Ruby Trading S.A. v. Parsons et al., (2000) 194 F.T.R. 103 (TD)

• Court: Federal Court (Canada)
• Case Date: May 15, 2000
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (2000), 194 F.T.R. 103 (TD)

Ruby Trading S.A. v. Parsons (2000), 194 F.T.R. 103 (TD)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2000] F.T.R. TBEd. SE.056

Ruby Trading S.A. (plaintiff) v. Myles Parsons, International Transport Workers Federation, Habibula Mustafa, Bayram Mon, Krassimir Stoykov and Anton Litvichkov (defendants)

(T-225-00)

Indexed As: Ruby Trading S.A. v. Parsons et al.

Federal Court of Canada

Trial Division

Hargrave, Prothonotary

August 23, 2000.

Summary:

A ship owner sued crew members for breach of their employment contracts and a union and a union organizer for interference with contractual relations. The ship owner applied for an injunction to enjoin the crew members, the union and the union organizer (the defendants) from picketing the ship.

The Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, per Lutfy, A.C.J.T.D., granted the injunction without reasons. The defendants appealed and brought a motion to strike out the statement of claim based on want of jurisdiction.

A Prothonotary of the Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, dismissed the defendants' motion on the basis of res judicata (i.e., the essence of the motion was dealt with by Lutfy, A.C.J.T.D., and was the subject of an appeal).

Estoppel - Topic 382

Estoppel by record (res judicata) - Res judicata as a bar to subsequent proceedings - In interlocutory proceedings - A ship owner sued crew members for breach of their employment contracts and a union and a union organizer for interference with contractual relations - The ship owner applied for an injunction to enjoin the crew members, the union and the union organizer (the defendants) from picketing the ship - Lutfy, A.C.J.T.D., granted the injunction without reasons - The defendants appealed and brought a motion to strike out the statement of claim based on want of jurisdiction - A Prothonotary of the Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, held that res judicata was applicable to interlocutory proceedings and dismissed the motion on that basis - The court noted that the essence of the motion was dealt with by Lutfy, A.C.J.T.D., and was the subject of the appeal from that decision.

Cases Noticed:

Galano v. Ship Lowell Thomas Explorer (1977), 80 D.L.R.(3d) 127 (F.C.T.D.), refd to. [para. 3].

Grassic v. Calgary Power Co., [1948] 1 D.L.R. 103 (Alta. C.A.), refd to. [para. 5].

Windsurfing International Inc. v. Novaction Sports Inc. and Teasdale (1987), 15 F.T.R. 302; 18 C.P.R.(3d) 230 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 5].

Hanson v. Smith and Canada (1990), 38 F.T.R. 34 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 8].

Waste Not Wanted Inc. v. Canada (1987), 11 F.T.R. 253 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 8].

Stamper v. Finnigan et al. (1984), 57 N.B.R.(2d) 411; 148 A.P.R. 411; 1 C.P.C.(2d) 175 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 9].

Diamond v. Western Realty Co., [1924] S.C.R. 308, refd to. [para. 9].

Novopharm Ltd. et al. v. Eli Lilly & Co. et al., [1999] 1 F.C. 515; 168 F.T.R. 1 (T.D.), dist. [para. 11].

Trilea Centres Inc. v. Cumming Cockburn Ltd. (1991), 5 O.R.(3d) 598 (Gen. Div.), dist. [para. 11].

Hansard Spruce Mills Ltd., Re, [1954] 4 D.L.R. 590 (B.C.S.C.), dist. [para. 11].

World Wide Treasure Adventures Inc. v. Trivia Games Inc. et al. (1996), 68 B.C.A.C. 241; 112 W.A.C. 241; 17 B.C.L.R.(3d) 187 (C.A.), dist. [para. 11].

Talbot v. Pan Ocean Oil Corp. et al. (1977), 5 A.R. 361; 3 Alta. L.R.(2d) 354 (C.A.), dist. [para. 12].

Coca-Cola Ltd. et al. v. Pardhan et al. (1999), 240 N.R. 211 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 13].

National Bank of Canada v. Royal Bank of Canada et al., [2000] O.T.C. Uned. 112 (Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 14].

Borley v. Fraser River Harbour Commission et al. (1995), 92 F.T.R. 275 (T.D. Protho.), refd to. [para. 15].

Levi Strauss & Co. et al. v. Roadrunner Apparel Inc. (1997), 221 N.R. 93; 76 C.P.R.(3d) 129 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 15].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Sopinka, John, and Lederman, Sidney N., The Law of Evidence in Civil Cases (1974), generally [para. 9].

Sopinka, John, Lederman, Sidney N., and Bryant, Alan W., The Law of Evidence in Canada (2nd Ed. 1999), pp. 1073 [para. 9]; 1074, footnotes 156, 158 [para. 12].

Spencer-Bower, G., and Turner, A.K., The Doctrine of Res Judicata (2nd Ed. 1969), generally [para. 9].

Counsel:

Peter Swanson, for the plaintiff;

James Baugh, for the defendants.

Solicitors of Record:

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

McGrady, Baugh & White, Vancouver, British Columbia, for the defendants.

This motion was heard at Vancouver, British Columbia, on May 15, 2000, before Hargrave, Prothonotary, of the Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, who delivered the following judgment on August 23, 2000.