Ordon et al. v. Grail, (1998) 232 N.R. 201 (SCC)

• Judge: McLachlin, Iacobucci, Major and Bastarache, JJ.
• Court: Supreme Court (Canada)
• Case Date: June 22, 1998
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (1998), 232 N.R. 201 (SCC);115 OAC 1;AZ-98111104;40 OR (3d) 639;EYB 1998-09407;[1998] ACS no 84;[1998] 3 SCR 437;JE 98-2410;1998 CanLII 771 (SCC);232 NR 201;83 ACWS (3d) 897;166 DLR (4th) 193;[1998] SCJ No 84 (QL);[1998] 3 S.C.R. 437

Ordon v. Grail (1998), 232 N.R. 201 (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: [1998] N.R. TBEd. NO.016

Christopher Hogarth, Murray Hogarth and Diana Ruth Hogarth (appellants) and Josephine Perry and John Haller (appellants) v. John Emmett Hall, Frances Norma Hall, Susan Frances Hall, E. Bruce Hall, John Peter Hall by his committee Maureen Hall, Maureen Hall as executrix of the estate of Yvonne Louise Carroll, Maureen Hall in her personal capacity, Martha Isabel Hall, Thomas James Hall, David Robert Hall, Richard Lawrence Carroll, Marie Helena Carroll, John Gregory Carroll, Margaret Jane Carroll, Marie Suzanne Carroll, Joan Shelagh Carroll and Laing Douglas Carroll (respondents) and Ontario Holidays Corporation carrying on business as The Edenvale Inn (respondent)

Christopher Hogarth, Murray Hogarth and Diana Ruth Hogarth (appellants) and The Edenvale Inn or Edenvale and Ontario Holidays Corporation carrying on business as the Edenvale Inn or Edenvale (appellants) v. Josephine Perry (respondent)

Christopher Hogarth, Murray Hogarth and Diana Ruth Hogarth (appellants) and Ontario Holidays Corporation carrying on business as the Edenvale Inn (appellant) and Josephine Perry and John Haller (appellants) v. Joanne Maude Perry, William George Perry, William Harold Perry, Janet Ellen MacPhee, Ian Forbes Perry, Susan Joanne Perry, Leslie Carol Perry, Tara Colleen Boyle, Lindsay Patrick Perry, Roberta Joanne Perry, an infant, by her Litigation Guardian Joanne Maude Perry and Josephine Perry, in her capacity as Administratrix of the Estate of Grant Kevin Perry (respondents)

Larry Grail (appellant) v. Deborah Ordon, the Executrix of the Estate of Bernard Myron Ordon and the said Deborah Ordon, personally, Jeffrey Michael Ordon, a Minor, by his Litigation Guardian Deborah Ordon, Stephanie Ordon, a Minor, by her Litigation Guardian Deborah Ordon, and Bessie Ordon (respondents) and The Attorney General of Quebec (intervener)

(25702)

Indexed As: Ordon et al. v. Grail

Supreme Court of Canada

L'Heureux-Dubé, Gonthier, Cory,

McLachlin, Iacobucci, Major

and Bastarache, JJ.

November 26, 1998.

Summary:

Negligence actions were commenced in the Ontario Court (General Division) relating to two boating accidents which occurred on lakes within Ontario. The proceedings led to an appeal (the Lake Erie action) and special case actions (the Lake Joseph actions) which raised issues concerning the jurisdiction of the Ontario Court (General Division) over in personam actions arising from boating acci­dents on provincial inland waters. Issues were also raised respecting the applicability of the Canada Shipping Act and certain provincial statutes (i.e., the Family Law Act (Ont.), the Trustee Act (Ont.), the Occupiers' Liability Act (Ont.) and the Negligence Act (Ont.)) to fatal accident and personal injury claims arising from boating accidents on such waters. Limitations periods were also in issue.

