Fraser River Pile & Dredge v. Can-Dive, (1999) 245 N.R. 88 (SCC)
Judge | Gonthier, Cory, McLachlin, Iacobucci, Major, Bastarache and Binnie, JJ. |
Court | Supreme Court (Canada) |
Case Date | February 25, 1999 |
Jurisdiction | Canada (Federal) |
Citations | (1999), 245 N.R. 88 (SCC);[1999] CarswellOnt 1927;[1999] CarswellBC 1927;47 CCLT (2d) 1;[1999] 3 SCR 108;127 BCAC 287;1999 CanLII 654 (SCC);11 CCLI (3d) 1;245 NR 88;176 DLR (4th) 257;[1999] ACS no 48;67 BCLR (3d) 213;50 BLR (2d) 169;90 ACWS (3d) 786;[1999] 9 WWR 380;[1999] SCJ No 48 (QL) |
Fraser River Pile & Dredge v. Can-Dive (1999), 245 N.R. 88 (SCC)
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: [1999] N.R. TBEd. SE.006
Fraser River Pile & Dredge Ltd. (appellant) v. Can-Dive Services Ltd. (respondent)
(26415)
Indexed As: Fraser River Pile & Dredge Ltd. v. Can-Dive Services Ltd.
Supreme Court of Canada
Gonthier, Cory, McLachlin, Iacobucci, Major, Bastarache and Binnie, JJ.
September 10, 1999.
Summary:
The owner of a derrick barge sued the charterer for damages arising from the loss of the vessel while under charter. The trial judge, in a decision reported in 9 B.C.L.R. (3d) 260, allowed the action and found the charterer liable. The charterer appealed.
The British Columbia Court of Appeal, in a decision reported at 98 B.C.A.C. 138; 161 W.A.C. 138, allowed the appeal and dismissed the action against the charterer. The owner appealed.
The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal.
Common Law - Topic 3224
Variation - Judicial variation - To meet changing circumstances - The Supreme Court of Canada stated that "[i]t is by now a well-established principle that courts will not undertake judicial reform of this magnitude [wholesale abolition of a doctrine], recognizing instead that the legislature is better placed to appreciate and accommodate the economic and policy issues involved in introducing sweeping legal reforms. That being said, the corollary principle is equally compelling, which is that in appropriate circumstances, courts must not abdicate their judicial duty to decide on incremental changes to the common law necessary to address emerging needs and values in society" - See paragraphs 43 to 44.
Contracts - Topic 1168
Formation of contract - Privity of contract - Exceptions - Insurance law - [See first Contracts - Topic 9001 ].
Contracts - Topic 9001
Rights and liabilities of strangers to contract - Privity of contract - Exceptions - A derrick barge owned by Fraser River sunk while under charter to Can-Dive - Fraser River recovered its claims for the loss from its insurers - The insurance policy contained a waiver of subrogation clause which stated that the insurers waived any right of subrogation against, inter alia, "any charterer(s)" - Fraser River and the insurers agreed that they intended to bring an action against Can-Dive in negligence and Fraser River waived any right it might have pursuant to the waiver of subrogation clause with respect to Can-Dive - Fraser brought an action against Can-Dive - The Supreme Court of Canada held that Can-Dive, as a third party beneficiary under the insurance policy pursuant to the waiver of subrogation clause, was entitled to rely on that clause to defend against the insurer's subrogated action on the basis of the principled exception to the privity of contract doctrine.
Contracts - Topic 9001
Rights and liabilities of strangers to contract - Privity of contract - Exceptions - The Supreme Court of Canada set out the threshold requirements for the purposes of introducing a new, principled exception to the doctrine of privity of contract as it applied to third party beneficiaries: (a) the parties to the contract must intend to extend the benefit in question to the third party seeking to rely on the contractual provision; and (b) the activities performed by the third party seeking to rely on the contractual provision must be the very activities contemplated as coming within the scope of the contract in general, or the provision in particular, as determined by reference to the intentions of the parties - See paragraph 32.
Contracts - Topic 9123
Rights and liabilities of strangers to the contract - Rights of third parties - Revocation or deletion of - A derrick barge owned by Fraser River sunk while under charter to Can-Dive - Fraser River recovered its loss from its insurers - The insurance policy contained a waiver of subrogation clause whereby the insurers waived any right of subrogation against, inter alia, "any charterer(s)" - Fraser River and the insurers agreed to bring an action against Can-Dive and Fraser River waived any right it might have pursuant to the waiver of subrogation clause with respect to Can-Dive - The Supreme Court of Canada held that Fraser River's agreement with the insurers did not effectively delete the third party benefit from the contract - Fraser River and the insurers could not unilaterally revoke Can-Dive's rights once they had crystallized into an actual benefit in the form of a defence against an action by the insurers - When Can-Dive's rights crystallized, it became for all intents and purposes a party to the initial contract for the purpose of relying on the waiver of subrogation clause - See paragraph 36.
