Hodder Tugboat Co. Ltd. v. JJM Construction Ltd.

Hodder Tugboat Co. Ltd. v. JJM Construction Ltd.
Court (s) Database
Federal Court of Appeal Decisions
Date
2010-10-21
Neutral citation
2010 FCA 279
File numbers
A-269-09
Decision Content
Federal Court of Appeal
Cour d'appel fédérale
Date: 20101021
Docket: A-269-09
Citation: 2010 FCA 279
CORAM: NOËL J.A.
SHARLOW J.A.
LAYDEN-STEVENSON J.A.
ADMIRALTY ACTION IN PERSONAM and IN REM
BETWEEN:
HODDER TUGBOAT CO. LTD.
Plaintiff (Respondent)
and
JJM CONSTRUCTION LTD., TEXADA QUARRYING LTD.
PACIFIC TOWING SERVICES LTD., OWNERS AND ALL OTHERS
INTERESTED IN THE SHIP, THE “PACIFIC MARINER II”
Defendants (Respondents)
and
NAVIGATORS INSURANCE COMPANY
Intervenor (Appellant)
Heard at Vancouver, British Columbia, on October 21, 2010.
Judgment delivered from the Bench at Vancouver, British Columbia, on October 21, 2010.
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT BY: SHARLOW J.A.
Federal Court of Appeal
Cour d'appel fédérale
Date: 20101021
Docket: A-269-09
Citation: 2010 FCA 279
CORAM: NOËL J.A.
SHARLOW J.A.
LAYDEN-STEVENSON J.A.
ADMIRALTY ACTION IN PERSONAM and IN REM
BETWEEN:
HODDER TUGBOAT CO. LTD.
Plaintiff (Respondent)
and
JJM CONSTRUCTION LTD., TEXADA QUARRYING LTD.
PACIFIC TOWING SERVICES LTD., OWNERS AND ALL OTHERS
INTERESTED IN THE SHIP, THE “PACIFIC MARINER II”
Defendants (Respondents)
and
NAVIGATORS INSURANCE COMPANY
Intervenor (Appellant)
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
(Delivered from the Bench at Vancouver, British Columbia, on October 21, 2010)
SHARLOW J.A.
[1] We are of the view that this appeal must be dismissed.
[2] The order under appeal (2009 FC 161) is Justice Lemieux’s response to unusual circumstances. The solution he adopted is essentially one of case management. It does not offend any principle of law or procedural fairness, and is well within the scope of his discretion. Contrary to the submissions of counsel for Navigator, we see nothing in the present record to indicate that the order under appeal will inevitably cause Navigator or any insured party to be prejudiced or to be placed in a conflict of interest. Nor are we persuaded that, if such circumstances became apparent in the future, they cannot adequately be dealt with by further case management arrangements.
[3] The appeal will be dismissed. Each of the respondents Pacific Towing Services Ltd. and Texada Quarrying Ltd. is entitled to their costs of the appeal.
“Karen Sharlow”
J.A.
FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: A-269-09
STYLE OF CAUSE: HODDER TUGBOAT CO. LTD. v.
JJM CONSTRUCTION LTD., ET AL v.
NAVIGATORS INSURANCE COMPANY
PLACE OF HEARING: Vancouver, British Columbia
DATE OF HEARING: October 21, 2010
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT NOËL J.A.
OF THE COURT BY: SHARLOW J.A.
LAYDEN-STEVENSON J.A.
DELIVERED FROM THE BENCH BY: SHARLOW J.A.
APPEARANCES:
John K. Phillips
FOR THE APPELLANT
J. William Perrett
FOR THE RESPONDENTS
(Pacific Towing Ltd, Owners and all other interested in the Ship “Pacific Mariner II”, the “Pacific Mariner II”
Gary Wharton
FOR THE RESPONDENT
(Texada Quarrying Ltd.)
Michael Adlem
FOR THE RESPONDENT
(JJM Construction Ltd.)
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Fernandes Hearn LLP
Toronto, Ontario
FOR THE APPELLANT
Whitelaw Twinning Law Corporation
FOR THE RESPONDENT
(Hodder Tugboat Co. Ltd.)
J. William Perrett Law Corporation
Vancouver, British Columbia
FOR THE RESPONDENTS
(Pacific Towing Ltd, Owners and all other interested in the Ship “Pacific Mariner II”, the “Pacific Mariner II”
Bernard & Partners
Vancouver, British Columbia
FOR THE RESPONDENT
(Texada Quarrying Ltd.)
Gowling Lafleur Henderson LLP
Vancouver, British Columbia
FOR THE RESPONDENT
(JJM Construction Ltd.)