AdmiraltyLaw.com

Canadian maritime law, admiralty law and shipping law

 

 

Top 5 Requests

bullet Shipping Law News
bullet Admiralty Practice
bullet Marine Insurance
bullet Carriage of Goods
bullet Statutes
bullet Papers

Browse by Topics

bullet Admiralty Practice
bullet Admiralty Jurisdiction
bullet Carriage of Goods
bullet Carriage of Passengers
bullet Collisions
bullet Fisheries Law
bullet Liens
bullet Limitation Periods
bullet Limitation of Liability
bullet Marine Insurance
bullet Miscellaneous Topics
bullet Offshore
bullet Pollution
bullet Tug and Tow

Other Pages

bullet Shipping Law News
bullet Statutes and Regs
bullet Papers
bullet Table of Cases
bullet Giaschi & Margolis
bullet Guest Book
bullet Links
bullet Site Map
bullet UBC Law332
bullet Search

 

 

Fisheries Law

Employment Law

 


By Brad M. Caldwell

 

These summaries are prepared by Brad M. Caldwell,  401-815 Hornby Street, Vancouver, B.C., V6Z 2E6. Telephone (604) 689-8894 - Facsimile (604) 689-5739 - E-mail: bcaldwell@admiraltylaw.com

Copies of many of the decisions referred to can be obtained from the web site of the Canadian Legal Information Institute. At this site, these cases can also be noted up using the Reflex Record to determine whether they have been changed upon appeal.

Employment Law

Masyk v. F.A.S. Seafood 2003 BCSC 1644 (B.C.S.C.)

This case involved a deckhand who was suing the owner of several fishing vessels for wrongful dismissal without proper notice. One issue that was raised during a summary trial application was whether or not the deckhand was an employee so as to be able to sue for wrongful dismissal without notice. The court accepted the vessel owner’s argument that the deckhand was a dependant contractor or free agent rather than an employee and, accordingly, was not automatically entitled to the protection against dismissal without notice provide by either Provincial or Federal legislation. As such, the Court held it was incumbent upon the deckhand to pursue work opportunities with the vessel owner and/or skipper rather than simply waiting to be called to work. 

Editors Note: See also the article posted to the Papers section of the Fisheries’ Page entitled, The Legal Status of Crew Members in the West Coast Fishing Industry:  Employees, Dependant Contractors or Something in Between.

Employment Law – Employment Insurance Appeal

Judicial Review Crown Liability

Mercer v. Canada (Minister of National Revenue [2003] T.C.J. NO. 543, 2003 TCC 652 (Tax Ct. of Canada) (Cain D.T.C.J.)

This case dealt the issue of whether or not the common law spouse of an East Coast fish boat owner who worked as a deckhand on his fishing vessel could be considered an employee for the purpose of a section of the Employment Insurance Act that excluded coverage for employees who do not work at arms length from their employers. Based upon the evidence that the deckhand received 79 per cent of the share of the catch while only performing 50 per cent of the duties, the Court excluded coverage based upon the assumption that she was an employee.