Insurance - Topic 2891
Subrogation - Action by insurer - Bars - Waiver - [See first Contracts - Topic 9001 and Contracts - Topic 9123 ].
Shipping and Navigation - Topic 889
Charter of ships - The charterparty - Liability for loss of ship - Insurance clause - Effect of - [See first Contracts - Topic 9001 ].
Cases Noticed:
Vandepitte v. Preferred Accident Insurance Corp. of New York, [1933] A.C. 70 (P.C.), disagreed with [para. 9].
London Drugs v. Kuehne & Nagel International Ltd., [1992] 3 S.C.R. 299; [1993] 1 W.W.R. 1; 143 N.R. 1; 18 B.C.A.C. 1; 31 W.A.C. 1, appld. [para. 9].
Scott v. Wawanesa Mutual Insurance Co., [1989] 1 S.C.R. 1445; 94 N.R. 261; 59 D.L.R.(4th) 660, refd to. [para. 15].
Imperial Oil Ltd. and Wellman-Lord (Alberta) Ltd. v. Commonwealth Construction Ltd., [1978] 1 S.C.R. 317; 12 N.R. 113; 1 A.R. 161; 69 D.L.R.(3d) 558, consd. [para. 16].
Thomas & Co. v. Brown (1899), 4 Com. Cas. 186, refd to. [para. 16].
Watkins v. Olafson et al., [1989] 2 S.C.R. 750; 100 N.R. 161; 61 Man.R.(2d) 81; 61 D.L.R.(4th) 577; [1989] 6 W.W.R. 481; 39 B.C.L.R.(2d) 294; 50 C.C.L.T. 101, refd to. [para. 44].
R. v. Salituro, [1991] 3 S.C.R. 654; 131 N.R. 161; 50 O.A.C. 125; 68 C.C.C.(3d) 289, refd to. [para. 44].
Counsel:
David F. McEwen, for the appellant;
D. Barry Kirkham, Q.C., and Gregory J. Tucker, for the respondent.
Solicitors of Record:
McEwen, Schmitt & Co., Vancouver, British Columbia, for the appellant;
Owen, Bird, Vancouver, British Columbia, for the respondent.
This appeal was heard on February 25, 1999, before Gonthier, Cory, McLachlin, Iacobucci, Major, Bastarache and Binnie, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada. The following judgment of the Supreme Court was delivered in both official languages by Iacobucci, J., on September 10, 1999.
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Paradis Honey Ltd. et al. v. Canada (Attorney General), (2015) 472 N.R. 75 (FCA)
...2 S.C.R. 17; 321 N.R. 361; 2004 SCC 36, refd to. [paras. 66, 145]. Fraser River Pile & Dredge Ltd. v. Can-Dive Services Ltd., [1999] 3 S.C.R. 108; 245 N.R. 88; 127 B.C.A.C. 287; 207 W.A.C. 287; 176 D.L.R.(4th) 257, refd to. [paras. 70, 116]. Campbell et al. v. Canada (Attorney General) ......
-
Nevsun Resources Ltd v Araya,
...[1992] 3 SCR 299, at pp. 436–8; R v. Salituro, [1991] 3 SCR 654, at pp. 666–7; Fraser River Pile & Dredge Ltd v. Can Dive Services Ltd, [1999] 3 SCR 108, at para. 43; B. McLachlin, “Unwritten Constitutional Principles: What is Going On?” (2006), 4 NZJPIL 147). It also reflects the comparati......
-
Benfield Corporate Risk Canada Ltd. v. Beaufort International Insurance Inc. et al., 2013 ABCA 200
...299; 143 N.R. 1; 18 B.C.A.C. 1; 31 W.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 102]. Fraser River Pile & Dredge Ltd. v. Can-Dive Services Ltd., [1999] 3 S.C.R. 108; 245 N.R. 88; 127 B.C.A.C. 287; 207 W.A.C. 287, refd to. [para. 102]. Reigate v. Union Manufacturing Co., [1918] 1 K.B. 592; 87 L.J.K.B. 724 ......
-
Hydro Electric Board (Man.) v. Inglis (John) Co. et al., (1999) 142 Man.R.(2d) 1 (CA)
...206; 157 N.R. 241; 32 B.C.A.C. 221; 53 W.A.C. 221, refd to. [para. 61]. Fraser River Pile & Dredge Ltd. v. Can-Dive Services Ltd. (1999), 245 N.R. 88; 127 B.C.A.C. 287; 207 W.A.C. 287 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. Letang v. Cooper, [1964] 2 All E.R. 929 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 71]. Scotsbur......
-
Paradis Honey Ltd. et al. v. Canada (Attorney General), (2015) 472 N.R. 75 (FCA)
...2 S.C.R. 17; 321 N.R. 361; 2004 SCC 36, refd to. [paras. 66, 145]. Fraser River Pile & Dredge Ltd. v. Can-Dive Services Ltd., [1999] 3 S.C.R. 108; 245 N.R. 88; 127 B.C.A.C. 287; 207 W.A.C. 287; 176 D.L.R.(4th) 257, refd to. [paras. 70, 116]. Campbell et al. v. Canada (Attorney General) ......
