Generated by All in One SEO v5.0.1.1, this is an llms.txt file, used by LLMs to index the site.

# Admiralty Law

Canadian Maritime Law, Admiralty Law and Shipping Law

## Sitemaps

- [XML Sitemap](https://admiraltylaw.com/sitemap.xml): Contains all public & indexable URLs for this website.

## Posts

- [Arctic Pearl Fishing Ltd. v Intact Insurance Company](https://admiraltylaw.com/2022/09/02/arctic-pearl-fishing-ltd-v-intact-insurance-company/) - Précis: The British Columbia Supreme Court refused to strike a jury notice in a case involving a failed engine in the Plaintiff's fishing vessel.
- [Haida Tourism Limited Partnership (West Coast Resorts) v. Canada (Ship-Source Oil Pollution Fund)](https://admiraltylaw.com/2022/08/31/haida-tourism-limited-partnership-west-coast-resorts-v-canada-ship-source-oil-pollution-fund/) - Précis: A shipowner cannot recover costs and expenses from the Administrator of the Ship Source Oil Pollution Fund as a result of oil pollution damage caused solely by its own ship.
- [Arc-En-Ciel Produce Inc. v. BF Leticia (Ship)](https://admiraltylaw.com/2022/06/07/arc-en-ciel-produce-inc-v-bf-leticia-ship/) - Précis: The Federal Court determined that s. 46 of the Marine Liability Act does not apply to waybills or other similar shipping documents.
- [Arc-En-Ciel Produce Inc. v. MSC Belle (Ship) 2020 FC 23](https://admiraltylaw.com/2021/05/14/arc-en-ciel-produce-inc-v-msc-belle-ship-2020-fc-23/) - Précis: The Federal Court of Appeal found the Federal Court erred in applying the "strong cause" test to a claim under s. 46 of the Marine Liability Act.
- [Davy Global Fund Management Limited v. Michele Bottiglieri Armatore S.p.A.](https://admiraltylaw.com/2021/07/26/davy-global-fund-management-limited-v-michele-bottiglieri-armatore-s-p-a/) - Précis: The Federal Court dismissed a motion for release of an arrested vessel without bail.
- [Kreig v. Shallon Marine Service](https://admiraltylaw.com/2021/04/13/kreig-v-shallon-marine-service/) - Précis: The Supreme Court of British Columbia held that a portion of a marine survey report on engine failure analysis was covered by litigation privilege.
- [British Columbia Ferry and Marine Workers’ Union v. Canada (Transport)](https://admiraltylaw.com/2022/02/17/8560/) - Précis: The Federal Court confirmed Transport Canada's decision to issue a safe manning document specifying the minimum crew compliment for two ferries was reasonable.
- [O'Leary v. Ragone](https://admiraltylaw.com/2021/02/01/oleary-v-ragone/) - Précis The Federal Court denied granting an order for production of provincial police and crown information relating to a high-profile vessel collision.
- [R v. White](https://admiraltylaw.com/2021/09/10/r-v-white/) - Précis: The Supreme Court of Prince Edward Island found the accused operator of a fishing vessel guilty for lesser included offences of dangerous operation of a vessel causing death.
- [Fennelly v. Lloyd's Underwriters](https://admiraltylaw.com/2021/12/01/fennelly-v-lloyds-underwriters/) - Précis: The Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador dismissed a claim against the defendant insurer for want of prosecution.
- [Steveston Harbour Authority v. Medanic Fisheries Ltd.](https://admiraltylaw.com/2019/01/18/steveston-harbour-authority-v-medanic-fisheries-ltd/) - Précis: The B.C. Supreme Court found the defendant ships were trespassing and causing a nuisance and ordered for their removal from the plaintiff's property.
- [Carnival Corporation v. Vancouver Fraser Port Authority](https://admiraltylaw.com/2021/08/04/carnival-corporation-v-vancouver-fraser-port-authority/) - Précis: The British Columbia Supreme Court permitted portions of a deceased master's discovery evidence to be admitted at trial.
- [Iamgold Corporation v. Hapag-Lloyd Ag](https://admiraltylaw.com/2021/06/02/iamgold-corporation-v-hapag-lloyd-ag/) - Précis: The Federal Court found that a loss of cargo on the road leg of the carriage was subject to the limitation of liability applicable to road carriage under German law.
- [United Yacht Transport LLC v. Blue Horizon Corporation](https://admiraltylaw.com/2020/11/18/united-yacht-transport-llc-v-blue-horizon-corporation/) - Précis The Federal Court found the defendants liable for unpaid fees owing to the plaintiff yacht transporter.
- [Knight v. Black](https://admiraltylaw.com/2021/01/24/knight-v-black/) - Précis: The BC Supreme Court held that the defendant was entitled to limit its liability under the Athens Convention as the injured plaintiff was a "passenger".
- [Sperling v. Queen of Nanaimo](https://admiraltylaw.com/2020/11/27/sperling-v-queen-of-nanaimo/) - Précis: The BC Supreme Court could not determine in a summary trial if suppliers of a ferry propulsion system were "agents or servants" of a carrier for the purposes of the Athens Convention, holding it required a full trial to do so.
- [Global Marine Systems Ltd. v. Canada (Transport)](https://admiraltylaw.com/2020/03/25/global-marine-systems-ltd-v-canada-transport/) - Précis: The Federal Court found that standby activities of a vessel in Canadian waters were marine activities of a commercial nature and a violation of Canadian cabotage laws.
- [Kirby Offshore Marine Pacific LLC v. Heiltsuk](https://admiraltylaw.com/2019/07/26/kirby-offshore-marine-pacific-llc-v-heiltsuk/) - Précis: Claims to Indigenous title will not stay a shipowner's limitation proceeding from continuing.
- [R. v. Great Lakes Stevedoring Company Ltd.](https://admiraltylaw.com/2019/12/18/r-v-great-lakes-stevedoring-company-ltd/) - Précis: The Ontario Court of Justice held that valid provincial law applied to unloading activities of a stevedoring company operating on federal property.
- [Canadian Maritime Workers Council v. Canada (Attorney General)](https://admiraltylaw.com/2020/11/13/canadian-maritime-workers-council-v-canada-attorney-general/) - Précis: The Federal Court rejected Charter arguments where the same arguments had been determined by a higher Court and the arguments were not based on enumerated or analogous grounds.
- [Her Majesty the Queen v B & B Barges Ltd.](https://admiraltylaw.com/2019/12/13/her-majesty-the-queen-v-b-b-barges-ltd/) - Précis: The Supreme Court of British Columbia granted an interlocutory injunction against two barges located on Crown land.
- [R. v. Vansickle](https://admiraltylaw.com/2019/10/24/r-v-vansickle/) - Précis: The Ontario Court of Justice held that evidence gathered from the operator of a pleasure craft was inadmissible and a breach of the operator's Charter rights.
- [R. v. DP World Prince Rupert Inc.](https://admiraltylaw.com/2019/11/09/r-v-dp-world-prince-rupert-inc/) - Précis: The British Columbia Provincial Court allowed an application in part for disclosure of records held by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans.
- [Midnight Marine Limited v. Aviva Insurance Company of Canada](https://admiraltylaw.com/2019/12/17/midnight-marine-limited-v-aviva-insurance-company-of-canada/) - Précis: The Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador held the defendant insurer did not have to cover a loss from an excluded risk that was incorporated by reference to the original insuring agreement.
- [Norstar Shipping and Trading Ltd. v. The Rosy (Ship)](https://admiraltylaw.com/2019/12/09/norstar-shipping-and-trading-ltd-v-the-rosy-ship/) - Prećis: The Federal Court set bail for release of a ship and ordered security for costs relating to a charter dispute that was subject to London Arbitration.
- [Desgagnés Transport Inc. v. Wärtsilä Canada Inc.](https://admiraltylaw.com/2019/11/28/desgagnes-transport-inc-v-wartsila-canada-inc/) - Précis: The Supreme Court of Canada held that provincial law, and not Canadian maritime law, governed the sale of a marine engine crankshaft.
- [Labrador-Island Link General Partner Corporation v. Panalpina Inc.](https://admiraltylaw.com/2020/02/04/labrador-island-link-general-partner-corporation-v-panalpina-inc/) - Précis: The Federal Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal of a decision of the Federal Court which found that a claim brought against a freight forwarder and preforming carrier was subject to a 9 month limitation period and therefore time barred.
- [Worldspan Marine Inc. v. Sargeant](https://admiraltylaw.com/2019/07/17/worldspan-marine-inc-v-sargeant/) - Précis: The Federal Court of Appeal allowed a motion to vary the allocation of proceeds of sale from a vessel.
- [Nirint Inc. (Nirint Canada) v. Mega Throphy Ltd](https://admiraltylaw.com/2019/07/29/nirint-inc-nirint-canada-v-mega-throphy-ltd/) - Précis: The Federal Court held a ship's agent was to be reimbursed for expenses personally paid to correct deficiencies in the ship.
- [Royal Bank of Canada v. Seamount Marine Ltd.](https://admiraltylaw.com/2019/08/02/royal-bank-of-canada-v-seamount-marine-ltd/) - Précis: The Federal Court stayed proceedings after an equitable mortgagee failed to appeal its unsecured status by a the trustee in bankruptcy.
- [Blackwell v. Genier](https://admiraltylaw.com/2020/11/13/blackwell-v-genier/) - Précis: The definition of "navigable water" in the Canadian Navigable Waters Act has replaced the common law test of navigability that the waterway must be part of an aqueous highway.
- [Provincial Holdings Limited / Gestion Provincial Limitée v. Océan Nouveau-brunswick Inc.](https://admiraltylaw.com/2019/12/06/provincial-holdings-limited-gestion-provincial-limitee-v-ocean-nouveau-brunswick-inc-urlhttp-canlii-ca-t-j4hb1-url/) - Précis: A claim for breach of a personal obligation can be advanced in rem provided the Court has jurisdiction.
- [Offshore Interiors Inc. v. Worldspan Marine Inc.](https://admiraltylaw.com/2019/04/30/offshore-interiors-inc-v-worldspan-marine-inc-7/) - Précis: The Federal Court refused to reallocate the priority of claims against proceeds of sale of a vessel.
- [G C Lobster Ltd. v. B Atkinson Boat Builders Limited](https://admiraltylaw.com/2019/11/19/g-c-lobster-ltd-v-b-atkinson-boat-builders-limited/) - Précis: The Supreme Court of Nova Scotia found the plaintiff owed the defendant for sums due and owing after numerous non-fundamental breaches of the build contract despite the contract being mutually repudiated.
- [R. v. Kirby Offshore Marine Operating LLC](https://admiraltylaw.com/2019/08/12/r-v-kirby-offshore-marine-operating-llc/) - Précis: A tug owner pled guilty to three offences and was fined over $2.9 million in relation to the discharge of fuel and lubes from a sunken tug.
- [Brun v. Deep Cove Yacht & Sport Club](https://admiraltylaw.com/2019/08/22/brun-v-deep-cove-yacht-sport-club/) - Précis: The plaintiff's membership at the defendant yacht club was reinstated despite being in arrears on moorage payment.
- [Jean Riley v. New Wave Expeditions Inc.](https://admiraltylaw.com/2019/08/14/jean-riley-v-new-wave-expeditions-inc/) - Précis: The Quebec Superior Court could not strike a claim arising from a river rafting excursion where the underlying facts, which determined the applicable limitation period, were disputed.
- [Canada (Ship-Source Oil Pollution Fund) v. Cormorant (Ship)](https://admiraltylaw.com/2019/07/23/canada-ship-source-oil-pollution-fund-v-cormorant-ship/) - Précis: The Federal Court refused a motion for judicial sale of an arrested vessel pendente lite where the sale would not abate the costs or liabilities of its arrest.
- [Canadian Maritime Engineering Ltd. v. Intact Insurance Company](https://admiraltylaw.com/2019/11/06/canadian-maritime-engineering-ltd-v-intact-insurance-company/) - Précis: The Supreme Court of Nova Scotia held that the defendant insurer had a duty to pay the plaintiff's reasonable defence costs to defend a claim for damages to a DFO vessel while docked at the plaintiff's ship yard.
- [Beasse v. Canada](https://admiraltylaw.com/2019/05/31/beasse-v-canada/) - Précis: The Federal Court dismissed a claim against the Canadian Coast Guard for loss of a vessel during a tow operation it organized.
- [Canada (Ship-Source Oil Pollution Fund) v. Dodds](https://admiraltylaw.com/2019/02/04/canada-ship-source-oil-pollution-fund-v-dodds-2/) - Précis: The Federal Court granted summary judgment in favour of the plaintiff against the registered owner defendant, despite the vessel being under arrest at the time of sinking.
- [R. v. M/V Marathassa](https://admiraltylaw.com/2019/02/07/r-v-m-v-marathassa/) - Précis: The Provincial Court of British Columbia acquitted the defendant ship of all charges in relation to a discharge of oil from the ship in April 2015.
- [Mackenzie v. Canada (Transportation Safety Board)](https://admiraltylaw.com/2019/03/04/mackenzie-v-canada-transportation-safety-board-2/) - Précis: The Federal Court of Appeal held a notice requesting information of passengers on board a vessel that touched bottom was a reasonable use of the TSB's statutory powers.
- [R. v. M/V The Marathassa](https://admiraltylaw.com/2019/03/12/r-v-m-v-the-marathassa/) - Précis: The B.C. Supreme Court held that a second notice of appeal could be served on counsel for the defendant ship as personal service on the defendant ship was not realistically available to the Crown.
- [R v. Woodward](https://admiraltylaw.com/2019/03/15/r-v-woodward/) - Précis: The B.C. Provincial Court found the accused guilty of a vessel importation offence.
- [Trainor-Degirolamo v. British Columbia](https://admiraltylaw.com/2019/03/26/trainor-degirolamo-v-british-columbia/) - Précis: The British Columbia Supreme Court dismissed a challenge of the approval of a licence of occupation for a private marina.
- [Black & White Merchandising Co. Ltd. v. Deltrans International Shipping Corporation](https://admiraltylaw.com/2019/03/27/black-white-merchandising-co-ltd-v-deltrans-international-shipping-corporation/) - Précis: The Federal Court lacked jurisdiction to hear a claim subsequent to completion of the obligations under a bill of lading.
- [Oddy v. Waterway Partnership Equities Inc.](https://admiraltylaw.com/2019/05/21/oddy-v-waterway-partnership-equities-inc-2/) - Précis: The British Columbia Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal against a finding by the trial judge that the owner of a houseboat met the standard of care in connection with injuries caused by a snapped mooring stake and rope.
- [Diep v. Wuolle](https://admiraltylaw.com/2019/05/07/diep-v-wuolle/) - Précis: The B.C. Civil Resolution Tribunal dismissed a claim for damages for repair of a sailboat that struck some rocks.
- [British Columbia v. The Administrator of the Ship-source Oil Pollution Fund](https://admiraltylaw.com/2019/06/26/british-columbia-v-the-administrator-of-the-ship-source-oil-pollution-fund/) - Précis: The B.C. Court of Appeal affirmed the decision of the lower Court to restore a company without prejudice to rights acquired in the interval between dissolution and restoration.
- [Racette v. Norwegian Cruise Line](https://admiraltylaw.com/2019/03/29/racette-v-norwegian-cruise-line/) - Précis: Athens Convention claims cannot be heard in a jurisdiction where the carrier does not have a place of business in that same jurisdiction.
- [OpenHydro Technology Canada Ltd. (Re) v.](https://admiraltylaw.com/2018/11/07/openhydro-technology-canada-ltd-re-v/) - Précis: A provincial court may defer to the Federal Court to adjudicate existing in rem claims against a bankrupt.
- [Canada (Ship-Source Oil Pollution Fund) v. M.V. Matterhorn Limited](https://admiraltylaw.com/2019/07/12/canada-ship-source-oil-pollution-fund-v-m-v-matterhorn-limited/) - Précis: The Federal Court discontinued the plaintiff's action on the ground that the parties reached settlement on confidential terms out of Court.
- [R v. Reddick](https://admiraltylaw.com/2018/08/07/r-v-reddick/) - Précis: The Provincial Court of Newfoundland and Labrador acquitted the accused when the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt the alleged offence under the Marine Mammal Regulations.
- [Graymar Equipment (2008) Inc. v. Cosco Pacific Shipping Ltd.](https://admiraltylaw.com/2018/10/02/graymar-equipment-2008-inc-v-cosco-pacific-shipping-ltd/) - Précis: The Federal Court ordered the defendant to pay damages arising from a collision between their moving container ship and a stationary scow.
- [St. Lawrence Seaway Management Corporation v. BBC Lena (Vessel)](https://admiraltylaw.com/2018/10/12/st-lawrence-seaway-management-corporation-v-bbc-lena-vessel/) - Précis: The Federal Court held that the plaintiff was entitled to recover losses for repair of a bridge under its operation and management that was struck by the defendants' ship.
- [South Coast British Columbia Transportation Authority v. BMT Fleet Technology Ltd.](https://admiraltylaw.com/2018/12/11/south-coast-british-columbia-transportation-authority-v-bmt-fleet-technology-ltd/) - Précis: The British Columbia Court of Appeal held that multi-party arbitration relating to three marine design and construction contracts could not be commenced by a single notice to arbitrate.
- [Fulford v. Harbour Authority of Placentia Area (Placentia Area Harbour Authority)](https://admiraltylaw.com/2019/05/10/fulford-v-harbour-authority-of-placentia-area-placentia-area-harbour-authority/) - Précis: The Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador dismissed an application for moorage and access to the defendant wharf.
- [Elroumi v. Shenzhen Top China Imp & Exp Co. Ltd.](https://admiraltylaw.com/2019/11/07/elroumi-v-shenzhen-top-china-imp-exp-co-ltd/) - Précis: The Federal Court of Appeal affirmed that claims against road carriers were not claims under Canadian maritime law.
- [BBC Chartering Carriers GMBH & CO. KG v. Openhydro Technology Canada Limited](https://admiraltylaw.com/2018/11/01/bbc-chartering-carriers-gmbh-co-kg-v-openhydro-technology-canada-limited/) - Précis: The Federal Court granted default judgment in favour of the plaintiff and ordered the sale of the in rem defendant cargo, a Turbine Control Centre.
- [Avic Catic Beijing Cl. Ltd. v. Hong Xing (Vessel)](https://admiraltylaw.com/2018/07/26/avic-catic-beijing-cl-ltd-v-hong-xing-vessel/) - Précis: The Federal Court dismissed the third party's motion to strike the plaintiffs' statement of claim on the basis of delay in the prosecution of their claim, and ordered the matter to proceed pursuant to mandatory scheduling orders.
- [Canpotex Shipping Services Limited v. Marine Petrobulk Ltd.](https://admiraltylaw.com/2018/09/28/canpotex-shipping-services-limited-v-marine-petrobulk-ltd-2/) - Précis: The Federal Court found that the sale of marine bunkers was subject to the standard terms and conditions of the defendant supplier where no objection to those terms was raised by the parties to the original Fixed Price Agreement contract, and ordered the plaintiff to pay the supplier with money held in trust, as well as the receiver of the bankrupt bunker company.
- [Canada (Ship-Source Oil Pollution Fund) v. Dr. Jim Halvorson Medical Services Ltd.](https://admiraltylaw.com/2019/01/11/canada-ship-source-oil-pollution-fund-v-dr-jim-halvorson-medical-services-ltd/) - Précis: The Federal Court held that the registered defendant owner was not liable for oil spill clean up costs as it was not the the legal owner of the vessel at the time of sinking.
- [TD General Insurance Company v. Intact Insurance Company](https://admiraltylaw.com/2019/01/09/td-general-insurance-company-v-intact-insurance-company/) - Précis: The Ontario Court of Appeal found that two insurers, both having identical "other insurance clauses", each had to share the cost of the injured party's claim.
- [Canada (Ship-Source Oil Pollution Fund) v. Dodds](https://admiraltylaw.com/2019/02/04/canada-ship-source-oil-pollution-fund-v-dodds/) - Précis: The Federal Court granted summary judgment in favour of the plaintiff against the registered owner defendant.
- [Victoria (City) v. Zimmerman](https://admiraltylaw.com/2018/03/05/victoria-city-v-zimmerman/) - Précis: The British Columbia Supreme Court upheld a local bylaw that prohibited long term moorage but allowed temporary moorage.
- [R v. MV Marathassa](https://admiraltylaw.com/2018/04/20/r-v-mv-marathassa/) - Précis: The court held that the Charter rights of the accused were infringed when Transport Canada inspectors seized evidence without a warrant.
- [Lepage v. Bowen Island Municipality](https://admiraltylaw.com/2018/02/13/lepage-v-bowen-island-municipality/) - Précis: The British Columbia Supreme Court refused to strike a Notice of Civil Claim, suggesting that permission from the Receiver of Wrecks to destroy a vessel might not be a defence to a claim for conversion.
- [Jones Marine Group Ltd. v. Canada (Transport, Infrastructure and Communities)](https://admiraltylaw.com/2018/06/12/jones-marine-group-ltd-v-canada-transport-infrastructure-and-communities/) - Précis: The Federal Court refused to set aside an order for the removal of a sunken tug boat.
- [Elroumi v. Shenzhen Top China Imp & Exp Co., Ltd China](https://admiraltylaw.com/2018/06/18/elroumi-v-shenzhen-top-china-imp-exp-co-ltd-china/) - Précis: The Federal Court struck those parts of a statement of claim relating to road and rail carriers on the grounds that it lacked jurisdiction.
- [Dauphinee v. White Rock Harbour Board](https://admiraltylaw.com/2018/07/31/dauphinee-v-white-rock-harbour-board/) - Précis: The BC Supreme Court upheld a bylaw of the harbour board and ordered an assignment of a powerboat slip to the plaintiff.
- [R v. Gettle](https://admiraltylaw.com/2018/05/30/r-v-gettle/) - Précis: The B.C. Supreme Court found the accused guilty of operating a vessel in a manner dangerous to the public and causing bodily harm.
- [Lever v. Mehr and Qaderi](https://admiraltylaw.com/2018/09/25/lever-v-mehr-and-qaderi/) - Précis: The Ontario Superior Court of Justice awarded judgment for damages arising from negligent operation of two jet skis rented from the plaintiff.
- [Mercedes-Benz Financial Services Canada Corp. v. Maersk Line A/S](https://admiraltylaw.com/2018/11/07/mercedes-benz-financial-services-canada-corp-v-maersk-line-a-s/) - Précis: The Federal Court dismissed a motion for injunctive relief when the applicant failed to satisfy the legal test thereof.
- [R v. Sillars](https://admiraltylaw.com/2018/11/15/r-v-sillars/) - Précis: The Ontario Court of Justice held that the definition of "vessel" when used in ss. 253(1)(a), 253(1)(b) and 249(1)(b) of the Criminal Code is inclusive of a canoe.
- [2955-9820 Québec Inc. v. Construction Navale Atlantique Inc.](https://admiraltylaw.com/2018/10/26/2955-9820-quabec-inc-v-construction-navale-atlantique-inc/) - Précis: The Federal Court awarded default judgment for damages caused by a negligently designed and constructed marine engine when the defendant did not file and serve a statement of defence.
- [ATS Automation Tooling Systems Inc. v. Chubb Insurance Company of Canada](https://admiraltylaw.com/2018/11/02/ats-automation-tooling-systems-inc-v-chubb-insurance-company-of-canada/) - Précis: The Ontario Superior Court of Justice refused a motion to temporarily stay domestic proceedings where the same dispute was on-going and subject to final arbitral decision in India.
- [ITB Marine Group Ltd. v. Northern Transportation Company Limited](https://admiraltylaw.com/2017/11/06/itb-marine-group-ltd-v-northern-transportation-company-limited/) - Précis: The British Columbia Supreme Court held that the unpaid vendor of marine assets sold to the bankrupt and secured by a registered security interest had priority over the claims of the administrator of the pension plan of the bankrupt.
- [Broadgrain Commodities Inc. v. Continental Casualty Company](https://admiraltylaw.com/2018/05/10/broadgrain-commodities-inc-v-continental-casualty-company/) - Précis: The Ontario Court of Appeal confirmed a judgment of the Superior Court holding that a cargo underwriter was not liable under a cargo policy for damage caused during transit when the insured/vendor had been paid in full by the buyer of the cargo.
- [Sargeant v. Worldspan Marine Inc.](https://admiraltylaw.com/2017/07/06/sargeant-v-worldspan-marine-inc-2/) - Précis: The British Columbia Supreme Court refused to stay the action before it where a similar but not identical action was proceeding in the Federal Court.
- [Nine Starz Fruits & Vegetables Inc. v. Schenker of Canada Ltd.](https://admiraltylaw.com/2017/03/15/nine-starz-fruits-vegetables-inc-v-schenker-of-canada-ltd/) - Précis: The Court of Quebec refused motions to dismiss the claim of the plaintiff consignee against a freight forwarder and ship owner on the basis of lack of privity of contract.
- [DP World Prince Rupert Inc. v. The Hanjin Vienna](https://admiraltylaw.com/2017/08/09/dp-world-prince-rupert-inc-v-the-hanjin-vienna/) - Précis: The court ordered that claimants proceeding by way of action produce documents that may be relevant.
- [Shelburne (Town) v. The Farley Mowatt](https://admiraltylaw.com/2017/12/21/shelburne-town-v-the-farley-mowatt/) - Précis: The plaintiff was awarded berthage costs and the costs of cleanup, security and maintenance of the defendant ship.
- [Administrator of the Ship-Source Oil Pollution Fund v. Beasse](https://admiraltylaw.com/2018/01/16/administrator-of-the-ship-source-oil-pollution-fund-v-beasse/) - Précis: The court held the defendant owner liable for pollution clean up costs following the sinking of a tug, rejecting the owner's allegation the sinking was due to the deliberate act of a third party.
- [R v. Alassia New Ships Management Inc.](https://admiraltylaw.com/2018/01/12/r-v-alassia-new-ships-management-inc/) - Précis: The court declared that service of a summons on the ship's Master was valid service on the accused operator of the ship.
- [Alassia Newships Management Inc. v. British Columbia](https://admiraltylaw.com/2017/11/29/alassia-newships-management-inc-v-british-columbia/) - Précis: The British Columbia Supreme Court dismissed an application for certiorari and prohibition relating to an order of a Justice of the Peace validating service of a summons against a ship manager by serving a Master of a managed ship. On appeal, the Court of Appeal held the ship manager had not been properly served and the Provincial Court was without jurisdiction.
- [Baril v. Beaumier](https://admiraltylaw.com/2018/04/26/baril-v-beaumier/) - Précis: The defendant vessel was found 100% at fault for a collision with a stationary vessel.
- [British Columbia v. Administrator of the Ship-source Oil Pollution Fund](https://admiraltylaw.com/2018/05/14/british-columbia-v-administrator-of-the-ship-source-oil-pollution-fund/) - Précis: The province was permitted to restore the corporate owner of a derelict vessel but the restoration was without prejudice to the subrogated rights the SSOPF had acquired against the Province while the corporate owner was dissolved.
- [Canadian National Railway Company v. Hanjin Shipping Co Ltd](https://admiraltylaw.com/2017/02/17/canadian-national-railway-company-v-hanjin-shipping-co-ltd/) - Précis: A motion by the Owner of the "Hanjin Vienna" to strike the Statement of Claim of the Canadian National Railway Company on the grounds that it disclosed no cause of action or was scandalous, frivolous or vexatious was dismissed.
- [Offshore Interiors Inc. v. Worldspan Marine Inc.](https://admiraltylaw.com/2017/05/09/offshore-interiors-inc-v-worldspan-marine-inc-5/) - Précis: The Federal Court refused a motion for early payment of alleged surplus proceeds of sale.
