Global Enterprises International Inc. v. Ships Aquarius, Sagran and Admiral Arciszewski et al., (2002) 217 F.T.R. 205 (TD)

CourtFederal Court (Canada)
Case DateFebruary 21, 2002
JurisdictionCanada (Federal)
Citations(2002), 217 F.T.R. 205 (TD)

Global Ent. Intl. v. Ships Aquarius (2002), 217 F.T.R. 205 (TD)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2002] F.T.R. TBEd. MR.008

Action in Rem against the Ship "Aquarius", the Ship "Sagran" and the Ship "Admiral Arciszewski" and in Personam;

Global Enterprises International Inc. (plaintiff) v. The Owners and All Others Interested in the Ships "Aquarius", "Sagran" and "Admiral Arciszewski", the said Ships "Aquarius", "Sagran" and "Admiral Arciszewski", the said Sisterships "Aquarius", "Sagran" and "Admiral Arciszewski" and Gryf Deep Sea Fishing Company (defendants) and SK Shipping Co. Ltd., and Coltrane Trading Limited (intervenors)

(T-16-01; 2002 FCT 193)

Indexed As: Global Enterprises International Inc. v. Ships Aquarius, Sagran and Admiral Arciszewski et al.

Federal Court of Canada

Trial Division

Hargrave, Prothonotary

February 21, 2002.

Summary:

Three ships were arrested and sold. Creditors filed affidavits of claim against the sale proceeds. A Polish trustee in bankruptcy of the former owner filed an affidavit of claim. An intervenor sought to strike out the affidavit on several grounds.

A Prothonotary of the Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, in a decision reported 214 F.T.R. 269, struck out the affidavit without leave to amend. The trustee sought to appeal this order and two others. The appeal materials were not in proper form. The trustee sought a further extension of time to file appeal materials in proper form.

A Prothonotary of the Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, dismissed the motion.

Courts - Topic 4072

Federal Court of Canada - Jurisdiction - Trial Division - Practice - Extension of time - [See Practice - Topic 9002 ].

Practice - Topic 9002

Appeals - Notice of appeal - Extension of time for filing and serving notice of appeal - A party sought to appeal three orders - The appeal materials were not in proper form - The party sought a further extension of time to file appeal materials in proper form - It was a bare motion, supported by neither an affidavit nor written representations - A Prothonotary of the Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, dismissed the motion - He stated that, absent affidavit material, one would expect at least adequate written representations in order to explain where to find facts in the court's record - There was no real continuing intent to pursue the extension motion - This was demonstrated by the lack of effort put into filing material in support of the motion - There was nothing to show that the appeals had merit - There was no acceptable excuse for the delay - The party failed to display due diligence - See paragraphs 16 to 40.

Cases Noticed:

Ship Cerro Colorado, Re, [1993] 1 Lloyd's Rep. 58, refd to. [para. 13].

Jelin Investments Ltd. v. Signtech Inc. (1984), 9 D.L.R.(4th) 197 (F.C.T.D.), refd to. [para. 19].

Bellefeuille v. Canadian Human Rights Commission et al. (1994), 66 F.T.R. 1 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 20].

Chin v. Minister of Employment and Immigration (1994), 69 F.T.R. 77 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 20].

Mountainbell Co. et al. v. W.T.C. Air Freight (H.K.) Ltd. et al. (1990), 128 N.R. 75 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 22].

Greens at Tam O'Shanter Inc. v. Canada (1999), 163 F.T.R. 311 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 23].

Noel & Lewis Holdings Ltd. and Waryk v. Canada (1986), 5 F.T.R. 166 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 24].

LeBlanc v. National Bank of Canada, [1994] 1 F.C. 81 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 24].

Can-Am Realty v. Minister of National Revenue, [1997] 2 C.T.C. 152; 126 F.T.R. 127 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 24].

Canada (Attorney General) v. Hennelly (1999), 244 N.R. 399 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 24].

Grewal v. Minister of Employment and Immigration, [1985] 2 F.C. 263; 63 N.R. 106 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 24].

Wuskwi Sipihk Cree Nation et al. v. Canada (1999), 164 F.T.R. 276 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 28].

Henry v. Canada (Minister of Justice) (1988), 15 F.T.R. 29 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 35].

Halm v. Minister of Employment and Immigration (1995), 91 F.T.R. 106 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 35].

Jimenez-Beza v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (1997), 123 F.T.R. 317 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 35].

Council of Canadians et al. v. Director of Investigation and Research, Competition Act et al. (1997), 212 N.R. 254 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 40].

Counsel:

Not disclosed.

Solicitors of Record:

Campney & Murphy, Vancouver, British Columbia, for the plaintiff;

Giaschi & Margolis, Vancouver, British Columbia, for the intervenor, SK Shipping Co. Ltd.;

Faskin Martineau DuMoulin, Vancouver, British Columbia, for the intervenor, Coltrane Trading Ltd.

This motion was heard before Hargrave, Prothonotary, of the Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, who delivered the following reasons for order on February 21, 2002.

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT