Ryan Estate et al. v. Universal Marine Ltd. et al., (2013) 447 N.R. 1 (SCC)

• Judge: McLachlin, C.J.C., LeBel, Fish, Abella, Rothstein, Cromwell, Moldaver, Karakatsanis and Wagner, JJ.
• Court: Supreme Court (Canada)
• Case Date: August 02, 2013
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (2013), 447 N.R. 1 (SCC);2013 SCC 44;[2013] 3 SCR 53;361 DLR (4th) 195

Ryan Estate v. Universal Marine Ltd. (2013), 447 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]

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

Temp. Cite: [2013] N.R. TBEd. AU.002

Marine Services International Limited and David Porter (appellants) v. Estate of Joseph Ryan, by its Administratrix, Yvonne Ryan, Yvonne Ryan, in her own right, Stephen Ryan, a Minor, by his Guardian ad litem, Yvonne Ryan, Jennifer Ryan, a Minor, by her Guardian ad litem, Yvonne Ryan, Estate of David Ryan, by its Administratrix, Marilyn Ryan, Marilyn Ryan, in her own right, David Michael Ryan, a Minor, by his Guardian ad litem, Marilyn Ryan, J and Y Fisheries Inc. and D and M Fisheries Inc., bodies corporate, trading and operating as Ryan's Fisheries Partnership, Universal Marine Limited and Attorney General of Canada (respondents) and Attorney General of Ontario, Attorney General of Nova Scotia, Attorney General of British Columbia, Attorney General of Newfoundland and Labrador, Workplace Health, Safety and Compensation Commission and Workers' Compensation Board of British Columbia (interveners)

(34429; 2013 SCC 44; 2013 CSC 44)

Indexed As: Ryan Estate et al. v. Universal Marine Ltd. et al.

Supreme Court of Canada

McLachlin, C.J.C., LeBel, Fish, Abella, Rothstein, Cromwell, Moldaver, Karakatsanis and Wagner, JJ.

August 2, 2013.

Summary:

Two fishermen died when their vessel sank. The fishermen's estates, their spouses and children (plaintiffs) brought a negligence action against the defendants who designed and constructed the vessel (Universal Marine, Marine Services and Porter). The plaintiffs also claimed that the Attorney General of Canada was liable for negligently inspecting the vessel respecting its stability and other features. The plaintiffs received benefits under the Workplace Health, Safety and Compensation Act. The federal Marine Liability Act permitted a negligence action. The provincial Act barred a civil action if the defendants were a "worker" or "employer" under the Act and the deaths occurred while the fishermen were in the course of their employment. A Commission Internal Review Specialist ruled that the fishermen were acting within the course of their employment and the defendants were either an "employer" or a "worker" under the Act. Accordingly, the action was statute-barred. The Specialist rejected an argument that the doctrine of federal paramountcy applied to render the provincial Act's bar against civil action inoperative as against the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs sought judicial review.

The Newfoundland and Labrador Supreme Court, Trial Division, in a judgment reported (2009), 289 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 198; 890 A.P.R. 198, allowed the application and quashed the Specialist's decision. The findings that the defendants were either a "worker" or "employer" covered by the Act, that the fishermen died in the course of their employment, and that the Act barred all actions (including professional negligence), were both reasonable and correct. However, the decision that the doctrine of federal paramountcy did not apply was subject to the correctness standard of review and the Specialist was wrong. The Commission and two of the defendants appealed. At issue was (1) whether notice of a constitutional question should have been served on the Attorneys General under s. 57 of the Judicature Act and, if so, the effect of the failure to give notice, and (2) on the merits, whether the judge erred in applying the doctrines of interjurisdictional immunity and federal paramountcy to find that the plaintiffs' action was not barred by the Act.

The Newfoundland and Labrador Court of Appeal, Welsh, J.A., dissenting, in a judgment reported (2011), 308 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 1; 958 A.P.R. 1, dismissed the appeal, affirming the trial judge's decision quashing the Specialist's decision. The court held that the "judge was correct to conclude, applying the interjurisdictional immunity and paramountcy doctrines, that s. 44 of the WHSCA should be read down, or otherwise rendered inoperative, so as not to have the effect of barring any action that the plaintiffs would have against Marine Services International Limited and Universal Marine Limited under federal maritime negligence law". The defendants appealed.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal. Section 44 of the provincial Act applied to bar the civil negligence action. Neither interjurisdictional immunity nor federal paramountcy applied. Section 44 was both constitutionally applicable and operative.

Constitutional Law - Topic 2511

Determination of validity of statutes or Acts - General principles - Interjurisdictional immunity - [See Workers' Compensation - Topic 106 ].

Constitutional Law - Topic 3627

Paramountcy of federal statutes - Overlapping legislation - Provincial workers' compensation legislation barring civil action permitted by federal legislation - [See Workers' Compensation - Topic 106 ].

Workers' Compensation - Topic 106

General principles - Effect of statute on other causes of action - Action by employer or employee against employer covered by Act - Two fishermen died at sea - The fishermen's estates (dependants) brought a negligence action under s. 6(2) of the federal Marine Liability Act against the defendants who designed and constructed the vessel - Section 6(2) provided that dependants "may" sue if the fishermen died "under circumstances that would have entitled the person, if not deceased, to recover damages" - The dependants had received benefits under the Workplace Health, Safety and Compensation Act (provincial Act) - Section 44 of the provincial Act barred a civil action against the defendants - At issue was whether s. 44 applied and, if so, whether interjurisdictional immunity or federal paramountcy applied to render s. 44 constitutionally inoperative or inapplicable - The Supreme Court of Canada, applying the reasonableness standard of review, held that the Workplace Health, Safety and Compensation Commission did not err in finding that the fishermen died "in the conduct of the operations usual in or incidental to the industry carried on by the employer" and that s. 44 applied - Interjurisdictional immunity did not apply - Although the provincial Act altered the range of claimants who could make use of the federal statutory maritime negligence action, thereby trenching on the core of the federal power over navigation and shipping, s. 44 did not impair the exercise of the federal power - Although s. 44 affected the exercise of the federal power, the level of intrusion was insufficient to trigger interjurisdictional immunity, as "the intrusion of s. 44 is not significant or serious when one considers the breadth of the federal power over shipping and navigation, the absence of an impact on the uniformity of Canadian maritime law, and the historical application of workers' compensation schemes in the maritime context." - Federal paramountcy also did not apply - Section 44 (provincial Act) and s. 6(2) (federal Act) could operate side by side without conflict - Section 6(2) provided that dependants "may" bring an action if the fishermen died "under circumstances that would have entitled the person, if not deceased, to recover damages" - Because compensation was already awarded under the provincial workers' compensation scheme, the dependants, by the very wording of s. 6(2), were not entitled to bring an action - See paragraphs 18 to 86.

Workers' Compensation - Topic 112

General principles - Effect of statute on other causes of action - Derivative action by family of employee against employer covered by Act - [See Workers' Compensation - Topic 106 ].

Workers' Compensation - Topic 7124

Practice - Judicial review - Standard of review - [See Workers' Compensation - Topic 106 ].

Cases Noticed:

Ordon et al. v. Grail, [1998] 3 S.C.R. 437; 232 N.R. 201; 115 O.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 11].

Workmen's Compensation Board v. Canadian Pacific Railway Co., [1920] A.C. 184 (P.C.), refd to. [para. 27].

Bell Canada v. Commission de la santé et de la securité du travail (Que.) and Bilodeau et al., [1988] 1 S.C.R. 749; 85 N.R. 295; 15 Q.A.C. 217, refd to. [para. 27].

Tessier Ltée v. Quebec (Commission de la santé et de la sécurité du travail), [2012] 2 S.C.R. 3; 430 N.R. 1; 2012 SCC 23, refd to. [para. 27].

Pasiechnyk et al. v. Procrane Inc. et al., [1997] 2 S.C.R. 890; 216 N.R. 1; 158 Sask.R. 81; 153 W.A.C. 81, refd to. [para. 28].

Reference Re Sections 32 and 34 of the Workers' Compensation Act (Nfld.) (1987), 67 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 16; 206 A.P.R. 16; 44 D.L.R.(4th) 501 (Nfld. C.A.), refd to. [para. 30].

Commission du salaire minimum (Que.) v. Bell Telephone Co. of Canada, [1966] S.C.R. 767, refd to. [para. 32].

Alltrans Express Ltd. v. Workers' Compensation Board (B.C.) et al., [1988] 1 S.C.R. 897; 85 N.R. 241; 15 Q.A.C. 161, refd to. [para. 32].

Husky Oil Operations Ltd. v. Minister of National Revenue et al., [1995] 3 S.C.R. 453; 188 N.R. 1; 137 Sask.R. 81; 107 W.A.C. 81, refd to. [para. 32].

Canada (Attorney General) v. St-Hubert Base Teachers' Association et al., [1983] 1 S.C.R. 498; 49 N.R. 138, refd to. [para. 33].

Société canadienne des postes v. Commission d'appel en matière de lésions professionnelles, [1999] R.J.Q. 957 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 33].

Société canadienne des postes v. Commission de la santé et de la sécurité du travail, [1996] R.J.Q. 873 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 33].

New Brunswick (Board of Management) v. Dunsmuir, [2008] 1 S.C.R. 190; 372 N.R. 1; 329 N.B.R.(2d) 1; 844 A.P.R. 1; 2008 SCC 9, refd to. [para. 45].

Canadian Western Bank et al. v. Alberta, [2007] 2 S.C.R. 3; 362 N.R. 111; 409 A.R. 207; 402 W.A.C. 207; 2007 SCC 22, refd to. [para. 48].

Quebec (Attorney General) v. Canadian Owners and Pilots Association, [2010] 2 S.C.R. 536; 407 N.R. 102; 2010 SCC 39, refd to. [para. 50].

City National Leasing Ltd. v. General Motors of Canada Ltd., [1989] 1 S.C.R. 641; 93 N.R. 326; 32 O.A.C. 332, refd to. [para. 50].

Queddy River Driving Boom Co. v. Davidson (1883), 10 S.C.R. 222, refd to. [para. 61].

Montréal (City) v. Montréal Harbour Commissioners, [1926] A.C. 299 (P.C.), refd to. [para. 61].

British Columbia (Attorney General) v. Lafarge Canada Inc. et al. - see Burrardview Neighbourhood Association v. Vancouver (City) et al.

Burrardview Neighbourhood Association v. Vancouver (City) et al., [2007] 2 S.C.R. 86; 362 N.R. 208; 241 B.C.A.C. 1; 399 W.A.C. 1; 2007 SCC 23, refd to. [para. 61].

Sincennes-McNaughton Lines Ltd. v. Bruneau, [1924] S.C.R. 168, refd to. [para. 63].

Bonavista Cold Storage Co. v. Walters (1959), 20 D.L.R.(2d) 744 (Ex. Ct.), refd to. [para. 63].

Paré v. Rail & Water Terminal (Quebec) Inc., [1978] 1 F.C. 23 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 63].

Laboucane v. Brooks et al., [2003] B.C.T.C. 1247; 17 B.C.L.R.(4th) 20; 2003 BCSC 1247, refd to. [para. 63].

Bisaillon v. Keable et al., [1983] 2 S.C.R. 60; 51 N.R. 81, refd to. [para. 67].

Multiple Access Ltd. v. McCutcheon et al., [1982] 2 S.C.R. 161; 44 N.R. 181, refd to. [para. 67].

Bank of Montreal v. Hall, [1990] 1 S.C.R. 121; 104 N.R. 110; 82 Sask.R. 120, refd to. [para. 67].

R. v. Felawka, [1993] 4 S.C.R. 199; 159 N.R. 50; 33 B.C.A.C. 241; 54 W.A.C. 241, refd to. [para. 67].

Rothmans, Benson & Hedges Inc. v. Saskatchewan et al., [2005] 1 S.C.R. 188; 331 N.R. 116; 257 Sask.R. 171; 342 W.A.C. 171; 2005 SCC 13, refd to. [para. 67].

Law Society of British Columbia v. Mangat, [2001] 3 S.C.R. 113; 276 N.R. 339; 157 B.C.A.C. 161; 256 W.A.C. 161; 2001 SCC 67, refd to. [para. 69].

Canada (Attorney General) v. Law Society of British Columbia - see Jabour v. Law Society of British Columbia.

Jabour v. Law Society of British Columbia et al., [1982] 2 S.C.R. 307; 43 N.R. 451, refd to. [para. 69].

