The database contains 25 case summaries relating to Miscellaneous Maritime Law Topics. The summaries are sorted in reverse date order with 20 summaries per page. If there are more than 20 summaries, use the navigation links at the bottom of the page.
CSL Group Inc. v. Canada,  4 FC 140
This matter was a test case in which the Plaintiff sought to recover substantial damages for delays experienced by its ships in the transit of the St. Lawrence Seaway during November and December, 1989. The delays were caused by a public service strike. Because of the strike ice breakers were not in service and the summer buoys were not removed. This resulted in restrictions on navigation being imposed including closure of sections of the river. Prior to the commencement of the strike, the Crown had the right to designate employees as necessary for the security of the public and if so designated those employees would have been required to perform their duties regardless of the strike. The Crown, in fact, had intended to designate Coast Guard crews but the designation was made out of time and was disallowed. The Plaintiff argued that the Crown's failure to designate the Coast Guard crews was negligent. At trial, the Court dismissed the Plaintiff's action. The trial judge held that the Crown had no obligation to designate employees for the purpose of preventing inconvenience or economic hardship and that the Crown employees who neglected to designate the relevant employees in a timely manner also owed no duty to the Plaintiff. On appeal, the Court of Appeal agreed with the trial judge that there was no duty owed. The Court of Appeal noted that the decision of the Crown as to whether to designate any employees was a policy decision and that a failure to designate was therefore not actionable.
Pacific Shipyards Ltd. v. Canada (Board of Steamship Inspection), No. T-A-58-96(F.C.A.)
The issue in this appeal concerned whether the Trial Judge had correctly determined the proper regime for measuring the tonnage of ships under construction during the period from 1993-1994. The issue arose because of significant amendments to the Tonnage Regulations effective October 17, 1994. The Court of Appeal upheld the Trial Judge who held that the new guidelines applied to ships under construction as of October 17, 1994, if they had not reached a sufficient stage of construction by October 17, 1994, so as to permit one to determine their tonnage under the previous regime with some certainty.
Killam v. Brander-Smith, 1997 CanLII 2387
This was an application to set aside an arbitration award. The arbitration concerned the sale of a 22 foot fibre glass boat. The purchaser alleged that the vendor had misrepresented the condition of the engine. The arbitrator held that the doctrine "buyer beware" applied and found in favour of the vendor. The Court upheld the arbitrator's decision.
Joys v. Canada,  1 FC 149
This unusual case concerned whether a commercial fishing licence could be seized under the provisions of the Customs Act. The facts of the case were that the fishing vessel "Lloyd B. Gore" had been spotted by the U.S. Coast Guard returning from the South China Sea. The vessel was tracked and was ultimately seized with a cargo of marijuana. The vessel and her commercial fishing licence were subsequently declared forfeit. The vessel had a value of $85,000 and the licence had an estimated value of between $300,000 and $400,000. The Court of Appeal held, however, that the licence was not a "conveyance" under the Customs Act and was therefore not subject to forfeiture.
Seamaid Fishing Ltd. v. 328174 B.C. Ltd., 1995 CanLII 254
This was an action in negligence for failure on the part of a manufacturer of rebuilt injectors to warn of defects in the injectors. In December, 1988, twelve fuel injectors, rebuilt by the Defendant, were installed in the Plaintiff's vessel. In April, 1989, one of these injectors failed after only 200 hours service when a tip broke off. In that same month another injector installed on a second ship also failed when a tip broke off. In August, 1990, another of the injectors in the Plaintiff's vessel failed when the injector tip broke off and serious engine damage resulted. The Court acknowledged that there was a duty to immediately warn of any defect or danger in the injectors. However, the Court found that the chances of a third injector failure were very remote and, accordingly, the manufacturer was under no duty to warn of this remote possibility.