Matsuura Machiner Corp. et al. v. Hapag Lloyd AG et al., (1997) 211 N.R. 156 (FCA)

• Court: Federal Court of Appeal (Canada)
• Case Date: March 12, 1997
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (1997), 211 N.R. 156 (FCA)

Matsuura Machiner v. Hapag Lloyd (1997), 211 N.R. 156 (FCA)

MLB headnote and full text

Matsuura Machiner Corporation, Elliott Machinery (Canada) Ltd. and all others interested in the Cargo Laden on board the vessel Heidelberg Express (B/L No. NYKS 130003079) (appellants) v. Melburn Truck Lines Ltd. (respondent) and Hapag Lloyd A.G., Nippon Yusan Kaisha Line, Nippon Yusan Kaisha Line c/o NYK Line (Canada) Inc., Asahi Unyu Kaisha Ltd., the Owners and Charterers of the Vessel Heidelberg Express and the Vessel Heidelberg Express (third party)

(A-213-96)

Nippon Yusan Kaisha Line (appellant) v. Melburn Truck Lines Ltd. (respondent) and Matsuura Machiner Corporation, Elliott Machinery (Canada) Ltd., all others interested in the Cargo Laden on Board the Vessel Heidelberg Express (B/L No. NYKS 130003079) and Hapag Lloyd A.G., Nippon Yusan Kaisha Line c/o NYK Line (Canada) Inc., Asahi Unyu Kaisha Ltd., the Owners and Charterers of the Vessel Heidelberg Express and the Vessel Heidelberg Express (third party)

(A-220-96)

Nippon Yusan Kaisha Line (appellant) v. Melburn Truck Lines Ltd. (respondent) and Matsuura Machiner Corporation, Elliott Machinery (Canada) Ltd., all others interested in the Cargo Laden on board the Vessel Heidelberg Express (B/L No. NYKS 130003079) and Hapag Lloyd A.G., Nippon Yusan Kaisha Line c/o NYK Line (Canada) Inc., Asahi Unyu Kaisha Ltd., the Owners and Charterers of the Vessel Heidelberg Express and the Vessel Heidelberg Express (third pary)

(A-221-96)

Indexed As: Matsuura Machiner Corp. et al. v. Hapag Lloyd AG et al.

Federal Court of Appeal

Pratte, Décary, JJ.A., and Chevalier, D.J.(ad hoc)

March 12, 1997.

Summary:

The plaintiff cargo owners shipped their cargo by sea to New Jersey and then by truck to Oakville, Ontario. Cargo was damaged at some point during transit. The plaintiff sued in contract and negligence against all carriers, including the trucking company. A codefendant claimed indemnity against the trucking company, should it be found liable. The trucking company applied to dismiss the action on the ground that the Federal Court lacked jurisdiction over the subject matter of the claim, because the carriage of cargo by truck was not governed by Canadian maritime law.

The Federal Court of Canada, Trial Di­vision, in three decisions, including a de­cision reported at 108 F.T.R. 42, held that the Federal Court lacked jurisdiction. The ocean carrier and the cargo owners appealed. The three appeals were heard together.

The Federal Court of Appeal dismissed the appeals.

Courts - Topic 4026

Federal Court of Canada - Jurisdiction - Trial Division - Maritime and admiralty matters - Cargo was shipped from Japan to New Jersey by ship and then to Ontario by truck - The plaintiff cargo owners sued all carriers in contract and negligence for damage occurring sometime during transit - The trucking company challenged the Federal Court's jurisdiction respecting the claim against it, submitting the claim was not a matter governed by Canadian mari­time law - The Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, held that it lacked jurisdic­tion - Transportation by land was not "integrally connected to maritime matters as to be legitimate Canadian maritime law within federal legislative competence" under s. 22(1) or 22(2)(f) of the Federal Court Act - Also, s. 23 was not applicable - The Federal Court of Appeal affirmed the decision.

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, refd to. [para. 5].

Statutes Noticed:

Federal Court Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. F-7, sect. 22(2)(f), sect. 23 [para. 5].

Counsel:

Frances Rouleau, for the appellants;

Geneviève Marcotte, for the respondent;

David G. Colford, for the third party.

Solicitors of Record:

Sproule, Castonguay, Pollack, Montreal, Quebec, for the appellants;

Lavery DeBilly, Montreal, Quebec, for the respondent;

Brisset Bishop, Montreal, Quebec, for the third party.

These appeals were heard on March 11 and 12, 1997 at Montreal, Quebec, before Pratte, Décary, JJ.A., and Chevalier, D.J.(ad hoc), of the Federal Court of Appeal. On March 12, 1997, Pratte, J.A., delivered the following judgment for the court.