Chartwell Shipping Ltd. v. Q.N.S. Paper Co., (1989) 101 N.R. 1 (SCC)

• Judge: Lamer, Wilson, La Forest, L'Heureux-Dubé, Sopinka, Cory and McLachlin, JJ.
• Court: Supreme Court (Canada)
• Case Date: September 28, 1989
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (1989), 101 N.R. 1 (SCC);[1988] CarswellQue 157;1989 CanLII 35 (SCC);JE 89-1396;[1989] SCJ No 96 (QL);AZ-89111104;101 NR 1;26 QAC 81;62 DLR (4th) 36;[1989] 2 SCR 683

Chartwell Shipping Ltd. v. QNS Paper (1989), 101 N.R. 1 (SCC)

MLB headnote and full text

[French language version follows English language version]

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

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

Chartwell Shipping Limited (appellant) v. Q.N.S. Paper Company Limited (respondent)

(No. 19595)

Indexed As: Chartwell Shipping Ltd. v. Q.N.S. Paper Co.

Supreme Court of Canada

Lamer, Wilson, La Forest, L'Heureux-Dubé, Sopinka, Cory and McLachlin, JJ.

September 28, 1989.

Summary:

La Forest, J., summarizes the facts of the case as follows: "The respondent Q.N.S., a stevedore and local ship agent, sued the appellant Chartwell, in the Quebec Superior Court, on a contract for stevedoring and other services. Chartwell did not deny the existence of the contract or question the amount owing, but defended the action that, though it had not identified its principal, it consistently represented itself as acting as an agent only". The Quebec Superior Court, in a judgment reported at [1979] C.S. 453 (Desaulniers, J.), dismissed the action. Q.N.S. appealed.

The Quebec Court of Appeal allowed the appeal. See [1985] C.A. 413. Chartwell appealed.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal.

Admiralty - Topic 3061

Jurisdiction, particular matters - Stevedoring - General - Q.N.S., a stevedore, sued Chartwell in the Quebec courts for charges under a contract for stevedoring and other services - Chartwell denied liability on the ground that it had acted as an agent only for an undisclosed principal - Which law applied to the case? - The Supreme Court of Canada held that under s. 22(2)(m) of the Federal Court Act, "Canadian maritime law" (defined under s. 2 of the same Act) governed the case - See paragraphs 5 and 37.

Amirauté - Cote 3061

Juridiction, cas particuliers - Acconage (débordage) - Généralités - [Voir Admiralty - Topic 3061].

Admiralty - Topic 6022

Principles of law - "Canadian maritime law" - Nature of - The Supreme Court of Canada discussed the nature of "Canadian maritime law" as defined by s. 2 of the Federal Court Act, and over which the Trial Division of the Federal Court has concurrent jurisdiction with provincial courts - The court held, among others that: 1) "Canadian maritime law" was uniform throughout Canada; 2) It included all that body of law which was administered in England by the High Court on its Admiralty side in 1934 as such law may, from time to time have been amended by the federal Parliament and as it has developed through judicial precedent; 3) Amendment by the federal Parliament has enlarged the sphere of application of Canadian maritime law so that provincial private law was ousted in admiralty matters; 4) Canadian maritime law was not "frozen" as of 1934 - See paragraphs 15 to 19, 37 to 42, 44.

Amirauté - Cote 6022

Principes de droit - "Droit maritime canadien" - Nature - [Voir Admiralty - Topic 6022].

Admiralty - Topic 6023

Principles of law - "Canadian maritime law" - Sources of - Q.N.S., a stevedore, sued Chartwell for charges under a contract for stevedoring and other services - Chartwell denied liability on the ground that it had acted as an agent only for an undisclosed principal - By virtue of the Federal Court Act, "Canadian maritime law", governed the matter - However, there was no rule for its solution - In searching for a rule, the Supreme Court of Canada discussed the sources of "Canadian maritime law" which included: 1) Doctrinal writings; 2) The law applied by the English High Court of Admiralty i.e., the civil and common law principles as used by that court to create a body of maritime law; 3) Canadian sources including the Civil Code of Lower Canada; 4) Comparative law in the maritime law of the United States and Australia - The action was dismissed - See paragraphs 34 to 69.

Amirauté - Cote 6023

Principes de droit - "Droit maritime canadien" - Sources - [Voir Admiralty - Topic 6023].

Admiralty - Topic 6030

Principles of law - "Canadian maritime law" - Application - L'Heureux-Dubé, J. (Lamer and McLachlin, JJ., concurring), of the Supreme Court of Canada stated: "In keeping with the tradition of Canadian maritime law, absent a specific maritime law rule, a comparative law method should be used to arrive at the position under Canadian maritime law. This comparative law method suggests looking to both civil law and common law sources in order to find the maritime law rule." - Thus civil and common law rules are not applied directly to the matter at hand but are the basis of the Canadian maritime law rule that will be applied - See paragraphs 56, 57, 60 to 63.

Admiralty - Topic 6030

Principles of law - "Canadian maritime law" - Application - Q.N.S., a stevedore, sued Chartwell in the Quebec courts for charges under a contract for stevedoring and other services - Chartwell denied liability on the ground that it had acted as an agent only for an undisclosed principal - By virtue of the Federal Court Act, "Canadian maritime law" governed the matter - However, there was no rule for its solution - In searching for a rule, La Forest, J. (Wilson, Sopinka and Cory, JJ., concurring), stated that "Canadian maritime law" included the common law principles of contract, tort, bailment and, by extension, agency - La Forest, J., applied these common law principles as a "Canadian maritime law" rule and stated that the liability of the parties depended on the terms of the contract between them - Here it was clear that Chartwell was only an agent and was therefore not liable - See paragraphs 8 to 12.

Amirauté - Cote 6030

Principes de droit - "Droit maritime canadien" - Application - [Voir Admiralty - Topic 6030].

Admiralty - Topic 6031

Principles of law - "Canadian maritime law" - Agency and mandate matters - Q.N.S., a stevedore, sued Chartwell in the Quebec courts for charges under a contract for stevedoring and other services - Chartwell denied liability on the ground that it had acted as an agent only for an undisclosed principal - By virtue of the Federal Court Act, "Canadian maritime law" governed the matter - However, there was no rule for its solution - In searching for a rule, L'Heureux-Dubé, J. (Lamer and McLachlin, JJ., concurring), consulted in a comparative way the civil and common law sources of Canadian maritime law including the Civil Code of Lower Canada and stated that the liability of the parties depended on the terms of the contract between them - Here, it was clear that Chartwell was only an agent and was therefore not liable - See paragraphs 70 to 97.

Admiralty - Topic 6031

Principles of law - "Canadian maritime law" - Agency and mandate matters - Q.N.S., a stevedore, sued Chartwell in the Quebec courts for charges under a contract for stevedoring and other services - Chartwell denied liability on the ground that it had acted as an agent only for an undisclosed principal - By virtue of the Federal Court Act, "Canadian maritime law" governed the matter - However, there was no rule for its solution - In searching for a rule, La Forest, J. (Wilson, Sopinka and Cory, JJ., concurring), stated that "Canadian maritime law" included the common law principles of contract, tort, bailment and, by extension, agency - La Forest, J., applied these common law principles as a "Canadian maritime law" rule and stated that the liability of the parties depended on the terms of the contract between them - Here it was clear that Chartwell was only an agent and was therefore not liable - See paragraphs 8 to 12.

Amirauté - Cote 6031

Principes de droit - "Droit maritime canadien" - Mandat - [Voir Admiralty - Topic 6031].

Agency - Topic 5032

Relations between agent and third parties - Contracts - Where agent contracts on behalf of principal - Q.N.S., a stevedore, sued Chartwell in the Quebec courts for charges under a contract for stevedoring and other services - Chartwell denied liability on the ground that it had acted as an agent only for an undisclosed principal - By virtue of the Federal Court Act, "Canadian maritime law" governed the matter - However, there was no rule for its solution - In searching for a rule, La Forest, J. (Wilson, Sopinka and Cory, JJ., concurring), stated that "Canadian maritime law" included the common law principles of contract, tort, bailment and, by extension, agency - La Forest, J., applied these common law principles as a "Canadian maritime law" rule and stated that the liability of the parties depended on the terms of the contract between them - Here it was clear that Chartwell was only an agent and was therefore not liable - See paragraphs 8 to 12.

Mandats - Cote 5032

Relations entre le mandataire et les tiers - Contrats - Mandataire contractant au nom de son mandant - [Voir Agency - Topic 5032].

Courts - Topic 4026

Federal Court of Canada - Jurisdiction - Trial Division - Maritime and admiralty matters - The Supreme Court of Canada discussed the nature of "Canadian maritime law" as defined by s. 2 of the Federal Court Act, and over which the Trial Division of the Federal Court has concurrent jurisdiction with provincial courts - The court held, among others that: 1) "Canadian maritime law" was uniform throughout Canada; 2) It included all that body of law which was administer ed in England by the High Court on its Admiralty side in 1934 as such law may, from time to time have been amended by the federal Parliament and as it has developed through judicial precedent; 3) Amendment by the federal Parliament has enlarged the sphere of application of Canadian maritime law so that provincial private law was ousted in admiralty matters; 4) Canadian maritime law was not "frozen" as of 1934 - See paragraphs 15 to 19, 37 to 42, 44.

Tribunaux - Cote 4026

Cour fédérale du Canada - Juridiction - Division de première instance - Affaires maritimes et d'amirauté - [Voir Courts - Topic 4026].

Courts - Topic 5603

Provincial courts - Concurrent and conflicting jurisdiction - Maritime and admiralty matters - According to s. 22 of the Federal Court Act, Canadian provincial courts and the Trial Division of the Federal Court have concurrent jurisdiction over maritime and admiralty matters - But this does not mean, states the Supreme Court of Canada, that the law applied in the provincial courts is different than the one applied in the Federal Court - The same "Canadian maritime law" as defined in s. 2 of the Federal Court Act, is to be applied in all courts - See paragraph 10.

Tribunaux - Cote 5603

Tribunaux provinciaux - Compétence concurrente et contradictoire - Affaires maritimes et d'amirauté - [Voir Courts - Topic 5603].

Cases Noticed:

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, affing in part [1982] 1 F.C. 406; 37 N.R. 396, consd. [paras. 3, 4, 7, 8, 10, 19, 31, 32, 33, 37, 39, 41, 43, 45, 46, 57, 61, 94].

Mersey Docks Harbour Board v. Turner (The "Zeta"), [1893] A.C. 468 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 6].

Miida Electronics Inc. v. Mitsui O.S. K. Lines Ltd. and ITO-International Terminal Operators Ltd., [1982] 1 F.C. 406; 37 N.R. 396, consd. [paras. 9, 43].

Universal Steam Navigation Co. v. James McKelvie & Co., [1923] A.C. 492 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 11].

Bridges and Salmon Ltd. v. The "Swan", [1968] 1 Lloyd's Rep. 5, consd. [paras. 11, 39, 89].

N. & J. Vlassopulos Ltd. v. Ney Shipping Ltd. (The "Santa Carina"), [1977] 1 Lloyd's Rep. 478, consd. [paras. 11, 39, 90].

R. v. Smith (E.D.), [1987] 1 S.C.R. 1045; 75 N.R. 321, refd to. [para. 33].

Reference Re Roman Catholic Separate High Schools Funding, [1987] 1 S.C. R. 1149; 77 N.R. 241; 22 O.A.C. 321, refd to. [paras. 33, 34].

Singer (Allan) Ltd. v. Québec (Procureur général) et al., [1988] 2 S.C.R. 790; 90 N.R. 48; 19 Q.A.C. 33, refd to. [para. 34].

Joel v. Morison (1834), 6 Car. & P. 501; 172 E.R. 1338, refd to. [para. 34].

Westcan Stevedoring Ltd. v. The Ship, "Armar", [1973] F.C. 1232, refd to. [para. 37].

