Sivaco Wire & Nail Co. and Atlantic Lines & Navigation Co. Inc. v. Tropwood A.G. and Owners of the Vessel Tropwood, (1979) 26 N.R. 313 (SCC)
| Judge | Laskin, C.J.C., Martland, Ritchie, Pigeon, Dickson, Beetz, Estey, Pratte and McIntyre, JJ. |
| Court | Supreme Court (Canada) |
| Case Date | March 06, 1979 |
| Jurisdiction | Canada (Federal) |
| Citations | (1979), 26 N.R. 313 (SCC);26 NR 313;[1979] 2 SCR 157;1979 CanLII 217 (SCC);99 DLR (3d) 235;10 CPC 9 |
Sivaco Wire & Nail v. Tropwood A.G. (1979), 26 N.R. 313 (SCC)
MLB headnote and full text
Sivaco Wire & Nail Company and Atlantic Lines & Navigation Company, Inc. v. Tropwood A.G. and The Owners of the Vessel Tropwood
Indexed As: Sivaco Wire & Nail Co. and Atlantic Lines & Navigation Co. Inc. v. Tropwood A.G. and Owners of the Vessel Tropwood
Supreme Court of Canada
Laskin, C.J.C., Martland, Ritchie, Pigeon, Dickson, Beetz, Estey, Pratte and McIntyre, JJ.
March 6, 1979.
Summary:
This charge arose out of a claim by the owner and consignee of goods for damage to the goods, which arrived damaged in Canada on the defendant's ship from France. In their defence the defendants raised the issue of the jurisdiction of the Federal Court of Canada over the matter, claiming that the relief sought did not relate to Canadian maritime law or any matter coming within the class of subject of navigation and shipping. The plaintiff moved for preliminary determination of the question of jurisdiction. The Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, held that the Federal Court had jurisdiction over the action. The Federal Court of Appeal in a judgment unreported in this series of reports dismissed the defendant's appeal. The defendant's appealed.
The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal and affirmed that the Federal Court of Canada had jurisdiction over the matter as one relating to Canadian maritime law and to navigation and shipping within the meaning of s. 22 of the Federal Court Act, R.S.C. 1970, 2nd Supp., c. 10.
Courts - Topic 4024
Federal Court of Canada - Jurisdiction - Trial Division - Navigation and shipping - Federal Court Act, R.S.C. 1970, 2nd Supp., c. 10, s. 22 - The owner and consignee of goods brought an action for damage to the goods, which arrived in Canada damaged on the defendant's ship from France - The Supreme Court of Canada held that the claim fell within the federal jurisdiction over navigation and shipping within the meaning of s. 22(1) of the Federal Court Act - See paragraphs 9 to 12.
Courts - Topic 4026
Federal Court of Canada - Jurisdiction - Trial Division - Maritime and admiralty matters - Federal Court Act, R.S.C. 1970, 2nd Supp., c. 10, s. 22 - The owner and consignee of goods brought an action for damage to the goods, which arrived in Canada damaged on the defendant's ship from France - The Supreme Court of Canada held that the action was one in maritime or admiralty law and that there was a body of Canadian law which was applicable within the meaning of s. 22(1) of the Federal Court Act - See paragraphs 1 to 10.
Courts - Topic 4040
Federal Court of Canada - Jurisdiction - Trial Division - Choice of law - The owner and consignee of goods brought an action for damage to the goods, which arrived in Canada damaged on the defendant's ship from France - The Supreme Court of Canada held that the Federal Court of Canada in trying the action had the jurisdiction to determine, pursuant to the conflict of law rules of the forum, a choice of law to govern the determination of the action - See paragraphs 13 to 14.
Cases Noticed:
Quebec North Shore Paper Co. v. Canadian Pacific Ltd. (1976), 9 N.R. 471; [1977] 2 S.C.R. 1054, refd to. [para. 2].
Canadian Pacific Ltd. v. Quebec North Shore Paper Co. (1976), 9 N.R. 471; [1977] 2 S.C.R. 1054, refd to. [para. 2].
McNamara Construction (Western) Ltd. v. The Queen (1975), 12 N.R. 321; [1977] 2 S.C.R. 654, refd to. [para. 2].
Government of Canada v. McNamara Construction (Western) Ltd. (1975), 12 N.R. 321; [1977] 2 S.C.R. 654, refd to. [para. 2].
R. v. Canadian Vickers Ltd. (1977), 77 D.L.R.(3d) 241, appld. [para. 5].
MacMillan Bloedel Ltd. v. Canadian Stevedoring Co. Ltd., [1969] 2 Ex. C.R. 375, refd to. [para. 5].
Grand Trunk Railway Co. v. Attorney General of Canada, [1907] A.C. 65, appld. [para. 12].
Statutes Noticed:
Admiralty Act, S.C. 1891, c. 20, sect. 3, sect. 4 [para. 6].
Admiralty Act, S.C. 1934, c. 31 [para. 5].
Admiralty Act, 1861 (Imp.), c. 10, sect. 6 [para. 10].
Canada Shipping Act, R.S.C. 1970, c. S-9, sect. 657 [para. 11].
Carriage of Goods by Water Act, R.S.C. 1970, c. C-15 [para. 19].
Federal Court Act, R.S.C. 1970, 2nd Supp., c. 10, sect. 2 [para. 10]; sect. 22(1), sect. 22(2)(d), sect. 22(2)(h), sect. 22(2)(i), sect. 22(3) [para. 4]; sect. 42 [para. 8].
Authors and Works Noticed:
Roscoe, Admiralty Jurisdiction and Practice (5th Ed. 1931) pp. 13 ff. [para. 10].
Counsel:
Sean Harrington, for the appellants;
Peter R.D. MacKell, Q.C. and Marc Nadon, for the respondent Sivaco Wire.
This case was heard on February 7, 1979, at Ottawa, Ontario, before LASKIN, C.J.C., MARTLAND, RITCHIE, PIGEON, DICKSON, BEETZ, ESTEY, PRATTE and McINTYRE, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada.
On March 6, 1979, LASKIN, C.J.C., delivered the following judgment for the Supreme Court of Canada:
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
R. v. Douglas (R.D.), (2005) 387 A.R. 1 (QB)
...144 (2004 MBCA 45; Man. C.A. No. AR02-30-05396), under motion on S.C.C. No. 30394. 112. R. v. Hawkins (J.G.) , [April 28, 1993] 2 S.C.R. 157; 151 N.R. 176; 107 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 179; 336 A.P.R. 179; 20 C.R.(4th) 55; 14 C.R.R.(2d) 243; [1993] S.C.J. No. 50 (QL), 1993 CarswellNfld 12 (S.C.......
-
Table Of Cases
...1983 CanLII 138 .......................................................... 169, 181, 182, 393, 402 Tropwood AG v Sivaco Wire & Nail Co, [1979] 2 SCR 157, 99 DLR (3d) 235, 1979 CanLII 217 ............................................... 178−79, 188 Tucker v Tecumseh (The) (1906), 10 Ex CR 149......
-
Litigating Cross-Border Aboriginal Title Claims in Canada: The Possibility (and Necessity) of a Federal Legislative Response to Newfoundland and Labrador (Attorney General) v. Uashaunnuat (Innu of Uashat and of Mani-Utenam).
...FCA as incorporating by reference the applicable substantive law so as to convert it into a "law of Canada" (see e.g. Tropwood v Sivaco, [1979] 2 SCR 157 at 166-67, 99 DLR (3d) 235; Antares Shipping v The Capricorn, [1980] 1 SCR 553 at 566-67, 111 DLR (3d) 289; Aris Steamship v Associated M......
-
The Federal Courts and Admiralty Law
..., 5th ed (Scarborough: Thomson Carswell, 2007) at 7-31–7-34. 17 Chief Justice Laskin described in Tropwood AG v Sivaco & Nail Co , [1979] 2 SCR 157 at 163 that if there was a grant of jurisdiction, then there was necessarily also a bestowal by Parliament of the required Canadian maritime la......
-
R. v. Douglas (R.D.), (2005) 387 A.R. 1 (QB)
...144 (2004 MBCA 45; Man. C.A. No. AR02-30-05396), under motion on S.C.C. No. 30394. 112. R. v. Hawkins (J.G.) , [April 28, 1993] 2 S.C.R. 157; 151 N.R. 176; 107 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 179; 336 A.P.R. 179; 20 C.R.(4th) 55; 14 C.R.R.(2d) 243; [1993] S.C.J. No. 50 (QL), 1993 CarswellNfld 12 (S.C.......
-
Bow Valley Husky (Bermuda) Ltd. et al. v. Saint John Shipbuilding Ltd. et al., (1995) 130 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 92 (NFCA)
...Wire & Nail Co. and Atlantic Lines & Navigation Co. v. Tropwood A.G. and Owners of the Vessel Tropwood, [1979] 2 S.C.R. 159; 26 N.R. 313, refd to. [para. 184]. Canadian National Steamship Co. v. Watson, [1939] S.C.R. 11, refd to. [para. 186 et seq.]. Gronlund et al. v. Hansen (1969)......
-
Whitbread v. Walley et al., (1990) 120 N.R. 109 (SCC)
...15]. Sivaco Wire and Nail Company and Atlantic Lines and Navigation Company Inc. v. Tropwood A.G. and Owners of the Vessel Tropwood, [1979] 2 S.C.R. 157; 26 N.R. 313; 99 D.L.R.(3d) 235, consd. [para. 18]. Terrasses Jewellers Inc. v. Triglav, [1983] 1 S.C.R. 283; 54 N.R. 321, appld. [para. 1......
-
World Fuel Services Corp. v. Ship Nordems et al., (2010) 366 F.T.R. 118 (FC)
...36]. Sivaco Wire & Nail Co. and Atlantic Lines & Navigation Co. v. Ship Tropwood A.G. and Owners of the Vessell Tropwood, [1979] 2 S.C.R. 157; 26 N.R. 313, refd to. [para. Chartwell Shipping Ltd. v. Q.N.S. Paper Co., [1989] 2 S.C.R. 683; 101 N.R. 1; 26 Q.A.C. 81; 62 D.L.R.(4th) 36; ......
-
What Will Justice Nadons Appointment Bring To The Supreme Court?
...law issues and the elaboration of what actually constitutes "Canadian maritime law". In Tropwood A.G. v. Sivaco Wire & Nail Co., [1979] 2 S.C.R. 157, Nadon J. successfully argued that the Federal Court must seize itself of a claim in damages to goods shipped by sea from France to Montre......
-
Table Of Cases
...1983 CanLII 138 .......................................................... 169, 181, 182, 393, 402 Tropwood AG v Sivaco Wire & Nail Co, [1979] 2 SCR 157, 99 DLR (3d) 235, 1979 CanLII 217 ............................................... 178−79, 188 Tucker v Tecumseh (The) (1906), 10 Ex CR 149......
-
Litigating Cross-Border Aboriginal Title Claims in Canada: The Possibility (and Necessity) of a Federal Legislative Response to Newfoundland and Labrador (Attorney General) v. Uashaunnuat (Innu of Uashat and of Mani-Utenam).
...FCA as incorporating by reference the applicable substantive law so as to convert it into a "law of Canada" (see e.g. Tropwood v Sivaco, [1979] 2 SCR 157 at 166-67, 99 DLR (3d) 235; Antares Shipping v The Capricorn, [1980] 1 SCR 553 at 566-67, 111 DLR (3d) 289; Aris Steamship v Associated M......
-
The Federal Courts and Admiralty Law
..., 5th ed (Scarborough: Thomson Carswell, 2007) at 7-31–7-34. 17 Chief Justice Laskin described in Tropwood AG v Sivaco & Nail Co , [1979] 2 SCR 157 at 163 that if there was a grant of jurisdiction, then there was necessarily also a bestowal by Parliament of the required Canadian maritime la......
-
The Impact of the Charter
...If a detention was made in accordance with a statutor scheme (for example, dangerous offend 1 See, for example, R. v. Hawkins , 1993 2 S.C.R. 157 Hawkins , and R. v. Chaisson , 2006 SCC 11. 2 R. v. Grant , 2009 SCC 32 Grant . 3 R. v. Dedman , 1985 2 S.C.R. 2 Dedman . 4 R. v. Hufsky , 1988 1......