- [Offshore Interiors Inc. v. Worldspan Marine Inc.](https://admiraltylaw.com/2017/05/09/offshore-interiors-inc-v-worldspan-marine-inc-6/) - Précis: The court permitted the filing of a supplementary affidavit and addressed questions relating the scope of cross-examinations and documents to be produced.
- [Canada (Ship-Source Oil Pollution Fund) v. Canada](https://admiraltylaw.com/2017/05/30/canada-ship-source-oil-pollution-fund-v-canada/) - Précis: The court held that the Administrator of the Ship-source Oil Pollution Fund does not have the right to require a claimant to execute a Release and Subrogation Agreement as a condition precedent to payment of their claim.
- [Platypus Marine Inc. v. TATU (Ship)](https://admiraltylaw.com/2016/09/29/platypus-marine-inc-v-tatu-ship/) - Précis: The Federal Court ordered that a Caveat Release be set aside and released the defendant ship from arrest notwithstanding an impending appeal.
- [Platypus Marine Inc. v. The ship Tatu](https://admiraltylaw.com/2016/09/08/platypus-marine-inc-v-the-ship-tatu-2/) - Précis: The Federal Court of Appeal held that it did not have the original jurisdiction to order the arrest, the continuance of an arrest, or the release of a vessel. That power belongs to the Federal Court.
- [Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's and Soline Trading Ltd. v. Mediterranean Shipping Company S.A.](https://admiraltylaw.com/2017/10/06/certain-underwriters-at-lloyds-and-soline-trading-ltd-v-mediterranean-shipping-company-s-a/) - Précis: The Federal Court held it had no jurisdiction to adjudicate a third party claim for indemnity brought by the ocean carrier against a trucker who took delivery of the cargo either unlawfully or negligently.
- [Saam Smit v. The Hanjin Vienna](https://admiraltylaw.com/2017/07/31/saam-smit-v-the-hanjin-vienna/) - Précis: The Federal Court permitted partial payment out of proceeds from the sale of a vessel after assessing the best reasonable cases of the various claimants.
- [Administrator of the Ship-Source Oil Pollution Fund v. Wilson](https://admiraltylaw.com/2017/08/31/administrator-of-the-ship-source-oil-pollution-fund-v-wilson/) - Précis: The Federal Court granted default judgement to the Ship-Source Oil Pollution Fund against the owner of a barge for expenses incurred to clean up and mitigate pollution.
- [Oddy v. Waterway Partnership Equities Inc.](https://admiraltylaw.com/2017/10/20/oddy-v-waterway-partnership-equities-inc/) - Précis: The British Columbia Supreme Court dismissed an action against the owner of a rented houseboat for personal injuries suffered by a renter when a mooring stake broke loose under strain and hit the plaintiff.
- [Avina v. The Ship Sea Sensor](https://admiraltylaw.com/2016/12/14/avina-v-the-ship-sea-sensor/) - Précis: The purchase of a vessel through the medium of a company accompanied by a loan to purchase shares in the company is not a secured transaction entitling foreclosure against the purchased vessel.
- [Lakeland Bank v. The Ship NEVER E NUFF](https://admiraltylaw.com/2016/09/30/lakeland-bank-v-the-ship-never-e-nuff-2/) - Précis: The Federal Court gave judgment in rem in favour of a U.S. mortgagee notwithstanding the sale of the vessel to an innocent purchaser. Provincial laws requiring registration of a mortgage had no application in the circumstances.
- [Mckeil Marine Limited v. Canada](https://admiraltylaw.com/2016/09/20/mckeil-marine-limited-v-canada/) - Précis: An appeal from a decision of Transport Canada that the towing of two decommissioned vessels from British Columbia to Nova Scotia via the Panama Canal was not "coasting trade" was dismissed on the grounds the applicant did not have standing and the issue was moot.
- [Banford v. Mitchelson](https://admiraltylaw.com/2016/10/07/banford-v-mitchelson/) - Précis: The operator of a vessel involved in a collision is not precluded from denying liability where his guilty plea was entered for economic reasons. He was nevertheless found liable.
- [Holman v. Oberg](https://admiraltylaw.com/2016/08/05/holman-v-oberg/) - Précis: The owner of a vessel is not vicariously liable for the negligence of the operator absent actual fault or privity.
- [National Refrigerator & Air Conditioning Canada Corp. v. Celadon Group Inc.](https://admiraltylaw.com/2016/05/05/national-refrigerator-air-conditioning-canada-corp-v-celadon-group-inc/) - Précis: The providing of a copy of a commercial invoice to a carrier is not a declaration of value sufficient to oust the carrier's right to limit its liability.
- [Verreault Navigation Inc. v. 662901 N.B. Ltd.](https://admiraltylaw.com/2016/11/17/verreault-navigation-inc-v-662901-n-b-ltd/) - Précis: This matter concerned the ranking of various claimants to proceeds from the sale of a ship.
- [Adventurer Owner Ltd. v. R.](https://admiraltylaw.com/2018/02/07/adventurer-owner-ltd-v-r/) - Précis: The Federal Court of Appeal upheld a decision of the Federal Court that: (1) the Crown was not liable for damages caused to a ship running aground on an un-charted shoal in the Arctic when the shoal had been the subject of a Notice to Shipping; and (2) the ship was liable to the Crown for the costs of pollution abatement.
- [Moray Channel Enterprises Ltd. v. Gordon](https://admiraltylaw.com/2017/03/01/moray-channel-enterprises-ltd-v-gordon/) - Précis: The plaintiff marina was given judgement for mooring charges owed despite some irregularities in its accounting.
- [Re: Hanjin Shipping Co. Ltd. v.](https://admiraltylaw.com/2016/10/03/re-hanjin-shipping-co-ltd-v/) - Précis: The automatic stay of proceedings that arises upon recognition of a foreign insolvency proceeding does not automatically include existing Federal Court in rem proceedings.
- [Re: Northern Transportation Company v.](https://admiraltylaw.com/2016/09/22/re-northern-transportation-company-v/) - Précis: Failure to make charter payments was an event of default for which, in the circumstances, there was no right to reinstatement or relief from forfeiture.
- [Quebec v. IMTT-Quebec Inc.](https://admiraltylaw.com/2016/09/08/quebec-v-imtt-quebec-inc/) - Précis: The Quebec Superior Court held that Quebec's Environment Quality Act did not apply to a construction project on port lands regultaed by the Federal Government.
- [De Wolf Maritime Safety B.V. v. Traffic-Tech International Inc.](https://admiraltylaw.com/2017/01/11/de-wolf-maritime-safety-b-v-v-traffic-tech-international-inc/) - Précis: A carrier is entitled to limit liability under the Hague-Visby Rules for undeclared deck carriage.
- [Atlantic Container Lines AB v. Cerescorp Company](https://admiraltylaw.com/2017/05/08/atlantic-container-lines-ab-v-cerescorp-company/) - Précis: The Federal Court permitted a defendant to amend its Statement of Defence to allege additional causes of the collapse of a stow of containers where the amendments were not a radical departure from prior pleadings, were not doomed to fail and the motion to amend was made in a timely fashion.
- [J.D. Irving Limited v. Siemens Canada Limited](https://admiraltylaw.com/2016/01/22/j-d-irving-limited-v-siemens-canada-limited/) - Précis: The right of a ship owner to limit liability for damage to cargo when a barge capsized was upheld.
- [Re: Bernard LLP v.](https://admiraltylaw.com/2015/12/16/re-bernard-llp-v/) - Précis: A law firm was entitled to interplead disputed funds notwithstanding that the Federal Court had ordered the funds paid to one of the claimants.
- [Ryan Estate v. Canada](https://admiraltylaw.com/2015/06/25/ryan-estate-v-canada/) - Précis: A joint and several tortfeasor was held to be liable for 100% of the plaintiffs' damages even though the other tortfeasors were protected by Workers' compensation legislation and any claims for contribution and indemnity might also be barred by such legislation.
- [J.D. Irving Limited v. Siemens Canada Limited](https://admiraltylaw.com/2016/03/07/j-d-irving-limited-v-siemens-canada-limited-2/) - Précis: Independent contractors of the ship owner are not entitled to limit liability pursuant to the provisions of the LLMC convention.
- [AGF Steel Inc. v. Miller Shipping Limited](https://admiraltylaw.com/2016/04/20/agf-steel-inc-v-miller-shipping-limited/) - Précis: The court held that a transportation services contract between the parties was, in fact, a contract for the charter of a ship and the Hague-Visby Rules did not apply.
- [Marcoux v. St-Charles-de-Bellechasse (Municipalité de)](https://admiraltylaw.com/2015/09/23/marcoux-v-st-charles-de-bellechasse-municipalita-de/) - Précis: A municipal bylaw restricting the types of vessels that could be operated on a lake was held to be invalid.
- [Turcotte v. Dufour](https://admiraltylaw.com/2015/11/11/turcotte-v-dufour/) - Précis: Where two vessels were proceeding on parallel courses at speed and one vessel suddenly veers sharply putting itself in front of the other, the turning vessel is 100% liable for the resulting collision.
- [Platypus Marine Inc. v. The Ship Tatu](https://admiraltylaw.com/2017/09/09/platypus-marine-inc-v-the-ship-tatu/) - Précis: Interest accrues in maritime law cases regardless of whether it is addressed in a contract.
- [Ballantrae Holdings Inc. v. The Ship Phoenix Sun](https://admiraltylaw.com/2016/05/26/ballantrae-holdings-inc-v-the-ship-phoenix-sun/) - Précis: This case deals with priorities as between various claimants and addresses the relevance of provincial personal property security legislation (PPSA) to maritime claims and priorities.
- [Avina v. The Ship Sea Senor](https://admiraltylaw.com/2016/04/27/avina-v-the-ship-sea-senor/) - Précis: The B.C. Supreme Court refused to set aside an arrest but also refused to order the sale of a vessel under arrest pendente lite.
- [Goodrich Transport Ltd. v. Vancouver Fraser Port Authority](https://admiraltylaw.com/2015/04/22/goodrich-transport-ltd-v-vancouver-fraser-port-authority/) - Précis: The court set aside the decisions of the Port Authority denying licences to the applicants and ordered that their applications be reconsidered.
- [Haryett v. Lloyd's Canada](https://admiraltylaw.com/2015/02/10/haryett-v-lloyds-canada/) - Précis: The Ontario Superior Court held that a liability insurer had no duty to defend its insured when the policy contains no such contractual obligation and no duty to indemnify when the insured was driving the vessel under the influence of alcohol and therefore illegally.
- [LF Centennial Pte. Ltd. v. TRLU7228664 et al (Containers)](https://admiraltylaw.com/2015/02/19/lf-centennial-pte-ltd-v-trlu7228664-et-al-containers/) - Précis: An in rem plaintiff has no right to commence proceedings and arrest in Federal Court when there are ongoing insolvency proceedings in a provincial superior court and an outstanding order under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act staying all proceedings.
- [Fingad Shipping Ltd. v. Ningbo Arts & Crafts Imp & Exp. Co. Ltd.](https://admiraltylaw.com/2015/07/10/fingad-shipping-ltd-v-ningbo-arts-crafts-imp-exp-co-ltd/) - Précis: The court applied issue estoppel and struck an in rem action on the grounds that a French court had previously determined the owner at the time of the commencement of the action was not the same as at the time the cause of action arose.
- [Aquavita International S.A. v. M/V Pantelis (Ship)](https://admiraltylaw.com/2015/02/13/aquavita-international-s-a-v-m-v-pantelis-ship/) - Précis: The Federal Court held that it did have jurisdiction over a claim by a sub-charterer for excessive bunkers on board the ship when re-delivered at the conclusion of the sub-charter.
- [National Bank of Canada v. Rogers](https://admiraltylaw.com/2015/10/26/national-bank-of-canada-v-rogers/) - Précis: The bank/mortgagee was granted summary judgement upon the default of the debtor in advance of the sale of the ship.
- [Canpotex Shipping Services Limited v. Marine Petrobulk Ltd.](https://admiraltylaw.com/2017/03/10/canpotex-shipping-services-limited-v-marine-petrobulk-ltd/) - Précis: The Federal Court of Appeal held that the trial Judge erred in relying upon parole evidence when interpreting bunker supply contracts and further held that the error was sufficiently serious so as to constitute an error in principle justifying review to the standard of correctness.
- [R v. Reinbrecht](https://admiraltylaw.com/2015/10/27/r-v-reinbrecht/) - Précis: The accused was found guilty of criminal negligence
- [Asia Ocean Services, Inc. (UPS Asia Group Pte Ltd) v. Belair Fabrication Ltd](https://admiraltylaw.com/2015/10/06/asia-ocean-services-inc-ups-asia-group-pte-ltd-v-belair-fabrication-ltd/) - Précis: The shipper was required to pay dead freight pursuant to the terms of a booking note.
- [Cormack v. Chalmers](https://admiraltylaw.com/2015/09/08/cormack-v-chalmers/) - Précis: The court held a "Mary Carter" type settlement agreement with one defendant, who was entitled to limit his liability, did not change the liability of the other defendant to several from joint.
- [Transport Desgagnes Inc. v. Wartsila Canada Inc.](https://admiraltylaw.com/2017/10/04/transport-desgagnes-inc-v-wartsila-canada-inc/) - Précis: The Quebec Court of Appeal held that the sale of a marine engine was governed by Canadian maritime law and the vendor was entitled to rely upon the limitation clause in its contract.
- [Leo Ocean S.A. v. Westshore Terminals Limited Partnership](https://admiraltylaw.com/2015/12/09/leo-ocean-s-a-v-westshore-terminals-limited-partnership/) - Précis: The Federal Court of Appeal held that there was sufficient evidence to determine if the claim was one of pure economic loss and referred the matter back to the trial division for a decision.
- [Canadian Pacific Railway Company v. Canexus Chemicals Canada LP](https://admiraltylaw.com/2015/12/07/canadian-pacific-railway-company-v-canexus-chemicals-canada-lp/) - Précis: The Federal Court of Appeal held that s. 137 of the Canada Transportation Act prohibits rail carriers from contracting out of liabilities using hold harmless and indemnity clauses.
- [Roots v. HMCS Annapolis](https://admiraltylaw.com/2015/12/02/roots-v-hmcs-annapolis/) - Précis: Repeated non-compliance with court orders and directions resulted in dismissal of the action for delay.
- [Offshore Interiors Inc. v. Worldspan Marine Inc.](https://admiraltylaw.com/2016/12/01/offshore-interiors-inc-v-worldspan-marine-inc-4/) - Précis: The Federal Court will not require parties to litigate issues in another court. The priorities as between the builder and purchaser/mortgagee depend on the wording of the contractual documents.
- [R v. Cowan](https://admiraltylaw.com/2014/02/05/r-v-cowan/) - Précis: A small vessel operator was found guilty of careless operation of a vessel for transiting a narrow pass on the wrong side and creating a close quarters situation with a large passenger ferry.
- [BBC Chartering Carriers GmBH & Co. KG v. Jindal Steel & Power Limited](https://admiraltylaw.com/2014/12/12/bbc-chartering-carriers-gmbh-co-kg-v-jindal-steel-power-limited/) - Précis: The Federal Court refused to set aside an arrest where the underlying claim was by a charterer for demurrage. The court also held that time limited security to obtain the release of an arrest was not acceptable.
- [St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Company v. Vallée](https://admiraltylaw.com/2015/02/26/st-paul-fire-marine-insurance-company-v-vallae/) - Précis: The Court of Quebec held that a contract to deliver a yacht by sea was a services contract and not a contract of carriage.
- [C.H. Robinson Worldwide v. Northbridge Insurance](https://admiraltylaw.com/2016/05/13/c-h-robinson-worldwide-v-northbridge-insurance/) - Précis: The Ontario Court of Appeal overturned a trial judgement holding that a misrepresentation by an insured voided the policy of insurance and was a defence to a direct action pursuant to s. 132(1) of the Insurance Act of Ontario.
- [A & A Trading Ltd. v. DIL'S Trucking Inc.](https://admiraltylaw.com/2015/03/24/a-a-trading-ltd-v-dils-trucking-inc/) - Précis: A defendant carrier cannot limit liability where it is aware of the value of the goods, represented it had sufficient insurance and the bill of lading referred to an invoice containing the value of the goods.
- [Ehler Marine & Industrial Service Co. v. M/V Pacific Yellowfin (Ship)](https://admiraltylaw.com/2015/03/16/ehler-marine-industrial-service-co-v-m-v-pacific-yellowfin-ship/) - Précis: A repair quote was held to be an agreed price when given in response to a request for a "reasonably accurate estimate" and "hard" numbers.
- [Save Halkett Bay Marine Park Society v. Canada (Environment)](https://admiraltylaw.com/2015/03/10/save-halkett-bay-marine-park-society-v-canada-environment/) - Précis: An Application for judicial review of a decision authorizing the sinking of a destroyer to create an artificial reef was dismissed for delay and also on the merits.
- [0813054 BC Ltd. v. Overland West Freight Lines Ltd.](https://admiraltylaw.com/2013/11/29/0813054-bc-ltd-v-overland-west-freight-lines-ltd/) - Summary not available.
- [Kuffuor v. Greyhound Courier Express Ltd.](https://admiraltylaw.com/2013/11/22/kuffuor-v-greyhound-courier-express-ltd/) - Summary not available.
- [Langlois v. Great American Insurance Company](https://admiraltylaw.com/2015/03/13/langlois-v-great-american-insurance-company/) - Précis: The Quebec Superior Court held that there was a right of direct action against the insurer of a ship repair yard under the provisions of the Civil Code.
- [ATL Trucking Ltd. v. Vancouver Fraser Port Authority](https://admiraltylaw.com/2015/04/08/atl-trucking-ltd-v-vancouver-fraser-port-authority/) - Précis: The Federal Court held that it did have jurisdiction to hear a judicial review application appealing a decision by a Port Authority denying trucking licences to the Applicants.
- [Allchem Industries Industrial v. CMA CGM Florida (Vessel)](https://admiraltylaw.com/2015/04/29/allchem-industries-industrial-v-cma-cgm-florida-vessel/) - Précis: The court held that service of a statement of claim on a freight forwarder, who sometimes acted as agent for the defendant and who was identified as an agent on the defendant's website, was valid service.
- [Demers v. Marine Atlantic Inc.](https://admiraltylaw.com/2015/03/12/demers-v-marine-atlantic-inc/) - Précis: The Quebec Small Claims Court refused to give effect to a jurisdiction clause in passenger ferry ticket in favour of the Federal Court.
- [Offshore Interiors Inc. v. Worldspan Marine Inc.](https://admiraltylaw.com/2014/07/04/offshore-interiors-inc-v-worldspan-marine-inc-3/) - Précis: The Federal Court approved the private sale of a deteriorating vessel.
- [Gaudet v. Navigation Madelaine Inc.](https://admiraltylaw.com/2014/08/20/gaudet-v-navigation-madelaine-inc/) - Précis: The Quebec Superior Court held that the provisions of the Quebec Civil Code could apply to extend the limitation period in the Athens Convention, although the court did not do so in the circumstances.
- [Toney v. Canada](https://admiraltylaw.com/2014/09/24/toney-v-canada/) - Précis: The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench struck a claim for personal injuries that was made out of time and questioned whether "grief" claims allowed under the provincial act could be made in an incident governed by maritime law.
- [Coastal Float Camps Ltd. v. Jardine Lloyd Thompson Canada Inc.](https://admiraltylaw.com/2014/09/22/coastal-float-camps-ltd-v-jardine-lloyd-thompson-canada-inc/) - Précis: The Federal Court refused to strike a claim for negligence against a marine broker as it was not "plain and obvious" the court was without jurisdiction.
- [Forsey v. Burin Peninsula Marine Service Centre](https://admiraltylaw.com/2015/10/09/forsey-v-burin-peninsula-marine-service-centre/) - Précis: The Federal Court refused to give effect to an exclusion clause on the grounds that it did not expressly or impliedly exclude negligence.
- [0871768 B.C. Ltd. v. Aestival (Vessel)](https://admiraltylaw.com/2014/11/05/0871768-b-c-ltd-v-aestival-vessel/) - Précis: One of two defendants was found liable for damage caused to an adjacent vessel by grinding dust. As the damages were separate and divisible, it was not a case of joint and several liability.
- [Harry Sargeant III v. Al-Saleh](https://admiraltylaw.com/2014/12/19/harry-sargeant-iii-v-al-saleh/) - Précis: The Federal Court of Appeal held that a foreign fraud judgment in a non-maritime matter could not support a claim in rem and was outside the jurisdiction of the Federal Court.
- [Norwegian Bunkers AS v. Boone Star Owners Inc.](https://admiraltylaw.com/2015/02/13/norwegian-bunkers-as-v-boone-star-owners-inc/) - Précis: The Federal Court held that Brazilian law applied to a claim for bunkers supplied to a chartered vessel in Brazil and that such law gave the supplier a maritime lien but, there was no in personam claim as against the ship owner when the charterer ordered the bunkers.
- [West Kelowna (District) v. Newcombe](https://admiraltylaw.com/2015/01/09/west-kelowna-district-v-newcombe/) - Précis: The British Columbia Court of Appeal affirmed the decision of the Trial Judge (2013 BCSC 1411) that anchoring/mooring was a core element of Federal jurisdiction over navigation and shipping and a municipal by-law prohibiting mooring was constitutionally inapplicable pursuant to the doctrine of interjurisdictional immunity to the extent it prohibited temporary moorage.
- [Snow Valley Marine Services Ltd. v. Seaspan Commodore (The)](https://admiraltylaw.com/2015/03/10/snow-valley-marine-services-ltd-v-seaspan-commodore-the/) - Précis: The sole cause of the sinking of a tug assisting with a fouled anchor was the failure of the defendant to properly secure a safety line.
- [R v. Lilgert](https://admiraltylaw.com/2014/12/16/r-v-lilgert-2/) - Précis: The British Columbia Court of Appeal upheld the conviction of the Fourth Officer of the "Queen of the North" on two counts of criminal negligence causing death and leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada was denied.
- [Woodbury v. Woodbury](https://admiraltylaw.com/2013/12/16/woodbury-v-woodbury/) - Précis: The court severed the liability issues from damages issues in a personal injury action.
- [Arcelormittal Mines Canada Inc. v. AK Steel Corporation](https://admiraltylaw.com/2014/12/08/arcelormittal-mines-canada-inc-v-ak-steel-corporation/) - Précis: The Federal Court of Appeal confirmed the trial judgment holding that the sale of cargo to be transported by ship was a matter of navigation and shipping, and within the jurisdiction of the Federal Court and further confirming the judgment for indemnity obtained by the purchaser of a cargo of iron ore pellets against the vendor of the pellets on the basis that the pellets delivered had excessive moisture content.
- [Sperling v. The Queen of Nanaimo](https://admiraltylaw.com/2014/01/24/sperling-v-the-queen-of-nanaimo/) - Précis: The British Columbia Supreme Court held that a defendant could be added as a party to an existing action notwithstanding the expiry of the limitation period under s. 140 of the Marine Liability Act and where the court further held that the limitation period in s. 140 of the Marine Liability Act does not commence to run until the underlying material facts and the extent of the injury are known.
- [Comtois International Exports Inc. v. Livestock Express BV](https://admiraltylaw.com/2014/05/15/comtois-international-exports-inc-v-livestock-express-bv/) - Précis: The court had no discretion to not enforce an arbitration clause in a charter party/booking note.
- [Westshore Terminals Limited v. Leo Ocean S.A. (The Cape Apricot)](https://admiraltylaw.com/2014/02/06/westshore-terminals-limited-v-leo-ocean-s-a-the-cape-apricot/) - Précis: The Federal Court held that a pilot whose certificate of competency issued under the Canada Shipping Act, 2001 had expired was nevertheless a "licensed pilot" within the meaning of the Pilotage Act with the result that the pilot was entitled to limit his liability and the ship owner was liable for his negligence.
- [Adventure Tours Inc. v. St. John's Port Authority](https://admiraltylaw.com/2014/05/05/adventure-tours-inc-v-st-johns-port-authority-2/) - Précis: The Federal Court upheld the decision of a Port Authority denying an application to conduct tour boat operations from port managed property.
- [Westshore Terminals Limited v. Leo Ocean S.A. (The Cape Apricot)](https://admiraltylaw.com/2014/10/15/westshore-terminals-limited-v-leo-ocean-s-a-the-cape-apricot-2/) - Précis: The Federal Court of Appeal held that a letter of undertaking given to secure the release of a vessel from arrest was valid and binding and further held that s. 43(8) of the Federal Courts Act did not permit the arrest of multiple vessels.
- [Capitaines Propriétaires de la Gaspésie (A.C.P.G.) Inc. v. Pêcheries Guy Laflamme Inc.](https://admiraltylaw.com/2015/03/19/capitaines-propriataires-de-la-gaspasie-a-c-p-g-inc-v-paacheries-guy-laflamme-inc/) - Précis: The Federal Court and Federal Court of Appeal gave effect to an exclusion clause in a ship lifting contract notwithstanding that the clause did not specifically refer to negligence.
- [Adventure Tours Inc. v. St. John's Port Authority](https://admiraltylaw.com/2014/06/26/adventure-tours-inc-v-st-johns-port-authority-3/) - Précis: The Federal Court of Appeal refused to strike a claim against a port authority for abuse of public office as being made out of time when it was a continuation of an earlier action and filed with leave of the court.
- [General MPP Carriers Ltd. v. SCL Bern AG](https://admiraltylaw.com/2014/06/14/general-mpp-carriers-ltd-v-scl-bern-ag/) - Précis: The Federal Court has no jurisdiction over a shareholders dispute even though the company was a "one ship company".
- [Atkinson (Guardian ad litem of) v. Gypsea Rose (Ship)](https://admiraltylaw.com/2014/06/06/atkinson-guardian-ad-litem-of-v-gypsea-rose-ship/) - Précis: A small vessel collision case in which liability was apportioned 80% to the moving vessel whose operator was impaired and 20% to the stationary vessel. The case is also notable for holding that the owner of the moving vessel was not liable even though there were some maintenance issues with the boat that contributed to the accident.
- [Malcolm v. Shubenacadie Tidal Bore Rafting Park Limited](https://admiraltylaw.com/2014/07/09/malcolm-v-shubenacadie-tidal-bore-rafting-park-limited/) - Précis: The Nova Scotia Supreme Court held that the limitation period applicable to a river rafting accident that occurred prior to the 2009 amendments to the Marine Liability Act, was the two year limit in the Athens Convention which could not be extended even though the plaintiff was an infant.
- [Verreault Navigation Inc. v. The Continental Casualty Company](https://admiraltylaw.com/2014/06/12/verreault-navigation-inc-v-the-continental-casualty-company/) - Précis: The Quebec Superior Court held that a claim against underwriters for indemnity under ship repairer liability policies was governed by Canadian maritime law and not the civil law of Quebec and where the court further held that the underwriters were not liable based on a "faulty design" exclusion in the policy and a notice/reporting provision.
- [Quin-Sea Fisheries Limited v. The Broadbill I](https://admiraltylaw.com/2013/05/29/quin-sea-fisheries-limited-v-the-broadbill-i/) - The plaintiff and defendants entered into an agreement whereby, in consideration of a loan by the plaintiff, the defendants granted a mortgage over the defendant vessel and agreed to make its catch available to the plaintiff for one year following the year the loan was repaid. The loan was repaid but the defendants failed to
- [SDV Logistiques (Canada) Inc. v. Dieselgenset Type 8M 25, Engine No. 45085 EX the Barge Andrea](https://admiraltylaw.com/2013/06/18/sdv-logistiques-canada-inc-v-dieselgenset-type-8m-25-engine-no-45085-ex-the-barge-andrea/) - Précis: The court held that it had no jurisdiction to sell property that was not located in Canada.
- [Alberta (Canada) v. Toney](https://admiraltylaw.com/2013/09/18/alberta-canada-v-toney/) - Précis: The Federal Court of Appeal held that the Federal Court had no in personam jurisdiction over the Province of Alberta.