The Ontario Court of Appeal, in a decision reported 94 O.A.C. 241, held that the Ontario Court (General Division) was prop­erly vested with jurisdiction over the claims. The court dealt with the other issues ac­cordingly. (For a summary of the appeal court's rulings, see paragraphs 23 to 36 below). The defendants appealed and several plaintiffs cross-appealed. The issues raised on appeal were: (1) the jurisdiction of the Ontario Court (General Division); (2) the constitutional applicability of the Family Law Act (Ont.), the Trustee Act (Ont.), the Negligence Act (Ont.), the Act Respecting Compensation to the Families of Persons Killed by Accident and in Duels and the English Fatal Accidents Acts, 1846 to 1908, to maritime law claims arising out of a boating accident; and (3) the applicable limitation period.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeals and cross-appeals. The court's conclusions including the following:

(1) The Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, and the provincial superior courts had concurrent jurisdiction over in personam fatal accident claims by de­pendants of a deceased arising from the alleged negligent operation or ownership of a vessel on navigable waters within a province. Therefore the Ontario Court (General Division) was vested with juris­diction in this case.

(2) The court set out a four part test for determining whether a provincial statute was constitutionally applicable in the con­text of a negligence action.

(3) In applying this test in this case, the court held that it was approriate to reform Canadian maritime law to allow negligence claims by dependants for damages for loss of guidance, care and companionship arising out of a fatal accident, to allow claims by dependants for damages (includ­ing damages for loss of guidance, care and companionship) arising out of an accident causing personal injury, and to allow a claim by an executor brought in the name of the deceased with respect to an action which the deceased could have brought had he or she lived. With these reforms, the court found it unnecessary to determine the constitutional applicability of the Fam­ily Law Act and the Trustee Act.

(4) The court held that it was not appro­priate to reform Canadian maritime law to allow siblings of a person killed or injured in a boating accident to qualify as "de­pendants" for the purpose of a de­pendant's claim for damages, nor was the Ontario Family Law Act constitutionally applicable to allow such claims to be brought.

(5) The court, however, also reformed Canadian maritime law to define "de­pendants" for the purpose of a dependant's claim in relation to a person injured but not killed, in the same manner as the term was defined for the purpose of dependants' fatal accident claims under s. 645 of the Canada Shipping Act and to allow such dependants to make the same claims for damages as dependants bringing fatal accident claims.

(6) The court held that a general regime of apportionment of liability according to fault, with joint and several liability among tortfeasors and contribution between tort­feasors, applies in Canadian maritime negligence actions. Accordingly, it was not necessary for the court to consider the constitutional applicability of the Negli­gence Act in these appeals.

(7) The court held that the dependants' fatal accident claims as well as all other claims in the Lake Joseph actions were subject to the two-year limitation period set out in s. 572(1) of the Canada Shipping Act.

(8) The court held that the constitutional applicability of the Act Respecting Com­pensation to the Families of Persons killed by Accident, and in Duels, and of the English Fatal Accidents Acts, 1846 to 1908, need not be determined.

Admiralty - Topic 3101

Jurisdiction - Particular cases - Fatal acci­dents - General - Several in personam actions were commenced by dependents of persons killed in boating accidents on provincial inland waters (lakes in Ontario) - An issue arose respecting whether the Ontario Court (General Division) had jurisdiction over the claims or whether jurisdiction had been ousted by s. 646 of the Canada Shipping Act - The Supreme Court of Canada rejected the argument that s. 646 assigned exclusive jurisdiction to the Federal Court - Rather, the court held that the Federal Court of Canada, Trial Di­vision, and the provincial superior courts had concurrent jurisdiction over such claims - Therefore the Ontario Court (Gen­eral Division) was vested with juris­diction in this case - See paragraphs 41 to 65.

Admiralty - Topic 6021

Principles of law - Canadian maritime law - General - [See Admiralty - Topic 6023 and first and second Admiralty - Topic 6024 ].

Admiralty - Topic 6023

Principles of law - Canadian maritime law - Sources - The Supreme Court of Canada summarized the general principles and themes regarding the sources and content of Canadian maritime law, the role of provincial law in relation thereto, and the scope for gradual change and development in maritime law - See paragraph 71.

Admiralty - Topic 6024

Principles of law - Canadian maritime law - Fatal accidents (incl. application of pro­vincial legislation) - The Supreme Court of Canada discussed the history of fatal acci­dent claims under Canadian maritime law -See paragraphs 51 to 57.

