Summaries Sunday: Supreme Advocacy

• Author: Administrator
• Date: December 15, 2019

One Sunday each month we bring you a summary from Supreme Advocacy LLP of recent decisions at the Supreme Court of Canada. Supreme Advocacy LLP offers a weekly electronic newsletter, Supreme Advocacy Letter, to which you may subscribe. It’s a summary of all appeals as well as leaves to appeal granted so you will know what the SCC will soon be dealing with (November 16 – December 13, 2019 inclusive).

Appeals

Constitutional/Maritime Law: Division of Powers; Sale of Marine Parts
Desgagnés Transport Inc. v. Wärtsilä Canada Inc., 2019 SCC 58 (37873)

The federal maritime law at issue here is non-statutory; so a modified pith and substance test must be applied at the characterization stage: one that looks at the substantive law at issue and to the particular fact situation, rather than to purpose and effect. At the classification stage, the integral connection test is the proper method for determining whether the matter is subject to the federal power over navigation and shipping and thus would not come exclusively within provincial jurisdiction. In sum: the sale of marine engine parts intended for use on a commercial vessel is integrally connected to navigation and shipping so as to come within federal legislative authority; it follows that federal maritime law extends to that matter, but this does not mean there is no provincial law that can also validly govern such a sale; the Québec C.A. below should have considered whether the provincial law (in this case, art. 1733 of the Civil Code) was valid, applicable and operative; when one applies the relevant constitutional doctrines, one concludes the rule expressed in the Civil Code governs.

Contracts/Environmental Law: Indemnity Agreements
R. v. Resolute FP Canada Inc., 2019 SCC 60 (37985)

Properly construed, the 1985 Indemnity was intended to cover only pollution claims brought by third parties. First party regulatory claims do not fall within the scope of the 1985 Indemnity.

The motion judge here made palpable and overriding errors of fact and failed to give sufficient regard to the factual matrix when interpreting the scope of the 1985. The 1985 Indemnity was intended to cover only proceedings arising from the discharge or continued presence of mercury in the related ecosystems, not those related to the mere presence of mercury contained in the waste disposal site. The motion judge erred by failing to read the 1985 Indemnity as a whole; properly interpreted, the 1985 Indemnity only applies to third party...