Ferguson v. Arctic Transportation Ltd. et al., (1997) 135 F.T.R. 243 (TD)

• Judge: McKeown, J.
• Court: Federal Court (Canada)
• Case Date: May 09, 1997
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (1997), 135 F.T.R. 243 (TD)

Ferguson v. Arctic Transportation Ltd. (1997), 135 F.T.R. 243 (TD)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [1997] F.T.R. TBEd. AU.016

James L. Ferguson (plaintiff) v. Arctic Transportation Ltd. and The Owners and All Others interested in The Ships "AMT Transporter", "Arctic Nutsukpok", "Arctic Immerk Kanotik", "Arctic Kibrayok", "Arctic Kiggiak", "Arctic Tukta", "Arctic Tender", "Arctic Tender II" and "J. Mattson" (defendants) and Panama Canal Commission (third party)

(T-1941-93)

Indexed As: Ferguson v. Arctic Transportation Ltd. et al.

Federal Court of Canada

Trial Division

McKeown, J.

July 29, 1997.

Summary:

The American plaintiff was employed as a pilot by the Panama Canal Commission, the United States government body which operated the Panama Canal. The defendant Arctic Transportation owned a barge being transported through the Canal by Commission employees. The Commission took total control of all vessels once they entered the Canal. A tow line on the barge snapped and struck and injured the plaintiff. The plaintiff was precluded by statute from suing the Commission. The plaintiff brought a negligence action against Arctic, its employees and agents. Arctic brought a third party claim for indemnity against the Commission, claiming that its negligence caused the plaintiff's injuries. At issue was whether the third party claim fell within the Federal Court's jurisdiction over Canadian maritime law, or whether the claim fell under provincial jurisdiction.

The Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, held that the claim was primarily for relief under Canadian maritime law. Accordingly, the Federal Court had jurisdiction over the third party claim.

Courts - Topic 4026

Federal Court of Canada - Jurisdiction - Trial Division - Maritime and admiralty matters - The American plaintiff was employed as a pilot by the Panama Canal Commission, the United States government body operating the Panama Canal - The defendant Arctic owned a barge being transported through the Canal by Commission employees - The Commission took total control of all vessels once they entered the Canal - A tow line on the barge snapped, injuring the plaintiff - The plaintiff was precluded by statute from suing the Commission - The plaintiff brought a negligence action against Arctic, its employees and agents - Arctic brought a third party claim for indemnity against the Commission, claiming that it's negligence caused the plaintiff's injuries - At issue was whether the third party claim fell within the Federal Court's jurisdiction over Canadian maritime law, or whether the claim fell under provincial jurisdiction - The Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, held that the claim was primarily for relief under Canadian maritime law - Accordingly, the Federal Court had jurisdiction over the third party claim.

Cases Noticed:

Monk Corp. v. Island Fertilizers Ltd. (1991), 123 N.R. 1; 80 D.L.R.(4th) 58 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 5].

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; 28 D.L.R.(4th) 641, refd to. [para. 5].

Simpson (Robert) Montreal Ltd. v. Hamburg-Amerika Linie Norddeutscher Lloyd and Montreal Shipping Co., [1973] F.C. 1356; 1 N.R. 158 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 6].

Navigest Inc. v. Laurentian Pilotage Authority (1986), 11 F.T.R. 183 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 7].

B.C. Marine Shipbuilders Ltd. and Straits Towing Ltd. v. F.M. Yorke and Son Ltd. et al. (1981), 35 N.R. 288; 121 D.L.R.(3d) 517 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 9].

Sivaco Wire & Nail Co. and Atlantic Lines & Navigation Co. v. Tropwood A.G. and the Owners of the Vessel Tropwood, [1979] 2 S.C.R. 157; 26 N.R. 313, refd to. [para. 19].

Santa Maria Shipowning and Trading Co. S.A. v. Hawker Industries Ltd. and Bethlehem Steel Corp., [1976] 2 F.C. 325; 12 N.R. 69 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 20].

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. 20].

Chartwell Shipping Ltd. v. Q.N.S. Paper Co. (1989), 101 N.R. 1; 26 Q.A.C. 81; 62 D.L.R.(4th) 36 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 20].

Lister v. Romford Ice and Cold Storage Co., [1957] A.C. 555 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 21].

Statutes Noticed:

Federal Court Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. F-7, sect. 22(1) [para. 8]; sect. 22(3)(c) [para. 11].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Mayers, E.C., Admiralty Law and Practice in Canada (1st Ed. 1916), p. 198 [para. 17].

Counsel:

No one appearing for the plaintiff;

Peter Swanson, for the defendant;

Grant Ritchie, for the third party.

Solicitors of Record:

Roberts & Griffin, Vancouver, B.C., for the plaintiff;

Campney & Murphy, Vancouver, B.C., for the defendant;

Fraser, Quinlan & Abrioux, Vancouver, B.C., for the third party.

This application was heard on May 9, 1997, at Vancouver, B.C., before McKeown, J., of the Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, who delivered the following judgment on July 29, 1997.