multi-modal transport and the jurisdiction of … modal transport and the jurisdiction of... ·...

MULTI-MODAL TRANSPORT AND THE JURISDICTION OF THE FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA

Wylie Spicer QC

IIclKns COOPER An Atlantic Canadian Law Finn

April 28 2000

2 Jurisdiction amp Multi-modal Transport lIelllRBe COOPER


WYLIE SPICER QCI

INTRODUCTION

A manufactures widgets in Sydney Australia B sells widgets in Aulae New Brunswick

B decides to purchase its widgets from A to sell in New Brunswick B says to A I will pay you

for the widgets when they are delivered to me in Aulac A then contracts with C to have the

widgets shipped from Sydney to Aulae New Brunswick C then makes arrangements for

shipment including truck transportation ship transportation and rail transportation

To begin the shipment C picks up the widgets and loads them into C-truck As a result

of the unexpected volume of widgets the C-truck collides with an overpass but is able to

continue and delivers the widgets to D who loads them onto D-ship in Sydney and begins the

voyage from Australia to the Port in Halifax Nova Scotia A leak in the hold of D-ship allows

water to enter the containers ofwidgets but that water has drained out and dried up when D-ship

reaches the Port in Halifax E-terminal operator then unloads D-ship but inadvertently drops

one of the containers of widgets The widgets are stored in E-shed until F arrives to load them

onto its railcar During the voyage F-train goes off its track but is eventually able to continue

its voyage to Aulac New Brunswick B arrives at the station in Aulac to pick up the widgets but

discovers upon examination that all of the widgets are damaged and unsaleable B does not pay

A for the widgets

Does the Federal Court of Canada have jurisdiction over As claims resulting from this

scenario or are those claims outside Federal Court jurisdiction

Following the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in ITO-International Terminal

Operators Ltd v Miida Electronics Inc et a12 (ITO) the Federal Court of Canada has had to

re-

Wylie Spicer QC practices Maritime Law as a partner in the Halifax office of Mcinnes Cooper an Atlantic Canadian law firm

(1986)28 DLR 4th 641 2

3 Jurisdiction amp Multi-modal Transport 11101bullbullbull8 COOPER

examine its jur

isdiction in relation to claims arising out of multi-modal transportation The above scenario

while not likely to occur illustrates the problems created by these issues In particular to

resolve this issue the Court must consider federal legislation specifically the Federal Court Act

in light of the division ofpowers between Parliament and provincial legislatures as defined in the

Constitution Act 1867

ITOvMIIDA

The ITO case is the standard against which the Federal Court determines whether it may

exercise jQrisdiction in claims arising out ofmulti-modal transportation

Unlike the example used above the facts in ITO were not unusual A bill of lading

evidenced a contract between the defendant Mitsui and the plaintiff Miida for the shipment of

250 cartons of electronic calculators from Japan to Montreal Mitsui was a marine carrier and

made arrangements with ITO a cargo-handling company to unload and store the calculators in

its warehouse at the Montreal docks until delivery could be made to Miida While the goods

were being stored by ITO 169 of the cartons were stolen Miida sued both ITO and Mitsui

At trial Marceau J held that the Federal Court had jurisdiction over the claim against

ITO as a result of the close link between that contract and the contract for the carriage of goods

by sea between Miida and Mitsui In particular Justice Marceau held that Miida knew that a

stevedore would be involved to unload the cargo and Miida expected to receive that benefit

under its contract with Mitsui

The majority of the Court of Appeal agreed Justice Le Dain for the majority held that

the close relationship between the work performed by ITO and the contract for the carriage of

goods by sea was enough to bring the claim within the jurisdiction of the Federal Court pursuant

to its power to adjudicate matters of maritime law as defmed in s 2 of the Federal Court Act In

dissent Justice Pratte stated that earlier decisions of the Court required a finding of no

jurisdiction Pratte J held that this claim was solely a claim in delict or tort and thus was not

within the jurisdiction of the Federal Court

The Supreme Court of Canada agreed with the lower court decisions holding that the

