Sansom Equipment Ltd. v. Intertech Marine Ltd.

Sansom Equipment Ltd. v. Intertech Marine Ltd.
Court (s) Database
Federal Court Decisions
Date
2002-09-24
Neutral citation
2002 FCT 997
File numbers
T-1159-02
Notes
Digest
Decision Content
Date: 20020924
Docket: T-1159-02
Neutral citation: 2002 FCT 997
SIMPLIFIED ACTION
ADMIRALTY ACTION IN REM AGAINST AN UNNAMED VESSEL DESCRIBED AS
A BRUCE ROBERTS DESIGN, 62 FEET IN LENGTH, OF STEEL CONSTRUCTION,
POWERED BY A JOHN DEERE MARINE ENGINE BEARING SERIAL # 149566
BETWEEN:
SANSOM EQUIPMENT LIMITED, a body corporate
carrying on business under the name and style of
"EASTCOAST POWER SYSTEMS"
Plaintiff
and
INTERTECH MARINE LIMITED and AN UNNAMED VESSEL
DESCRIBED AS A BRUCE ROBERTS DESIGN, 62 FEET IN LENGTH,
OF STEEL CONSTRUCTION, POWERED BY A JOHN DEERE MARINE ENGINE
BEARING SERIAL # 149566, HER OWNERS, CHARTERERS, OPERATORS
AND THOSE INTERESTED IN HER
Defendants
and
THOMAS W. SPRINGER, and
3070687 NOVA SCOTIA LIMITED
Intervenors
REASONS FOR ORDER
MacKAY J.
[1] These are brief reasons for my disposal of an application for leave of the Court to intervene in a simplified action.
[2] While the Rules make no specific provision for this, I allowed an application for leave to intervene, which was not opposed in principle. The intervenors are an individual, Thomas W. Springer, and a numbered company, 3070687 Nova Scotia Limited, claiming to be the sole shareholder and the owner, respectively, of the unnamed defendant vessel. They had not been served with arresting documents for the vessel and knew nothing of the formal judicial proceedings until early September, 2002.
[3] Counsel for the parties were uncertain about the Court's authority to permit an intervention in light of the rules concerning simplified actions. All were agreed that in principle those seeking to intervene in this matter should have a right to be heard in relation to the claim of the plaintiffs, and that if this could only be done by an order that the intervention be permitted as though this were a regular action, the action should then be ordered to continue as a simplified proceeding.
[4] In my opinion, the rules for intervention are adequate to permit an intervenor to participate in a simplified action where the interests of justice are so served. In my view this was clearly such a case. It seems to me unnecessary to order that the action be treated as a regular action, then permit intervention, and then a further order that it continue as a simplified action. Rule 298, relating to simplified actions, which limits interlocutory motions, in my opinion, is directed to the parties to an action and it does not preclude an interlocutory application by a third party to intervene, pursuant to Rule 109, of the Federal Court Rules, 1998.
[5] Thus, the application to intervene was allowed, with the intervenors to be treated as though served as defendants and with a date fixed, September 30, 2002, for filing of intervenors' pleadings herein. The Order also provides that the style of cause be amended accordingly, and henceforth it shall be as set out at the commencement of these Reasons.
(signed) W. Andrew MacKay
____________________________
JUDGE
OTTAWA, Ontario
September 24, 2002.
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
TRIAL DIVISION
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: T-1159-02
STYLE OF CAUSE: SANSOM EQUIPMENT LIMITED, a body corporate carrying on business under the name and style of "EAST COAST POWER SYSTEMS" v. INTERTECH MARINE LIMITED AND OTHERS
PLACE OF HEARING: HALIFAX
DATE OF HEARING: SEPTEMBER 18, 2002
REASONS FOR ORDER : MACKAY J.
DATED:
APPEARANCES:
A. WILLIAM MOREIRA FOR INTENDED
AND JENNIFER GRAY INTERVENERS THOMAS W. SPRINGER AND 3070687 NOVA SCOTIA LIMITED
PETER L. COULTHARD FOR PLAINTIFF
JAMES E. GOULD FOR DEFENDANT INTERTECH MARINE LIMITED
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
PATTERSON PALMER FOR INTENDED
HALIFAX, NOVA SCOTIA INTERVENERS THOMAS W. SPRINGER AND 3070687 NOVA SCOTIA LIMITED
SEALY CORNISH FOR PLAINTIFF
DARTMOUTH, NOVA SCOTIA
METCALF & COMPANY FOR DEFENDANT
HALIFAX, NOVA SCOTIA INTERTECH MARINE LIMITED