MARITIME LAW
Appeal, cross‑appeal from Federal Court decision (T‑2185‑06, T‑2142‑06) striking out in rem portions of statement of claim; staying in personam portions of statement of claim—Federal Court erring in law with respect to Federal Courts Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. F‑7, s. 43(2)—Relied on Paramount Enterprises International, Inc. v. An Xin Jiang (The), [2001] 2 F.C. 551 (C.A.), but that case overturned by Phoenix Bulk Carriers Ltd. v. M/V Swift Fortune (The), 2007 SCC 13—Appellant not entitled to commence in rem proceedings under s. 22(2)(i)—Only claim asserted against Atlantic—Atlantic never owner of vessel—Moreover, Court's jurisdiction in rem only exercisable against ship where in personam liability on part of owner—In personam proceedings against Secunda, Pacific struck as no cause of action against them; stayed against Atlantic as required by Commercial Arbitration Code, R.S.C., 1985 (2nd Supp.), c. 17, Sch., Art. 8—Proceedings not within Art. 9.
Maritima de Ecologia, S.A. de C.V. v. Maersk Defender (The) (A‑599‑06, 2007 FCA 194, Nadon J.A., judgment dated 18/5/07, 18 pp.)