Federal Court did have jurisdiction over Miidas claim against ITO Speaking for the majority

Justice McIntyre referred to earlier decisions of the Supreme Court of Canada for the test to be

Jurisdiction amp Multi-modal Transport 4 JIIclBS COOPBR

applied in detennining whether the Court had jurisdiction According to Justice McIntyre

earlier decisions from the Supreme Court ofCanada3 established three essential requirements for

a fmding ofjurisdiction Justice McIntyre lists those requirements as follows

1 There must be a statutory grant of jurisdiction by the federal Parliament

2 There must be an existing body of federal law which is essential to the disposition of the case and which nourishes the statutory grant ofjurisdiction

3 The law on which the case is based must be a law of Canada as the phrase is used in s 101 of the Constitution Act 18674

1 Statutory Grant ofJurisdiction by Parliament

In this case Justice McIntyre held that s 22(1) of the Federal Court Act met the first

requirement Section 22(1) then stated

22(1) The Trial Division has concurrent original jurisdiction as well between subject and subject as otherwise in all cases in which a claim for relief is made or a remedy is sought under or by virtue of Canadian Maritime law or any other law of Canada relating to any other matter coming within the class of subject of navigation and shipping except to the extent that jurisdiction has been otherwise specially assigned

2 Existing body ofFederal Law essential to the disposition

To meet the second requirement it was necessary to consider whether there was a law of

Canada in relation to navigation and shipping which was essential to the disposition of this case

In that regard McIntyre J held that the defmition of maritime law in s 2 of the Federal Court

Act encompassed 2 categories5

3 Quebec North Shore Paper Co v Canadian Pacific Ltd (1976) 71 DLR (3d) 111 and McNamara Construction (Western) Ltd v The Queen (1977) 75 DLR (3d) 273 4 p650 5 See p652

5 Jurisdiction amp Multi-modal Transport McINNES COOPER

(1) The law administered by the Exchequer Court of Canada by virtue of the Admiralty Act or any other statute and

(2) Law that would have been administered by the Exchequer Court of Canada if it had exercised unlimited jurisdiction in relation to maritime and admiralty matters

McIntyre J concluded that the first category includes law administered by the High Court

of England on its Admiralty side in 1934 as that law has developed and been amended by both

cases and Parliament In considering whether the claim against ITO fell within the law in

category 1 McIntyre J stated that the claim did not arise from the contract of carriage between

Miida and Mitsui since ITO was not bound to perform any obligations under that bill of

lading6 The decision also points out that s 22(2) of the Federal Court Act could not assist the

Court since the claim against ITO could not fall within any of the specific categories listed in

that subsection As a result the first category of Maritime Law in s 2 did not encompass

Miidas claim against ITO

With respect to the second category ofmaritime law McIntyre J stated

In my view the second part of the s 2 definition of Canadian maritime law was adopted for the purpose of assuring that Canadian maritime law would include an unlimited jurisdiction in relation to maritime and admiralty matters The words maritime and admiralty should be interpreted within the modern context of commerce and shipping In reality the ambit of Canadian maritime law is limited only by the constitutional division of powers in the Constitution Act 1867 I am aware in arriving at this conclusion that a court in determining whether or not any particular case involves a maritime or admiralty matter must avoid encroachment on what is in pith and substance a matter of local concern involving property and civil rights or any other matter which is in essence within exclusive provincial jurisdiction under s 92 of the Constitution Act 1867 It is important therefore to establish that a subject matter under consideration in any case is so integrally connected to maritime matters as to be legitimate maritime law within federal legislative competence7

6 p654 7 pp 656-657

6 Jurisdiction amp Multi-modal Transport IIclES COOPER

Justice McIntyre then refers to an earlier decision of the Supreme Court ofCanada8 which held

that stevedoring was an integral part of shipping On this issue the majority of the Court in ITO

concluded as follows

cargo handling and incidental storage before delivery within the port area is sufficiently linked to the contract ofcarriage by sea to constitute a maritime matter within the ambit of Canadian maritime law9

According to McIntyre J there were three key factors dictating this result (1) the

terminal was within the port of Montreal (2) the connection between the terminal operators

activities within the port and the contract of carriage and (3) the storage in this case was shortmiddot

term pending ftnal delivery to Miida10 Since common law principles ofnegligence and contract

law had been employed in earlier admiralty cases there was a sufficient body of federal law

essential to the disposition ofthe case

3 The law in 2 is a law of Canada as defined in s 101 of the Constitution Act

1867

Canadian maritime law comes within federal powers over navigation and shipping as set

out in s 91(10) of the Constitution Act 1867 thus the third requirement for a ftnding of

jurisdiction was met in ITO

In a short dissenting judgment Chouinard J held simply that a claim for negligence

arising from the storage of goods in a warehouse fell only within the jurisdiction of the province

and thus was outside the jurisdiction of the Federal Court

The majority decision in ITO overruled earlier case law on those issues I I

8 Reference re Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act etc [1955] 3 DLR 721 9 p657 10 See p 657 II See eg Robert Simpson Montreal Ltd v HamburgmiddotAmerika Linie Norddeutscher [1973] FC 304 (TD) where Walsh J dismissed a third party claim against a warehouseman unloading cargo for lack ofjurisdiction although the main action involved a claim for damaged cargo Sumitomo Shoji Canada Ltd v The Juzan Maru (1974) 49 DLR (3d) 277 (TD) Where Dollier J dismissed the plaintiffs claim against the terminal operators following receipt of damaged cargo Domestic Converters Corp v Arctic Steamship Line [1984] 1 Fe 211 where

7 Jurisdiction amp Multi-modal Transport MelbullbullSS coopsa

LeDain J speaking for the majority of the Court of Appeal stated that a finding ofjurisdiction over a tort committed on land would be against tradition

Jurisdiction amp Multi-modal Transport 8 McIlIlIBS COOPBR

OTHER CASE LAW

In determining jurisdictional issues today the Federal Court also has the benefit of

Iacobucci Js interpretation of ITO in Monk Corp v Island Fertilizers Ltd)2 The claims in the

Monk case arose out of a contract for the sale of fertilizer to be supplied by ship Monk had three

separate claims for damages 1) a claim related to excess product delivered 2) a demurrage

claim due to problems in unloading and 3) a claim for the cost of renting shore cranes to unload

the fertilizer

Iacobucci J speaking for the majority explained the findings in ITO as follows

Reduced to their essentials for purposes of this appeal the reasoning and conclusions ofMcIntyre J were as follows

(1) The second part of the s2 definition of Canadian maritime law provides an unlimited jurisdiction in relation to maritime and admiralty matters which should not be historically confined or frozen and maritime and admiralty should be interpreted within the modem context of commerce and shipping

(2) Canadian maritime law is limited only by the constitutional division of powers in the Constitution Act 1867 such that in determining whether or not any particular case involves a maritime or admiralty matter encroachment on what is in pith and substance a matter falling within Section 92 of the Constitution Act is to be avoided

(3) The test for determining whether the subject matter under consideration is within maritime law requires a finding that the subject matter is so integrally connected to maritime matters as to be legitimate Canadian maritime law within federal competence

(4) The connecting factors with maritime law were the proximity of the terminal operation to the Port of Montreal the connection between the terminal operator in activities within the port area and the contract of carriage by sea and the fact that the storage in issue in the case was short term pending final delivery to the consignee Miida I3

12 (1991) 80 DLR (4th) 58 (SCC) I3 p91


Applying these standards Justice Iacobucci held that all three claims against Island

Fertilizers fell within the jurisdiction of the Federal Court In particular Iacobucci J noted that

the claim for excess product delivered related directly to Island Fertilizers obligation to

discharge cargo from the ship Similarly the claim for demurrage was directly related to the

discharge of cargo Finally the use of shore cranes was closely connected with maritime matters

because it resulted from the lack of equipment on the ship to discharge the cargo without aid

