Federal Court of Appeal Decisions

Decision Information

Decision Content

                                                                                                                                            Date: 20010730

                                                                                                                                         Docket: A-924-97

Neutral Citation: 2001 FCA 245

ACTION IN REM AGAINST THE CARGO OF EXPLOSIVES OF ABOUT 500 METRIC TONS "PRILLED TNT" AND 500 METRIC TONS "FLAKED TNT" UN0209 1.1D., PRESENTLY ON BOARD THE VESSEL "AN XIN JIANG", ITS OWNERS AND ALL OTHER PERSONS INTERESTED THEREIN AND AGAINST THE VESSEL "AN XIN JIANG", ITS CARGO AND ITS OWNERS AND ALL OTHER PERSONS INTERESTED THEREIN AND IN PERSONAM AGAINST BESTON CHEMICAL CORPORATION, INC., CHINA NORTH CHEMICAL INDUSTRIES CORPORATION, CHINA XINSHIDAI COMPANY, CHINA OCEAN SHIPPING (GROUP) CO. (COSCO) AND GUANGZHOU OCEAN SHIPPING COMPANY (COSCO GUANGZHOU)

Between:

BESTON CHEMICAL CORPORATION INC.

Appellant

AND

PARAMOUNT ENTERPRISES INTERNATIONAL, INC.

Respondent

ASSESSMENT OF COSTS - REASONS

MICHELLE LAMY, ASSESSMENT OFFICER


[1]         Pursuant to a motion to strike out by the defendants China Ocean Shipping (Group) Co. and Guangzhou Ocean Shipping Company (hereinafter referred to as "Cosco") in docket T-956-97, Mr. Richard Morneau, Prothonotary, ordered on September 30, 1997 that the action in rem by Paramount in relation to the vessel and the cargo did not disclose any reasonable cause of action. On December 17, 1997, Madam Justice Tremblay-Lamer allowed in part the appeal filed by the plaintiff.

[2]         On December 15, 2000, the Court of Appeal allowed the appeals of the defendants Cosco (A-929-97) and Beston Chemical Corporation Inc. (A-924-97) and restored the order of Prothonotary Richard Morneau of September 30, 1997 while awarding the defendants/appellants their costs both at trial and on appeal.

[3]         The assessment of the costs of Beston Chemical Corporation was held on June 8, 2001 in the presence of Ms. Marilyn Thibault as well as Mr. Guy Vaillancourt, counsel for the defendants/appellants Cosco, and Mr. Jean-Marie Fontaine representing the plaintiff/respondent. The costs incurred by Beston Chemical, both at trial and on appeal, amount to $11,956.71, or $10,400.00 in fees calculated under Tariff B and $1,556.71 for miscellaneous disbursements. It should be noted that this assessment was held at the same time as that of the defendants/appellants Cosco (T-956-97).

[4]         Ms. Marilyn Thibault is requesting in her bill of costs the maximum units provided in column III for the services rendered under Tariff B. Since the submissions by the parties on this point are identical to those advanced in docket T-956-97, all of the fees requested by Beston Chemical are awarded for the same reasons, other than the following items, which are assessed as follows:


-            Mr. Vaillancourt withdrew his request under item 24 because of the decision rendered by Mr. Justice Denault in Sim v. Buttino Investments Inc. (1997), F.C.J. No. 1607;

-            the claims made under item 13(a) for the preparation of submissions and books of authorities in anticipation of the hearing of Cosco's motion before the Prothonotary Richard Morneau and preparation for the hearing of Paramount's appeal, which was heard by Madam Justice Tremblay-Lamer, are assessed under item 5 (7 units) because these were interlocutory motions.

[5]         In regard to the court fees paid under Tariff A ($50) and the disbursements incurred in the amount of $1,506.71, they are awarded as such, as they are not contested by Mr. Lauzon.

[8]         Beston Chemical Corporation's costs are therefore assessed in the amount of $11,856.71, and a certificate shall issue for that amount. As to the interest requested on the costs, my decision is the same as that rendered in docket T-956-97.

MICHELLE LAMY

ASSESSMENT OFFICER

MONTRÉAL, QUEBEC

July 30, 2001

Certified true translation

Suzanne M. Gauthier, LL.L., Trad. a.


FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA

APPEAL DIVISION

Date: 20010730

                                                             Docket: A-924-97

Between:

BESTON CHEMICAL CORPORATION, INC.

Appellant

AND

PARAMOUNT ENTERPRISES INTERNATIONAL, INC.,

Respondent

ASSESSMENT OF COSTS - REASONS


FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA

APPEAL DIVISION

NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD

DOCKET NO:                          A-924-97

STYLE:                                      

Between:

BESTON CHEMICAL CORPORATION, INC.

Appellant

AND

PARAMOUNT ENTERPRISES INTERNATIONAL, INC.,

Respondent

PLACE OF HEARING:            Québec, Quebec

DATE OF HEARING: June 8, 2001

ASSESSMENT OF COSTS - REASONS OF MICHELLE LAMY, ASSESSMENT OFFICER

DATED:                                     July 30, 2001

APPEARANCES:

Jean-Marie Fontaine                                                                       FOR THE RESPONDENT (PLAINTIFF) PARAMOUNT INTERNATIONAL INC.

Guy Vaillancourt                                                                             FOR CHINA OCEAN SHIPPING (GROUP) CO. (COSCO) ET GUANGZHOU OCEAN SHIPPING COMPANY (COSCO GUANGZHOU)

Marilyn Thibault                                                                              FOR THE APPELLANT (DEFENDANT) BESTON CHEMICAL CORPORATION


                                                                                                                                                            Page: 2

SOLICITORS OF RECORD:

Sproule, Pollack

Montréal, Quebec                                                                          FOR THE RESPONDENT (PLAINTIFF) PARAMOUNT INTERNATIONAL INC.

Étude légale Guy Vaillancourt

Québec, Quebec                                                                            FOR CHINA OCEAN SHIPPING (GROUP) CO. (COSCO) ET GUANGZHOU OCEAN SHIPPING COMPANY (COSCO GUANGZHOU)

Langlois Gaudreau

Québec, Quebec                                                                            FOR THE APPELLANT (DEFENDANT) BESTON CHEMICAL CORPORATION

 You are being directed to the most recent version of the statute which may not be the version considered at the time of the judgment.