Monk Corp. v. Island Fertilizers Ltd., (1991) 123 N.R. 1 (SCC)

• Judge: Stevenson and Iacobucci, JJ.
• Court: Supreme Court (Canada)
• Case Date: January 30, 1991
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (1991), 123 N.R. 1 (SCC);1991 CanLII 95 (SCC);[1991] SCJ No 28 (QL);123 NR 1;41 FTR 79;80 DLR (4th) 58;[1991] ACS no 28;[1991] 1 SCR 779

Monk Corp. v. Island Fertilizers Ltd. (1991), 123 N.R. 1 (SCC)

MLB headnote and full text

[French language version follows English language version]

[La version française vient à la suite de la version anglaise]

....................

The Monk Corporation (appellant and cross-respon­dent) v. Island Fertilizers Limited (respondent and cross-appellant)

(21647)

Indexed As: Monk Corp. v. Island Fertilizers Ltd.

Supreme Court of Canada

Lamer, C.J.C., La Forest, L'Heureux-Dubé,

Sopinka, Gonthier, Cory, McLachlin,

Stevenson and Iacobucci, JJ.

April 18, 1991.

Summary:

The defendant corporation agreed to pur­chase a cargo of urea from the plaintiff to be delivered to three Canadian ports. The urea was transported on a ship as bulk cargo and was discharged at the three ports using shore cranes fitted with clam buckets. The plaintiff commenced an action against the defendant for recovery of the cost of an excess quantity of urea delivered, demurrage costs and the costs of the shore cranes used to unload.

The Federal Court of Canada, Trial Divi­sion, in a decision reported 19 F.T.R. 220, allowed the plaintiff's action. The defendant appealed.

The Federal Court of Appeal, in a decision reported 97 N.R. 384, allowed the appeal in part. The judges of the Court of Appeal were divided on whether the court had jurisdiction over the claims. The plaintiff appealed and the defendant cross-appealed.

The Supreme Court of Canada, L'Heur­eux-Dubé, J., dissenting, allowed the appeal, set aside the decision of the Court of Appeal and restored the decision of the Trial Divi­sion. The court dismissed the cross-appeal.

Courts- Topic 4026

Federal Court of Canada - Jurisdiction - Trial Division - Maritime and admiralty matters - The defendant corporation agreed to purchase a cargo of urea from the plaintiff to be delivered to three Cana­dian ports - The urea was transported on the ship as bulk cargo and was dis­charged using shore cranes fitted with clam buckets - The plaintiff sued the defendant for recovery of the cost of an excess of cargo delivered, demurrage costs and the costs of the shore cranes - The Supreme Court of Canada held that the Federal Court had jurisdiction to hear all the claims under s. 22(1) of the Federal Court Act because, inter alia, the claims were integrally con­nected with matters of Canadian maritime law in the modern context of commerce and shipping.

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, appld. [para. 11 et seq.].

Chartwell Shipping Ltd. v. Q.N.S. Paper Co. Ltd., [1989] 2 S.C.R. 683; 101 N.R. 1, refd to. [para. 17].

Wewayakum Indian Band v. Canada et al., [1989] 1 S.C.R. 322; 92 N.R. 241; 25 F.T.R. 161, refd to. [paras. 24, 81, 116].

Roberts v. Canada - see Wewayakum Indian Band v. Canada et al.

Whitbread v. Walley (1990), 120 N.R. 109 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 24].

Robert Simpson Montreal Ltd. v. Ham­burg-Amerika Linie Norddeutscher, [1973] F.C. 1356; 1 N.R. 158 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 39].

Canadian Pacific Ltd. and Incan Ships Ltd. v. Quebec Northshore Paper Co. et al., [1977] 2 S.C.R. 1054; 9 N.R. 471, refd to. [para. 80].

Government of Canada v. McNamara Construction (Western) Ltd. et al., [1977] 2 S.C.R. 654; 13 N.R. 181, refd to. [para. 80].

Siddael (William) & Sons Fisheries v. Pembina Exploration Canada Ltd., [1989] 1 S.C.R. 206; 92 N.R. 137, refd to. [para. 82].

Foundation Company of Canada Ltd. v. Canada and Thomas Fuller Construc­tion Co. (1958) Ltd., [1980] 1 S.C.R. 695; 30 N.R. 249, refd to. [para. 84].

Sivaco Wire & Nail Company et al. v. Tropwood A.G. et al., [1979] 2 S.C.R. 157; 26 N.R. 213, refd to. [para. 89].

R. v. Canadian Vickers Ltd., [1978] 2 F.C. 675, refd to. [para. 89].

Domestic Converters Corp. v. Arctic Steamship Line, [1984] 1 F.C. 211, refd to. [para. 91].