Since the discharge of cargo is clearly a maritime matter a failure to discharge cargo is also a

maritime matter

In conclusion Justice Iacobucci states simply What is important for purposes of

maritime law jurisdiction is that their claim be integrally connected with maritime matters14

For comparison purposes the decisions in SIO Export Trading Co v The Dart Europe15

and United Tires amp Rubber Co v Transco Shipping Inc 16 illustrate the difference between cases

decided prior to ITO and those decided after that decision

In the SIO Export case the goods had been transported inland from the ship for repacking

and were damaged in a traffic accident occurring on the way back to the ship Justice Dube held

that transportation within the province was not a traditional maritime activity The fact that the

truck was returning cargo to a ship could not bring the matter within the subject of navigation

and shipping thus the Court had no jurisdiction to hear the claim

In the United Tires case Richard J considered a similar action The plaintiff contracted

for the shipment of two containers of tires from Ontario to Cuba but the tires were stolen from a

storage area in Montreal before they could be placed on the ship The plaintiff sued inter alia

the owner of the yard from which the tires had been stolen Contrary to the decision in the Sio

Export case Justice Richard held that the Federal Court had jurisdiction over the claims against

both defendants because the contract entered into by the plaintiff was essentially a contract for

the carriage of goods by sea Without reference to ITO Richard J held that the Court could

exercise jurisdiction because of a through bill of lading evidencing the plaintiffs contract The

fact that the other party to the bill of lading arranged for transport to Montreal by truck for the

14 p95 15 (1983) 144 DLR (3d) 182 (Fe TD) 16 (1994) 88 FTR 12

Jurisdiction amp Multi-modal Transport 10 MelllllBS COOPBR

goods to be loaded on the vessel was not enough oust the jurisdiction of the Federal Court

Richard 1 particularly considered s 22(2)(f) of the Federal Court Act Section 22(2)(f) states

22(2)(f) any claim arising out of an agreement relating to the carriage of goods on a ship under a through bill of lading or in respect of which a through bill of lading is intended to be issued for loss or damage to goods occurring at any time or place during transit

The Court held that this subsection was enough for the exercise of jurisdiction over the claim

against the defendant trucking company

Another case addressing s 22 (2)(f) is Watt amp Scott Inc v Chantry Shipping SA17 In

that case the plaintiff purchased nuts to be shipped from Brazil to Manitoba The cargo left

Brazil on a ship but was loaded onto a train owned by the defendant in Alabama When the nuts

arrived in Manitoba they had become infected and had to be sold at a discount Joyal J held that

the Court had jurisdiction over both the claim against the shipowner and the claim against the

railway company ITO was considered but the case was decided on other grounds Initially the

Court focussed on whether there was a through bill of lading as described in Section 22(2)(f)

of the Federal Court Act Justice Joyal however held that the facts before the Court were

insufficient to make that determination As a result Joyal J turned to the decision of the

Supreme Court of Canada in ITO stating

The Supreme Courts reasoning nevertheless did extend the field of maritime law to stevedoring duties and responsibilities on the indicia of their proximity of their close relationship to the contract of carriage and of their short duration Quaere whether these tests may be applied with respect to Burlington Northerns carriage of the goods from Mobile to WinnipegI8

Joyal J again refuses to decide the case on that ground leaving the issue open and

focussing instead on s 23 of the Federal Court Act which reads

23 Bills of Exchange and Promissory Notes Aeronautics and Inter- Provincial Works and Undertakings - except to the extent that jurisdiction has been otherwise specially assigned the Trial Division has concurrent original jurisdiction between subject and subject as well as otherwise in all cases for which a claim for

17 [1988] 1 FC 537 (TD) 18 p546

Jurisdiction amp Multi-modal Transport 11 MclRRES COOPER

relief is made or a remedy is sought under an act of parliament or otherwise in relation to any matter coming within any of the following classes of subjects namely

(a) bills of exchange and promissory notes where the Crown is a party to the proceedings

(b) aeronautics and

(c) works and undertakings connecting a province with any other province or extending beyond the limits of a prOVInce

Joyal J applied the ITO test requiring 3 pre-requisites to a finding of jurisdiction To meet the

first requirement of a statutory grant ofjurisdiction Joyal J focussed not on the s 22 jurisdiction

over maritime matters generally but on whether the business of the railway company brought it

within the language of s 23 Joyal J held that the railway company was an undertaking

extending beyond the limits of Manitoba into Alabama bringing it within s 23( c) In meeting

the final two requirements (an existing body of federal law a law as defined in s 101 of the

Constitution Act 1867) s 262 of the Railway Act imposing a duty of due diligence on railway

companies was sufficient to meet both the second and third pre-requisite and was held to apply

in this case

Not limiting his analysis to ITO Joyal J went back to the basics of federal legislation In

this manner the decision looks at the roots of jurisdictional issues to see whether specific

legislation enacted by Parliament existed to deal with the issue This analysis avoided any

consideration of whether the claim against the railway was integrally connected to maritime

matters While this situation will not arise in all cases certainly many trucking and railway

companies extend beyond the limits of a province and may fall within s 23 Perhaps Joyal J

got it right by attempting to focus on federal legislation for a finding of jurisdiction instead of

relying solely on the integral connection standard from ITO

Marley Co v Cast North America (J 983) Inc 19 involved a similar action against a

defendant railroad The plaintiff contracted for the carriage of goods from Illinois to Holland

The carriers under that contract contracted with the defendant railway company to carry the

goods to Montreal for shipment by sea The railway company attempted to produce evidence

showing that it would not have carried the container to Montreal by itself but would have

19 (1995)94 FTR 45

Jurisdiction amp Multi-modal Transport 12 1101111188 COOP8R

retained another carrier This fact of course would not allow the Court to exercise jurisdiction

under s 23 of the Federal Court Act In determining whether the Court had jurisdiction Nadon

J examined s 22 of the Federal Court Act Nadon J distinguished this case from others by

stating that the defendant railway company had not been a party to any contract of carriage with

the plaintiffs Instead the railway company had contracted with another defendant only for

shipment by rail The plaintiffs goods here would have eventually been carried by rail ship

and truck Justice Nadon concluded

I am certainly not prepared to accept that a contract to carry goods by rail or by truck in the United States Canada or Europe is within the maritime jurisdiction of this Court simply because they are part of the on-going movement ofa container20

According to the decision the claim against this railway company did not fall within the

jurisdiction of s 22 of the Federal Court Act however there was insufficient evidence to

determine whether the company fell within the language used in s 23 of the Act As a result the

motion for a dismissal of the claim was dismissed The Court refused once again to look solely

at the ITO standard and referred only to federal legislation

In Matsuura Machiner Corp v Hapag Lloyd A G 21 NYK an ocean carrier agreed to

carry cargo under a through bill of lading from Japan to Toronto NYK then contracted with

Melburn for carriage of the cargo by truck to Mississauga where it would be loaded onto a

vessel Upon arrival by truck the goods were found to be damaged The plaintiffs sued both

NYK and Melburn The appellants agreed that the circumstances in ITO were not present in this

case but argued that jurisdiction should be found in s 22(2)(f) and s 23 of the Federal Court

Act Justice Pratte speaking for the Court held that s 22(2)(f) did not apply as the claims

against Melburn did not arise out of an agreement relating to the carriage of goods on a ship

under a through bill oflading as required in that subsection Further s 23 could not apply since

there was no federal law to support the claims made against Melburn

The Supreme Court of Canada almost had a third opportunity to review these issues in

the recent case of Pakistan National Shipping Corp v Canada22bull Leave to appeal was granted

but the appeal was eventually discontinued23 The disputed claim in this case involved a third