-
Nevsun Resources Ltd v Araya,
...[1992] 3 SCR 299, at pp. 436–8; R v. Salituro, [1991] 3 SCR 654, at pp. 666–7; Fraser River Pile & Dredge Ltd v. Can Dive Services Ltd, [1999] 3 SCR 108, at para. 43; B. McLachlin, “Unwritten Constitutional Principles: What is Going On?” (2006), 4 NZJPIL 147). It also reflects the comparati......
-
Benfield Corporate Risk Canada Ltd. v. Beaufort International Insurance Inc. et al., 2013 ABCA 200
...299; 143 N.R. 1; 18 B.C.A.C. 1; 31 W.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 102]. Fraser River Pile & Dredge Ltd. v. Can-Dive Services Ltd., [1999] 3 S.C.R. 108; 245 N.R. 88; 127 B.C.A.C. 287; 207 W.A.C. 287, refd to. [para. 102]. Reigate v. Union Manufacturing Co., [1918] 1 K.B. 592; 87 L.J.K.B. 724 ......
-
Hydro Electric Board (Man.) v. Inglis (John) Co. et al., (1999) 142 Man.R.(2d) 1 (CA)
...206; 157 N.R. 241; 32 B.C.A.C. 221; 53 W.A.C. 221, refd to. [para. 61]. Fraser River Pile & Dredge Ltd. v. Can-Dive Services Ltd. (1999), 245 N.R. 88; 127 B.C.A.C. 287; 207 W.A.C. 287 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. Letang v. Cooper, [1964] 2 All E.R. 929 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 71]. Scotsbur......
-
COURT OF APPEAL SUMMARIES (APRIL 27 – MAY 1)
...(1999), 45 O.R. (3d) 223 (C.A.); Owen v. Zosky, [2000] O.J. 4838 (C.A.); Fraser River Pile & Dredge Ltd. v. Can-Dive Services Ltd., [1999] 3 S.C.R. 108 Criminal Decisions R. v. W., 2020 ONCA 269 Keywords: Criminal Law, Drug Trafficking, Evidence, Unreasonable Search and Seizure, Canadian Ch......
-
Court Of Appeal Summaries (April 27 ' May 1)
...(1999), 45 O.R. (3d) 223 (C.A.); Owen v. Zosky, [2000] O.J. 4838 (C.A.); Fraser River Pile & Dredge Ltd. v. Can-Dive Services Ltd., [1999] 3 S.C.R. 108 Criminal Decisions R. v. W., 2020 ONCA 269 Keywords: Criminal Law, Drug Trafficking, Evidence, Unreasonable Search and Seizure, Canadian Ch......
-
Top 5 Civil Appeals From The Court Of Appeal (July 2013)
...and a plaintiff, provided certain conditions were met. Later, in Fraser River Pile & Dredge Ltd. v. Can-Dive Services Ltd. [1999] 3 S.C.R. 108, the Court clarified that the London Drugs approach was not limited to employer-employee relationships, and re-framed the test as follows: 1. Di......
-
Contract Law Update - Developments Of Note 2015
...Ltd. v. Kuehne & Nagel International Ltd., [1992] 3 S.C.R. 288 and Fraser River Pile & Dredge Ltd. v. Can-Dive Services Ltd., [1999] 3 S.C.R. 108: Articulated the "third party beneficiary" or principled exception to the doctrine of privity. From the perspective of commercial certain......
-
Table of cases
...383 PERSONAL PROPERTY SECURITY LAW 806 Fraser River Pile & Dredge Ltd v Can-Dive Services Ltd, [1999] 3 SCR 108, 176 DLR (4th) 257, [1999] SCJ No 48 ....................................... 533 Fraser v Macpherson (1898), 34 NBR 417 (CA) ................................................. 296 ......
-
Table Of Cases
...Co v Essington II (The), 2005 FC 405 ................................... 259 Fraser River Pile & Dredge Ltd v Can-Dive Services Ltd, [1999] 3 SCR 108, 176 DLR (4th) 257, 1999 CanLII 654 ........................... 409, 604−5 Fraser River Pile & Dredge v Empire Tug Boats Ltd (1995), 95 FTR 4......
-
Management and Enforcement
...judicial exception being made here to privity of contract rules, see Fraser River Pile & Dredge Ltd. v. Can-Dive Services Ltd. , [1999] 3 S.C.R. 108 at [31]; Friedmann Equity Developments Inc. v. Final Note Ltd. , [2000] 1 S.C.R. 842 at [42]–[52]. INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW 588 the general l......
-
Table of Cases
...25 C.P.R. (4th) 172 ................................................... 242 Fraser River Pile & Dredge Ltd. v. Can-Dive Services Ltd., [1999] 3 S.C.R. 108, 176 D.L.R. (4th) 257, [1999] 9 W.W.R. 380 ........................... 587 Fraser v. Evans, [1969] 1 Q.B. 349 (C.A.) .........................