Reference Re Industrial Relations and Disputes Act, [1955] S.C.R. 529, refd to. [para. 93].

Sumitomo Shoji Canada Ltd. v. The "Ju­zan Maru", [1974] 2 F.C. 488, refd to. [para. 97].

Kuhr v. The "Friedrich Busse", [1982] 2 F.C. 709, refd to. [para. 97].

Terrasses Jewellers Inc. v. Triglav, [1983] 1 S.C.R. 283; 54 N.R. 321, refd to. [para. 101].

Statutes Noticed:

Carriage of Goods by Water Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-27, Rules Relating to Bills of Lading, art. I, art. II, art. V, art. VI, art. VII [para. 39].

Constitution Act, 1867, sect. 91(10) [paras. 39, 57, 94]; sect. 92 [para. 41]; sect. 92(13) [paras. 18, 27, 58].

Federal Court Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. F-7, sect. 2, sect. 22(1), sect. 22(2)(i), sect. 22(2)(m) [para. 1 et seq.].

Rules Relating To Bills Of Lading - see Carriage of Goods By Water Act.

Sale of Goods Act, R.S.P.E.I. 1974, c. S-1, generally [paras. 22, 33]; sect. 3(1), sect. 27, sect. 30, sect. 32, sect. 37, sect. 49, sect. 59 [para. 62].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Braën, André, L'arrêt ITO - International Terminal Operators Ltd. c. Miida Elec­tronics Inc., ou comment écarter l'appli­cation du droit civil dans un litige mari­time au Québec (1986/87), 32 McGill L.J. 386, generally [para. 24].

Carver, Thomas Gilbert, Carver's Carriage by Sea (13th Ed. 1982), vol. 2, pp. 1061-1109 [para. 39].

Evans, J.M. and Brian Slattery, Federal Jurisdiction -- Pendent Parties -- Ab­original Title and Federal Common Law -- Charter Challenges -- Reform Pro­posals: Roberts v. Canada (1989), 68 Can. Bar Rev. 817, generally [para. 24].

Evans, J.M., Comments on Legislation and Judicial Decisions -- Federal Jurisdic­tion -- A Lamentable Situation (1981), 59 Can. Bar Rev. 124, generally [para. 85].

Glenn, H. Patrick, Maritime Law -- Fed­eral Court Jurisdiction -- Canadian Maritime Law -- Relationship to Civil and Common Law: International Terminal Operators Ltd. v. Miida Elec­tronics Inc. (1987), 66 Can. Bar Rev. 360, generally [paras. 24, 85].

Hogg, P.W., Constitutional Law -- Limits of Federal Court Jurisdiction -- Is There a Federal Common Law? (1977), 55 Can. Bar Rev. 550, generally [para. 80].

Laskin, J. and R. Sharpe, Constricting Federal Court Jurisdiction: A Comment on Fuller Construction (1980), 30 U. of T.L.J. 283, generally [para. 85].

Payne, William, Payne & Ivamy's Carriage of Goods by Sea (11th Ed. 1979), pp. 122-152 [para. 39].

Reif, Linda C., A Comment on ITO Ltd. v. Miida Electronics Inc. -- The Supreme Court of Canada, Privity of Contract and the Himalaya Clause (1988), 26 Alta. L. Rev. 372, generally [para. 24].

Scott, S., Canadian Federal Courts and the Constitutional Limits of Their Jurisdic­tion (1982), 27 McGill L.J. 137, gen­erally [para. 85].

Scrutton, Thomas Edward, Sir, Scrutton on Charterparties and Bills of Lading (19th Ed. 1984) [para. 39].

Tetley, William, Maritime Law Judgments in Canada -- 1979 (1981), 6 Dalhousie L.J. 676, generally [para. 85].

Tetley, William, The "Buenos Aires Maru" -- Has the Whole Nature of Canadian Maritime Law Been Changed? (1988), 10 Sup. Ct. L. Rev. 399, generally [paras. 24, 85].

Counsel:

David F.H. Marler, for the appellant;

David G. Colford, for the respondent.

Solicitors of Record:

Marler, Sproule & Pilotte, Montreal, Que­bec, for the appellant;

Brisset Bishop, Montreal, Quebec, for the respondent.

This appeal was heard on January 30, 1991, before Lamer, C.J.C., La Forest, L'Heureux-Dubé, Sopinka, Gonthier, Cory, McLachlin, Stevenson and Iacobucci, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada. The decision of the court was delivered on April 18, 1991, including the following opinions:

Iacobucci, J. (Lamer, C.J.C., La Forest, Sopinka, Gonthier, Cory, McLachlin and Stevenson, JJ., concurring) - see paragraphs 1 to 44;

L'Heureux-Dubé, J., dissenting - see paragraphs 45 to 117.