Donohue Inc. v. Ocean Link ( The )
T-1692-92
Wetston J.
14/3/95
5 pp.
Claim for cargo damage occurring during unloading of newsprint shipped from port in Quebec to port in England -- Third party plaintiff (carrier) contracting with plaintiffs for carriage and unloading of goods -- Third party defendant (stevedore) providing stevedoring services for cargo pursuant to contract with either carrier or with plaintiffs -- Parties not in agreement as to existence of contract between them -- Stevedore objecting to Court's jurisdiction to adjudicate third party proceedings on basis of: contractual jurisdiction clause; or (2) forum conveniens doctrine -- Counsel finding no case relating to stay of third party action raising either issue of contractual jurisdiction clause or forum non conveniens argument -- Third party action must be considered separately from main action -- Federal Court Trial Division having jurisdiction to hear matter -- As Court unable to determine existence of contract on interlocutory motion, also unable to determine whether carrier bound by jurisdictional clause of such contract -- Carrier contending Canada appropriate forum conveniens as: (1) no discovery process available in U.K.; (2) prejudice arising from possibility of conflicting judgments; (3) indemnity claim time-barred in U.K. -- Court relying on Amchem Products Inc. v. British Columbia (Workers' Compensation Board), [1993] 1 S.C.R. 897 holding: (1) forum selected by plaintiff displaced only upon clear evidence of more appropriate forum; and (2) Court must determine which juridical and personal factors most closely connect litigation and parties to competing fora -- Likeliness of duplicity of litigation operating against exercise of Court's discretion in granting stay -- Motion dismissed.