Marley Co. et al. v. Cast North America (1983) Inc. et al., (1995) 94 F.T.R. 45 (TD)

JudgeNadon, J.
CourtFederal Court (Canada)
Case DateMarch 06, 1995
JurisdictionCanada (Federal)
Citations(1995), 94 F.T.R. 45 (TD)

Marley Co. v. Cast North Am. Inc. (1995), 94 F.T.R. 45 (TD)

MLB headnote and full text

Action In Rem v. The Ship "Cast Husky" and In Personam v. The Cast North America (1983) Inc., Conbulkships 1 Limited, Cast (1983) Ltd., Cast Container Ltd., Soo Line Railroad, The Owners and Charterers of the Vessel "Cast Husky" and the Vessel "Cast Husky"

Marley Company and Marley Pump Company and Marley Pump International B.V. (plaintiffs) v. Cast North America (1983) Inc., Conbulkships 1 Limited, Cast (1983) Ltd., Cast Container Ltd., Soo Line Railroad, The Owners and Charterers of the Vessel "Cast Husky" and The Vessel "Cast Husky" (defendants)

(T-2718-93)

Indexed As: Marley Co. et al. v. Cast North America (1983) Inc. et al.

Federal Court of Canada

Trial Division

Nadon, J.

March 31, 1995.

Summary:

The plaintiffs engaged the "Cast Group" to carry a container of water pumps and related equipment from Illinois to Holland. Cast Group retained Soo Line to carry the container from Illinois to Montreal via rail. Cast Group would then ship it to Holland. However, the container never made it to Montreal because it was dropped while being loaded onto a railcar in Illinois. The plaintiffs sued Cast Group and Soo Line in the Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division. Soo Line sought an order that the Federal Court had no jurisdiction to hear the plaintiffs' action against it.

The Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, dismissed Soo Line's application.

Admiralty - Topic 3081

Jurisdiction - Particular cases - Carriage by ship and railroad - General - [See Courts - Topic 4024 ].

Courts - Topic 4020

Federal Court of Canada - Jurisdiction - Trial Division - Claims made under a statute of Canada - The plaintiffs engaged the "Cast Group" to carry a container of equipment from Illinois to Holland - Cast Group retained Soo Line to transport the container from Illinois to Montreal via rail - The container never reached Montreal, but was dropped while being loaded onto a railcar in Illinois - The plaintiffs sued Cast Group and Soo Line - Soo Line argued that the Federal Court lacked jurisdiction to hear the plaintiffs' action against it - The Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, discussed generally its jurisdiction under ss. 22 and 23 of the Federal Court Act and dismissed Soo Line's application - Though the court agreed that the plaintiffs' claim was beyond the scope of s. 22, it held that it did not have enough evidence to determine whether the actions of Soo Line would be caught under s. 23 - See paragraphs 8 to 43.

Courts - Topic 4024

Federal Court of Canada - Jurisdiction - Trial Division - Navigation and shipping - The plaintiffs engaged the "Cast Group" to carry a container of equipment from Illinois to Holland - Cast Group retained Soo Line to transport the container from Illinois to Montreal via rail - Cast Group would then ship it to Holland - However, the container never reached Montreal - It was dropped while being loaded onto a railcar in Illinois - The plaintiffs sued Cast Group and Soo Line in the Federal Court of Canada - The Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, held that it lacked "maritime" jurisdiction to hear the plaintiffs' claim against Soo Line because the claim did not seek a remedy under any law relating to navigation and shipping - Furthermore, the claim did not fall within the scope of the Federal Court Act, s. 22(2)(f), because Soo Line was not a party to any contract of carriage with the plaintiffs - See paragraphs 1 to 21.

Courts - Topic 4026

Federal Court of Canada - Jurisdiction - Trial Division - Maritime and admiralty matters - [See Courts - Topic 4024 ].

Courts - Topic 4045

Federal Court of Canada - Jurisdiction - Trial Division - Exclusions - Jurisdiction specially assigned - Federal Court Act, s. 23 - The plaintiffs engaged the "Cast Group" to carry a container of equipment from Illinois to Holland - Cast Group retained Soo Line to carry the container from Illinois to Montreal via rail - However, the container never reached Montreal - It was dropped while being loaded onto a railcar in Illinois - The plaintiffs sued Cast Group and Soo Line in the Federal Court of Canada - The plaintiffs alleged, inter alia, that Soo Line was a "work and undertaking" that extended beyond the limits of a Province - Accordingly, the Federal Court had jurisdiction to hear its action against Soo Line under the Federal Court Act, s. 23 - The Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, discussed generally its jurisdiction under s. 23, however, declined to determine the issue for lack of evidence - See paragraphs 22 to 44.

Cases Noticed:

Anglophoto Ltd. v. Ship Ikaros, [1973] F.C. 483 (T.D.), consd. [para. 9].

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, refd to. [para. 20].

Watt & Scott Inc. v. Chantry Shipping S.A. et al., [1988] 1 F.C. 537; 11 F.T.R. 242 (T.D.), consd. [para. 23].

Anglophoto Ltd. v. Ship Ikaros et al., [1974] 1 F.C. 327; 2 N.R. 509 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 24].

Statutes Noticed:

Federal Court Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. F-7, sect. 22(1), sect. 22(2)(f) [para. 8]; sect. 23 [para. 22].

Railway Act, R.S.C. 1970, c. R-2, sect. 2 [para. 35]; sect. 5, sect. 6(1) [para. 36]; sect. 262 [para. 28].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Carver's Carriage by Sea (12th Ed. 1971), p. 172, para. 200 [para. 12].

Scrutton, Charterparties and Bills of Lading (19th Ed. 1984), p. 378, art. 179 [para. 13].

Counsel:

Ginette Despars, for the plaintiff;

Jean-Francois Bilodeau, for the defendant.

Solicitors of Record:

Marler, Sproule, Castonguay, Montreal, Quebec, for the plaintiff;

Wendlandt, Paré, Despars, Montreal, Quebec, for the defendant.

This application was heard on March 6, 1995, at Montreal, Quebec, before Nadon, J., of the Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, who delivered the following judgment on March 31, 1995.

To continue reading

Request your trial
1 practice notes
  • Matsuura Machiner Corp. et al. v. Hapag Lloyd A.G. et al., (1996) 108 F.T.R. 42 (TD)
    • Canada
    • Canada (Federal) Federal Court (Canada)
    • February 26, 1996
    ...Co. v. Ship Dart Europe, [1984] 1 F.C. 256 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 9]. Marley Co. et al. v. Cast North America (1983) Inc. et al. (1995), 94 F.T.R. 45 (T.D.), refd to. [para. Bensol Customs Brokers Ltd. v. Air Canada, [1979] 2 F.C. 575 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 11]. Watt & Scott Inc. v.......
1 cases
  • Matsuura Machiner Corp. et al. v. Hapag Lloyd A.G. et al., (1996) 108 F.T.R. 42 (TD)
    • Canada
    • Canada (Federal) Federal Court (Canada)
    • February 26, 1996
    ...Co. v. Ship Dart Europe, [1984] 1 F.C. 256 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 9]. Marley Co. et al. v. Cast North America (1983) Inc. et al. (1995), 94 F.T.R. 45 (T.D.), refd to. [para. Bensol Customs Brokers Ltd. v. Air Canada, [1979] 2 F.C. 575 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 11]. Watt & Scott Inc. v.......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT