Comfact Corp. v. Ship Hull 717 et al., (2012) 419 F.T.R. 154 (FC)

• Judge: Harrington, J.
• Court: Federal Court (Canada)
• Case Date: September 18, 2012
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (2012), 419 F.T.R. 154 (FC);2012 FC 1161

Comfact Corp. v. Ship Hull 717 (2012), 419 F.T.R. 154 (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: [2012] F.T.R. TBEd. SE.058

Comfact Corporation (plaintiff) v. The Ship Identified as "Hull 717" and Her Owners and All Those Interested in the Ship Identified as "Hull 717" (defendants)

(T-2112-11; 2012 FC 1161; 2012 CF 1161)

Indexed As: Comfact Corp. v. Ship Hull 717 et al.

Federal Court

Harrington, J.

October 1, 2012.

Summary:

The plaintiff corporation was an unpaid subcontractor of a shipbuilder which went under Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act protection in the course of constructing of a ship. The plaintiff filed an in rem against the ship, claiming that it had a maritime lien under s. 139 of the Marine Liability Act which ranked ahead of the mortgagee of the ship.

The Federal Court dismissed the plaintiff's action. The plaintiff did not have a maritime lien.

Admiralty - Topic 8347.2

Practice - Action in rem - Liens - Maritime liens - Foreign vessels (Marine Liability Act, s. 139) - The plaintiff corporation was an unpaid subcontractor that provided welding services to a shipbuilder which went under Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act protection while it was in the course of constructing of a ship - The ship was recorded in the Canadian Registry of Ships as being a ship being built in Canada for the benefit of a Norwegian corporation and subject to a mortgage - The plaintiff claimed that it had a maritime lien under s. 139 of the Marine Liability Act which ranked ahead of the mortgagee - The Federal Court held that s. 139 did not apply to those who had rendered services in respect to the construction of a ship - Therefore, the plaintiff did not have a maritime lien - See paragraphs 10 to 34.

Admiralty - Topic 8347.2

Practice - Action in rem - Liens - Maritime liens - Foreign vessels (Marine Liability Act, s. 139) - Section 139(2)(b) provided that a person, carrying on business in Canada, had a maritime lien against a foreign vessel for claims arising "out of a contract relating to the repair or equipping of the foreign vessel" - The Federal Court (Harrington, J.) interpreted s. 139(2)(b) - Harrington, J., stated that "I cannot accept that the failure to mention 'building' or 'construction' in section 139(2)(b) of the Marine Liability Act was a slip. Parliament could not have intended to grant a maritime lien to those engaged in the construction of a ship, such as the plaintiff in this case" - See paragraphs 29 to 33.

Cases Noticed:

Mount Royal/Walsh Inc. v. Ship Jensen Star et al., [1990] 1 F.C. 199; 99 N.R. 42 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 8].

Canada 3000 Inc. (Bankrupt), Re, [2006] 1 S.C.R. 865; 349 N.R. 1; 212 O.A.C. 338; 2006 SCC 24, refd to. [para. 24].

Todd Shipyards Corp. v. Altema Compania Maritima S.A., [1974] S.C.R. 1248, refd to. [para. 24].

Marlex Petroleum Inc. v. Ship Har Rai and Shipping Corp. of India Ltd., [1984] 2 F.C. 345; 53 N.R. 1 (F.C.A.), affd. [1987] 1 S.C.R. 57; 72 N.R. 75, refd to. [para. 24].

Holt Cargo Systems Inc. v. ABC Containerline N.V. (Bankrupt) et al., [2001] 3 S.C.R. 907; 280 N.R. 1; 2001 SCC 90, refd to. [para. 24].

World Fuel Services Corp. v. Ship Nordems et al. (2010), 366 F.T.R. 118; 2010 FC 332, affd. (2011), 415 N.R. 100; 2011 FCA 73, refd to. [para. 24].

F.C. Yachts Ltd. v. Splash Holdings Ltd. - see F.C. Yachts Ltd. v. Ship No. QFY10703E709 et al.

F.C. Yachts Ltd. v. Ship No. QFY10703E709 et al. (2007), 320 F.T.R. 125; 289 D.L.R.(4th) 167; 2007 FC 1257, refd to. [para. 25].

Pyrene Co. v. Scindia Steam Navigation Co., [1954] 1 Lloyd's Rep. 321, refd to. [para. 26].

MacKeigan v. Hickman - see MacKeigan, J.A. et al. v. Royal Commission (Marshall Inquiry).

MacKeigan, J.A. et al. v. Royal Commission (Marshall Inquiry), [1989] 2 S.C.R. 796; 100 N.R. 81; 94 N.S.R.(2d) 1; 247 A.P.R. 1, refd to. [para. 32].

Pointe-Claire (Ville) v. Syndicat des employées et l'employés professionnels-les et de bureau, section locale 57 (S.E.P.B. - U.I.E.P.B. - C.T.C. - F.T.Q.), [1997] 1 S.C.R. 1015; 211 N.R. 1, refd to. [para. 32].

Statutes Noticed:

Marine Liability Act, S.C. 2001, c. 6, sect. 139, sect. 139(2)(b) [para. 10].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Sullivan, Ruth, Sullivan on the Construction of Statutes (5th Ed. 2008), pp. 244 [para. 33]; 325 [para. 31].

Counsel:

David G. Colford, for the plaintiff;

John O'Connor, for the defendant, Export Development Canada.

Solicitors of Record:

Brisset Bishop, Montreal, Quebec, for the plaintiff;

Langlois Kronström Desjardins, Quebec City, Quebec, for the defendant, Export Development Canada.

This case was heard in Montreal, Quebec, on September 18, 2012, before Harrington, J., of the Federal Court, who delivered the following decision on October 1, 2012.