- [Caterpillar Financial Services Corporation v. Boale Wood & Company](https://admiraltylaw.com/2014/10/31/caterpillar-financial-services-corporation-v-boale-wood-company/) - Précis: The British Columbia Court of Appeal confirmed the trial judgment holding that an administrative charge under the Companies Creditors Arrangement Act applied to the proceeds from the sale of a vessel and had priority over a mortgage.
- [Roynat Inc v. Phoenix Sun Shipping Inc](https://admiraltylaw.com/2013/11/25/roynat-inc-v-phoenix-sun-shipping-inc/) - Précis: The Ontario Superior Court referred applications concerning the sale of a ship to the Federal Court on the grounds that deference had to be paid to the Federal Court Proceedings.
- [081768 BC Ltd v. The Ship Aestival](https://admiraltylaw.com/2013/11/13/081768-bc-ltd-v-the-ship-aestival/) - Précis: The Federal Court held that an in rem action was available whenever damage was done by those in charge of a ship with the ship as the instrument.
- [Oceanex Inc. v. Praxair Canada Inc.](https://admiraltylaw.com/2014/01/10/oceanex-inc-v-praxair-canada-inc/) - Précis: The shipper was held liable for damage caused to the ship as a consequence of a rupture of a container of liquid oxygen.
- [G.B. v. L. Bo](https://admiraltylaw.com/2014/01/06/g-b-v-l-bo/) - Précis: The Quebec Superior Court held, in respect of an event that occurred before s. 140 of the Marine Liability Act was enacted, that the three year limitation period under that section commenced to run on the date s.140 came into force.
- [Byatt International SA v. Canworld Shipping Company Limited](https://admiraltylaw.com/2013/12/19/byatt-international-sa-v-canworld-shipping-company-limited/) - This was an application to stay the order of the British Columbia Court of Appeal rendered in Byatt International S.A. v Canworld Shipping Company Limited, 2013 BCCA 427, wherein the court ordered that the ship owner was entitled to sub-freight paid into court. The grounds for the application were that an application for leave to
- [Byatt International S.A. v. Canworld Shipping Company Limited,](https://admiraltylaw.com/2013/10/04/byatt-international-s-a-v-canworld-shipping-company-limited/) - Précis: The British Columbia Court of Appeal confirmed the ship owner's right to direct the payment of sub-freights to itself.
- [9171-7702 Quebec Inc. v. Canada](https://admiraltylaw.com/2013/07/30/9171-7702-quebec-inc-v-canada/) - Précis: The Federal Court surprisingly held that the sale of a vessel in Quebec was governed by the Quebec Civil Code.
- [Can-Am Produce and Trading Ltd. v. The "Senator"](https://admiraltylaw.com/1996/04/22/can-am-produce-and-trading-ltd-v-the-senator/) - This matter concerned a motion by the Defendant to stay proceedings by reason of a jurisdiction clause in the bill of lading. The Plaintiff opposed the motion on three grounds: that there were two jurisdiction clauses in the bill of lading which were inconsistent; that Canada was the more convenient jurisdiction; and that the action
- [Siderurgica Mendes Junior S.A. v. The "Ice Pearl"](https://admiraltylaw.com/1996/01/31/siderurgica-mendes-junior-s-a-v-the-ice-pearl/) - In this cargo case the Plaintiffs argued that an arbitration clause in a charter party should not be given effect to on two grounds: First, that the bill of lading contained a "supersession clause" that did not specifically refer to the arbitration provision and, second, that the Defendant had waived its right to arbitration. On
- [Arbella S.A. v. The "Aghia Markella"](https://admiraltylaw.com/1995/04/28/arbella-s-a-v-the-aghia-markella/) - The subject matter of this dispute was whether the Defendant had breached a charter party when it failed to supply the ship on the date specified. The reason the Defendant could not supply the ship is that it had been detained by Canadian Coast Guard. The Plaintiff argued that the arbitration clause was inoperative because,
- [Trans-Continental Textile Recycling v. The "Erato II" and "MSC Giovanna"](https://admiraltylaw.com/1995/11/09/trans-continental-textile-recycling-v-the-erato-ii-and-msc-giovanna/) - In this matter the Defendant sought to rely on a jurisdiction clause in a bill of lading that selected New York as the proper forum. The Plaintiff opposed the Defendant's motion for a stay on the grounds, inter alia, that the Defendant had attorned to the jurisdiction of the Federal Court. The Defendant had filed
- [Donohue Inc. v. The "Ocean Link"](https://admiraltylaw.com/1995/03/14/donohue-inc-v-the-ocean-link/) - In this matter the Court refused a motion for a stay of Third Party proceedings on the grounds that, first, the Court could not determine on the evidence before it whether a contract with a jurisdiction clause existed and, second, it was likely that if the stay was granted two separate actions would proceed.
- [Conagra International S.A. v. Seamotion Navigation Ltd.](https://admiraltylaw.com/1995/02/24/conagra-international-s-a-v-seamotion-navigation-ltd/) - In this matter the Defendant shipowner attempted to enforce an arbitration agreement contained in a charter party. The case concerned a shipment of wheat from Canada originally intended for Iraq. The case was unusual in that, because of the embargo on shipments to Iraq, the shipment was resold at sea and redirected to Malta. New
- [Usach Technologies Inc. v. Lamprecht Transport Ltd.](https://admiraltylaw.com/1995/05/05/usach-technologies-inc-v-lamprecht-transport-ltd/) - In this matter the Court enforced a jurisdiction clause, contained in a through bill of lading, in favour of Switzerland. The Plaintiff attempted to argue that the clause had not been properly brought to its attention but the Court held that the Plaintiff knew of the existence of the clause and accepted it.
- [Sarabia v. The Oceanic Mindoro](https://admiraltylaw.com/1996/11/06/sarabia-v-the-oceanic-mindoro/) - In this matter a seaman was injured while his ship was at Vancouver. His employment contract provided that all actions arising out of or by virtue of the contract were to be heard by the Courts of the Philippines. The issue in the case was whether this wording was wide enough to include claims in
- [Tessier Ltee. v. Quebec](https://admiraltylaw.com/2012/05/17/tessier-ltee-v-quebec/) - Précis: The Supreme Court of Canada addressed whether and when stevedoring activities are governed by provincial occupational health and safety legislation. Notably, the court said that shipping activities undertaken solely within a province are subject to provincial law.
- [Croisières Charlevoix Inc. v. Quebec](https://admiraltylaw.com/2012/03/19/croisia¨res-charlevoix-inc-v-quebec/) - Précis: The court held that intra-provincial carriage of passengers was subject to provincial law.
- [Ship Source Oil Pollution Fund v. British Columbia (Finance)](https://admiraltylaw.com/2012/10/01/ship-source-oil-pollution-fund-v-british-columbia-finance/) - Précis: The admiralty jurisdiction of the Federal Court was held to include jurisdiction in actions against a provincial crown. (This is probably no longer good law. See the "Comment" in the summary.
- [R. v. Lilgert](https://admiraltylaw.com/2013/06/24/r-v-lilgert/) - Précis: The fourth officer of the passenger ferry "Queen of the North", which struck Gill Island and sank on 22 March 2006, was sentenced to four years imprisonment for criminal negligence causing death.
- [Lakeland Bank v. The Ship Never E Nuff](https://admiraltylaw.com/2013/08/12/lakeland-bank-v-the-ship-never-e-nuff/) - The plaintiff was the mortgagee of the defendant vessel and brought this motion for summary judgment to sell the vessel promptly. In support of its motion the plaintiff filed an affidavit which apparently attached a judgment of the United States District Court of Northern New York in which the plaintiff was awarded US$190,000 and given
- [OT Africa Line Ltd. v. Magic Sportswear Corp.](https://admiraltylaw.com/2006/08/23/ot-africa-line-ltd-v-magic-sportswear-corp/) - This was a subrogated action by cargo insurers for damages for the short shipment of goods carried from New York to Liberia under a bill of lading that was issued in Canada. The freight was also payable in Canada and the Defendant carrier, although not a Canadian resident, had offices in Canada. None of the
- [Sumisho Reftech Co. Ltd. v. The "Great Pride"](https://admiraltylaw.com/2006/03/27/sumisho-reftech-co-ltd-v-the-great-pride/) - This was an application to stay proceedings. The underlying matter concerned a contract for the carriage of goods from China to Japan and the parties to that contract were not Canadian residents. The only basis for bringing the action in Canada was that the Defendant COSCO had a Canadian office and the existence of this
- [Z.I. Pompey Industrie v. ECU-Line N.V.](https://admiraltylaw.com/2003/05/01/z-i-pompey-industrie-v-ecu-line-n-v/) - The Plaintiffs claimed that cargo carried from Belgium to Canada and then on to the US was damaged. The Appellant shipowner sought to rely on an exclusive jurisdiction clause in the bill of lading referring claims to the Courts of Belgium. The matter arose before s.46(1) of the Marine Liability Act came into force. The
- [Dongnam Oil & Fats Co. v. Chemex Ltd. et al.](https://admiraltylaw.com/2004/12/10/dongnam-oil-fats-co-v-chemex-ltd-et-al/) - This matter concerned damage to a cargo of bleached tallow to be carried from Newark, New Jersey to Inchon, Korea. The cargo was to be carried on board the ship "Tuapse". The "Tuapse" was owned by Novoship but chartered under a head charter to Chemex. The head charter provided for London arbitration. The Plaintiff and
- [Nestle Canada Inc. v. The "Viljandi" et al.](https://admiraltylaw.com/2003/01/14/nestle-canada-inc-v-the-viljandi-et-al/) - This was an an application for a stay of proceedings on the basis of a jurisdiction clause contained in a bill of lading. The Court refused the stay on the grounds that the action had been commenced after the Marine Liability Act was proclaimed in force (August 8, 2001) and, therefore, the matter was covered
- [Incremona-Salerno v. The "Castor" and "Katsuragi"](https://admiraltylaw.com/2002/12/02/incremona-salerno-v-the-castor-and-katsuragi/) - The issue in these applications was whether s. 46(1) of the he Marine Liability Act, (which provides that notwithstanding any jurisdiction or arbitration clause claims arising under a contract of carriage of goods by water may be brought in Canada where inter alia the port of loading or port of discharge is in Canada) applies
- [Mariana Maritime S.A. v. Stella Jones Inc.](https://admiraltylaw.com/2002/05/24/mariana-maritime-s-a-v-stella-jones-inc/) - This was an appeal from an Order by the motions Judge dismissing an application by the Defendant carriers for a stay of proceedings. The facts were that the parties had entered into a "Conline" booking note for the carriage of the Plaintiffs' cargo. The booking note specified that its terms would be superceded by the
- [Hyundai Merchant Marine Co. Ltd. v. Anraj Fish Products Industries Ltd. et al.](https://admiraltylaw.com/2000/06/20/hyundai-merchant-marine-co-ltd-v-anraj-fish-products-industries-ltd-et-al/) - This was an appeal from an order of a Motions Judge in which the Motions Judge overturned the order of a Prothonotary staying the action on the grounds of a jurisdiction clause in the bill of lading selecting Korea as the appropriate jurisdiction. The Federal Court of Appeal stated that the standard of review on
- [Encan Liquidation v. Transintra Canada](https://admiraltylaw.com/2000/11/29/encan-liquidation-v-transintra-canada/) - This was an application by the Defendant carrier to stay a Third Party claim brought against it by a co-Defendant, the freight forwarder of the Plaintiff cargo owner, on the basis of a jurisdiction clause in the bill of lading. The Court noted that the bill of lading was a contract between the carrier and
- [Texserv Inc. v. Incon Container USA Ltd.](https://admiraltylaw.com/2000/05/15/texserv-inc-v-incon-container-usa-ltd/) - This was an application by the Defendant carrier to stay proceedings on the basis of a jurisdiction clause in the bill of lading requiring actions to be commenced in Florida. The Court declined the stay on the basis that the contract of carriage was effected before the bill of lading was issued, the Plaintiff was
- [Itochu Canada Ltd. v. The "Fu Ning Hai"](https://admiraltylaw.com/1999/08/17/itochu-canada-ltd-v-the-fu-ning-hai/) - This was an application for a stay of proceedings based on a Korean jurisdiction clause in the bill of lading. The stay was refused. The factors that led the court to deny the stay were many. First, the proceeding was against multiple Defendants, only one of whom requested the stay. The court considered that a
- [Town Shoes Limited v. Panalpina Inc. et al.](https://admiraltylaw.com/1999/06/09/town-shoes-limited-v-panalpina-inc-et-al/) - This case concerned the theft of a container of shoes carried by the Defendants from Italy to Montreal. The theft occurred at a Montreal warehouse. The Defendants brought this motion to stay the proceedings pursuant to a law and jurisdiction clause in the bill of lading that provided for the exclusive jurisdiction of the Court
- [Cerco Industries Ltd. v. The OOCL Canada](https://admiraltylaw.com/1999/11/16/cerco-industries-ltd-v-the-oocl-canada/) - This was an application for a stay of proceedings based on a jurisdiction clause in the bill of lading in favour of Belgium. The court noted that a stay should be ordered unless the Plaintiff showed "strong cause" for not doing so and that the "strong cause" the Plaintiff must show goes beyond mere balance
- [Thyssen Canada Limited v. The "Mariana](https://admiraltylaw.com/2000/03/22/thyssen-canada-limited-v-the-mariana/) - This was a motion to stay proceedings and refer the matter to arbitration pursuant to an arbitration clause contained in a charter party and incorporated by reference in the bill of lading. Clause 1 of the bill of lading expressly incorporated the charter party including any choice of law clause or arbitration clause. However, the
- [Frontier International Shipping Corp. v. The "Tavros"](https://admiraltylaw.com/1999/12/23/frontier-international-shipping-corp-v-the-tavros/) - In this matter the Plaintiff commenced proceedings to obtain security by arrest for arbitration proceedings in New York. Once the security was obtained the Plaintiff brought an application to stay the proceedings. The Defendant questioned the fairness of an arrest to obtain security for an arbitration and also requested counter-security for its counter-claim in the
- [Mitsui & Co. v. The "Evelyn"](https://admiraltylaw.com/1998/05/28/mitsui-evelyn/) - This was an application to stay proceedings in British Columbia in favour of Japan. The action was for damage to a cargo of coils shipped from Japan to British Columbia. The Defendants relied upon a jurisdiction clause in the bills of lading selecting the Tokyo District Court as the appropriate forum. The motions judge followed
- [Methanex New Zealand v. Fontaine Navigation S.A.](https://admiraltylaw.com/1998/01/09/methanex-new-zealand-v-fontaine-navigation-s-a/) - This was an application for a stay of proceedings on the grounds of an arbitration clause in a contract of affreightment and a jurisdiction clause in the bill of lading. The Plaintiff resisted the application on various grounds including that the Defendants, through their solicitors, had given a letter of undertaking. The letter of undertaking
- [Ocean Fisheries Ltd. v. Pacific Coast Mutual Marine Insurance Company](https://admiraltylaw.com/1997/10/30/ocean-fisheries-ltd-v-pacific-coast-mutual-marine-insurance-company/) - This was an appeal from an order of Mr. Justice Teitelbaum of the Trial Division. A motion for a stay was initially brought before the Prothonotary who ordered a stay on the basis of an arbitration provision contained in the by-laws of the Defendant, a mutual insurance company, and incorporated by reference into the terms
- [Transcontinental Sales Inc. v. Zim Container Service](https://admiraltylaw.com/1997/06/26/transcontinental-sales-inc-v-zim-container-service/) - This was a motion for a stay of proceedings on the grounds that a jurisdiction clause in the bills of lading required any disputes to be brought in Israel. The Plaintiff argued that countless claims between the parties in the past had been resolved in Canada and that the Defendant was only seeking procedural advantages.
- [Shipping Fed. of Cda. v. Vancouver Fraser Port Authority](https://admiraltylaw.com/2012/03/12/shipping-fed-of-cda-v-vancouver-fraser-port-authority/) - Précis: The court dismissed a challenge by ship owners to a container fee imposed under the Canada Marine Act.
- [The "Stormont" v. Canada](https://admiraltylaw.com/2012/03/20/the-stormont-v-canada/) - Précis: A challenge to an ice breaking services fee was dismissed.
- [Adventure Tours Inc. v. St. John's Port Authority](https://admiraltylaw.com/2013/01/21/adventure-tours-inc-v-st-johns-port-authority/) - The applicant wrote to the St. John's Port Authority advising he wished to resume providing a tour boat service and inquiring whether a licence was required. The Authority wrote back advising that they had agreements in place with tour boat operators and were not accepting any further applications. The applicant brought an application for judicial
- [Offshore Interiors Inc. v. Worldspan Marine Inc.](https://admiraltylaw.com/2011/07/19/offshore-interiors-inc-v-worldspan-marine-inc-2/) - This was an appeal from an order of a Prothonotary in which the Prothonotary refused to allow the defendant to file a defence out of time and gave default judgement. The underlying action was a claim by a cabinet maker for the costs of cabinets installed on a yacht. The Appeal Judge considered the issues
- [Sargeant v. Worldspan Marine Inc.](https://admiraltylaw.com/2011/06/06/sargeant-v-worldspan-marine-inc/) - This matter concerned a partially constructed yacht, an insolvent builder and many unhappy creditors. Some of the creditors had commenced proceedings in the Federal Court and obtained either arrest warrants against the vessel or caveats. The builder brought this application in the British Columbia Supreme Court under the Companies Creditors ArrangementAct seeking, inter alia, a
- [Worldspan Marine Inc. (Re) v.](https://admiraltylaw.com/2011/12/21/worldspan-marine-inc-re-v/) - The issue in this case was whether a stay of proceedings previously granted under the Companies Creditors Arrangement Act to allow an insolvent ship builder to refinance should be continued. The intended buyer of the partially constructed yacht opposed the builder's application to continue the stay. The buyer wanted to lift the stay so that
- [Calogeras & Master Supplies Inc. v. Ceres Hellenic Shipping Enterprises Ltd.](https://admiraltylaw.com/2011/11/30/calogeras-master-supplies-inc-v-ceres-hellenic-shipping-enterprises-ltd-3/) - The plaintiff in this matter was a ship chandler who had supplied various ships managed by the defendant over a number of years. This action was for payment of invoices in respect of those supplies as well as interest and legal fees, which fees were recoverable pursuant to the terms of the contract. The case
- [Calogeras & Master Supplies Inc. v. Ceres Hellenic Shipping Enterprises Ltd.](https://admiraltylaw.com/2012/03/08/calogeras-master-supplies-inc-v-ceres-hellenic-shipping-enterprises-ltd-4/) - The plaintiff had obtained a judgment against the defendant for $100,000 plus interest and a costs award of approximately $35,000. The defendant had also been awarded costs in the amount of approximately $160,000 from the date of an offer it had made and had been given the right to set-off its costs award against amounts
- [Atlantic Cement Carriers Ltd. v. Atlantic Towing Ltd.](https://admiraltylaw.com/2002/07/09/atlantic-cement-carriers-ltd-v-atlantic-towing-ltd/) - This was an application by a tug owner to stay proceedings commenced in the Federal Court by the owner of a barge for damages sustained because of the sinking of the barge and for an indemnity for any amounts the barge owner might be required to pay to the owner of the cargo on board
- [R. v. Ralph](https://admiraltylaw.com/2013/01/04/r-v-ralph/) - Précis: Convictions for various offences under the Canada Shipping Act against the master of a vessel that rolled over and sank were mostly upheld.
- [Hitachi Maxco Ltd v. Dolphin Logistics Co.](https://admiraltylaw.com/2010/08/27/hitachi-maxco-ltd-v-dolphin-logistics-co/) - This was a motion by the defendants for a stay of proceedings. The main issue was whether an admiralty action instituted in Canada in personam by two foreign corporations against four foreign corporations for the loss of cargo shipped from one foreign port and intended for discharge and delivery in another foreign jurisdiction should be
- [McDermott Gulf Operating Company v. Oceanographia Sociedad Anonima de Capital Variable](https://admiraltylaw.com/2010/03/31/mcdermott-gulf-operating-company-v-oceanographia-sociedad-anonima-de-capital-variable/) - This was an application to stay proceedings commenced in the Nova Scotia Supreme Court on the basis that the court lacked jurisdiction simpliciter or was otherwise not the appropriate forum. The underlying claim by the plaintiff was for charter hire and other charges allegedly owed by the defendants. The first plaintiff was a Panamanian company
- [Mitsui O.S.K. Lines Ltd. v. Mazda Canada Inc.](https://admiraltylaw.com/2008/06/19/mitsui-o-s-k-lines-ltd-v-mazda-canada-inc/) - The Cougar Ace took on a list of 60 degrees while en route to Canada and the U.S.A. from Japan. As a consequence, a large number of automobiles destined for Canada and U.S.A. were damaged. All of the automobiles were subject to a contract of carriage that contained a jurisdiction clause in favour of Japan
- [TAM International Inc. v. The " MCP Altona"](https://admiraltylaw.com/2012/02/01/tam-international-inc-v-the-mcp-altona-2/) - Précis: Costs were awarded against a party that withdrew a claim against proceeds of sale.
- [World Fuel Services Corporation v. Nordems (Ship)](https://admiraltylaw.com/2011/02/25/world-fuel-services-corporation-v-nordems-ship/) - This case probes the extent to which American maritime liens will be recognized by Canadian courts. Essentially, the issue was whether an American maritime lien would be recognized where bunkers were supplied to a ship under time charter outside of the United States or Canada and pursuant to a contract between the supplier and the
- [Seanautic Marine Inc. v. Jofor Export Incorporated](https://admiraltylaw.com/2012/03/20/seanautic-marine-inc-v-jofor-export-incorporated/) - Précis: The court affirmed that dismissal of a prior proceeding without an adjudication on the merits is not a bar to later proceedings.
- [Secunda Marine Services Ltd. v. Caterpillar Inc](https://admiraltylaw.com/2012/02/03/secunda-marine-services-ltd-v-caterpillar-inc/) - Précis: The plaintiff was allowed to amend its claim by adding a new plaintiff 10 years after the incident giving rise to the claim.
- [Comfact Corporation v. Hull 717](https://admiraltylaw.com/2013/04/08/comfact-corporation-v-hull-717/) - Précis: The Federal Court of Appeal agreed with the trial Judge that s. 139 of the MLA did not give a lien to a subcontractor who supplied manpower to construct a vessel.
- [Perera v. De Groot et al](https://admiraltylaw.com/2007/04/23/perera-v-de-groot-et-al/) - In this matter the plaintiffs alleged that a surveyor retained to perform a pre-purchase survey of a sailing vessel had negligently failed to inform them of existing dry rot in the vessel. Approximately one year after the survey,the plaintiffs hired a second surveyor who found extensive dry rot in the vessel. At trial (2006 BCSC
- [CF Boatworks Inc. v. James](https://admiraltylaw.com/2011/09/26/cf-boatworks-inc-v-james/) - In this matter the defendant's statement of defence had been struck for failure to provide a list of documents or written answers to interrogatories. The plaintiff now brought this motion for default judgment. The Prothonotary noted that on a motion for default judgement there are two questions: is the defendant in default and is there
- [FFS HK Ltd v. P.T. 25 (Ship)](https://admiraltylaw.com/2011/10/21/ffs-hk-ltd-v-p-t-25-ship-2/) - In this matter the plaintiff was successful at trial in that it obtained an order that the defendant was 50% at fault for a pollution incident. The plaintiff now sought to recover its costs. The plaintiff was awarded special costs and 100% of its costs and disbursements. Special costs were awarded primarily because the defendant
- [R. v. Bolt](https://admiraltylaw.com/2011/02/04/r-v-bolt/) - In this matter the defendant pled guilty to two charges of depositing a deleterious substance into waters frequented by fish and failing to report a spill contrary to the Fisheries Act. The facts were that a quantity of diesel fuel was spilled into the harbour while the defendant was refuelling his vessel. He was fined
- [Western Forest Products Inc. v. O'Brien](https://admiraltylaw.com/2011/12/30/western-forest-products-inc-v-obrien/) - The plaintiff in this matter held a foreshore lease granted by the province of British Columbia over certain foreshore lands. The defendant was the owner of a barge anchored within the foreshore lease without the permission of the plaintiff. The plaintiff brought this action and application for an interlocutory injunction compelling the defendant to remove
- [St. Lawrence Cement Inc. v. Wakeham & Sons Ltd.](https://admiraltylaw.com/1995/10/30/st-lawrence-cement-inc-v-wakeham-sons-ltd/) - This action involved a stranding of a barge due to the negligence of the tug. The towage contract specifically provided that the barge owner would be responsible for insurance on the barge and cargo and further provided that the towage was to be at the sole risk of the barge owner. At Trial, the Judge
- [Hamilton Marine & Engineering Ltd. v. CSL Group Inc.](https://admiraltylaw.com/1995/05/03/hamilton-marine-engineering-ltd-v-csl-group-inc/) - This matter involved the capsizing of a tug while it was assisting a larger vessel to undock. At issue in the case was the liability for the capsizing. The Federal Court Trial Division canvassed the rights and duties of tug and tow in such situations. It held that there is a presumption the tug is
- [Jim Pattison Ent. v. Workers' Compensation Board](https://admiraltylaw.com/2011/02/02/jim-pattison-ent-v-workers-compensation-board/) - The central issue in this case was whether and to what extent the British Columbia Occupational Health and Safety Regulation ("OHSR") of the Workers Compensation Act applied to commercial fishing vessels. It was argued that the OHSR was constitutionally invalid or inapplicable on the grounds that the safety of ships and crew is a matter
- [R v. Lewis](https://admiraltylaw.com/2009/12/10/r-v-lewis/) - The issue in this case was the constitutional validity of the Boating Restrictions Regulations under the Canada Shipping Act. Specifically, the challenge was to restrictions imposed on anchoring in False Creek, Vancouver. The accused were charged with anchoring without a permit. The defence was that the Boating Restrictions Regulations was an attempt by the Federal
- [Chalets St-Adolphe inc. v. St-Adolphe d'Howard (Municipalité de)](https://admiraltylaw.com/2011/08/17/chalets-st-adolphe-inc-v-st-adolphe-dhoward-municipalita-de/) - This case concerned the validity of a municipal bylaw which restricted the use of a municipal boat ramp and a lake to residents. The bylaw was challenged by a local businessman who had a small cottage rental business and used the municipal boat ramp to launch his customers' boats. At first instance the validity of
- [Alcan Primary Metal v. Groupe Maritime Verreault Inc](https://admiraltylaw.com/2011/11/21/alcan-primary-metal-v-groupe-maritime-verreault-inc/) - This case concerned whether the Federal Court had the jurisdiction to determine a dispute between the parties involving alleged breaches of a brokerage contract relating to tugs. The parties had entered into a contract whereby the plaintiff was to be paid a commission in the event that it found a tug or tugs that met
- [Feuiltault Solution Systems Inc. v. Zurich Canada](https://admiraltylaw.com/2012/07/30/feuiltault-solution-systems-inc-v-zurich-canada/) - Précis: The Federal Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal relating to insufficient packaging and discussed at length the burden of proof under an all risks policy.
- [Cami Automotive, Inc v. Westwood Shipping Lines Inc](https://admiraltylaw.com/2012/01/17/cami-automotive-inc-v-westwood-shipping-lines-inc-2/) - Précis: The Federal Court of Appeal upheld a decision of the Federal Court holding that a rail carrier could choose the limitation that was the most beneficial to it.