Bell ExpressVu Limited Partnership v. Rex et al., [2002] 2 S.C.R. 559; 287 N.R. 248; 166 B.C.A.C. 1; 271 W.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 77].

Reference Re Broadcasting Act, [2012] 3 S.C.R. 489; 437 N.R. 124; 2012 SCC 68, refd to. [para. 81].

65302 British Columbia Ltd. v. Minister of National Revenue, [1999] 3 S.C.R. 804; 248 N.R. 216, refd to. [para. 81].

Workers' Compensation Appeal Board (N.S.) v. Penney (1980), 38 N.S.R.(2d) 623; 69 A.P.R. 623 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 82].

Ferneyhough v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Tribunal (N.S.) (2000), 189 N.S.R.(2d) 76; 590 A.P.R. 76; 2000 NSCA 121, refd to. [para. 82].

Nova Scotia (Minister of Transportation and Public Works) v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Tribunal (N.S.) et al. (2005), 231 N.S.R.(2d) 390; 733 A.P.R. 390; 2005 NSCA 62, refd to. [para. 82].

Workers' Compensation Board (N.S.) v. Martin et al., [2003] 2 S.C.R. 504; 310 N.R. 22; 217 N.S.R.(2d) 301; 683 A.P.R. 301; 2003 SCC 54, refd to. [para. 83].

Statutes Noticed:

Marine Liability Act, S.C. 2001, c. 6, sect. 5 [para. 74]; sect. 6(2) [para. 17].

Workplace Health, Safety and Compensation Act, R.S.N.L. 1990, c. W-11, sect. 44 [para. 16].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Driedger, Elmer A., Construction of Statutes (2nd Ed. 1983), p. 87 [para. 77].

Hogg, Peter W., Constitutional Law of Canada (5th Ed.) (2007 Looseleaf Supp.) (2012 Update, Release 1), vol. 1, pp. 15-28 [para. 57]; 33-9 [paras. 26, 28].

Counsel:

Peter O'Flaherty and Brodie Gallant, for the appellants;

Corwin Mills, Q.C., Joseph Twyne and Benjamin Piper, for the respondents, the Estate of Joseph Ryan et al.;

Peter Southey and Christine Mohr, for the respondent, the Attorney General of Canada;

Hart Schwartz and Michael S. Dunn, for the intervener, the Attorney General of Ontario;

Nancy E. Brown, for the intervener, the Attorney General of British Columbia;

Rolf Pritchard, Q.C., for the intervener, the Attorney General of Newfoundland and Labrador;

Jamie Martin, for the intervener, the Workplace Health, Safety and Compensation Commission;

Scott A. Nielsen and Laurel Courtenay, for the intervener, the Workers' Compensation Board of British Columbia;

No one appeared for the respondent, Universal Marine Limited;

No one appeared for the intervener, the Attorney General of Nova Scotia.

Solicitors of Record:

Goodland O'Flaherty, St. John's, Newfoundland and Labrador, for the appellants;

Mills Pittman, Clarenville, Newfoundland and Labrador; Sack Goldblatt Mitchell, Ottawa, Ontario, for the respondents, the Estate of Joseph Ryan et al.;

Attorney General of Canada, Toronto, Ontario, for the respondent, the Attorney General of Canada;

Attorney General of Ontario, Toronto, Ontario, for the intervener, the Attorney General of Ontario;

Attorney General of British Columbia, Victoria, British Columbia, for the intervener, the Attorney General of British Columbia;

Attorney General of Newfoundland and Labrador, St. John's, Newfoundland and Labrador, for the intervener, the Attorney General of Newfoundland and Labrador;

Roebothan, McKay & Marshall, St. John's, Newfoundland and Labrador, for the intervener, the Workplace Health, Safety and Compensation Commission;

Workers' Compensation Board, Vancouver, British Columbia, for the intervener, the Workers' Compensation Board of British Columbia;

Attorney General of Nova Scotia, Halifax, Nova Scotia, for the intervener, the Attorney General of Nova Scotia.

This appeal was heard on January 15, 2013, before McLachlin, C.J.C., LeBel, Fish, Abella, Rothstein, Cromwell, Moldaver, Karakatsanis and Wagner, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada.

On August 2, 2013, LeBel and Karakatsanis, JJ., delivered the following judgment in both official languages for the Court.