Terrasses Jewellers Inc. v. Triglav, (1983) 54 N.R. 321 (SCC)

• Judge: Laskin, C.J.C., Dickson, Beetz, Estey, McIntyre, Chouinard and Wilson, JJ.
• Court: Supreme Court of Canada
• Case Date: Tuesday March 01, 1983
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (1983), 54 N.R. 321 (SCC);54 NR 321;[1983] ILR 6243;1983 CanLII 138 (SCC);[1983] 1 SCR 283

Terrasses Jewellers Inc. v. Triglav (1983), 54 N.R. 321 (SCC)

MLB headnote and full text

[French language version follows English language version]

[La version française vient à la suite de la version anglaise]

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

Terrasses Jewellers Inc. and Bank of Montreal v. Zavoravalna Skupnost Triglav (Insurance Community Triglav Ltd.) and Attorneys General of Canada and Quebec (intervenors)

Indexed As: Terrasses Jewellers Inc. v. Triglav

Supreme Court of Canada

Laskin, C.J.C., Dickson, Beetz, Estey, McIntyre, Chouinard and Wilson, JJ.

March 1, 1983.

Summary:

A Yugoslav exporter insured a shipment of goods to Canada with Triglav, a Yugoslav insurer. Terrasses Jewellers Inc. in Montreal purchased both the shipment and the insurance contract. When the shipment arrived in Montreal, an extremely valuable box of jewellery was missing. Terrasses claimed for the loss under the insurance policy, but Triglav denied liability. Terrasses brought an action against Triglav in the Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, and applied for leave to serve the action ex juris. Triglav applied to set aside service on the ground that the court had no jurisdiction over marine insurance contracts. The Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, allowed Terrasses' application and dismissed Triglav's. The Federal Court of Appeal in judgments unreported in this series of reports dismissed Triglav's appeals. Triglav appealed.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal and held that marine insurance fell within the federal jurisdiction over shipping and navigation under s. 91(10) of the Constitution Act, 1867, and that s. 22(2)(r) of the Federal Court Act, which gave the Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, jurisdiction over marine insurance, was intra vires.

Constitutional Law - Topic 5951

Federal jurisdiction - Navigation and shipping - Interpretation - The Supreme Court of Canada held that s. 91 (10) of the Constitution Act, 1867, assigning shipping and navigation to Parliament should be given a wide interpretation - See paragraph 16.

Constitutional Law - Topic 5957

Federal jurisdiction - Navigation and shipping - Marine insurance - The Supreme Court of Canada held that contracts of marine insurance fell within the federal jurisdiction over shipping and navigation in s. 91(10) of the Constitution Act, 1867, because it was part of maritime law.

Courts - Topic 4026

Federal Court of Canada - Jurisdiction - Trial Division - Maritime and admiralty matters - Marine insurance - The Supreme Court of Canada held that s. 22(2)(r) of the Federal Court Act assigning marine insurance to the jurisdiction of the Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, was intra vires, because marine insurance was part of maritime law and within the federal jurisdiction over shipping and navigation - The court held that Canadian marine insurance law was embodied in s. 22 of the Federal Court Act and could be applied by the Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division.

Cases Noticed:

Montreal City v. Montreal Harbour Commissioners; Tetreault v. Montreal Harbour Commissioners, [1926] A.C. 299, appld. [para. 16].

Tropwood A.G. v. Sivaco Wire & Nail Co., [1979] 2 S.C.R. 157; 26 N.R. 313; 99 D.L.R.(3d) 235, appld. [paras. 20, 54].

Construction Montcalm Inc. v. Minimum Wage Commission, [1979] 1 S.C.R. 754; 25 N.R. 1; 93 D.L.R.(3d) 641, consd. [para. 25].

Citizens Insurance Co. of Canada v. Parsons (1881), 7 App. Cas. 96, dist. [para. 29].

Attorney-General for Canada v. Attorney-General for Alberta, [1916] 1 A.C. 588, dist. [para. 29].

Attorney-General for Ontario v. Reciprocal Insurers, [1924] A.C. 328, dist. [para. 29].

Insurance Act of Canada, In re The, [1932] A.C. 41, dist. [para. 29].

Attorney-General for Canada v. Attorney-General for Ontario, [1937] A.C. 355, dist. [para. 29].

Reference as to Validity of Section 16 of the Special War Revenue Act, [1942] S.C.R. 429, dist. [para. 29].

Canadian Indemnity Co. v. Attorney-General of British Columbia, [1977] 2 S.C.R. 504; 11 N.R. 466, dist. [para. 29].

Intermunicipal Realty & Development Corp. v. Gore Mutual Insurance Co., [1978] 2 F.C. 691, consd. [para. 31].

Green Forest Lumber Ltd. v. General Security Insurance Co., [1980] 1 S.C.R. 176; 34 N.R. 303, dist. [para. 32].

Daneau v. Laurent Gendron Ltee, [1964] 1 Ll.R. 220, refd to. [para. 33].

McNamara Construction Western Ltd. v. The Queen, [1977] 2 S.C.R. 654; 13 N.R. 181, refd to. [para. 54].

Canadian Pacific Ltd. v. Quebec North Shore Paper Co., [1977] 2 S.C.R. 1054; 9 N.R. 471, refd to. [para. 54].

Antares Shipping Corp. v. The Ship "Capricorn", [1980] 1 S.C.R. 553; 30 N.R. 104, consd. [para. 55].

MacMillan Bloedel Ltd. v. Canadian Stevedoring Co., [1969] 2 Ex. C.R. 375, consd. [para. 55].

Associated Metals v. Ship Evie W. et al., [1980] S.C.R. 322; 31 N.R. 584, affing [1978] 2 F.C. 710; 20 N.R. 50, consd. [para. 55].

B.C. Marine Shipbuilders Ltd. v. Wire Rope Industries of Canada (1966) Ltd., [1981] 1 S.C.R. 363; 35 N.R. 288, consd. [para. 55].

R. v. Canadian Vickers Ltd., [1980] 1 F.C. 366; 28 N.R. 486, consd. [para. 55].

Statutes Noticed:

Constitution Act, 1867, sect. 91(10) [para. 14]; sect. 91(13) [para. 17]; sect. 92(10) [para. 17]; sect. 91(13) [para. 19].

Federal Court Act, R.S.C. 1970, 2nd Supp., c. 10, sect. 2 [para. 13]; sect. 22(1), sect. 22(2)(r), sect. 42 [para. 12].

Quebec Civil Code, art. 2383, art. 2385 [para. 48]; art. 2663 [para. 47]; art. 2693 [para. 35].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Bonnecasse, Traite du droit commercial maritime, No. 29 [para. 49].

Colbert, Ordonnance sur la Marine (1681) [paras. 43 to 45].

Dover, Handbook to Marine Insurance (5th Ed. 1957), pp. 1-2 [para. 3738]; 3 [para. 39].

Encyclopaedia Britannica, Macropaedia (15th Ed. 1981), vol. 9, p. 657 [para. 36].

Halsbury's Laws of England (4th Ed.), vol. 25, p. 9, para. 1 [para. 42].

Holdsworth, A History of English Law, vol. 8, p. 274 [para. 41].

Pineau, Jean, La Legislation maritime canadienne et le Code civil quebecois (1968), 14 McGill L.J. 26 [para. 46].

Ripert, Droit maritime (4th Ed. 1953), vol. 3, Title II, p. 333 [para. 40].

Counsel:

Roland Chauvin, Q.C., and Claude Bedard, for the appellant Triglav;

Gerald P. Barry, for the respondents Terrasses Jewellers Inc. and Bank of Montreal;

Jean Samson and Odette Laverdiere, for the intervenant the Attorney General of Quebec;

Raymond Langlois and John G. O'Connor, for the intervenant Attorney General of Canada.

This case was heard December 14 and 15, 1982, at Ottawa, Ontario, before Laskin, C.J.C., Dickson, Beetz, Estey, McIntyre, Chouinard and Wilson, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada.

On March 1, 1983, Chouinard, J., delivered the following judgment for the Supreme Court of Appeal: