Associated Metals & Minerals Corp. et al. v. Ship "Evie W", Aris Steamship Co. Inc. and Worldwide Carriers Ltd.

• Jurisdiction: Federal Jurisdiction (Canada)
• Judge: Jackett, C.J., Pratte and Le Dain, JJ.
• Citation: (1977), 20 N.R. 50 (FCA)
• Court: Court of Appeal (Canada)
• Date: 20 December 1977

Associated Metals v. Ship Evie W (1977), 20 N.R. 50 (FCA)

MLB headnote and full text

Associated Metals & Minerals Corporation et al. v. Ship "Evie W", Aris Steamship Co. Inc. and Worldwide Carriers Limited

Indexed As: Associated Metals & Minerals Corp. et al. v. Ship "Evie W", Aris Steamship Co. Inc. and Worldwide Carriers Ltd.

Federal Court of Appeal

Jackett, C.J., Pratte and Le Dain, JJ.

December 20, 1977.

Summary:

This case arose out of the plaintiffs' claim against the owner and operator of a ship for the failure to deliver goods under a contract of carriage. The contract for the carriage of the plaintiffs' goods was signed by the master of the ship. The Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, dismissed the plaintiffs' action. The plaintiffs appealed.

The Federal Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and held that the owner and operator of the ship were bound by the contract signed by the master.

Leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada was granted by the Supreme Court of Canada on February 6, 1978. See Bulletin of Proceedings in the Supreme Court of Canada, February 10, 1978, page 2.

Courts - Topic 4019

Federal Court of Canada - Jurisdiction of the Trial Division pursuant to s. 22(2)(i) of the Federal Court Act, R.S.C. 1970, 2nd Supp., c. 10 - British North American Act, 1867, s. 101 - What constitutes existing federal law or laws of Canada - Admirality law - The Federal Court of Appeal held that the jurisdiction given to the Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, over claims arising out of agreements for the carriage of goods on a ship in s. 22(2)(i) of the Federal Court Act was intra vires Parliament under s. 101 of the British North America Act, because admirality law was within the laws of Canada within the meaning of s. 101 - See paragraphs 2 to 12.

Shipping and Navigation - Topic 1146

Masters - Authority of master - To bind owner in contract - The Federal Court of Appeal held that a contract of carriage signed by the master of a vessel was a contract with the owner and operator of the vessel - See paragraph 13.

Words and Phrases

Laws of canada - The Federal Court of Appeal discussed the meaning of the word "laws of Canada" as found in s. 101 of the British North America Act - See paragraphs 2 to 12.

Cases Noticed:

Government of Canada v. McNamara Construction (Western) Ltd. et al. (1977), 13 N.R. 181; 75 D.L.R.(3d) 273, dist. [para. 2].

Canadian Pacific Limited et al. v. Quebec North Shore Paper Company et al. (1976), 9 N.R. 471; 71 D.L.R.(3d) 111, dist. [para. 2].

Quebec North Shore Paper Company v. Canadian Pacific Limited (1976), 9 N.R. 471; 71 D.L.R.(3d) 11, dist. [para. 2].

McNamara Construction (Western) Ltd. et al. v. The Queen (1977), 13 N.R. 181; 75 D.L.R.(3d) 273, dist. [para. 2].

Attorney General for Ontario v. Attorney General for the Dominion, [1896] A.C. 348, refd to. [para. 7, fn. 7].

R. v. Murray, [1965] 2 Ex. C.R. 663, refd to. [para. 8, fn. 8].

Nykorak v. Attorney General of Canada, [1962] S.C.R. 331, refd to. [para. 8, fn. 9].

R. v. Canadian Vickers Ltd. (1977), 77 D.L.R.(3d) 241, appld. [para. 10].

Blanchette et al. v. Canadian Pacific Limited et al. (1977), 20 N.R. 62, refd to. [para. 8, fn. 10].

National Gypsum Co. Inc. v. Northern Sales Ltd., [1964] S.C.R. 144, refd to. [para. 11, fn. 11].

Paterson Steamships Ltd. v. Aluminum Co. of Canada Ltd., [1951] S.C.R. 852, appld. [para. 13].

Turner v. Haji Goolam Mahomed Azam, [1904] A.C. 826, refd to. [para. 13, fn. 13].

Statutes Noticed:

Admiralty Act, S.C. 1934 [para. 12].

British North America Act, 1867, sect. 101 [para. 3]; sect. 129 [para. 6].

Federal Court Act, R.S.C. 1970, 2nd. Supp., c. 10, sect. 22(2)(i) [para. 3].

Counsel:

D.J. Wright, Q.C., and R.N. Waterman, for the plaintiff, appellant;

R. Chauvin, Q.C., for the defendant, respondent.

This case was heard on December 14 and 15, 1977 at Montreal, Quebec, before JACKETT, C.J., PRATTE and LE DAIN, JJ., of the Federal Court of Appeal.

On December 20, 1977, JACKETT, C.J., delivered the following judgment for the Federal Court of Appeal: