Canadian Pacific Ltd. v. McCain Produce Co. Ltd. et al.
- Citation
- [1981] 2 SCR 219
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Court
- Supreme Court of Canada
- Decision
- 25 June 1981
- Posture
- Civil Appeal (carriage of Goods) / On Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Court of Appeal for New Brunswick; Final Disposition by Supreme Court of Canada
- Language
- English
More details
- Court
- Supreme Court of Canada
- Decision
- 25 June 1981
- Posture
- Civil Appeal (carriage of Goods) / On Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Court of Appeal for New Brunswick; Final Disposition by Supreme Court of Canada
- Language
- English
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
Section 4 of the conditions attached to the bill of lading did not operate to preclude the respondents' claim for consequential damages; therefore the appeal was dismissed.
Court disposition
Appeal dismissed
Orders
- Appeal dismissed with costs
- Judgment of the courts below upheld that section 4 does not preclude claim for consequential damages
02
Material facts
Parties
Canadian Pacific Limited
Appellant / Defendant Counsel: E. Neil McKelvey; Robert G. VincentMcCain Produce Company Limited
Respondent / Plaintiff Counsel: D.M. Gillis, Q.C.; R.G. GillisToner Brothers Limited
Respondent / Plaintiff Counsel: D.M. Gillis, Q.C.; R.G. GillisPirie Potato Company Limited
Respondent / Plaintiff Counsel: D.M. Gillis, Q.C.; R.G. GillisAmounts and remedies
- Number of Judges: 5
03
Procedural history
Posture
Civil Appeal (carriage of Goods) / On Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Court of Appeal for New Brunswick; Final Disposition by Supreme Court of Canada
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
Whether section 4 of the conditions attached to the bill of lading precludes the respondents' claim for consequential damages
Party arguments
- Applicant
- Appellant argued that section 4 of the conditions attached to the bill of lading limited liability and thereby precluded any claim by the respondents for consequential damages.
- Respondent
- Respondents argued that section 4 did not have the effect of precluding their claim for consequential damages and that such damages remained recoverable.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Common law principles applied by the Supreme Court of Canada in this judgment
Exclusion or limitation clauses in bills of lading must be construed according to their proper contractual scope and not extended to bar liabilities not clearly covered.
- 02
Supreme Court of Canada decision in this case
Consequential damages are recoverable unless there is a clear and unambiguous clause expressly barring them.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
Section 4 of the conditions attached to the bill of lading did not operate to preclude the respondents' claim for consequential damages; therefore the appeal was dismissed.
Court disposition
Appeal dismissed
- Appeal dismissed with costs
- Judgment of the courts below upheld that section 4 does not preclude claim for consequential damages
Source and reliance status
Supreme Court of Canada · 25 June 1981
This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.
Judgment reading view
Judgment text
The complete available source text.
Supreme Court of Canada
Judgment· 25 June 1981
Canadian Pacific Ltd. v. McCain Produce Co. Ltd. et al. Collection Supreme Court Judgments Date 1981-06-25 Report [1981] 2 SCR 219 Judges Martland, Ronald; Ritchie, Roland Almon; Estey, Willard Zebedee; McIntyre, William Rogers; Chouinard, Julien On appeal from New Brunswick Subjects Transportation Decision Content Supreme Court of Canada Canadian Pacific Ltd. v. McCain Produce Co. Ltd. et al., [1981] 2 S.C.R. 219 Date: 1981-06-25 Canadian Pacific Limited (Defendant) Appellant; and McCain Produce Company Limited, Toner Brothers Limited and Pirie Potato Company Limited (Plaintiffs) Respondents. 1981: June 25. Present: Martland, Ritchie, Estey, McIntyre and Chouinard JJ.
ON APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF APPEAL FOR NEW BRUNSWICK Carriage of goods—Bills of lading—Section of conditions attached to bill of lading allegedly limiting liability—Respondent’s claim for consequential damages not precluded by that section. APPEAL from a judgment of the Court of Appeal for New Brunswick[1], varying a judgment of Barry J. Appeal dismissed. E. Neil McKelvey and Robert G. Vincent, for the appellant. D.M. Gillis, Q.C., and R.G. Gillis, for the respondents. The judgment of the Court was delivered orally by MARTLAND J.—We are all of the opinion that the judgments in the courts below were correct in holding that section 4 of the conditions attached to the bill of lading does not have the effect of precluding the respondent’s claim for what has been compendiously described in the judgments below as consequential damages. The appeal is therefore dismissed with costs. Judgment accordingly. Solicitors for the appellant: McKelvey, Macaulay, Machum, St. John. Solicitors for the respondents: Gilbert, McGloan, Gillis & Jones, St. John. [1] (1980), 113 D.L.R. (3d) 584, 30 N.B.R. (2d) 476, 70 A.P.R. 476.
Case-aware research
Ask AI about this case
The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.