Argosy Marine Co. v. SS "Jeannot D", [1970] Ex. C.R. 350, refd to. [para. 37].

Robin Line Steamship Co. v. Canadian Stevedoring Co., [1928] S.C.R. 423, refd to. [para. 37].

Tojo Maru (Owners) v. N.V. Bureau Wijsmuller (The "Tojo Maru"), [1972] A.C. 242, refd to. [para. 39].

Trans Barwil Agencies (UK) Ltd. v. John S. Braid & Co., [1989] S.L.T. 73 (O.H.), refd to. [para. 39].

Micosta S.A. v. Shetland Islands Council, [1986] S.L.T. 193 (O.H.), refd to. [para. 39].

Siddall (William) & Sons Fisheries v. Pembina Exploration Canada Ltd., [1989] 1 S.C.R. 206; 92 N.R. 137, refd to. [para. 41].

Coggs v. Bernard (1703), 2 Ld. Raym. 909; 92 E.R. 107, refd to. [para. 43].

"Sylph", The (1867), 2 L.R. 2 A. & E. 24, refd to. [para. 47].

"Gas Float Whitton No. 2", The, [1896] P. 42 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 47].

"Renard", The (1778), Hay & M. 222; 165 E.R. 51, refd to. [para. 49].

"Aquila", The (1798), 1 C. Rob. 37; 165 E.R. 87, refd to. [para. 49].

"Neptune", The (1834), 3 Hagg. 129; 166 E.R. 354, refd to. [para. 52].

Hodges v. Sims (The "Neptune") (1835), 3 Knapp. 94; 12 E.R. 584, refd to. [para. 53].

"Milford", The (1858), Swab. 362; 166 E.R. 1167, refd to. [para. 53].

"Riga", The (1872), L.R. 3 A. & E. 516, refd to. [para. 53].

"Heinrich Bjorn", The (1885), 10 P.D. 44 (C.A.), affd. (1886), 11 A.C. 270 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 54].

"Ripon City", The, [1897] P. 226, refd to. [para. 54].

"Beldis", The, [1936] P. 51, refd to. [para. 55].

"Goring", The, [1987] 2 Lloyd's Rep. 15 (C.A.), affd. [1988] 1 Lloyd's Rep. 397 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 55].

"Sennar" (No. 2), The, [1984] 2 Lloyd's Rep. 142 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 55].

Soya G.m.b.H. Kommanditgesellschaft v. White, [1982] 1 Lloyd's Rep. 136 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 55].

Tehno-Impex v. Gebr van Weelde Scheepvartkantoor BV, [1981] 2 All E.R. 669 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 55].

Bankers Trust International Ltd. v. Todd Shipyards Corp. (The Halcyon Isle), [1981] A.C. 221 (P.C.), refd to. [para. 55].

De Lovio v. Boit (1815), 7 F. Cas. 418, refd to. [paras. 58, 61].

Schiffahartsgesellschaft Leonhardt & Co. v. A. Bottacchi S.A. De Navegacion (1985), 773 F.2d 1528, refd to. [para. 58].

Grand Bahama Petroleum Co. Ltd. v. Canadian Transportation Agencies Ltd. (1978), 450 F. Supp. 447, refd to. [para. 58].

"Terukawa Maru", The Ship v. Cooperated Dried Fruit Sales Pty. Ltd. (1972), 126 C.L.R. 170, refd to. [para. 59].

Bow, McLachlan and Co. v. The Ship "Camosun" (1908), 40 S.C.R. 418, rev'd on other grounds, [1909] A.C. 597 (P.C.), refd to. [para. 60].

"Pacifico", The Ship v. Winslow Marine Railway and Shipbuilding Co., [1925] Ex. C.R. 32, refd to. [para. 60].

Canadian General Electric Co. v. Pickford & Black Ltd., [1972] S.C.R. 52, refd to. [para. 60].

Drew Brown Ltd. v. The Ship "Orient Trader", [1974] S.C.R. 1286, refd to. [para. 60].

