Canada Case Law

MacKay Communications - Canada Inc. v. Coastal Craft Yachts Ltd.

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

The court exercised its discretion to allow the plaintiff to further amend the amended notice of civil claim and to add BIM, Topbas and Promotors as defendants because there is a triable issue as to beneficial ownership and agency, no compelling evidence of prejudice or abuse of process was shown, and BIM did not present sufficient evidence to set aside the warrant or caveat; a change in legal ownership alone is insufficient to defeat an in rem claim at this early stage.

Source excerpt

• Amendment of pleadings
• Jurisdiction in rem
• Beneficial ownership
• Warrant of arrest
• Admiralty caveat
• Agency and vicarious liability

Read case analysis

Canadian Maritime Engineering Ltd. v. Ionada Incorporated

Court

Federal Court

The Federal Court dismissed a contempt motion in a maritime enforcement proceeding, finding insufficient proof that Mr. Panziera willfully disobeyed the June 22, 2023 order.

• Examination in aid of execution
• Piercing the corporate veil
• Contempt proceedings (rule 466/467)
• Burden of proof beyond reasonable doubt
• Service and notice
• Contempt-of-court

Read case analysis

Gaskin v. Rogers

Court

Federal Court

La Cour fédérale a radié la déclaration du dossier et rejeté l’action sans अनुमति d’amendement, jugeant le recours vexatoire, sans fondement et abusif.

• Rule 74 removal
• Abuse of process
• Vexatious litigation
• Judicial review
• Canadian human rights act
• Remedies unavailable in federal court

Read case analysis

Ocean Gear Inc. v. Karine G (Ship)

Court

Federal Court

Assessment officer fixed Ocean Gear Inc.’s costs after default judgment, applying a $170 unit value and allowing $2,020 while disallowing several claimed items.

• Costs assessment
• Default judgment
• Tariff b unit value
• Disbursements
• Assessment officer duties
• Costs-assessment

Read case analysis

Haida Tourism Limited Partnership (West Coast Resorts) v. Canada (Ship-Source Oil Pollution Fund)

Court

Federal Court

The Federal Court held that a shipowner cannot use section 103(1) of the Marine Liability Act to claim SOPF compensation for costs tied to its own ship-only incident.

• Ship-source oil pollution
• Shipowner strict liability
• Ship-source oil pollution fund (sopf) claims
• Interpretation of s.103(1) mla
• Interaction of s.101 and s.103 mla
• Subrogation

Read case analysis

Sealand Marine Electronics Sales and Services Ltd. v. M/V Inuksuk I (Ship)

Court

Federal Court

Federal Court admiralty decision on interest and costs after liability judgments. The Court refused compound interest, set prejudgment interest, and awarded lump-sum costs.

• Pre-judgment interest
• Post-judgment interest
• Compound interest
• Costs
• Rates of interest
• Arrest and release of vessel

Read case analysis

Sealand Marine Electronics Sales and Services Ltd. v. M/V Inuksuk I (Ship)

Court

Federal Court

The Federal Court held Sealand proved its marine goods and services claims against the vessels and rejected the defendants’ fraud, conspiracy, conversion and set-off defences.

• Contract formation
• Equitable set-off
• Indoor management rule
• Fraud and conspiracy (allegation)
• Jurisdiction
• Admiralty-law

Read case analysis

Her Majesty the Queen v. B & B Barges Ltd.

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

The court found B & B Barges Ltd. in civil contempt for failing to remove two barges from Crown land, rejecting impecuniosity and collateral attack arguments.

• Trespass on crown land
• Enforcement of injunctions
• Impecuniosity as defence to contempt
• Collateral attack on orders
• Salvage and marine safety
• Civil-contempt

Read case analysis

ING Bank N.V. v. Canpotex Shipping Services Limited

Court

Federal Court of Appeal

Majority held that clause L.4(a) of OW's GTCs, properly construed, allowed a physical supplier who 'insisted' that its terms apply to have those terms incorporated; Petrobulk had insisted, its STCs made Canpotex a 'Customer' jointly and severally liable, and therefore Canpotex was contractually bound to Petrobulk and Petrobulk was entitled to the principal portion of the funds in trust while ING was entitled to the OW markup; appeal dismissed.

Source excerpt

• Privity of contract
• Contract interpretation
• Incorporation of third party terms
• Agency
• Summary judgment
• Priority of creditors

Read case analysis

Arc-En-Ciel Produce Inc. v. MSC Belle (Ship)

Court

Federal Court

The Court exercised its discretion under s.50(1) of the Federal Courts Act and found that the plaintiff demonstrated a "strong cause" to deny the stay; the defendant could not rely wholly on s.46 of the Marine Liability Act to compel dismissal in favour of proceedings in New York on the record before the Court; accordingly the motions to stay were dismissed with costs to the plaintiff.

Source excerpt

• Forum selection clause
• Jurisdiction clause
• Bill of lading
• Service contract incorporation
• Marine liability act s.46
• Stay of proceedings

Read case analysis