropriated by the ship's actual owners. The Pantelis was arrested in the action framed both in rem and in personam against her owners for unjust enrichment and conversion. After bailing her out, the owners moved to have the action struck and the arrest set aside on the ground that the Federal Court lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate the matter (Federal Courts Rules 208(d) and 221).

The Federal Court dismissed the motion.

Admiralty - Topic 6021

Principles of law - Canadian Maritime Law - General - [See Courts - Topic 4026 ].

Admiralty - Topic 8041.1

Practice - Actions in rem - General - Jurisdiction - [See Courts - Topic 4026 ].

Courts - Topic 4026

Federal Court of Canada - Jurisdiction - Federal Court - Maritime and admiralty matters - The plaintiff claimed to have been the owner of the bunkers on board the ship M/V Pantelis when she was redelivered to her disponent owners - It claimed that the bunkers were misappropriated by the ship's actual owners - The Pantelis was arrested in the action framed both in rem and in personam against her owners for unjust enrichment and conversion - After bailing her out, the defendant owners moved to have the action struck and the arrest set aside on the ground that the Federal Court lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate the matter (Federal Courts Rules 208(d) and 221) - The Federal Court dismissed the motion - It was not "plain and obvious" that the Court lacked jurisdiction - The case was based on s. 22(1) of the Federal Courts Act and the definition of "Canadian maritime law" in s. 2(1) thereof - What was at issue was fuel on board the ship, "which fuel was allegedly used to propel her over the ocean blue. Nothing could be more maritime. Although I have no hesitation in holding that this Court has jurisdiction to decide this action on its merits, the issue before me under Rule 221 of the Federal Courts Rules is whether it is 'plain and obvious' that [the plaintiff] does not have a cause of action ... . Quite apart from the owners' right to appeal, under Rule 221 as it is presently written and interpreted, the issue of this Court's jurisdiction is still open."

Courts - Topic 4073

Federal Court of Canada - Jurisdiction - Trial Division - Practice - Striking out pleadings - [See Courts - Topic 4026 ].

Practice - Topic 2230

Pleadings - Striking out pleadings - Grounds - Failure to disclose a cause of action or defence - [See Courts - Topic 4026 ].

Practice - Topic 2241

Pleadings - Striking out pleadings - Grounds - Lack of jurisdiction - [See Courts - Topic 4026 ].

Cases Noticed:

MIL Davie Inc. v. Société d'exploitation et de développement d'Hibernia ltée (1998), 226 N.R. 369 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 4].

Remo Imports Ltd. v. Jaguar Cars Ltd. et al. (2007), 367 N.R. 177; 2007 FCA 258, refd to. [para. 8].

Miida Electronics Inc. v. Mitsui O.S.K. Lines Ltd. and ITO-International Terminal Operators Ltd., [1986] 1 S.C.R. 752; 68 N.R. 2412, refd to. [para. 13].

ITO International Terminal Operators Ltd. v. Miida Electronics Inc. - see Miida Electronics Ltd. and ITO-International Terminal Operators Ltd.

Hunt v. T & N plc et al., [1990] 2 S.C.R. 959; 117 N.R. 321, refd to. [para. 15].

Hunt v. Carey Canada Inc. - see Hunt v. T & N plc et al.

Operation Dismantle Inc. et al. v. Canada et al., [1985] 1 S.C.R. 441; 59 N.R. 1, refd to. [para. 15].

Toney v. Royal Canadian Mounted Police et al., [2011] F.T.R. Uned. 877; 2011 FC 1440, affd. [2012] N.R. Uned. 87; 2012 FCA 167, appld. [para. 16].

Toney v. Royal Canadian Mounted Police et al. (2012), 422 F.T.R. 178; 2012 FC 1412, revd. (2013), 448 N.R. 175; 2013 FCA 217, refd to. [para. 16].

Statutes Noticed:

Federal Courts Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. F-7, sect. 22(1) [para. 11]; sect. 22(2)(m) [para. 12].

Federal Courts Rules, rule 208(d), rule 221 [para. 3].

Counsel:

John O'Connor, for the plaintiff;

Thomas Hawkins and David Jarrett, for the defendants.

Solicitors of Record:

Langlois Kronström Desjardins, Quebec City, Quebec, for the plaintiff;

Bernard LLP, Vancouver, British Columbia, for the defendants.

This motion was held by video conference between Vancouver, British Columbia, and Quebec, Quebec, on February 6, 2015, before Harrington, J., of the Federal Court, who delivered the following order and reasons, dated February 13, 2015, at Ottawa, Ontario.