Date: 20000620
Docket: T-221-99
BETWEEN:
JOY SHIPPING COMPANY INC.
APPLICANT
- and -
EMPRESSA CUBANA DES FLETES, OF CUBA
and ASOCIACION PESQUERA & PORTUARIA
of the MINISTERIO DE LA INDUSTRIA
PESQUERA DE LA REPUBLICA DE CUBA, OF CUBA
RESPONDENTS
REASONS FOR ORDER
LEMIEUX J.:
[1] These reasons reduce to writing those I gave orally on May 19, 2000 after a teleconference hearing denying an order, requested by Pesquera Cuyagua S.A., ("Pesquera") the owner of the ship "Rio Cuyaguateje" (the "ship") pursuant to rules 398 and 399 of the Federal Court Rules (the "Rules"), setting aside a writ of seizure. In the alternative, I granted a stay on condition that security be put up so as to enable the ship to engage in commercial fishing.
THE FACTS
[2] On March 5, 1999, Madam Justice Reed ordered, pursuant to rules 326 to 328, the registration of a judgment issued out of the Superior Court of England and Wales on June 19, 1998, which Joy Shipping Company ("Joy") obtained against the defendants.
[3] On May 9, 2000, Joy requisitioned the Federal Court Registry in Halifax (the Registry), pursuant to rules 425 and 433, a writ of seizure and sale to enforce Madam Justice Reed"s order representing to the Registry the "writ of seizure and sale is to be enforced against Empressa Cubana des Fletes ("Empressa") and Asociacion Pesquera & Portuaria of the Ministerio de la Industria Pesquera de la Republica de Cuba ("Asociacion"), both of which are instrumentalities of the Government of the Republic of Cuba, by seizing the ship "Rio Cuyaguateje" now at St. John"s, Nfld.".
[4] I note Madam Justice Reed"s order directed its service on the respondents" (defendants) by personal service at the Embassy of the Republic of Cuba in Ottawa and at the addresses prescribed for each of the defendants in the order of the High Court of Justice " Queen"s Bench Division " Commercial Court. In the case of the Asociacion, the service of her order was to be effected upon the Embassy of the Republic of Cuba in London, United Kingdom.
[5] In its requisition to the Registry, Joy appended the affidavit of two attorneys at law practising in Miami, Florida, describing the relationship between the defendants to the Government of the Republic of Cuba.
[6] Pursuant to the requisition, a writ of seizure and sale issued by the Registry directed the Sheriff in St. John"s, Nfld., to seize the ship which he did. No sale of the ship has occurred.
GROUNDS FOR THE ORDERS SOUGHT
[7] As noted, Pesquera Cuyagua S.A. (the "applicant") moved the Court pursuant to rule 399, for an order setting aside the writ or, alternatively, pursuant to rule 399, for a stay.
[8] The applicant, in its record, noted that the writ was requisitioned by Joy at the time Joy was aware "of active litigation in this Court (T-123-00 and T-268-00) involving issues of status, ownership of and the right to arrest the ship and that Joy requisitioned the writ of seizure and sale without notice to the applicant.
[9] The applicant advanced the following grounds for the order setting aside the writ:
| (1) The writ was issued without notice; |
| (2) the writ is contrary to rule 425 and Form 425A by requesting a writ directing the Sheriff to seize a specific asset, the ship, owned by the applicant and not owned by either of the judgment debtors. The applicant adds that this required a determination that a judgment debt against one party was in fact a judgment debt against another party and further a specific asset registered in the ownership of one party was in fact in the ownership of some other party which determinations are not contemplated nor permitted by rule 425, all to the prejudice to the applicant who had no notice; |
| (3) Rule 433 provides only that a person entitled to execution may obtain a writ of execution by filing a requisition for its issuance and there is no provision in that rule or elsewhere allowing for the introduction of affidavit evidence in support of a requisition where the writ of seizure and sale seeks to seize a specific asset not named in the enforcement order nor owned by a judgment debtor named therein. |
THE APPLICABLE RULES
[10] Rules 398, 399, 425, 433, 448 and the definition of "writ of execution" in rule 2 were considered during the hearing and in my oral decision. These rules read:
| "writ of execution" includes a writ of seizure and sale, a writ of possession, a writ of delivery and a writ of sequestration, and any further writ in aid thereof. (bref d'exécution) 398. (1) On the motion of a person against whom an order has been made, (a) where the order has not been appealed, the division of the Court that made the order may order that it be stayed; or (b) where a notice of appeal of the order has been issued, a judge of the division of the Court that is to hear the appeal may order that it be stayed. (2) As a condition to granting a stay under subsection (1), a judge may require that the appellant (a) provide security for costs; and (b) do anything required to ensure that the order will be complied with when the stay is lifted. (3) A judge of the division of the Court that is to hear an appeal of an order that has been stayed pending appeal may set aside the stay if the judge is satisfied that the party who sought the stay is not expeditiously proceeding with the appeal or that for any other reason the order should no longer be stayed. 399. (1) On motion, the Court may set aside or vary an order that was made (a) ex parte; or (b) in the absence of a party who failed to appear by accident or mistake or by reason of insufficient notice of the proceeding, if the party against whom the order is made discloses a prima facie case why the order should not have been made. (2) On motion, the Court may set aside or vary an order (a) by reason of a matter that arose or was discovered subsequent to the making of the order; or (b) where the order was obtained by fraud. (3) Unless the Court orders otherwise, the setting aside or variance of an order under subsection (1) or (2) does not affect the validity or character of anything done or not done before the order was set aside or varied. 425. An order for the payment of money may be enforced by (a) a writ of seizure and sale in Form 425A; (b) garnishment proceedings; (c) a charging order; (d) the appointment of a receiver; and (e) in respect of a person referred to in rule 429, a writ of sequestration in Form 425B. 433. (1) Subject to subsection (2) and rules 434 and 435, a person entitled to execution may obtain a writ of execution by filing a requisition for its issuance. When writ may be issued (2) A writ of execution shall be issued only if, at the time a requisition therefor is filed, any period specified in the order for the payment of money or for the doing of an act required under the order has expired. (3) A writ of execution for the recovery of money shall be endorsed with a direction to the sheriff to levy |
| (a) the amount of money due and payable that is sought to be recovered; (b) any interest thereon that is sought to be recovered, from the date of the order; and (c) any sheriff's fees and costs of execution. 448. In seizing, advertising for sale or selling property, a sheriff shall, except as otherwise provided in the writ or in these Rules, follow the laws applicable to the execution of similar writs issued by a superior court of the province in which the property was seized. [emphasis mine] |
"_bref d'exécution_" S'entend notamment d'un bref de saisie-exécution, d'un bref de mise en possession, d'un bref de délivrance, d'un bref de séquestration et de tout bref complémentaire. (writ of execution) 399. (1) La Cour peut, sur requête, annuler ou modifier l'une des ordonnances suivantes, si la partie contre laquelle elle a été rendue présente une preuve prima facie démontrant pourquoi elle n'aurait pas dû être rendue : a) toute ordonnance rendue sur requête ex parte; b) toute ordonnance rendue en l'absence d'une partie qui n'a pas comparu par suite d'un événement fortuit ou d'une erreur ou à cause d'un avis insuffisant de l'instance. (2) La Cour peut, sur requête, annuler ou modifier une ordonnance dans l'un ou l'autre des cas suivants : a) des faits nouveaux sont survenus ou ont été découverts après que l'ordonnance a été rendue; b) l'ordonnance a été obtenue par fraude. (3) Sauf ordonnance contraire de la Cour, l'annulation ou la modification d'une ordonnance en vertu des paragraphes (1) ou (2) ne porte pas atteinte à la validité ou à la nature des actes ou omissions antérieurs à cette annulation ou modification. 400. (1) La Cour a entière discrétion pour déterminer le montant des dépens, les répartir et désigner les personnes qui doivent les payer. (2) Les dépens peuvent être adjugés à la Couronne ou contre elle. (3) Dans l'exercice de son pouvoir discrétionnaire en application du paragraphe (1), la Cour peut tenir compte de l'un ou l'autre des facteurs suivants : a) le résultat de l'i 425. L'exécution forcée de l'ordonnance exigeant le paiement d'une somme d'argent se fait par l'un des moyens suivants : a) bref de saisie-exécution établi selon la formule 425A; b) procédure de saisie-arrêt; c) ordonnance constituant une charge; d) nomination d'un séquestre judiciaire; e) bref de séquestration établi selon la formule 425B, dans le cas visé à la règle 429. 433. (1) Sous réserve du paragraphe (2) et des règles 434 et 435, la personne ayant droit à l'exécution peut obtenir un bref d'exécution en déposant une demande écrite pour le faire délivrer. (2) Un bref d'exécution ne peut être délivré que si, au moment où il est demandé, le délai fixé dans l'ordonnance pour le paiement d'une somme d'argent ou l'accomplissement d'un acte est expiré. (3) Le bref d'exécution visant le recouvrement d'une somme d'argent porte des directives prescrivant au shérif de prélever : a) la somme exigible dont le recouvrement est poursuivi en vertu de l'ordonnance; b) les intérêts y afférents dont le recouvrement est poursuivi, le cas échéant, calculés à partir de la date de l'ordonnance; c) les honoraires du shérif et les frais d'exécution. 448. Sauf disposition contraire du bref ou des présentes règles, pour la saisie et la vente de biens ainsi que la publicité en vue de cette vente, le shérif se conforme aux règles de droit applicables à l'exécution de brefs analogues délivrés par une cour supérieure de la province où la saisie a eu lieu. |
CONCLUSIONS
| (a) The request to set aside the writ |
[11] I refused the applicant"s request for an order setting aside the writ for three reasons. First, I was of the view rule 399 did not authorize me to set aside the writ because the writ was not an order of the Court as contemplated by that rule. Rather, as I saw it, the writ is subsequent to an order or judgment of the Court and a judgment creditor is entitled to execution of that judgment by filing a requisition for its issuance. In other words, this Court"s Registry in Halifax performed a purely mechanical function when it issued the writ of seizure to Joy upon its requisition and by doing so made no determination who owned the ship. Furthermore, no notice is contemplated to the applicant. (See Form 18 and rule 18 for the form of the requisition.)
[12] Second, I was of the view the rules provided the applicant a specific mechanism to challenge the seizure of the ship on the basis that the judgment debtors were not its owners. Rule 448, in my view, governs the processing of an objection to a seizure on this basis and in this respect the laws of Newfoundland would apply because the ship was seized there. Throughout this process the Federal Court has continuing jurisdiction.
[13] Third, in the context of rule 488, it was not appropriate for me to consider at this stage the merits of the applicant"s argument without a full record on whether, in fact, the ship was an asset of the defendants which Joy could look to.
| (b) The Stay |
[14] I issued a stay on condition that the applicant file security for the entire amount of the judgment outstanding. Joy had no objections to such a stay. The applicant had objected to attaching any condition which it said was not permissible under the rules. I was of a different view.
"François Lemieux"
J U D G E
OTTAWA, ONTARIO
JUNE 20, 2000