Matsuura Machiner Corp. et al. v. Hapag Lloyd A.G. et al., (1996) 108 F.T.R. 42 (TD)

• Judge: Pinard, J.
• Court: Federal Court (Canada)
• Case Date: February 26, 1996
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (1996), 108 F.T.R. 42 (TD)

Matsuura Machiner v. Hapag Lloyd AG (1996), 108 F.T.R. 42 (TD)

MLB headnote and full text

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

(T-2260-94)

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

Federal Court of Canada

Trial Division

Pinard, J.

March 5, 1996.

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 plaintiffs 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 and notice to codefendant, 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, allowed the application and dismissed the action and notice to codefendant. The Federal Court lacked jurisdiction under the Federal Court Act.

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 - The trucking company was not a party to the agreement for carriage of the cargo by ship - It had a separate contract with the sea carrier - Such transportation by land was not "integrally connected to maritime matters as to be legitimate Canadian maritime law within federal legislative competence" under ss. 22(1) or 22(2)(f) of the Federal Court Act - The trucking company's activities were not part and parcel of the contract of carriage by sea.

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

Sio Export Trading 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. 10].

Bensol Customs Brokers Ltd. v. Air Canada, [1979] 2 F.C. 575 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 11].

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

Statutes Noticed:

Federal Court Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. F-7, sect. 22(1), sect. 22(2)(f), sect. 23 [para. 4].

Counsel:

Francis Rouleau, for the plaintiffs;

David Colford, for the defendant, Nippon Yusan Kaisha Line;

Genevieve Marcotte, for the defendant, Melburn Truck Lines.

Solicitors of Record:

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

Brisset, Bishop, Montreal, Quebec, for the defendant, Nippon Yusan Kaisha Line;

Lavery, Debilly, Montreal, Quebec, for the defendant, Melburn Truck Lines.

This application was heard on February 26, 1996, at Montreal, Quebec, before Pinard, J., of the Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, who delivered the following judgment on March 5, 1996.