20 pp 49-50 21 (1997)211 NR 156 (CA) 22 [1997] 3 FC 601 23 [1997] SCCA No 375 (QL)


party claim for negligent misrepresentation in relation to containers used to ship oil by sea The

canola oil in the containers leaked while being carried on the plaintiffs ship causing damage

The defendant shipper claimed indemnification from the container supplier Attempting to apply

ITO the Court of Appeal held that the claim was integrally connected to the maritime

jurisdiction of the Federal Court Stone JA referred to the decisions in both ITO and Monk

then stated

It would thus appear that the root of the claims in the main action for losses incurred by reason of the collapse of the plastic drums in stow during the voyage to Pakistan was the sufficiency of the drums themselves to withstand the conditions experienced by the ship In my view the third party claim is integrally connected to the Courts admiralty and maritime jurisdiction24

The main contract was for the carriage of goods by sea thus the Courts jurisdiction extended to

the alleged tort committed by the supplier of the oil drums

A recent decision on the topic of multi-modal transport is the Court ofAppeal decision in

Garfield Container Transport Inc v Uniroyal Goodrich Canada25 In that case the plaintiff

sued when it was not paid for its services in trucking cargo from Kitchener Ontario to a Port in

New Jersey The defendant had sold the goods in question to a company who then contracted

with a third company for the transportation of the goods The third company did not pay the

plaintiff for its services in relation to that transportation Denault J speaking for the Court

stated that this case was similar to that in Matsuura Machiner The Federal Court had no

jurisdiction over a claim relating only to road transportation of goods

ANALYSIS

Under the law established in ITO there are three pre-requisites to finding jurisdiction

over cases involving multi-modal transportation 1) a statutory grant ofjurisdiction by the federal

Parliament 2) an existing body of federal law essential to the disposition of the case and 3) an

existing body of law which is a law of Canada as defined in s 101 of the Constitution Act

1867

Many of the decisions after ITO have ignored the three-pronged test mandated by ITO

focussing instead on the words integrally connected to maritime law Justice McIntyres

24 p625 25 (1998)229 NR 201

14 Jurisdiction amp Multi-modal Transport MellflfB COOPER

decision did centre on prong 2 of the test but requirements 1 and 3 were easily met in that case

Where the case involves some aspect of maritime law as in ITO the Supreme Court of Canada

has decided that s 22 of the Federal Court Act meets the requirement for a statutory grant of

jurisdiction However where maritime law is not directly involved in the claim (as may have

been the case in both the Matsuura Machiner and the Garfield Container cases) the Court must

look further for a statutory grant of jurisdiction If there is no statutory law there is no

jurisdiction

Where the claim is related to maritime law the Court must then consider whether the

claim falls within either category of maritime law as defined in s 2 of the Federal Court Act If

the defendant and the plaintiff were both parties to a contract of carriage the claim will fall

within the first category of law as exercised by the High Court of England in 1934 on its

Admiralty side Where however one party was not obliged to perfonn any obligation under the

contract for carriage the Court must then consider the second category ofmaritime law

The second category includes unlimited jurisdiction in relation to maritime and admiralty

matters which jurisdiction is pennitted to evolve in the context of modern commerce and

shipping - enter the limits imposed by the division of powers in the Constitution Act 1867 It is

here that the Court must consider whether the claim is integrally connected with maritime

matters

While there is not yet an established rule to detennine which cases will be integrally

connected and which will not ITO and Monk provide helpful guidelines In particular the Court

must consider whether the essence of the claim is a matter that falls within provincial jurisdiction

under s 92 of the Constitution Act 1867 The Court must also consider whether it is the type of

claim traditionally connected with maritime matters (unloading and storage of cargo at a Port as

in ITO) or another federal power In Watt amp Scott Inc v Chantry Shipping for example Joyal

J held that the matter was within federal jurisdiction as a result of both the Railway Act and the