- [Orient Overseas Container Line Limited v. Sogelco International](https://admiraltylaw.com/2011/12/13/orient-overseas-container-line-limited-v-sogelco-international/) - This was an appeal from a decision of a Prothonotary granting recognition and enforcement of a New York arbitration award. The appellant argued that the Prothonotary had erred in finding that there was a written arbitration agreement, a requirement of recognition and enforcement. The Appeal Judge, however, agreed with the Prothonotary. He found the undisputed
- [New World Expedition Yachts LLC v. P.R. Yacht Builders](https://admiraltylaw.com/2011/01/25/new-world-expedition-yachts-llc-v-p-r-yacht-builders/) - In this action the plaintiff alleged that the defendant shipbuilders had engaged in a fraudulent scheme in relation to a ship building contract. The vessel was being built under a contract between the plaintiff/purchaser, NWEY, and the defendant/builder, PRYB. PRYB sub-contracted the labour part of the build to a related company, FCY, also a defendant.
- [T. Co. Metals LLC v. The Federal Ems](https://admiraltylaw.com/2012/11/08/t-co-metals-llc-v-the-federal-ems/) - A cargo of cold-rolled steel coils was carried from Brazil to Toronto pursuant to bills of lading that incorporated the terms and conditions of a voyage charterparty between the exporter and the time charterer of the vessel. Pursuant to the terms of the voyage charterparty, the exporter was to be responsible for the loading, stowing
- [Buckley v. Buhlman](https://admiraltylaw.com/2012/01/11/buckley-v-buhlman/) - Précis: The Federal Court of Appeal upheld a decision of the Federal Court wherein it was determined that the limits of liability under the MLA applicable to "passengers" apply only to persons on board the ship seeking to limit liability.
- [Siemens Canada Limited v. J.D. Irving, Limited](https://admiraltylaw.com/2012/08/30/siemens-canada-limited-v-j-d-irving-limited/) - Précis: The Federal Court of Appeal upheld the decision of the trial Judge enjoining proceedings in a provincial superior court while a limitation action was proceeding.
- [Hogan v. Buote](https://admiraltylaw.com/2012/03/07/hogan-v-buote/) - Précis: Liability for a collision was apportioned 75% to the give way vessel and 25% to the other vessel.
- [Wolverine Motor Works Shipyard LLC v. Canadian Naval Memorial Trust](https://admiraltylaw.com/2011/07/29/wolverine-motor-works-shipyard-llc-v-canadian-naval-memorial-trust/) - In this case the defendant's steel hulled vessel broke loose from its moorings and struck and sank the plaintiff's sail boat which was moored alongside. The incident occurred as Hurricane Juan was pounding the Nova Scotia coast. The plaintiff alleged the defendant was negligent. The court, however, found that the defendant was aware of the
- [Matson Navigation v. Victoria Shipyard Co.](https://admiraltylaw.com/2003/04/17/matson-navigation-v-victoria-shipyard-co/) - The Plaintiff in this matter claimed that the Defendant Shipyard had obstructed a vent with sandblast grit in the No. 5 port wing ballast tank while sandblasting during a refit. As a result of the obstruction, the ballast tank became over-pressurized during ballasting operations and significant damage was caused to the hull. Upon inspection approximately
- [Altenburger v. Buzaglo](https://admiraltylaw.com/2000/01/01/altenburger-v-buzaglo/) - This was an action by a boat repairer to recover the cost of repairs effected for storage costs. The Defendant argued that most of the repair work was unnecessary or not authorized and that the Plaintiff had caused damage to the boat while in his possession. The Court had little difficulty finding the Defendant liable
- [Glovertown Shipyards Ltd. v. Hickey](https://admiraltylaw.com/1999/01/01/glovertown-shipyards-ltd-v-hickey/) - This was an action by the Plaintiff shipyard to recover the balance owing on a ship construction contract with the Defendant purchaser. The purchaser alleged that the vessel was constructed with numerous defects that amounted to a fundamental breach of contract by the shipyard and rendered the ship not fit for the purpose for which
- [Nickerson v. Canada](https://admiraltylaw.com/1999/05/05/nickerson-v-canada/) - This was an action against two steamship inspectors for providing the Plaintiff with negligent advice. The facts were that the inspectors wrote a letter to the Plaintiff recommending, inter alia, that he coat the wood core of his vessel with a suitable wood preservative before applying fibre glass. The Plaintiff alleged that in reliance on
- [Gaudet v. Gallien Boats Ltd.](https://admiraltylaw.com/1995/01/23/gaudet-v-gallien-boats-ltd/) - This was an action against a boat builder for damages in negligence and for breach of the implied warranties under the Sale of Goods Act. The Defendant had installed a breather on the Plaintiff's engine. The motor was subsequently damaged when a nut from the breather became lodged in a piston. The Defendant was held
- [Rough Bay Enterprises Ltd. v. Budden et al.](https://admiraltylaw.com/2003/12/02/rough-bay-enterprises-ltd-v-budden-et-al/) - The Plaintiff, the purchaser of a barge, sued the Defendants for negligence and breach of contract in the towage of the barge. The Plaintiff purchased the barge from the Defendant Budden for $90,000, paying a $5,000 deposit together with an initial payment of $42,500. The Defendant Budden agreed to tow the barge from Port Alberni
- [Grieg Shipping A/S v. Fortune Marine Ltd. (The Dubai Fortune)](https://admiraltylaw.com/2013/09/16/grieg-shipping-a-s-v-fortune-marine-ltd-the-dubai-fortune/) - Précis: The Federal Court of Appeal confirmed the trial judgment that, in the circumstances, the vessel was not vicariously liable for the negligent acts of the master of the tug.
- [Universal Sales Limited v. Edinburgh Assurance Co. Ltd.](https://admiraltylaw.com/2012/10/12/universal-sales-limited-v-edinburgh-assurance-co-ltd-3/) - In prior reasons (2012 FC 418) the plaintiff had been awarded judgment against the defendants in the amount of approximately $5 million. These reasons dealt with the outstanding issues of interest and costs. With respect to interest, the issues were: should the plaintiff be deprived of part of the interest because of delay in prosecuting
- [Laurentian Pilotage Authority v. Techno Navigation Ltee.](https://admiraltylaw.com/1998/06/11/laurentian-pilotage-authority-v-techno-navigation-ltee/) - The issue in this case was whether a tug and barge combination are exempt from the pilotage requirement imposed by the Laurentian Pilotage Authority Regulations passed pursuant to the Pilotage Act. At trial, the judge considered the regulations were "vague and imprecise" and held that both the tug and barge were exempt. On appeal, however,
- [Primex Forest Products Ltd. v. Harken Towing Co.](https://admiraltylaw.com/1997/07/09/primex-forest-products-ltd-v-harken-towing-co/) - This case arose out of a collision involving a log tow and a bridge. As a consequence of the collision the log tow broke apart and the Plaintiff was required to pay for salvage. The Plaintiff claimed these expenses from the Defendant tug owner who alleged that it was not liable by reason of a
- [Meeker Log and Timber Ltd. et. al. v. The Sea Imp VIII](https://admiraltylaw.com/1996/05/30/meeker-log-and-timber-ltd-et-al-v-the-sea-imp-viii/) - The British Columbia Court of Appeal rendered a short oral judgment from the bench dismissing an appeal and cross-appeal from the decision of Mr. Justice Peter Lowry, reported at 1 B.C.L.R. (3d) 320. The issues concerned the interpretation of standard towing conditions and limitation of liability pursuant to the Canada Shipping Act. The standard towing
- [Fraser River Pile & Dredge Ltd. v. Empire Tug Boats Ltd.](https://admiraltylaw.com/1995/01/01/fraser-river-pile-dredge-ltd-v-empire-tug-boats-ltd-2/) - The tug owner was held liable when the crane on a barge hit and damaged the Cambie Street bridge. The Court held the tug owner had a duty to inspect the tow, including the height of the crane, to ensure it was suitable for the intended voyage. The Court further considered the nature of the
- [Ontario v. Mar-Dive Corp.](https://admiraltylaw.com/1996/12/20/ontario-v-mar-dive-corp/) - This very interesting case concerned a dispute over the ownership of and salvage rights to the S.S. "Atlantic", a double-sided wheeled paddle steamer that sank in 1852 on the Ontario side of Lake Erie. The competing claimants were the Crown in the Right of Ontario, Michael Fletcher, a diver who had found and marked the
- [Van Duren v. Chandler Marine Inc.](https://admiraltylaw.com/2010/04/13/van-duren-v-chandler-marine-inc/) - The plaintiffs contracted with the defendant for the building of a vessel. Upon completion, the vessel was sailed from Dartmouth, Nova Scotia to the island of St. Eustatius in the Netherlands Antilles. The evidence established the vessel experienced a multitude of problems during the voyage and the plaintiffs brought this action in contract and negligence
- [Irving Shipbuilding Inc. v. Canada (Attorney General)](https://admiraltylaw.com/2009/04/16/irving-shipbuilding-inc-v-canada-attorney-general/) - This was an application for judicial review under s. 18.1 of the Federal Courts Act challenging the awarding of a contract by the Government of Canada to provide service support for its Victoria Class submarines. The applicants were two sub-contractors of an unsuccessful bidder. Surprisingly, and fatally for the applicants, the unsuccessful bidder was not
- [656925 B.C. Ltd. v. Cullen Diesel Power Ltd.](https://admiraltylaw.com/2009/02/27/656925-b-c-ltd-v-cullen-diesel-power-ltd/) - This was a summary trial application by the defendant to dismiss the claim of the plaintiff on the basis that the contract of repair between the parties included an exclusion clause. The Court held there was insufficient evidence to grant a summary judgment and dismissed the application. However, in the course of its reasons the
- [Lindsay v. Spiller](https://admiraltylaw.com/2009/04/29/lindsay-v-spiller/) - This was a dispute over the repair of a motor yacht. The repairer claimed for repair costs, storage and other costs. The boat owner alleged that some of the work and expenses were incurred without his authority and that other amounts were not properly itemized and were not reasonable. The Court extensively reviewed the evidence
- [D'Eon Boatbuilding Limited v. Thankful Too Family Fisheries Inc.](https://admiraltylaw.com/2008/07/29/deon-boatbuilding-limited-v-thankful-too-family-fisheries-inc/) - This was an action to recover the unpaid balance of construction costs incurred in building a fish boat. There were two factual issues in the case; one involved which of two quotes was the contract between the parties and whose accounting of extras was to be accepted. The Judge reviewed the evidence and granted judgment
- [Hansen v. "Trinity" (The)](https://admiraltylaw.com/2007/06/07/hansen-v-trinity-the/) - The Plaintiffs in this case sought the return of in excess of $300,000 they had paid towards the purchase of a sailing vessel being built for them by the Defendants. The Plaintiffs alleged that there was a fundamental breach of the building contract entitling them to rescission of the contract. The breaches related to alleged
- [Nanaimo Shipyard Ltd. v. Keith](https://admiraltylaw.com/2008/08/26/nanaimo-shipyard-ltd-v-keith/) - The Defendant's vessel ran aground and was severely damaged near Nanaimo, B.C. The grounding occurred a mere 100 yards from the Plaintiff's shipyard. The Plaintiff's employees secured the vessel, brought it to the shipyard and hauled it out of the water. The next day the Defendant was presented with a work order for the work
- [Intertech Marine Limited v. Menendez (The "Nautica")](https://admiraltylaw.com/2006/11/29/intertech-marine-limited-v-menendez-the-nautica/) - The Plaintiff and the Defendant entered into a series of agreements for the construction of a pleasure yacht by the Plaintiff for the Defendant. During the construction the parties also discussed the possibility of entering into an arrangement to use the yacht being built to promote sales of further yachts. In anticipation of this happening
- [Deep Shore Marine Contracting Inc. v. The "Polish Princess"](https://admiraltylaw.com/2005/10/28/deep-shore-marine-contracting-inc-v-the-polish-princess/) - The Plaintiff, a ship repairer, brought this action to recover the amount of unpaid invoices. The Defendant counter-claimed alleging the Plaintiff damaged his vessel by failing to protect it from the elements and further alleging that the Plaintiff unreasonably delayed in completing the repairs causing him to lose a sale of the boat. The Prothonotary
- [Fiddler Enterprises Ltd., et al v. Allied Shipbuilders Ltd.](https://admiraltylaw.com/2003/04/17/fiddler-enterprises-ltd-et-al-v-allied-shipbuilders-ltd-2/) - A fire occurred in the funnel of a fishing vessel in the vicinity of the exhaust mufflers/silencers. The Plaintiff owners alleged that during repairs to the vessel's exhaust system the Defendants had installed an inadequate gasket and had not allowed for expansion and contraction in the system. The issue in the case was the origin
- [R. v. M/V "Kathy L" et al.](https://admiraltylaw.com/2010/03/29/r-v-m-v-kathy-l-et-al/) - This case concerned the sinking of a barge while it was being towed which resulted in escape of pollutants. Charges were laid against the owner of the barge as well as the towing company and the captain of the tug. The Court dismissed the charges against all defendants except for the owner of the barge.
- [FFS HK Ltd. v. P.T. 25 (Ship)](https://admiraltylaw.com/2010/11/29/ffs-hk-ltd-v-p-t-25-ship/) - The issue in this case was the apportionment of fault for a spill that occurred in Vancouver Harbour during a bunkering operation which cost the vessel owner approximately $1 million. The owner/plaintiff accepted it was partially at fault in that one of the crew left open the valves to one of the ship's tanks and
- [Canada v. Administrator of the Ship Source Oil Pollution Fund](https://admiraltylaw.com/2007/05/23/canada-v-administrator-of-the-ship-source-oil-pollution-fund/) - This was an action by the Crown challenging the adequacy of an offer of compensation made by the Administrator of the Ship Source Oil Pollution Fund pursuant to the provisions of the Marine Liability Act. The issue in this application was whether the named Respondent should be the Administrator or the Attorney General of Canada.
