Z.I. Pompey Industrie v. Ecu-Line N.V.

Z.I. Pompey Industrie v. Ecu-Line N.V.
Court (s) Database
Federal Court Decisions
Date
2006-11-02
Neutral citation
2006 FC 1328
File numbers
T-98-98
Decision Content
Date: 20061102
Docket: T-98-98
Citation: 2006 FC 1328
ACTION IN REM AGAINST THE VESSEL”CANMAR FORTUNE”
AND IN PERSONAM AGAINST THE OWNERS AND CHARTERERS
OF THE VESSEL “CANMAR FORTUNE”
BETWEEN:
Z.I. POMPEY INDUSTRIE, SOCIÉTÉ LYONNAISE
DE MESSAGERIES NATIONALES, JOHN S. JAMES CO.
POLYFIBRON TECHNOLOGIES INC.
ELLEHAMMER PACKAGING INC., ALL OTHERS
HAVING AN INTEREST IN THE CARGO LADEN
ON BOARD THE M.V. “CANMAR FORTUNE”
Plaintiffs
and
ECU-LINE N.V., CANADA MARITIME LTD.
ANGLO-EASTERN SHIP MANAGEMENT LTD.
THE OWNERS AND CHARTERERS OF THE VESSEL
“CANMAR FORTUNE,” AND THE VESSEL “CANMAR FORTUNE”
Defendants
ASESSMENT OF COSTS - REASONS
Charles E. Stinson
Assessment Officer
[1] A copy of these Reasons is filed today in Federal Court of Appeal file A-29-00 (Ecu-Line N.V. v. Z.I. Pompey Industrie et al.) and applies there accordingly.
[2] The Defendant, Ecu-Line N.V. (the Ecu Defendant), was unsuccessful before the Federal Court and before the Federal Court of Appeal concerning respectively its motions for stay of claim for damage to cargo and its appeal of the decisions denying a stay. The decision of the Supreme Court of Canada dated May 1, 2003, overturned the decisions in the courts below, issued the stay of proceedings and awarded costs in the courts below. I issued a timetable for written disposition of the assessment of the Ecu Defendant’s bill of costs, which addressed proceedings in the Federal Court and in the Federal Court of Appeal.
[3] The Plaintiffs did not file any materials in response to the Ecu Defendant’s materials. My view, often expressed in comparable circumstances, is that the Federal Courts Rules do not contemplate a litigant benefiting by an assessment officer stepping away from a position of neutrality to act as the litigant’s advocate in challenging given items in a bill of costs. However, the assessment officer cannot certify unlawful items, i.e. those outside the authority of the judgment and the tariff. I examined each item claimed in the bill of costs and the supporting materials within those parameters. There were items which might have attracted disagreement, but the amount claimed in total in the bill of costs is generally arguable within the limits of the award of costs as reasonable in the circumstances of this litigation. The Ecu Defendant’s bill of costs is assessed and allowed as presented at $11,657.65.
“Charles E. Stinson”
Assessment Officer
FEDERAL COURT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: T-98-98
STYLE OF CAUSE: Z.I. POMPEY INDUSTRIE et al.
- and –
ECU-LINE N.V. et al.
ASSESSMENT OF COSTS IN WRITING WITHOUT PERSONAL APPEARANCE OF THE PARTIES
REASONS FOR ASSESSMENT OF COSTS: CHARLES E. STINSON
DATED: November 2, 2006
WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS BY:
n/a
FOR THE PLAINTIFFS
Peter Swanson
FOR THE DEFENDANT,
Ecu Line N.V.
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Davies Ward Phillips & Vineberg LLP
Montreal, QC
FOR THE PLAINTIFFS
Bernard & Partners
Vancouver, BC
FOR THE DEFENDANT,
Ecu-Line N.V.