Federal Court Act Considerations of whether a particular claim has an integral connection to

maritime matters involves not only consideration of traditional and modern maritime law but

also consideration of the pith and substance of the matter to detennine whether it was a matter

delegated to the provinces exclusive jurisdiction or a matter over which the federal Parliament

retained jurisdiction Each case should be decided in light of the division of powers in s 91 and

s 92 of the Constitution Act 1867

15 Jurisdiction amp Multi-modal Transport McINNBS COOPBR

The third requirement is that the law in requirement 2 be a law of Canada as defined in

section 101 of the Constitution Act 1867 If the issue under requirement 2 is met there will be

no issue under requirement 3 If the matter is essentially federal in nature then the essential

law will be a law of Canada pursuant to s 101

Coming back to the example used at the outset we are now able to determine whether

As claims fall within the jurisdiction of the Federal Court If A wished to sue B for non~

payment the Federal Court would not have jurisdiction over that claim The arrangement

between B and A was in essence a contract for the sale of goods and thus falls properly within

the jurisdiction of provincial courts and not the Federal Court If however A wished to sue C for

the loss the claim would be within Federal Court jurisdiction A had contracted with C for

shipment of the widgets from Sydney to Aulac New Brunswick The essence of this

arrangement was for the carriage of goods by sea - A needed to transport widgets across the

world to B

Can C then claim indemnity from the various carriers involved C could certainly sue D

for any damage caused during the sea voyage and E for damage occurring during unloading or

storage since that is integrally connected to maritime matters under the ITO standard Could C

also bring an action for indemnity against F F is a railway company extending beyond the

limits ofa province within the meaning of s 23 of the Federal Court Act This brings Cs claim

against F also within the jurisdiction of the Federal Court not because of an integral connection

with maritime matters but because the Court has jurisdiction over the claim separate and apart

from any connection to the contract for the carriage of goods by sea

(2391211)

JCllcc

2 Jurisdiction amp Multi-modal Transport lIelllRBe COOPER


WYLIE SPICER QCI

INTRODUCTION

A manufactures widgets in Sydney Australia B sells widgets in Aulae New Brunswick

B decides to purchase its widgets from A to sell in New Brunswick B says to A I will pay you

for the widgets when they are delivered to me in Aulac A then contracts with C to have the

widgets shipped from Sydney to Aulae New Brunswick C then makes arrangements for

shipment including truck transportation ship transportation and rail transportation

To begin the shipment C picks up the widgets and loads them into C-truck As a result

of the unexpected volume of widgets the C-truck collides with an overpass but is able to

continue and delivers the widgets to D who loads them onto D-ship in Sydney and begins the

voyage from Australia to the Port in Halifax Nova Scotia A leak in the hold of D-ship allows

water to enter the containers ofwidgets but that water has drained out and dried up when D-ship

reaches the Port in Halifax E-terminal operator then unloads D-ship but inadvertently drops

one of the containers of widgets The widgets are stored in E-shed until F arrives to load them

onto its railcar During the voyage F-train goes off its track but is eventually able to continue

its voyage to Aulac New Brunswick B arrives at the station in Aulac to pick up the widgets but

discovers upon examination that all of the widgets are damaged and unsaleable B does not pay

A for the widgets

Does the Federal Court of Canada have jurisdiction over As claims resulting from this

scenario or are those claims outside Federal Court jurisdiction

Following the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in ITO-International Terminal

Operators Ltd v Miida Electronics Inc et a12 (ITO) the Federal Court of Canada has had to

re-

Wylie Spicer QC practices Maritime Law as a partner in the Halifax office of Mcinnes Cooper an Atlantic Canadian law firm

(1986)28 DLR 4th 641 2


examine its jur






ITOvMIIDA























































6 p654 7 pp 656-657













1867












OTHER CASE LAW






the fertilizer







12 (1991) 80 DLR (4th) 58 (SCC) I3 p91









maritime matter




















14 p95 15 (1983) 144 DLR (3d) 182 (Fe TD) 16 (1994) 88 FTR 12





















17 [1988] 1 FC 537 (TD) 18 p546




(b) aeronautics and










in this case














19 (1995)94 FTR 45



































then stated












ANALYSIS





1867



24 p625 25 (1998)229 NR 201








jurisdiction











matters



























world to B









(2391211)

