Ruby Trading S.A. v. Parsons et al., (2000) 264 N.R. 79 (FCA)

• Judge: Rothstein, Sexton and Evans, JJ.A.
• Court: Federal Court of Appeal (Canada)
• Case Date: October 31, 2000
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (2000), 264 N.R. 79 (FCA)

Ruby Trading S.A. v. Parsons (2000), 264 N.R. 79 (FCA)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2000] N.R. TBEd. DE.012

Myles Parsons, International Transport Workers Federation, Habibula Mustafa, Bayram Mon, Krassimir Stoykov and Anton Litvichkov (respondents/appellants)

v. Ruby Trading S.A. (plaintiff/respondent)

(A-90-00)

Indexed As: Ruby Trading S.A. v. Parsons et al.

Federal Court of Appeal

Rothstein, Sexton and Evans, JJ.A.

November 21, 2000.

Summary:

A foreign ship owner commenced an action against four of its foreign crew mem­bers and a Canadian Union and its represen­tative for inducing breach of contract between the ship owner and the crew mem­bers; and against the union's representative and those crew members for conspiracy to cause economic harm. The owner brought a motion seeking, inter alia, to enjoin the defendants from picketing, communicating strike notices or otherwise disrupting the loading or movements of the ship.

The Federal Court of Canada, Trial Divi­sion (Lutfy, A.C.J.), in an unreported deci­sion, ordered that the defendants refrain from picketing or communicating strike notices with respect to the ship and that the defend­ant crew members depart the vessel pending repatriation. The order was to remain in effect for 14 days. The defendants appealed, arguing, inter alia, that the court lacked jurisdiction to grant the injunction. Mean­while, the ship completed loading and departed Canada, rendering the appropriate­ness of the injunction moot. However, the parties requested that the Court of Appeal consider, inter alia, whether the Federal Court had jurisdiction to entertain the own­er's action.

The Federal Court of Appeal held that both the order made by Lutfy, A.C.J. and owners claims for damages in contract and tort raised in the statement of claim were within the jurisdiction of the Federal Court. The court dismissed the defendants' appeal.

Editor's note: for a related case see 194 F.T.R. 103.

Courts - Topic 4026

Federal Court of Canada - Jurisdiction - Trial Division - Maritime and admiralty matters - The Federal Court of Appeal held that the Federal Court of Canada had jurisdiction over an action by a foreign ship owner against foreign crew members and a Canadian Union and its representa­tive (defendants) for inducing breach of contract between the owner and the crew members; and against the union's represen­tative and those crew members for conspir­acy to cause economic harm - The contract and tort claims were sufficiently integrally connected with maritime matters as to be legitimate Canadian maritime law within federal legislative competence - That juris­diction could be exercised in personam (Federal Court Act, s. 43) - Further, the trial judge had jurisdiction to grant an injunction restraining picketing or com­municating strike notices respecting the ship and requiring that crew members depart the vessel - See paragraphs 16 to 30.

Courts - Topic 4031

Federal Court of Canada - Jurisdiction - Trial Division - Labour injunctions - [See Courts - Topic 4026 ].

Courts - Topic 4045

Federal Court of Canada - Jurisdiction - Trial Division - Exclusions - Jurisdiction specially assigned - The Federal Court of Appeal held that the Federal Court of Canada had jurisdiction to entertain an action by a foreign ship owner against four of its foreign crew members and a Cana­dian Union and its representative for in­ducing breach of contract between the ship owner and the crew members; and against the union's representative and those crew members for conspiracy to cause economic harm - The court rejected the argument that the contract claim essentially alleged an illegal strike and jurisdiction was there­fore specifically assigned to the Canadian Industrial Relations Board (Labour Code, s. 91) - Parliament did not intend the Code to govern employment relations between a foreign ship owner and foreign crew mem­bers - See paragraphs 31 and 32.

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. 16, footnote 1].

Ordon et al. v. Grail, [1998] 3 S.C.R. 437; 232 N.R. 201; 115 O.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 18, footnote 3].

Monk Corp. v. Island Fertilizers Ltd., [1991] 1 S.C.R. 779; 123 N.R. 1, refd to. [para. 22, footnote 7].

Bow Valley Husky (Bermuda) Ltd. et al. v. Saint John Shipbuilding Ltd. et al., [1997] 3 S.C.R. 1210; 221 N.R. 1; 158 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 269; 490 A.P.R. 269, refd to. [para. 22, footnote 8].

Shibamoto & Co. Ltd. and Ocean Fisheries Ltd. v. Western Fish Producers Inc. et al., [1990] 1 F.C. 542; 103 N.R. 241 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 27, footnote 10].

Statutes Noticed:

Federal Court Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. F-7, sect. 22(1), sect. 22(2) [para. 19]; sect. 43(1) [para. 30].

Counsel:

G. James Baugh, for the appellants;

Peter Swanson and Andrew Mayer, for the respondent.

Solicitors of Record:

McGrady, Baugh & Whyte, Vancouver, British Columbia, for the appellants;

Campney & Murphy, Vancouver, British Columbia, for the respondent.

This appeal was heard in Vancouver, B.C., on October 31, 2000, before Rothstein, Sexton and Evans, JJ.A., of the Federal Court of Appeal. Sexton, J.A., delivered the following reasons for judgment on Novem­ber 21, 2000.