9171-7702 Quebec Inc. v. Canada

• Jurisdiction: Federal Jurisdiction (Canada)
• Court: Federal Court (Canada)
• Judge: de Montigny, J.
• Citation: 2013 FC 832,(2013), 438 F.T.R. 11 (FC)
• Date: 04 February 2013
• Subject Matter: ADMIRALTY,QUEBEC NOMINATE CONTRACTS,SALE OF GOODS,CONTRACTS

9171-7702 Que. v. Can. (2013), 438 F.T.R. 11 (FC)

MLB headnote and full text

[French language version follows English language version]

[La version française vient à la suite de la version anglaise]

.........................

Temp. Cite: [2013] F.T.R. TBEd. AU.007

9171-7702 Québec Inc., faisant affaires sous le nom de "Les Surplus JT" (demanderesse) v. Sa Majesté la Reine (défenderesse)

Sa Majesté la Reine (demanderesse reconventionnelle) v. Trinav Consultants Inc. (défenderesse reconventionnelle)

(T-897-10; 2013 CF 832; 2013 FC 832)

Indexed As: 9171-7702 Quebec Inc. v. Canada

Federal Court

de Montigny, J.

July 30, 2013.

Summary:

Les Surplus JT purchased a fishing vessel following a forfeit of the vessel to Her Majesty the Queen (Canada). Les Surplus alleged that it was misled as to the type of engine in the vessel because the main engine was described as a "1989 Caterpillar Marine 3612 1060 cv" whereas it was a model"3512". Les Surplus JT commenced an action in contract and in damages against Canada. Canada denied breaching the contract and counterclaimed against Trinav Consultants Inc., a company retained by Canada to prepare valuation surveys, the information from which was included in the offer to purchase.

The Federal Court dismissed the action and held that the counterclaim was moot.

Admiralty - Topic 6030

Principles of law - Canadian Maritime Law - Application - A purchaser contracted with Her Majesty the Queen (Canada) to purchase a vessel that had been seized by Canada and forfeited - The purchaser sued Canada in contract and in damages, alleging it was misled as to the type of engine in the vessel - At issue was whether the contract of sale of the vessel was governed by maritime law or by the civil law of the province where the contract was concluded (in this case Quebec) - The Federal Court held that it was Quebec contract law that applied to this dispute (i.e., the Civil Code of Québec relating to sale) - See paragraphs 20 to 47.

Contracts - Topic 3523

Performance or breach - Breach - What constitutes a breach - [See Quebec Nominate Contracts - Topic 3132.1 ].

Quebec Nominate Contracts - Topic 3003

Sale - General - Application of legislation - [See Admiralty - Topic 6030 ].

Quebec Nominate Contracts - Topic 3132.1

Sale - Obligations of seller - Delivery - Quality - A purchaser bought a vessel from Her Majesty the Queen (Canada) that had been seized by Canada and forfeited - The purchaser sued Canada in contract and in damages, alleging it was misled as to the type of engine in the vessel which was described as a "1989 Caterpillar Marine 3612 1060 cv", whereas it was a model "3512" - The Federal Court found that Canada fulfilled her obligations under art. 1716 and the common law - The engine delivered complied with the equipment noted on the offer to purchase, the invoice and the deed of sale - Although a small error slipped into the description of the model number, the power produced by the engine was correctly described - In any event, the sale was "as, on the spot" which would exclude the seller's liability - The purchaser did not show reasonable care in the circumstances to inform himself - See paragraphs 48 to 58.

Sale of Goods - Topic 108

Application of legislation - General - Sale of vessel - [See Admiralty - Topic 6030 ].

Sale of Goods - Topic 6403

Breach - General - What constitutes - [See Quebec Nominate Contracts - Topic 3132.1 ].

Cases Noticed:

Canadian Pacific Ltd. and Incan Ships Ltd. v. Quebec North Shore Paper Co. and Quebec and Ontario Transportation Co., [1977] 2 S.C.R. 1054; 9 N.R. 471, refd to. [para. 21].

Government of Canada v. McNamara Construction (Western) Ltd. et al., [1977] 2 S.C.R. 654; 13 N.R. 181; refd to. [para. 21].

McNamara Construction (Western) Ltd. v. The Queen - see Government of Canada v. McNamara Construction (Western) Ltd. et al.

Miida Electronics Inc. v. Mitsui O.S.K. Lines Ltd. and ITO-International Terminal Operators Ltd., [1986] 1 S.C.R. 752; 68 N.R. 241, refd to. [para. 26].

