Miscellaneous Maritime Law Topics
No Commentary/Additional Information Available
Sorry, but we have no commentary or additional information on this topic.
The database contains 30 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.
Please note that to facilitate easier browsing and indentification of a relevant case on small devices, we have truncated the summaries which requires you to click "more" to view a full summary. If you wish to view these summaries without truncation, click here
Pilotage – Ferries
Navigation Madeleine Inc. v. Canada,  FCA 10
The issue in this case was whether the ship “C.T.M.A. Vacancier” which operated on a route from the Iles-de-la-Madeleine to Montreal was a “ferry” within the meaning of the Pilotage Act and the Laurentian Pilotage Authority Regulations and therefore exempt from compulsory pilotage. The Federal Court of Appeal reviewed the relevant statutory provisions and dictionary definitions of “ferry” and concluded that the exemption was for traditional “ferry” vessels whose routes cut across the navigation channels in the St. Lawrence River. The “C.T.M.A. Vacancier”, in contrast, travelled over 340 miles following the channel throughout its length and was, therefore, not exempt from compulsory pilotage.
Fire – Res Ipsa Loquitur – Damages
Strachan v. The “Constant Craving” et al., 2003 FCT 86
This was an action by the Plaintiffs against the Defendants in negligence for damage caused to the Plaintiffs' vessel when the Defendant's vessel caught fire. The Plaintiffs established through expert evidence that the cause of the fire was the ignition of gas fumes in the Defendant's vessel. The source of the fumes was a rusted gas tank and the source of the ignition was an automotive battery charger. The Court considered the application of the res ipsa loquitur doctrine but concluded that the issue of the Defendant's negligence had to be determined on the evidence. The Court, however, had little difficulty in concluding the Defendant was negligent. On the issue of damages the Court held that the Plaintiffs were entitled to recover both the cost of repairs and the diminution in value of their vessel. Additionally, the Court awarded the Plaintiffs $1,500 each in damages for loss of use of their vessel. Finally, the Court considered whether the collateral benefit rule ought to apply to reduce the Plaintiffs' damages. This was an issue because the repair costs were initially paid by the Plaintiffs' insurer but, in subsequent proceedings between the insurers and the Plaintiffs, the insurers relinquished their right of subrogation. Thus, the Plaintiffs stood to be reimbursed twice for the cost of repairs. The Court held that this was a matter of private insurance which was a recognized exception to the collateral benefit rule.
Refund of Excise and Sales Tax on Diesel Fuel
Seaspan International Ltd. v. Canada, 2002 FCT 675
This case concerned the interpretation of section 23(8)(c) of the Excise Tax Act and in particular whether the Plaintiff was entitled to a refund of tax paid on diesel fuel used to generate electricity on board its vessels. The Court held that the Plaintiff was entitled to a refund of tax.
458093 BC Ltd. v. Dietterle et al., 2001 FCT 823
This case concerned the interpretation of an agreement between the Plaintiff and Defendant relating to the roe herring fishery. The Plaintiff alleged an agreement between it and the Defendant fishermen the terms of which required the Plaintiff to lease the Defendant fishing licences and to provide specific services such as packing and trucking. In return, the Defendant would fish exclusively for the Plaintiff. The agreement further specified how the profits from the fishing would be split between the parties but was silent on what would happen in the event of a loss. Precisely such an event occurred after the 1997 fishery and the Plaintiff sought to recover from the Defendant a portion of the loss. The Prothonotary dismissed the Plaintiff’s claim holding that there was no provision in the contract imposing personal liability on the foss and that the Plaintiff had failed to establish a “long standing and consistent practice” that such losses were shared.
Wage Claims - Set-off
Prior v. The "Talapus", 2000 CanLII 15911
This was an action for unpaid seaman’s wages. The Defendant defended the claim, inter alia, on the basis that a set-off should be made for food and accommodations supplied to the crew. The Court did not allow the set-off for these items as the evidence did not support that they were to be an agreed deduction.
Marine Navigation Fees
Canadian Shipowners Assoc. v. Canada, 1998 CanLII 8429
This was an appeal of a decision of the Trial Division in which the trial judge upheld the validity of the Marine Navigation Service Fees Regulations passed pursuant to the Financial Administration Act. The regulations provide for the payment of fees by commercial shipping, domestic and foreign, for marine navigation services provided by Canadian Coast Guard. The regulations were imposed as part of a policy of cost recovery instituted by the Government of Canada. The applicants argued that the regulations were not authorized by the Financial Administration Act, were discriminatory and were, in essence, a tax on commercial shipping. The trial judge, however, held that the regulations were made for valid reasons and in good faith and that the enabling statute impliedly authorized the creation of classes of users and the power to include or exclude certain types of ships from the payment of fees. The trial judge further held that the fees were not a tax and noted that the fees collected would not exceed the cost of providing the services. On appeal, the Court of Appeal in a short judgement indicated their approval of the reasons of the trial judge and dismissed the appeal.
Crown Liability - Closure of Seaway
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.
Tonnage Regulations - Measurement of Tonnage
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.
Arbitration - Review of Award - Buyer Beware
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.
Seizure - Fishing Licence
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.
Manufacturers Duty to Warn
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.