Admiralty - Topic 6024

Principles of law - Canadian maritime law - Fatal accidents (incl. application of pro­vincial legislation) - The Supreme Court of Canada set out a four step test for de­ter­mining when it is constitutionally per­missible for provincial statutes to be applied in the context of a maritime law negligence action - See paragraphs 72 to 95.

Admiralty - Topic 6024

Principles of law - Canadian maritime law - Fatal accidents (incl. application of pro­vincial legislation) - Family members of persons killed or injured in boating ac­cidents on lakes in the Province of Ontario (the plaintiffs) commenced actions for damages for loss of guidance, care and companionship under the Ontario Family Law Act - An issue arose respecting whether the provisions of the Family Law Act allowing for such claims were consti­tutionally inapplicable to a maritime law claim for loss of guidance, care and com­panionship - The Supreme Court of Canada held that the plaintiffs' claims for loss of guidance, care and companionship could be brought under Canadian maritime law by expanding the definition of "dam­ages" within the context of maritime acci­dent claims - Therefore there was no need to resort to provincial statutes and it was unnecessary to address the constitutional applicability issue - See paragraphs 96 to 103.

Admiralty - Topic 6024

Principles of law - Canadian maritime law - Fatal accidents (incl. application of pro­vincial legislation) - Section 645 of the Canada Shipping Act listed the dependants who could pursue a fatal accidents claim (wife, husband, parent or child), but did not include "siblings" - A question arose as to whether the court should reform non-statutory maritime law to allow sib­lings to make fatal accident claims - The Supreme Court of Canada refused to reform the law to allow siblings to make fatal accident claims - Further, the court held that the class of eligible dependants who could pursue a personal injury case at common law was the same as the list in s. 645 - The court also refused to expand the class of eligible dependants who could pursue a personal injury claim at common law to include siblings - See paragraphs 104 to 108.

Admiralty - Topic 6024

Principles of law - Canadian maritime law - Fatal accidents (incl. application of pro­vincial legislation) - An issue arose as to whether siblings of persons killed or injured in boating accidents on lakes in the Province of Ontario could pursue claims under the Ontario Family Law Act, ss. 61(1) and 61(2)(e) - The Supreme Court of Canada held that Canadian maritime law did not allow claims by siblings - The court held that the Family Law Act was not constitutionally applicable to allow such claims to be brought - Rather, ss. 61(1) and 61(2)(e) had to be read down so as not to apply to maritime negligence claims - See paragraph 109.

Admiralty - Topic 6024

Principles of law - Canadian maritime law - Fatal accidents (incl. application of pro­vincial legislation) - Family members of persons killed in boating accidents on lakes in the Province of Ontario (the plaintiffs), commenced actions for damages under the Ontario Family Law Act - The plaintiffs argued that should the Family Law Act not apply to their claims, they should be able to base their claims on the Act Respecting Compensation to the Fam­ilies of Persons Killed by Accident, and in Duels and the English Fatal Accidents Acts, 1846 to 1908 - The Supreme Court of Canada affirmed that these Acts had been effectively replaced by the provisions of the Canada Shipping Act - See para­graphs 110 to 111.

Admiralty - Topic 6024

Principles of law - Canadian maritime law - Fatal accidents (incl. application of pro­vincial legislation) - The Canada Shipping Act fatal accident provisions did not per­mit a deceased's estate to sue for damages, however, s. 38 of the Trustee Act (Ont.) allowed such claims - The Ontario Court of Appeal held that there was a gap between the Canada Shipping Act and the Trustee Act and, therefore, the Trustee Act could be applied to fill the gap - The Supreme Court of Canada held that it was unnecessary for the Court of Appeal to decide upon the applicability of the Trustee Act to resolve the issue of whether execu­tors were permitted to bring such claims - Rather, the court resolved the issue by reforming the common law bar against the survival of actions in the mari­time context - See paragraphs 113 to 117.

Admiralty - Topic 6024

Principles of law - Canadian maritime law - Fatal accidents (incl. application of pro­vincial legislation) - An issue arose re­specting whether the Ontario Negligence Act was applicable in maritime negligence claims brought under the Canada Shipping Act for losses arising out of boating acci­dents - The Ontario Court of Appeal held that the Negligence Act could be applied and, therefore, the common law bar to recovery in the event of contributory neg­li­gence would not operate - The Supreme Court of Canada noted that the Court of Appeal did not have the benefit of the court's 1997 judgment in Bow Valley Husky v. Saint John Shipbuilding which reformed maritime common law to allow for the apportionment of liability between defendants according to fault, as well as for joint and several liability and a right of contribution between defendants - See paragraphs 118, 119.

Admiralty - Topic 6024

Principles of law - Canadian maritime law - Fatal accidents (incl. application of pro­vincial legislation) - The Canada Shipping Act, Part XIV, contained fatal accident provisions allowing certain of the de­ceased's dependants to recover damages - Section 649, in Part XIV, provided that actions had to be commenced within 12 months after the deceased's death - An issue arose respecting whether the one year limitation period in s. 649 applied to all fatal injury actions or whether the two year limitation period in s. 572(1) (which was outside Part XIV) could be applied in a situation where a fatal injury occurred in a collision between two boats - The Supreme Court of Canada held that fatal accident claimants could rely on the two-year limi­tation period in s. 572(1) in situ­ations where death was caused as a result of a boating collision - See paragraphs 120 to 139.

Admiralty - Topic 6024

Principles of law - Canadian maritime law - Fatal accidents (incl. application of pro­vincial legislation) - The Canada Shipping Act, Part XIV, contained fatal accident provisions allowing certain of the de­ceased's dependants to recover damages - The Supreme Court of Canada stated that Part XIV did not constitute a cohesive whole or a complete code with respect to fatal accident claims - Rather, Part XIV must be read in conjunction with other provisions of the Act and with other sources of Canadian maritime law includ­ing international treaties to which Canada is a signatory which deal with fatal acci­dent issues - See paragraph 125.

Admiralty - Topic 6025

Principles of law - Canadian maritime law - Contributory negligence - [See eighth Admiralty - Topic 6024 ].

Admiralty - Topic 6030

Principles of law - Canadian maritime law - Application - [See second Admiralty - Topic 6024 ].

Admiralty - Topic 8402

Practice - Actions in personam - Appli­cation of provincial legislation - [See all Admiralty - Topic 6024 ].

Admiralty - Topic 8404

Practice - Actions in personam - Personal injuries - [See third, fourth, fifth, seventh and eighth Admiralty - Topic 6024 ].

Admiralty - Topic 8405

Practice - Actions in personam - Fatal accidents - [See Admiralty - Topic 3101 and all Admiralty - Topic 6024 ].

Admiralty - Topic 8410

Practice - Actions in personam - Limita­tion periods - [See ninth Admiralty - Topic 6024 ].

Courts - Topic 4005

Federal Court of Canada - Jurisdiction - General - The Supreme Court of Canada discussed generally the jurisdiction of provincial superior courts - The court stated, inter alia, that as a general rule provincial superior courts have plenary and inherent jurisdiction to hear and decide all cases that come before them, regardless of whether the law applicable to a particular case is provincial, federal or constitutional - This general rule is subject to excep­tions, for example where Parliament con­fers jurisdiction upon federal courts - In light of the inherent general jurisdiction of the provincial superior courts, Parliament must use express statutory language where it intends to assign jurisdiction to the Federal Court - See paragraphs 44 to 46.

Courts - Topic 4026

Federal Court of Canada - Jurisdiction - Trial Division - Maritime and admiralty matters - [See Admiralty - Topic 3101 ].

Courts - Topic 5603

Provincial courts - Concurrent and con­flict­ing jurisdiction - Maritime and admir­alty matters - [See Admiralty - Topic 3101 ].

Courts - Topic 5681

Provincial courts - Jurisdiction or powers -[See Courts - Topic 4005 ].

Torts - Topic 7501

Fatal accidents - General - [See Admir­alty - Topic 3101 and first and second Ad­miralty - Topic 6024 ].

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. 20].

Whitbread v. Walley et al., [1990] 3 S.C.R. 1273; 120 N.R. 109, refd to. [para. 20].

Chartwell Shipping Ltd. v. Q.N.S. Paper Co., [1989] 2 S.C.R. 683; 101 N.R. 1; 26 Q.A.C. 81, refd to. [para. 24].