JCllcc


examine its jur






ITOvMIIDA























































6 p654 7 pp 656-657













1867












OTHER CASE LAW






the fertilizer







12 (1991) 80 DLR (4th) 58 (SCC) I3 p91









maritime matter




















14 p95 15 (1983) 144 DLR (3d) 182 (Fe TD) 16 (1994) 88 FTR 12





















17 [1988] 1 FC 537 (TD) 18 p546




(b) aeronautics and










in this case














19 (1995)94 FTR 45



































then stated












ANALYSIS





1867



24 p625 25 (1998)229 NR 201








jurisdiction











matters



























world to B









(2391211)

JCllcc
































6 p654 7 pp 656-657













1867












OTHER CASE LAW






the fertilizer







12 (1991) 80 DLR (4th) 58 (SCC) I3 p91









maritime matter




















14 p95 15 (1983) 144 DLR (3d) 182 (Fe TD) 16 (1994) 88 FTR 12





















17 [1988] 1 FC 537 (TD) 18 p546




(b) aeronautics and










in this case














19 (1995)94 FTR 45



































then stated












ANALYSIS





1867



24 p625 25 (1998)229 NR 201








jurisdiction











matters



























world to B









(2391211)

JCllcc













1867












OTHER CASE LAW






the fertilizer







12 (1991) 80 DLR (4th) 58 (SCC) I3 p91









maritime matter




















14 p95 15 (1983) 144 DLR (3d) 182 (Fe TD) 16 (1994) 88 FTR 12





















17 [1988] 1 FC 537 (TD) 18 p546




(b) aeronautics and










in this case














19 (1995)94 FTR 45



































then stated












ANALYSIS





1867



24 p625 25 (1998)229 NR 201








jurisdiction











matters



























world to B









(2391211)

JCllcc




OTHER CASE LAW






the fertilizer







12 (1991) 80 DLR (4th) 58 (SCC) I3 p91









maritime matter




















14 p95 15 (1983) 144 DLR (3d) 182 (Fe TD) 16 (1994) 88 FTR 12





















17 [1988] 1 FC 537 (TD) 18 p546




(b) aeronautics and










in this case














19 (1995)94 FTR 45



































then stated












ANALYSIS





1867



24 p625 25 (1998)229 NR 201








jurisdiction











matters



























world to B









(2391211)

JCllcc









maritime matter




















14 p95 15 (1983) 144 DLR (3d) 182 (Fe TD) 16 (1994) 88 FTR 12





















17 [1988] 1 FC 537 (TD) 18 p546




(b) aeronautics and










in this case














19 (1995)94 FTR 45



































then stated












ANALYSIS





1867



24 p625 25 (1998)229 NR 201








jurisdiction











matters



























world to B









(2391211)

JCllcc





















17 [1988] 1 FC 537 (TD) 18 p546




(b) aeronautics and










in this case














19 (1995)94 FTR 45



































then stated












ANALYSIS





1867



24 p625 25 (1998)229 NR 201








jurisdiction











matters



























world to B









(2391211)

JCllcc




(b) aeronautics and










in this case














19 (1995)94 FTR 45



































then stated












ANALYSIS





1867



24 p625 25 (1998)229 NR 201








jurisdiction











matters



























world to B









(2391211)

JCllcc



































then stated












ANALYSIS





1867



24 p625 25 (1998)229 NR 201








jurisdiction











matters



























world to B









(2391211)

JCllcc








jurisdiction











matters



























world to B









(2391211)

JCllcc














world to B









(2391211)

JCllcc

multi-modal transport and the jurisdiction of … modal transport and the jurisdiction of... ·...

Documents