Bonham v. The "Honoreva"

Bonham v. The "Honoreva"

Soulanges Canal at the bridge constituted a narrow channel; article 25 required vessels to keep to the starboard side when safe and practicable; Honoreva, having accepted a starboard crossing and yet maintaining mid‑channel up to the collision without justification, breached article 25 and thus under s.916 of the Canada Shipping Act was in fault; no sufficient negligence was proven on the part of the tug-and-tow, so Honoreva is solely liable for damages.

Citation
(1916) 54 SCR 51
Parties
Plaintiff Appellant: Percy Charles Bonham (owner of the barge "Maggie"); Defendant Respondent: The Ship "Honoreva"
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
16 October 1916
Procedural Posture
Admiralty Appeal / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From Exchequer Court (quebec Admiralty Division)
Outcome
Appeal allowed; judgment entered for plaintiff (owner of the barge "Maggie"); defendant "Honoreva" held liable for collision damages and costs; counterclaim dismissed.
Legal Topics
Navigation Rules, Right of Way in Narrow Channels, Collision Liability, Interpretation of Canada Shipping Act S.916, Marine Department Regulations Rule 25, Canal Regulations Rule 22
Source Language
English
Admiralty Law Maritime Law Transportation Law Canal Regulation Navigation Rules Right of Way in Narrow Channels Collision Liability Interpretation of Canada Shipping Act S.916 +2 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 8
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Percy Charles Bonham (owner of the barge "Maggie")

Plaintiff Appellant

The Ship "Honoreva"

Defendant Respondent

Procedural Posture

Admiralty Appeal / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From Exchequer Court (quebec Admiralty Division)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Soulanges Canal at bridge was a "narrow channel" for application of navigation rules
  2. 2 Whether article 25 of Marine Department rules required vessels to keep to starboard in the mid-channel and whether it applied
  3. 3 Whether the up‑going steamer Honoreva breached article 25 by remaining mid‑channel and thereby caused the collision

Ratio Decidendi

Soulanges Canal at the bridge constituted a narrow channel; article 25 required vessels to keep to the starboard side when safe and practicable; Honoreva, having accepted a starboard crossing and yet maintaining mid‑channel up to the collision without justification, breached article 25 and thus under s.916 of the Canada Shipping Act was in fault; no sufficient negligence was proven on the part of the tug-and-tow, so Honoreva is solely liable for damages.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; judgment entered for plaintiff (owner of the barge "Maggie"); defendant "Honoreva" held liable for collision damages and costs; counterclaim dismissed.

Orders

  • Appeal allowed with costs
  • Judgment for plaintiff declaring entitlement to damages and costs against defendant "Honoreva" and its bail