Stein Estate v. Ship Kathy K, [1976] 2 S.C.R. 802; 6 N.R. 359, not folld. [paras. 25, 94].

Miron and Valliere v. Trudel et al., [1995] 2 S.C.R. 418; 181 N.R. 253; 81 O.A.C. 253, refd to. [para. 34].

Basarsky v. Quinlan, [1972] S.C.R. 380, refd to. [para. 36].

Valin v. Langlois (1879), 3 S.C.R. 1, refd to. [para. 44].

Ontario (Attorney General) v. Pembina Exploration Canada Ltd., [1989] 1 S.C.R. 206, refd to. [para. 44].

Canadian Human Rights Commission v. Canadian Liberty Net et al., [1998] 1 S.C.R. 626; 224 N.R. 241, refd to. [para. 44].

Foundation Co. 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. 45].

Peacock v. Bell (1677), 1 Wms. Saund. 73; 85 E.R. 84, refd to. [para. 46].

Albon v. Pyke (1842), 4 Man. & G. 421; 134 E.R. 172, refd to. [para. 46].

Board v. Board, [1919] A.C. 956, refd to. [para. 46].

Minister of Social Welfare and Rehabilita­tion and Dube, Re (1963), 39 D.L.R.(2d) 302 (Sask. C.A.), refd to. [para. 46].

Shipman v. Phinn (1914), 31 O.L.R. 113 (H.C.), affd. (1914), 32 O.L.R. 329 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 47].

Pile Foundations Ltd. v. Selkirk Silica Co. (1967), 59 W.W.R.(N.S.) 622 (Man. C.A.), refd to. [para. 47].

Heath v. Kane (1975), 10 O.R.(2d) 716 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 47].

Harvey and Storey v. Tarala et al. (1977), 6 Sask.R. 74, refd to. [para. 47].

Seward v. The "Vera Cruz" (1884), 10 App. Cas. 59 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 53].

Ship Caliph, Re, [1912] P. 213, refd to. [para. 54].

Ship Catala v. Dagsland, [1928] Ex. C.R. 83, refd to. [para. 55].

Rogers v. S.S. Baron Carnegie, [1943] Ex. C.R. 163, refd to. [para. 55].

Canadian National Steamships Co. v. Watson, [1939] S.C.R. 11, not folld. [paras. 69, 94].

Monk Corp. v. Island Fertilizers Ltd., [1991] 1 S.C.R. 779; 123 N.R. 1, refd to. [para. 71].

Bow Valley Husky (Bermuda) Ltd. v. Saint John Shipbuilding Ltd., [1997] 3 S.C.R. 1210; 221 N.R. 1; 158 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 269; 490 A.P.R. 269, appld. [paras. 71, 118].

Porto Seguro Companhia De Seguros Gerais v. Belcan S.A. et al., [1997] 3 S.C.R. 1278; 220 N.R. 321, refd to. [para. 71].

Watkins v. Olafson et al., [1989] 2 S.C.R. 750; 100 N.R. 161; 61 Man.R.(2d) 81, refd to. [para. 76].

R. v. Salituro, [1991] 3 S.C.R. 654; 131 N.R. 161; 50 O.A.C. 125, refd to. [para. 76].

John Deere Plow Co. v. Wharton, [1915] A.C. 330, refd to. [para. 81].

Attorney General for Manitoba v. Attorney General for Canada, [1929] A.C. 260, refd to. [para. 81].

Commission du Salaire Minimum v. Bell Telephone Co. of Canada, [1966] S.C.R. 767, refd to. [para. 81].

Registrar of Motor Vehicles v. Canadian American Transfer Ltd., [1972] S.C.R. 811, refd to. [para. 81].

R. v. Dick, [1985] 2 S.C.R. 309; 62 N.R. 1, refd to. [para. 81].

Bell Canada v. Commission de la santé et de la sécurité du travail (Qué.) and Bilodeau et al., [1988] 1 S.C.R. 749; 85 N.R. 295; 15 Q.A.C. 217, refd to. [para. 81].

Commission de transport de la Com­munauté urbaine de Québec v. Commis­sion des champs de bataille nationaux, [1990] 2 S.C.R. 838; 115 N.R. 106, refd to. [para. 81].

Delgamuukw et al. v. British Columbia et al., [1997] 3 S.C.R. 1010; 220 N.R. 161; 99 B.C.A.C. 161; 162 W.A.C. 161, refd to. [para. 81].

Blake v. Midland Railway Co. (1852), 18 Q.B. 93; 118 E.R. 35, refd to. [para. 98].

Mason v. Peters (1982), 39 O.R.(2d) 27 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 98].

Baker v. Bolton (1808), 1 Camp. 493; 170 E.R. 1033 (K.B.), refd to. [para. 98].

Admiralty Commissioners v. S.S. Amerika, [1917] A.C. 38, refd to. [para. 98].

St. Lawrence & Ottawa Railway Co. v. Lett (1885), 11 S.C.R. 422, refd to. [para. 101].

Vana v. Tosta, [1968] S.C.R. 71, refd to. [para. 101].

Walpole v. Canadian Northern Railway Co., [1923] A.C. 113, refd to. [para. 114].

Toronto Transportation Commission v. The King, [1949] S.C.R. 510, refd to. [para. 118].

Gartland Steamship Co. v. The Queen, [1960] S.C.R. 315, refd to. [para. 118].

Fraser River Harbour Commission v. The "Hiro Maru", [1974] F.C. 490, refd to. [para. 118].

Ship Alnwick, [1965] 2 All E.R. 569, refd to. [para. 127].

Berardinelli v. Ontario Housing Corp., [1979] 1 S.C.R. 275; 23 N.R. 298, refd to. [para. 136].

Statutes Noticed:

Act to amend the Federal Court Act, the Crown Liability Act, the Supreme Court Act and other Acts in consequence there­of, S.C. 1990, c. 8, generally [para. 62].

Admiralty Act, 1934, S.C. 1934, c. 31, generally [para. 24].

Canada Shipping Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. S-9, sect. 2 [para. 18]; sect. 209(2) [paras. 18, 60]; sect. 453 [paras. 18, 60]; sect. 571 [para. 55]; sect. 572(1), sect. 572(3) [paras. 18, 123]; sect. 573 [paras. 18, 134]; sect. 580(1), sect. 645 [para. 18]; sect. 646 [paras. 18, 58]; sect. 647 [para. 32]; sect. 649 [paras. 18, 123]; sect. 650 [paras. 18, 58].

Canada Shipping Act, 1934, S.C. 1934, c. 44, sect. 647 [para. 131].

Canada Shipping Act, An Act to Amend the, 1934, S.C. 1948, c. 35, generally [para. 56].

Civil Code of Lower Canada, art. 596, art. 607 [para. 115].

Civil Code of Québec, S.Q. 1991, c. 64, art. 625 [para. 115].

Constitution Act, 1867, sect. 91(10) [para. 18]; sect. 101 [para. 45]; sect. 129 [para. 111].

Families of Persons killed by Accident, and in duels, Act respecting compen­sation to the, C.S.C. 1859, c. 78, gen­erally [paras. 27, 111].

Family Law Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. F-3, sect. 61(1), sect. 61(2)(e) [paras. 18, 96].

Fatal Accidents Act, R.S.A. 1980, c. F-5, sect. 8(2) [para. 101].

Fatal Accidents Act, R.S.M. 1987, c. F-50; C.C.S.M., c. F-50, sect. 3(4) [para. 101].

Fatal Accidents Act, R.S.N.B. 1973, c. F-7, sect. 3(4) [para. 101].

Fatal Accidents Act, R.S.P.E.I. 1988, c. F-5, sect. 6(3)(c) [para. 101].

Fatal Accidents Act, S.O. 1911, c. 33, sect. 11 [para. 111].

Fatal Accidents Act, 1846 (U.K.), 9 & 10 Vict., c. 93 (Lord Campbell's Act), gen­erally [paras. 27, 52, 111, 112].

Fatal Injuries Act, R.S.N.S. 1989, c. 163, sect. 5(2)(d) [para. 101].

Federal Court Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. F-7, sect. 2 [para. 18]; sect. 17(1) [para. 62]; sect. 22(1), sect. 22(2)(d), sect. 22(2)(g) [paras. 18, 48].

