Redpath Industries Ltd. v. Ship Cisco et al., (1993) 163 N.R. 161 (FCA)

• Judge: Desjardins, Décary and Létourneau, JJ.A.
• Court: Federal Court of Appeal (Canada)
• Case Date: October 25, 1993
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (1993), 163 N.R. 161 (FCA)

Redpath Ind. Ltd. v. Ship Cisco (1993), 163 N.R. 161 (FCA)

MLB headnote and full text

The Ship "Cisco" and Kim-Crest, S.A. (appellants) v. Redpath Industries Limited (respondent)

(A-916-92)

Indexed As: Redpath Industries Ltd. v. Ship Cisco et al.

Federal Court of Appeal

Desjardins, Décary and Létourneau, JJ.A.

December 20, 1993.

Summary:

Kim-Crest S.A. carried the plaintiff's (Redpath Industries') cargo of raw bulk sugar on its vessel the "Cisco" from Guyana to Toronto. The plaintiff sued for damages for loss of a portion of the cargo.

The Federal Court of Canada, Trial Divi­sion, in a decision reported 55 F.T.R. 278, allowed the action and assessed damages accordingly. Kim-Crest S.A. and the Ship appealed and Redpath Industries cross-appealed. In issue was the measure of dam­ages.

The Federal Court of Appeal allowed the appeal in part and dismissed the cross-appeal.

Shipping and Navigation - Topic 2213

Carriage of goods - Damages - Damage to cargo - Kim-Crest carried the plaintiff's cargo of raw bulk sugar on its vessel - Part of the cargo arrived in a damaged condition - Under an arrangement with the insurers, the plaintiff purchased the sugar for 50% of its market value and was even­tually able to process the damaged sugar - The plaintiff sued the carrier and the vessel for damages - The Federal Court of Appeal calculated of damages accordingly - The court discussed the applicable test (i.e., the Arrived Sound Market Value (A.S.M.V.) less Arrived Damaged Market Value (A.D.M.V.)), how the duty to miti­gate damages figured into the equation and in particular the duty to mitigate where goods arrive damaged, but are still of some use.

Cases Noticed:

Amstar Corp. v. M/V Alexandros T, [1979] A.M.C. 1975 (Maryland), refd to. [paras. 2, 62, footnote 1].

Redpath Industries Ltd. et al. v. Fednav Ltd. et al. (1993), 63 F.T.R. 131 (T.D.), refd to. [paras. 10, 64].

British Westinghouse Co. v. Underground Railway, [1912] A.C. 673; (1912) H.L.(E.) 678 (H.L.), refd to. [paras. 16, 24, 70, 80].

Cockburn v. Trusts and Guarantee Co. (1917), 55 S.C.R. 264, refd to. [paras. 16, 70, 80].

Karas v. Rowlett, [1944] S.C.R. 1, refd to. [para. 16].

Michaels et al. v. Red Deer College, [1976] 2 S.C.R. 324; 5 N.R. 99; 57 D.L.R.(3d) 386, refd to. [paras. 16, 45, 70, footnote 3].

Baud Corp. N.V. v. Brook, [1979] 1 S.C.R. 633; 23 N.R. 181; 12 A.R. 271; [1978] 6 W.W.R. 301; 89 D.L.R.(3d) 1, refd to. [paras. 16, 70, 72].

Asamera Oil Corp. Ltd. v. Sea Oil General Corp. - see Baud Corp. N.V. v. Brook.

Goldco Imports Ltd. v. Ship Meitoku Maru, [1966] Ex. C.R. 498 (Ex. Ct.), refd to. [paras. 17, 23, footnote 6].

Amjay Cordage Ltd. v. Ship Margarita (1979), 28 N.R. 265 (F.C.A.), refd to. [paras. 17, 23, footnote 6].

Rodocanachi v. Milburn (1886), 6 Asp. M.L.C. 100 (C.A.), refd to. [paras. 23, 79].

Ship Arpad, Re, [1934] All E.R. Rep. 326; 49 Ll. L. Rep. 313 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 23].

Obestain Inc. v. National Mineral De­velopment Corp. (The Sanix Ace), [1987] 1 Lloyd's Rep. 465 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 23].

Ship Trade Wind v. McNair (David) & Co., [1956] Ex. C.R. 228, affing. [1954] Ex. C.R. 450, refd to. [para. 23].

Hussey v. Eels, [1990] 1 All E.R. 449 (C.A.), refd to. [paras. 24, 71].

Wood v. Grand Valley Railway Co. (1915), 51 S.C.R. 283, refd to. [paras. 27, 44].

Penvidic Contracting Co. v. International Nickel Co. of Canada Ltd., [1976] 1 S.C.R. 267; 4 N.R. 1, refd to. [paras. 27, 44].

Canadian Pacific Ltd. v. McCain Produce Co. et al. (1980), 30 N.B.R.(2d) 476; 70 A.P.R. 476 (C.A.), affd., [1981] 2 S.C.R. 219; 38 N.R. 534; 35 N.B.R.(2d) 511; 88 A.P.R. 511, refd to. [para. 27].

Banner Homes Ltd. v. Mitchell (1979), 27 N.B.R.(2d) 486; 60 A.P.R. 486 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 27].

Messer v. Clark (J.) & Sons Ltd. (1961), 27 D.L.R.(2d) 766 (N.B.C.A.), refd to. [para. 27].

Abraham v. Wingate Properties Ltd., [1986] 1 W.W.R. 56; 36 Man.R.(2d) 264 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 27].

Algoma Central Railway v. Ship Cielo Bianco et al., [1987] 2 F.C. 592; 73 N.R. 321 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 29].

Antares Shipping Corp. v. Ship Capricorn et al., [1980] 1 S.C.R. 553; 30 N.R. 104; 111 D.L.R.(3d) 289, refd to. [para. 33, footnote 1].

Andros Springs (Owners) v. World Beauty (Owners), [1969] 3 All E.R. 158 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 45, footnote 3].

100 Main Street Ltd. v. Sullivan (W.B.) Construction Ltd. (1978), 88 D.L.R.(3d) 1 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 45].

Keneric Tractor Sales Ltd. v. Langille, [1987] 2 S.C.R. 440; 79 N.R. 241; 82 N.S.R.(2d) 361; 207 A.P.R. 361, refd to. [para. 75].

Indiana Farm Bur. v. Sovereign Faylenne, [1978] A.M.C. 1514, refd to. [para. 79].

Erie County Natural Gas and Fuel Co. v. Carroll, [1911] A.C. 105 (P.C.), refd to. [para. 84].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Braën, Le droit maritime au Québec (1992), pp. 110 to 113 [para. 33, foot­note 1].

Burrows, A.S., Remedies for Torts and Breach of Contract (1987), pp. 64 [para. 73]; 67 [para. 82].

Fleming, John G., The Law of Torts (7th Ed. 1987), p. 227 [para. 82].

McGregor on Damages (15th Ed. 1988), pp. 323 to 325 [para. 82].

Tetley, William, Marine Cargo Claims (3rd Ed. 1988), pp. 323 to 324, 355 [para. 14, footnote 5].

Waddams, S.M., The Law of Damages (2nd Ed. 1992), No. 13,100 [para. 45].

Waddams, S.M., The Law of Contracts (3rd Ed. 1993), p. 514 [para. 34, footnote 2].

Counsel:

V. De Marco and D.G. Colford, for the appellants;

V.M. Prayer and M.A. Tabib, for the re­spondent.

Solicitors of Record:

Brissett, Bishop, Montreal, Quebec, for the appellants;

Stikeman, Elliott, Montreal, Quebec, for the respondent.

This appeal was heard in Montreal, Que­bec, on October 25, 1993, before Desjardins, Décary and Létourneau, JJ.A., of the Federal Court of Appeal. The decision of the court was delivered in Ottawa, Ontario, on De­cember 20, 1993, including the following opinions:

Desjardins, J.A. - see paragraphs 1 to 31;

Décary, J.A., concurring - see para­graphs 32 to 56;

Létourneau, J.A., concurring - see para­graphs 57 to 89.