Whitbread v. Walley et al., [1990] 3 S.C.R. 1273; 120 N.R. 109, refd to. [para. 29].

Reference Re Waters and Water-Powers, [1929] S.C.R. 200, refd to. [para. 30].

Hamilton Harbour Commissioners v. Hamilton (City) et al. (1976), 21 O.R.(2d) 459 (H.C.), refd to. [para. 30].

Ordon et al. v. Grail, [1998] 3 S.C.R. 437; 232 N.R. 201; 115 O.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 30].

Sivaco Wire & Nail Co. and Atlantic Lines & Navigation Co. v. Tropwood A.G. and Owners of Vessel Tropwood, [1979] 2 S.C.R. 157; 26 N.R. 313, refd to. [para. 30].

Terrasses Jewellers Inc. v. Triglav, [1983] 1 S.C.R. 283; 54 N.R. 321, refd to. [para. 30].

B.C. Marine Shipbuilders Ltd. and Straits Towing Ltd. v. Yorke (F.M.) and Son Ltd. and Wire Rope Industries of Canada and Wire Rope Industries of Canada (1966) Ltd., [1981] 1 S.C.R. 363; 35 N.R. 288, refd to. [para. 30].

Antares Shipping Corp. v. Ship Capricorn et al., [1980] 1 S.C.R. 553; 30 N.R. 104; 111 D.L.R.(3d) 289, refd to. [para. 31].

Casden v. Cooper Enterprises Ltd. et al. (1990), 34 F.T.R. 241(T.D.), affd. (1993), 151 N.R. 199 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 34].

Mark Fishing Co. Ltd. et al. v. Northern Princess Seafood Ltd. (1991), 38 F.T.R. 299 (F.C.T.D.), refd to. [para. 34].

Canadian Western Bank et al. v. Alberta, [2007] 2 S.C.R. 3; 362 N.R. 111; 409 A.R. 207; 402 W.A.C. 207; 2007 SCC 22, refd to. [para. 39].

R. v. Mersey Seafoods Ltd. (2008), 267 N.S.R.(2d) 288; 853 A.P.R. 288; 2008 NSCA 67, refd to. [para. 44].

Pattison (Jim) Enterprises et al. v. Workers' Compensation Board (B.C.) [2009] B.C.T.C. Uned. 88; 93 B.C.L.R.(4th) 131; 2008 BCSC 88, refd to. [para. 44].

Statutes Noticed:

Civil Code of Québec, S.Q. 1991, c. 64, art. 1716 [para. 48].

Federal Courts Act, R.S.C. 1985, c F-7, sect. 2 [para. 20].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Braën, André, Le droit maritime au Québec (1992), pp. 465, 466 [para. 34].

Fridman, Gerald Henry Louis, The Law of Contract in Canada (5th Ed. 2006), p. 511 [para. 54].

Giaschi, C.J., Confused Seas: The Application of Provincial Statutes to Maritime Matters, Canadian Maritime Law Association Seminar (June 1, 2010), generally [para. 31].

Gold, Edgar, Chircop, Aldo, & Kindred, Hugh M., Maritime Law (2003), pp. 170 to 173 [para. 34].

Hogg, Peter W., Constitutional Law of Canada (5th Ed.) (2007 Looseleaf), p. 22-21 [para. 31].

Hogg, Peter W., Monahan, Patrick J., and Wright, Wade K., Liability of the Crown (4th Ed. 2011), pp. 497, 498 [para. 20].

Jobin, Pierre-Gabriel, La vente (2nd Ed. 2001), pp. 108 [para. 48]; 198 [para. 54].

Sgayias, David, Kinnear, Meg, Rennie, Donald, and Saunders, Brian J., The 1995 Annotated Crown Liability and Proceedings Act, p. 15 [para. 20].

Counsel:

Philippe Thibault, for the applicant;

Jean-Robert Noiseux, for the respondent/ plaintiff by counterclaim;

Jean-François Bilodeau, for the defendant by counterclaim.

Solicitors of Record:

Roy Beaulieu Boudreau Bélanger, Rimouski, Quebec, for the applicant;

William F. Pentney, Deputy Attorney General of Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, for the respondent/plaintiff by counterclaim;

Robinson Sheppard Shapiro, Montreal, Quebec, for the defendant by counterclaim.

This matter was heard in Quebec, Quebec, on February 4, 2013, before de Montigny, J., of the Federal Court, who delivered the following decision on July 30, 2013.