T-4296-76
Waterside Ocean Navigation Company, Inc.
(Plaintiff)
v.
International Navigation Ltd., the Ship Lauren-
tian Forest and the Owners and Charterers of the
Ship Laurentian Forest (Defendants)
Trial Division, Thurlow A.C.J.—Halifax, January
19-21; Ottawa, January 25, 1977.
Maritime law — Application for stay of proceedings pend
ing arbitration Whether it is possible for plaintiff to obtain
effective discovery if proceedings stayed — Canadian law not
applicable to matters in dispute.
Defendant I Ltd. seeks a stay of proceedings pending arbitra
tion in London, which was asked for by the plaintiff. Plaintiff
claims that if the proceedings are stayed it will not be able to
obtain effective discovery since the documents required are in
the hands of three other companies, one of which is Canadian.
Held, the proceedings will be stayed pending arbitration. It
seems probable that the applicable law is English law and it is
certainly not Canadian law. Further, the procedures available
for obtaining discovery in the arbitration have not been invoked
and there is no evidence to suggest that they would be
ineffective.
APPLICATION for stay of proceedings.
COUNSEL:
J. E. Gould and W. W. Spicer for plaintiff.
A. R. Donahoe for defendant International
Navigation Ltd.
D. A. Kerr, Q.C., and J. D. Murphy for
defendant Laurentian Forest.
SOLICITORS:
McInnes, Cooper & Robertson, Halifax, for
plaintiff.
Pace, Macintosh & Donahoe, Halifax, for
defendant International Navigation Ltd.
Stewart, MacKeen & Covert, Halifax, for
defendant Laurentian Forest.
The following are the reasons for order deliv
ered orally in English by
THURLOW A.C.J.: This is an application by the
defendant, International Navigation Ltd., for an
order staying the proceedings in this action pend
ing the arbitration of the matters in dispute. The
notice of motion also included an application for
leave to file a conditional ,appearance and an
application for an order dismissing the claim
against the defendant, International. Neither was
pursued.
The case for a stay is, in my opinion, a strong
one. By the time charter on which the cause of
action arises, the plaintiff, a Pennsylvania com
pany, and the defendant, International, a Bahami-
an company, agreed to refer disputes to arbitration
in London. Disputes having arisen, the arbitration
provision was invoked by the plaintiff, arbitrators
were appointed by both parties and the proceed
ings have been pending since May of 1976 in
respect of some of the matters in dispute. It has
also been agreed by the parties to refer to the
arbitrators the further matters in dispute which
have since arisen. There appears to me to be no
preponderance of convenience for necessary wit
nesses to attend here rather than in London. With
out deciding the point, it seems probable that the
applicable law is English law rather than United
States law. At all events, it is not Canadian law.
There is no reason to believe that the arbitration
proceedings will not lead to a just result.
The plaintiff's opposition to a stay is based
mainly on alleged inability to obtain effective dis
covery and production of documents in the arbitra
tion proceedings. The plaintiff asserts that the
defendant, International, does not have the
required documents and cannot secure their pro
duction. It wishes to join three other companies,
one of which is a Canadian company, as parties to
this action as to have the benefit of the discov
ery processes of this Court to compel production of
the documents. However, the procedures available
for obtaining discovery in the arbitration have not
been invoked and I am not satisfied that they
would not be effective. I do not think, therefore,
that there is any sound reason for refusing a stay
of proceedings against the defendant, Internation
al. To that extent the motion succeeds and the
order will be made.
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.