Miramichi Pulp & Paper Inc. et al. v. Canadian Pacific Bulk Ship Services Ltd. et al., (1992) 58 F.T.R. 81 (TD)

• Judge: Joyal, J.
• Court: Federal Court (Canada)
• Case Date: April 21, 1992
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (1992), 58 F.T.R. 81 (TD)

Miramichi Pulp v. CP Bulk Ship Serv. (1992), 58 F.T.R. 81 (TD)

MLB headnote and full text

Miramichi Pulp & Paper Inc., Repap Sales Corporation, Midtec Paper Corporation, and all those persons having an interest in the cargo laden on board the Vessel "Repap Enterprise" Voyage 33A (Bs/L No. 1 and others) (plaintiffs) v. Canadian Pacific Bulk Ship Services Ltd., Canadian Maritime Agencies Limited, Ozmillion Shipping Corp., BCP Ship Management Ltd., Canadian Pacific Steamships Ltd., Canadian Pacific Ltd., Canadian Pacific (Bermuda) Ltd., Seaport Stevedoring Ltd., The Owners and Charterers of the Vessel "Repap Enterprise" and The Vessel "Repap Enterprise" (defendants)

(T-2839-89; T-222-90)

Indexed As: Miramichi Pulp & Paper Inc. et al. v. Canadian Pacific Bulk Ship Services Ltd. et al.

Federal Court of Canada

Trial Division

Joyal, J.

September 30, 1992.

Summary:

The parties entered a contract whereby the defendants were to carry paper from New Brunswick to South Carolina. The contract contained a clause in which the parties agreed to submit disputes to arbitration in London, England. The plaintiffs claimed that goods were delivered in a damaged condition and sued for breach of contract. The defend­ants applied to stay the action, arguing that the parties agreed to arbitration. The Senior Prothonotary granted the motion. The plain­tiffs applied to reverse the decision.

The Federal Court of Canada, Trial Divi­sion, dismissed the application.

Arbitration - Topic 2504

Stay of proceedings - Arbitration clause - Enforcement of - The parties entered a contract whereby the defendants were to carry paper from New Brunswick to South Carolina - The contract contained a clause in which the parties agreed to submit disputes to arbitration - The plaintiffs claimed that goods were delivered dam­aged and sued for breach of contract - The bill of lading incorporated the arbitration clause - The defendants applied to stay the action, arguing that the parties agreed to arbitration - The Senior Prothonotary held that article 8 of the Commercial Arbitra­tion Act imposed a mandatory duty upon the court to refer parties to arbitration where an arbitration agreement existed and granted the motion - The plaintiffs applied to reverse the decision - The Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, dismissed the application.

Cases Noticed:

Rena K, The, [1978] 1 Lloyd's Rep. 545, refd to. [para. 11].

Thomas (T.W.) & Co. v. Portsea Steam­ship Co., [1912] A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 11].

Oinoussin Pride, The, [1991] 1 Lloyd's Rep. 126, consd. [para. 12].

Navionics Inc. v. Flota Maritima Mexicana S.A. et al. (1989), 26 F.T.R. 148 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 16].

BC Navigation S.A. (Bankrupt) v. Canpo­tex Shipping Services Ltd. (1987), 16 F.T.R. 79 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 16].

Ship M/V Sea Pearl and Patmos Navi­ga­tion Co. v. Seven Seas Dry Cargo Ship­ping Corp. (1982), 43 N.R. 517 (F.C.A.), consd. [paras. 19, 20].

Statutes Noticed:

Commercial Arbitration Act, R.S.C. 1985 (2nd Supp.), c. 17, art. 8 [para. 15].

Federal Court Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. F-17, sect. 50(1)(b) [para. 18].

Counsel:

Philippe Sénécal, for the plaintiffs;

Laurent Fortier, for the plaintiffs;

Jeremy P. Bolger, for the defendants Ca­nadian Pacific (Bermuda) Ltd. and Oz­mil­lion Shipping Corp.

Solicitors of Record:

Marler, Sproule & Castonguay, Montreal, Quebec, for the plaintiffs;

Stikeman, Elliott, Montreal, Quebec, for the plaintiffs;

McMaster Meighen, Montreal, Quebec, for the defendants Canadian Pacific (Bermu­da) Ltd. and Ozmillion Shipping Corp.

This application was heard on April 21, 1992, at Montreal, Quebec, before Joyal, J., of the Federal Court of Canada, Trial Divi­sion, who delivered the following judgment on September 30, 1992.