The Queen v. Canadian Vickers Ltd., [1978] 2 F.C. 675, consd. [para. 61].

Falconbridge Nickel Mines Ltd. v. Chimo Shipping Ltd., [1974] S.C.R. 933, refd to. [para. 62].

Gatewhite Ltd. v. Iberia Lineas Aereas de Espana SA, [1989] 1 All E.R. 944, refd to. [para. 62].

Fairway Life & Marine Insurance Ltd. v. "Susan Darlene" (The), [1987] 2 F.C. 547; 5 F.T.R. 212, consd. [para. 64].

Inverness Railway and Coal Co. v. Jones (1908), 40 S.C.R. 45, consd. [para. 65].

St. Lawrence Metal and Marine Works Inc. v. Canadian Fairbanks-Morse Co., [1956] S.C.R. 717, refd to. [para. 65].

Glengoil Steamship Co. v. Pilkington (1897), 28 S.C.R. 146, refd to. [para. 65].

N.M. Paterson & Sons. Ltd. v. Mannix Ltd., [1966] S.C.R. 180, refd to. [para. 65].

Sabb Inc. v. Shipping Ltd., [1976] 2 F.C. 175 (T.D.), affd. [1979] 1 F.C. 461 (C.A.), consd. [paras. 72, 88].

Farr Inc. v. Tourloti Compania Naviera S.A., [1985] 1 F.C. D-43, refd to. [para. 72].

"Rebecca", The (1831), 20 F. Cas. 373, refd to. [para. 73].

"Lanarkshire", The (1855), 2 Sp. Ecc. & Ad. 189; 164 E.R. 380, refd to. [para. 73].

"Milan", The (1861), Lush. 388; 167 E.R. 167, refd to. [para. 73].

"Onward", The (1873), L.R. 4 A. & E. 38, refd to. [para. 73].

Pearson v. Lighthall (1895), 7 C.S. 201, refd to. [para. 83].

Conroy v. Peden (1921), 32 K.B. 476, refd to. [para. 83].

Paterson Steamships Ltd. v. Aluminum Co. of Canada Ltd., [1951] S.C.R. 852, consd. [paras. 86, 87].

Associated Metals and Minerals Corporation v. Ship "Erie W", Aris Steamship Co. Inc. and Worldwide Carriers Limited, [1980] 2 S.C.R. 322; 31 N.R. 584, consd. [para. 87].

Wolfe Stevedores (1968), Ltd. v. Joseph Salter's Sons Ltd. (1970), 2 N.S.R.(2d) 269, refd to. [para. 88].

Holt Renfrew and Co. v. Henry Singer Ltd., [1982] 4 W.W.R. 481; 37 A.R. 90 (Alta. C.A.), consd. [para. 89].

Lubbock Feed Lots Inc. v. Iowa Beef Processors Inc. (1980), 630 F.2d 250, refd to. [para. 93].

Powers v. Coffeyville Livestock Sales Co. (1981), 665 F.2d 311, refd to. [para. 93].

Evans Products Co. v. Interstate Commerce Commission (1984), 729 F.2d 1107, refd to. [para. 93].

Golten Marine Co. v. World Tide Shipping Corp., [1975] A.M.C. 160, refd to. [para. 93].

Valkenburg, K.-G. v. The "S.S. Henry Denny" (1961), 295 F.2d 330, refd to. [para. 93].

Instituto Cubano de Estabilizacion del Azucar v. The "SS Theotokos" (1957), 155 F. Supp. 945, refd to. [para. 93].

Statutes Noticed:

Administration of Justice Act, 1928 (U.K. - R.-U), 18 & 19 Geo. 5, c. 26, in general [para. 39]; sect. 6 [para. 6].

Administration of Justice Act, 1956 (U.K. - R.-U.), 4 & 5 Eliz. 2, c. 46, sect. 1(1)(m) [para. 38].

Admiralty Act, 1934/Amirauté, Loi de 1934 sur l', S.C. 1934, c. 31, in general [para. 55].

Admiralty Act/Amirauté, Loi sur l', R.S.C. 1952, c. 1, sect. 18(3)(b) [para. 37].

Civil Code of Lower Canada/Code civil du Bas-Canada, in general [paras. 64, 65, 66, 70, 76, 78]; art. 13 [para. 78]; art. 1030 [para. 81]; art. 1676 [para. 65]; art. 1715 [paras. 2, 25, 27, 29, 32, 71, 72, 74, 75, 76, 77]; art. 1716 [paras. 2, 25, 27, 29, 71, 72, 75, 76, 77, 78, 82]; art. 1738 [para. 80]; art. 2040 [para. 78]; art. 2383 [paras. 64, 65]; art. 2395 [paras. 75, 78, 79]; art. 2425 [para. 65].

Constitution Act, 1867/Loi constitutionnelle de 1867, sect. 91(10) [para. 40].

Federal Court Act/Cour fédérale, Loi sur la, R.S.C. 1970 (2nd Supp.), c. 10, sect. 64(1) [para. 37].

Federal Court Act/Cour fédérale, Loi sur la, R.S.C. 1985, c. F-7, sect. 2 "Canadian maritime law" [paras. 7, 36, 41, 94]; sect. 20 [para. 41]; sect. 22 [para. 10]; sect. 22(1) [para. 36]; sect. 22(2) [para. 10]; sect. 22(2)(m) [paras. 5, 15, 21, 32, 37, 38, 51, 56].

Processes in the Courts of the United States, Act to regulate, Act of Sept. 29, 1789, c. 21, para. 2, 1 Stat. 93 [para. 58].

Regulations affecting ocean freight forwarders, marine terminal operations and passenger vessels, 46 C.F.R., sect. 510.23(a) [para. 95].

Supreme Court of Judicature Act, 1873 (U.K. - R.-U.), 36 & 37 Vict., c. 66, in general [para. 39].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Abbott, Charles (later Lord Tenterden), A Treatise of the Law Relative to Merchant Ships and Seamen (14th Ed., 1901). By the late James Perronet Aspinall, Butler Aspinall and Hubert Stuart Moore, pp. ix-xi [para. 45].

Aubry et Rau, Droit civil français, 7è éd., 1975, t. 6, sous la direction de Paul Esmein et André Ponsard, p. 267 [para. 85].

Baudouin, Jean-Louis, L'interprétation du Code civil québécois par la Cour suprême du Canada (1975), 53 Can. Bar Rev. 715, p. 736 [para. 67].

Baudouin, Louis, Le Droit civil de la Province de Québec: Modèle vivant de Droit comparé, 1953, p. XV [para. 66].

Bowstead on Agency (15th Ed., 1985), by F.M.B. Reynolds, pp. 426 and 451 [para. 88]; 432-434 [para. 90].

Braën, André, Le droit maritime du Québec à l'aube de la codification (1985), 16 R.G.D. 429, p. 430 [para. 45].

Carver's Carriage by Sea (13th Ed., 1982), vol. 1, by Raoul Colinvaux, pp. 429-435 [para. 90].

Chao, Andrée, Réflexions sur la "Identity of Carrier Clause" (1967), 19 D.M.F. 12 [para. 85].

Civil Code of Lower Canada: Sixth and Seventh Reports and Supplementary Report, 1865, Sixth Report, p. 85 [para. 71]; Seventh Report, p. 226 [para. 66].

Fridman, G.H.L., The Law of Agency (5th Ed. 1983), pp. 187 [para. 89]; 206-211 [para. 90]; 211 [para. 88].

Glenn, H. Patrick, Maritime Law --Federal Court Jurisdiction -- Canadian Maritime Law -- Relationship to Civil and Common Law: ITO-International Terminal Operators Ltd. v. Miida Electronics Inc. (1987), 66 Can. Bar Rev. 360, pp. 363-365 [para. 45].

Gorton, Lars and Ihre, Rolf and Sandevarn, Arne, Shipbroking and Chartering Practice (2nd Ed. 1984), pp. 79-80 and 92-94 [para. 83].

Hill, D.J., Freight Forwarders, 1972, p. 49 [para. 83].

Holdsworth, Sir William, A History of English Law (7th Ed. 1956), vol. I, Revised by A.L. Goodhart and H.G. Hanbury, pp. 545, 546 [para. 47].

Holdsworth, Sir William, A History of English Law, vol. XVI, Edited by A.L. Goodhart and H.G. Hanbury, 1966, p. 141 [para. 53].

Jones, Peter F.M., The Forwarder --Principal or Agent, a Carrier or Not?, in Meredith Memorial Lectures 1986, Current Problems in Maritime Law Canada/États-Unis/étranger, 1987 [para. 95].

Mazeaud, Henri, Léon et Jean, Leçons de droit civil, t. 3, vol. 2, 5è éd., 1980, p. 872 [para. 85].

Mignault, P.-B., Le Code Civil de la province de Québec et son interprétation (1935), 1 U.T.L.J. 104 [para. 84].

Mignault, P.-B., Le droit civil canadien, t. 8, 1909, p. 85 [para. 80].

Moussa, Abdel Rafea A., Le consignataire du navire en droit français et égyptien, 1983, pp. 318 & ff. [para. 85].

Müller-Freienfels, W., Comparative Aspects of Undisclosed Agency (1955), 18 Mod. L. Rev. 33 [para. 85].

Pineau, Jean, La législation maritime canadienne et le Code civil québécois (1968), 14 McGill L.J. 26 [para. 64].

Restatement of the Law (Second): Agency 2d, vols. 1 & 2, 1958, vol. 1, p. 17, para. 4(2) [para. 92]; vol. 2, p. 70, para. 321 [paras. 12, 92, 93].

Reynolds, F.M.B., The Demise Clause (The Jalamohan), [1988] Lloyd's Mar. & Com. L.Q. 285 [para. 90].

Roch, Hervé et Paré, Rodolphe, Traité de Droit civil du Québec, t. 13, 1952, pp. 66 [para. 78]; 120 [para. 80].

Rodière, René, Traité général de droit maritime: affrètements et transports, t. 3, 1970, pp. 44 & foll. [para. 85].

Rodière, René, Traité général de droit maritime: introduction générale et armement, 1976, pp. 531 & foll. [para. 85].

Story, Joseph, Commentaries on the Law of Agency, 1839 [para. 71].

Tetley, William, Responsability of Freight Forwarders, [1987] Eur. Trans. L. 79 [para. 95].

Tetley, William, Marine Cargo Claims (2nd Ed. 1978), pp. 88 & foll. [para. 90].

Tetley, William, Maritime Liens and Claims, 1985, pp. 1-29 [para. 45].

Walton, Frederick Parker, The Scope and Interpretation of the Civil Code of Lower Canada, 1980, pp. 100 [para. 78]; 101 & foll. [para. 84]; 124 and 126 [para. 66].

Wiswall, F.L., The Development of Admiralty Jurisdiction and Practice Since 1800, 1970, in general [para. 45]; p. 58 [para. 53].

Zweigert, Konrad and Hein Kötz, An Introduction to Comparative Law, t. 2, Translated from German by Tony Weir, 1977, pp. 106 & folld. [para. 85].

Counsel:

David F.H. Marler and Mary C. Parker, for the appellant;

Allan R. Hilton and Robert Metcalfe, for the respondent.

Solicitors of Record:

Marler, Sproule & Pilotte, Montréal, Quebec, for the appellant;

Clarkson, Tétrault et Ass., Montréal, Quebec, for the respondent.

This case was heard on April 28, 1989, by Lamer, Wilson, La Forest, L'Heureux-Dubé, Sopinka, Cory and McLachlin, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada.

The judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada was delivered in both official languages on September 28, 1989, and the following opinions were filed:

La Forest, J. (Wilson, Sopinka and Cory, JJ., concurring) - see paragraphs 1 to 13;

McLachlin, J. (Lamer, J., concurring) - see paragraphs 14 to 22;

L'Heureux-Dubé, J. - see paragraphs 23 to 98.