Montréal, Quebec, February 7, 2007
PRESENT: Richard Morneau, Esq., Prothonotary
ADMIRALTY ACTION IN PERSONAM
BETWEEN:
A.P. MOLLER - MAERSK A/S TRADING AS MAERSK SEALAND
Plaintiff
and
MARITIME-ONTARIO FREIGHT LINES LIMITED
REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER
[1] This is a motion by the plaintiff (Maersk) in this docket under Rule 105 of the Federal Courts Rules (the Rules) so that this docket is consolidated with docket T‑2143‑04.
[2] In this docket, T‑1927‑06, Maersk is acting as a plaintiff and commenced an action against Maritime-Ontario on November 3, 2006, so that the latter corporation would ultimately be held responsible for damages that Maersk might suffer due the action commenced by Lagoon Seafood in docket T‑2143‑04.
[3] In docket T‑2143‑04, it should essentially be known that Lagoon Seafood accuses Maersk of ultimately having delivered a shipment of fish in a damaged state. Maersk considers that it is because of the shipment inspection conducted by Maritime-Ontario that that shipment deteriorated. Hence Maersk’s action in T‑1927‑06.
[4] It seems to me that the interests of the administration of justice require that this motion by Maersk be dismissed. In fact, docket T‑2143‑04 is at a rather advanced stage. Indeed, docket T‑2143‑04, which involves Lagoon Seafood against Maersk, is scheduled for trial on June 18, 2007, following an order dated December 7, 2006, which itself arises from the pre-hearing conference that was held on November 1, 2006. It appears to me that by that pre-hearing conference at the latest, Maersk should have raised of the possibility of appealing as a third party against Maritime-Ontario in T‑2143‑04 or raise at that time the fact that it intended to commence a separate action against Maritime-Ontario and request that the trial to be set in T‑2143‑04 take into account the fact that it would request that that separate action be consolidated with T‑2143‑04.
[5] None of this was done, and it appears that docket T‑1927‑06 is far from being ready for trial, given that Maritime-Ontario is considering proceeding with the examination on discovery, and possibly challenging the jurisdiction of this Court.
[6] In conclusion, even if we could consider, from Maersk’s point of view, that its situation as a defendant in T‑2143‑04 and its situation as plaintiff in T‑1927‑06 have aspects in common with respect to the facts and on some questions of law, consolidating both dockets at this stage would cause harm to Lagoon Seafood in T‑2143‑04 and to Maritime-Ontario in T‑1927‑06. Maersk is simply trying to do too much, too late.
ORDER
Maersk’s motion is accordingly dismissed with costs in favour of Maritime-Ontario in this docket, and in favour of Lagoon Seafood in docket T‑2143‑04.
A copy of these Reasons for Order and Order will also be placed in docket T‑2143‑04.
Moreover, as discussed in Court, and under Rule 53(2), the Court does not consider that this docket, T‑1927‑06, is ready for the pre-hearing conference, and the Court therefore cancels the availability dates that were previously offered for that purpose.
“Richard Morneau”
Prothonotary
FEDERAL COURT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: T-1927-06
STYLE OF CAUSE: A.P. MOLLER – MAERSK A/S TRADING AS MAERSK SEALAND
Plaintiff
MARITIME-ONTARIO FREIGHT LINES
LIMITED
Defendant
PLACE OF HEARING: Montréal, Quebec
DATE OF HEARING: February 5, 2007
REASONS FOR ORDER: PROTHONOTARY MORNEAU
APPEARANCES:
| Jean-Marie Fontaine
|
FOR THE PLAINTIFF
|
| Alberto Martinez
|
FOR THE DEFENDANT
|
| Jean-François Bilodeau
|
FOR THE PLAINTIFF
IN DOCKET T‑2143‑04
|
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
| BORDEN LADNER GERVAIS
Montréal, Quebec
|
FOR THE PLAINTIFF
|
| DESLAURIERS JEANSONNE
Montréal, Quebec
|
FOR THE DEFENDANT
|
| ROBINSON SHEPPARD SHAPIRO
Montréal, Quebec
|
FOR THE PLAINTIFF
IN DOCKET T‑2143‑04
|