International Convention for the Unifi­cation of certain Rules of Law with respect to Collisions between Vessels, B.T.S. 1913 No. 4, art. 7 [paras. 18, 129].

Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1934 (U.K.), 24 & 25 Geo. 5, c. 41, sect. 1(1) [para. 115].

Maritime Conventions Act, 1911 (U.K.), 1 & 2 Geo. 5, c. 57, sect. 5 [para. 54]; sect. 8 [para. 130].

Maritime Conventions Act, 1914, S.C. 1914, c. 13, generally [para. 55]; preamble [para. 130]; sect. 6 [para. 55]; sect. 9 [para. 130].

Negligence Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. N-1, generally [para. 118].

Occupiers' Liability Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. O-2, generally [paras. 37, 38].

Trustee Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. T-23, sect. 38(1) [paras. 18, 113].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Brierley, John E.C. and Macdonald, Roderick A. (eds.), Quebec Civil Law: An Introduction to Quebec Private Law (1993), p. 331 et seq. [para. 115].

Canada, Hansard, House of Commons Debates, May 17, 1948, p. 3994 [para. 56].

Cooper-Stephenson, Personal Injury Dam­ages in Canada (2nd Ed. 1996), pp. 189 to 195, 489, 490 [para. 99]; 697, 698 [para. 101].

Côté, Pierre-André, The Interpretation of Legislation in Canada (2nd Ed. 1991), pp. 417 to 420 [para. 46].

Driedger on the Construction of Statutes (3rd Ed. 1994), p. 330 [para. 137].

Feldthusen, Bruce, Economic Negligence: The Recovery of Pure Economic Loss (3rd Ed. 1994), pp. 246 to 250, 265 [para. 99].

Hansard - see Canada, Hansard.

Hogg, Peter W., Constitutional Law of Canada (Loose-leaf Ed. 1992) (updated 1997, release 2), vol. 1, p. 15 to 25 et seq. [para. 81].

House of Commons Debates - see Canada, Hansard, House of Commons Debates.

Waddams, S.M., The Law of Damages (Loose-leaf Ed. 1991) (updated De­cember 1997, release No. 6), p. 6-17 to 6-20 [para. 101]; 12-1 [para. 115].

Counsel:

Mark Edwards, for the appellants Christopher Hogarth et al;

Rui M. Fernandes, for the appellants Josephine Perry et al;

Eric R. Murray, Q.C., and Robin K. Basu, for the respondents John Emmett Hall et al.;

Peter A. Daley and M. Jasmine Sweatman, for Ontario Holidays Corporation;

Brendan O'Brien, Q.C., and Ismail Barmania, for the respondent Josephine Perry;

Mark J. Freiman and Geoff R. Hall, for the Perry Estate respondents;

Frederick W. Knight, Q.C., and Jean Leslie Marentette, for the appellant Larry Grail;

Nigel H. Frawley and William M. Sharpe, for the respondents Deborah Ordon et al.;

Alain Gingras, for the intervener.

Solicitors of Record:

Beard, Winter, Toronto, Ontario, for the appellants Christopher Hogarth et al.;

Fernandes Hearn Theall, Toronto, Ontario, for the appellants Josephine Perry et al.;

Genest Murray Desbrisay Lamek, Toronto, Ontario, for the respondents John Emmett Hall et al.;

Miller Thomson, Toronto, Ontario, for Ontario Holidays Corporation;

Aylesworth, Thompson, Phelan, O'Brien, Toronto, Ontario, for the respondent Josephine Perry;

McCarthy Tétrault, Toronto, Ontario, for the Perry Estate respondents;

Bartlet & Richardes, Windsor, Ontario, for the appellant Larry Grail;

Meighen Demers, Toronto, Ontario, for the respondents Deborah Ordon et al.;

Alain Gingras, Sainte-Foy, Quebec, for the intervener.

This appeal was heard on June 22, 1998, before L'Heureux-Dubé, Gonthier, Cory, McLachlin, Iacobucci, Major, and Bastarache, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada. The following decision was delivered in both official languages, for the court, by Iacobucci and Major, JJ., on No­vember 26, 1998.