- [Canada v. Ship Source Oil Pollution Fund](https://admiraltylaw.com/2008/10/03/canada-v-ship-source-oil-pollution-fund/) - This was an action by the Crown challenging the adequacy of an offer of compensation made by the Administrator of the Ship Source Oil Pollution Fund pursuant to the provisions of the Marine Liability Act. The Crown incurred costs in excess of $220,000 to clean and destroy an abandoned tugboat and applied to the Administrator
- [Newfoundland Recycling v. Her Majesty the Queen (Attorney General for Canada)](https://admiraltylaw.com/2008/03/04/newfoundland-recycling-v-her-majesty-the-queen-attorney-general-for-canada/) - This was an appeal from a judgment finding the Appellant guilty of depositing a deleterious substance (oil) in water frequented by fish contrary to the Fisheries Act. The offence occurred when a vessel that the Appellant had been dismantling for salvage sank at the wharf. The Appellant argued, inter alia, that it was not the
- [R v. Glenshiel Towing Co. Ltd.](https://admiraltylaw.com/2001/06/21/r-v-glenshiel-towing-co-ltd/) - On December 16, 1997, the tug "Glenshiel" was found heeled over and submerged at her mooring in False Creek, Vancouver. As a result of the sinking a considerable amount of diesel fuel escaped from the vessel into the water and the owner was charged pursuant to s. 668 of the Canada Shipping Act with discharging
- [R v. The "Tahkuna"](https://admiraltylaw.com/2002/03/04/r-v-the-tahkuna/) - This was an appeal of sentence imposed by a Provincial Court Judge. The Defendant ship was charged under the Oil Pollution Prevention Regulations of the Canada Shipping Act. The charges stemmed from a spill of approximately 1,000 litres of fuel during refuelling operations. The cause of the spill was that a valve in the overflow
- [R v. The Point Vibert](https://admiraltylaw.com/2000/01/01/r-v-the-point-vibert/) - This is a rare case in which a ship was found not guilty for discharging a pollutant. The Court found that although the pollutant emanated from the ship the cause of the pollution was the failure of shore based personnel to stay at their posts. Specifically, the procedure set up for the fuelling operation was
- [Canada v. J.D. Irving Ltd.](https://admiraltylaw.com/1998/12/21/canada-v-j-d-irving-ltd/) - This decision disposes of motions for summary judgement brought by the various Defendants. The matter arose out of the sinking of the "Irving Whale", a tank barge, on September 7, 1970, while under tow of the tug "Irving Maple" from Halifax, Nova Scotia to Bathurst, New Brunswick. At the time of the sinking she was
- [R. v. The Elm](https://admiraltylaw.com/1998/05/05/r-v-the-elm/) - In this matter the "Elm", a lumber carrier, and her Master, Chief Engineer and Second Engineer were charged with various pollution offences. The charges arose when a Fisheries Surveillance aircraft observed an oil slick off the south coast of New Foundland on November 23, 1996. The slick was approximately 20 metres in width and 59
- [Newfoundland Processing Ltd. v. The "South Angela",](https://admiraltylaw.com/1996/09/23/newfoundland-processing-ltd-v-the-south-angela/) - The issue in this case was who was responsible for an oil spill that occurred at the Come By Chance Oil refinery. The spill resulted after the Defendant vessel had discharged its cargo of crude and was involved in a line draining process. The Court held that both the Plaintiff and Defendant were equally at
- [R. v. The "Front Climber"](https://admiraltylaw.com/1995/01/01/r-v-the-front-climber/) - The "Front Climber" pleaded guilty to a charge of pollution under the Canada Shipping Act. Approximately 25 to 30 litres of oil had been discharged in St. John harbour. The cause of the discharge was a failure to fully close a valve. The ship was fined $2,000. An interesting point in the case was whether
- [R. v. The "Argus"](https://admiraltylaw.com/1995/01/01/r-v-the-argus/) - The ship "Argus" pleaded guilty to an accidental discharge of 3 to 5 barrels of oil into the waters of St. John harbour. The cause of the discharge was a crew member opening the wrong valve. The Court analyzed the various factors that should be taken into account in sentencing and ultimately ordered a fine
- [Brooks Aviation Inc. v. Boeing SB-17G](https://admiraltylaw.com/2004/05/17/brooks-aviation-inc-v-boeing-sb-17g/) - This was an application by the Plaintiff for summary judgment in respect of a claim for salvage. The res was a B-17 aircraft that had crash landed on a lake in Labrador during the winter of 1947. The following year the aircraft sank during the spring thaw. The wreck was discovered by the Plaintiff in
- [Cox v. The "Trade Up"](https://admiraltylaw.com/1998/02/20/cox-v-the-trade-up/) - This was a reference to determine a salvage award. The Plaintiff successfully salvaged the Defendant vessel which had been stranded on rocks. The salvor had retained two other vessels to assist him in the salvage and paid the owners of those vessels what the court considered "overgenerous" amounts. The Court noted that salvage awards "are
- [General Accident Indemnity Company v. The "Panache IV"](https://admiraltylaw.com/1997/10/31/general-accident-indemnity-company-v-the-panache-iv/) - This case has a good discussion of salvage. The case involved a claim for a salvage award by the underwriter of the "Panache IV". The "Panache IV" had an insured value of $275,000.00 and sank in deep waters under suspicious circumstances. The underwriter, suspecting the vessel had been scuttled, undertook salvage efforts. After two failed
- [Kotai v. Queen of the North (Ship)](https://admiraltylaw.com/2007/07/16/kotai-v-queen-of-the-north-ship-2/) - This was an application to certify a class action on behalf of passengers (and their dependants) of the Queen of the North which sank after running into Gill Island on 21 March 2006. The Court reviewed the requirement for certifying a class action under the Class Proceedings Act of British Columbia. These are: 1. there
- [Kotai v. Queen of the North (Ship)](https://admiraltylaw.com/2008/10/21/kotai-v-queen-of-the-north-ship-3/) - This was another application arising out of the sinking of the Queen of the North on 21 March 2006. This was an application by the ship owner for various relief including striking the jury notice. The ship owner argued, among other things, that the case was not appropriate for determination by a jury because the
- [McDonald v. Queen of the North (Ship)](https://admiraltylaw.com/2008/12/24/mcdonald-v-queen-of-the-north-ship/) - This is the final reported decision arising out of the sinking of the Queen of the North. The issue in this matter was whether punitive and aggravated damages are recoverable in a wrongful death action brought by dependents pursuant to the Marine Liability Act and the Athens Convention. The Court extensively reviewed the case law
- [Friesen v. Norwegian Cruise Lines et al.](https://admiraltylaw.com/2003/01/09/friesen-v-norwegian-cruise-lines-et-al/) - This was an application by the Defendant to stay proceedings commenced in British Columbia on the grounds of a jurisdiction clause contained in the passenger ticket. The Plaintiff, a British Columbia resident, was injured on an Alaskan cruise ship which had departed from the port of Vancouver. The Plaintiff argued that the matter was governed
- [Efford v. Bundy](https://admiraltylaw.com/1996/04/21/efford-v-bundy/) - In this matter the Plaintiff was injured on board a rigid hull inflatable boat while whale watching off Tofino, British Columbia. The Plaintiff injured her back when the bow of the boat came down hard when crossing the wake of a large fishing vessel. The Plaintiff alleged the Defendant was negligent in his operation of
- [R. v. Broadwith](https://admiraltylaw.com/2007/10/30/r-v-broadwith/) - The accused was the Captain of a houseboat that capsized resulting in the death of a passenger. He was charged with criminal negligence causing death. Although the Court accepted the evidence of the Crown's expert that the house boat was overloaded and was destined to capsize because of this, the Court held that the Crown
- [Wilcox v. The Miss Megan](https://admiraltylaw.com/2008/04/18/wilcox-v-the-miss-megan/) - This was a case in which the Defendant admitted liability for a fatal injury when a fishing vessel capsized. The deceased drowned. Claims were made under the provisions of the Marine Liability Act by the deceased's widow, three adult children and brothers and sisters. The first issue was whether the brothers and sisters could make
- [Wozniak v. Alexander](https://admiraltylaw.com/2008/07/15/wozniak-v-alexander/) - The Plaintiff was seriously injured while tubing when her foot was nearly severed by the propeller of the towing boat operated by one Defendant. The operator admitted liability but alleged liability should be shared with the company from whom the boat was rented. The Court held, first, that a duty of care was owed by
- [Ferguson v. Arctic Transportation Ltd.](https://admiraltylaw.com/1998/05/08/ferguson-v-arctic-transportation-ltd-2/) - This was an action for damages for personal injury. The Plaintiff was a Panama Canal Pilot. At the time of the accident he was one of three Pilots on board the barge "AMT Transporter", ex the "Arctic Tarsiut", when she was transiting the Panama Canal. He was injured when an emergency tow line secured to
- [Hawkins v. The "Margaret Elizabeth No.1" et al.](https://admiraltylaw.com/1997/06/10/hawkins-v-the-margaret-elizabeth-no-1-et-al/) - This case concerned a 17 year old plaintiff who was injured when the rigging of a fishing vessel struck a light pole on a wharf causing it to fall and strike the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff brought this action against the fishing vessel. The fishing vessel in turn brought a third party action against the Crown
- [Martin v. Derrach](https://admiraltylaw.com/1997/06/10/martin-v-derrach/) - This was a claim for personal injury damages arising out of a water skiing accident. The Plaintiff was being towed behind the Defendant's Jet Ski when she collided with an anchored boat and severely injured her right leg. Although there was no spotter aboard the Jet Ski, the parties agreed that the absence of a
- [CSL Group Inc. v. Canada](https://admiraltylaw.com/1998/07/03/csl-group-inc-v-canada-2/) - This matter was a test case in which the Plaintiff sought to recover substantial damages for delays experienced by its ships in the transit of the St. Lawrence Seaway during November and December, 1989. The delays were caused by a public service strike. Because of the strike ice breakers were not in service and the
- [Pacific Shipyards Ltd. v. Canada (Board of Steamship Inspection)](https://admiraltylaw.com/1997/05/23/pacific-shipyards-ltd-v-canada-board-of-steamship-inspection/) - The issue in this appeal concerned whether the Trial Judge had correctly determined the proper regime for measuring the tonnage of ships under construction during the period from 1993-1994. The issue arose because of significant amendments to the Tonnage Regulations effective October 17, 1994. The Court of Appeal upheld the Trial Judge who held that
- [Romania v. Cheng](https://admiraltylaw.com/1997/03/06/romania-v-cheng/) - This is the decision of the Nova Scotia Supreme Court in the extradition hearing relating to the "Maersk Dubai"; a case involving allegations of murder on the high seas. Seven officers of the Taiwanese registered "Maersk Dubai" were accused of throwing Romanian stowaways overboard while en route to Canada. Canadian authorities arrested the seven officers
- [Killam v. Brander-Smith](https://admiraltylaw.com/1997/02/20/killam-v-brander-smith/) - This was an application to set aside an arbitration award. The arbitration concerned the sale of a 22 foot fibre glass boat. The purchaser alleged that the vendor had misrepresented the condition of the engine. The arbitrator held that the doctrine "buyer beware" applied and found in favour of the vendor. The Court upheld the
- [Joys v. Canada](https://admiraltylaw.com/1995/10/04/joys-v-canada/) - This unusual case concerned whether a commercial fishing licence could be seized under the provisions of the Customs Act. The facts of the case were that the fishing vessel "Lloyd B. Gore" had been spotted by the U.S. Coast Guard returning from the South China Sea. The vessel was tracked and was ultimately seized with
- [Kotai v. Queen of the North (Ship)](https://admiraltylaw.com/2010/08/23/kotai-v-queen-of-the-north-ship/) - This was an application under the B.C. Class Proceedings Act for court approval of a settlement reached between the parties relating to the sinking of the "Queen of the North" on 22 March 2006. The Court balanced the position of the class members other than the infants against the position of the public guardian and
- [McDonald v. The "Queen of the North"](https://admiraltylaw.com/2009/05/14/mcdonald-v-the-queen-of-the-north/) - This was an application seeking court directions with respect to the process to be followed under the B.C. Infants Act which requires court approval of any settlement involving minors. The plaintiff requested that the hearing for court approval be held "in camera" and that the settlement not be publicly divulged. The Court noted that it
- [McDonald v. The "Queen of the North"](https://admiraltylaw.com/2009/08/19/mcdonald-v-the-queen-of-the-north-2/) - This was an application under the B.C. Infants Act for court approval of a settlement reached with the plaintiffs, the two surviving children of one of the passengers who died as a result of the sinking of the "Queen of the North" on 22 March 2006. The Court assessed the headings of loss of love,
- [Kotai v. The "Queen of the North"](https://admiraltylaw.com/2009/10/14/kotai-v-the-queen-of-the-north/) - This was a preliminary decision in the class action arising out of the sinking of the "Queen of the North". This decision assessed the damages of a representative sample of the plaintiffs who were passengers on the vessel at the time of the sinking. The most important aspect of the decision relates to the assessment
- [Nicolazzo v. Princess Cruises](https://admiraltylaw.com/2009/06/02/nicolazzo-v-princess-cruises/) - The plaintiffs in this matter had booked a cruise with the defendant through the plaintiff's travel agent in Hamilton, Ontario. They embarked in Italy and disembarked in England. During the cruise $5,000 was stolen from the safe in the plaintiffs' stateroom. The plaintiffs commenced this action to recover the stolen money. The defendant brought a
- [Lukacs v. United Airlines](https://admiraltylaw.com/2009/11/18/lukacs-v-united-airlines/) - This was an application for leave to appeal a trial decision refusing general damages under Article 19 of the Montreal Convention for mental anguish and a missed opportunity resulting from a cancelled flight. The Court of Appeal denied leave on the basis that Article 19 of the Montreal Convention has been previously examined by appellate
- [Gundersen v. Finn Marine Ltd.](https://admiraltylaw.com/2008/12/03/gundersen-v-finn-marine-ltd/) - The Plaintiff was seriously injured when the vessel in which she was riding ran into Salt Spring Island. The vessel was a commercial water taxi and at the time of the accident it was on its way to pick up passengers. The Plaintiff, however, was not a paying passenger but was onboard as a non-paying
- [New World Expedition Yachts LLC v. P.R. Yacht Builders Ltd.](https://admiraltylaw.com/2010/10/25/new-world-expedition-yachts-llc-v-p-r-yacht-builders-ltd/) - This was an application under the International Commercial Arbitration Act to set aside an award of an arbitrator relating to the construction of a ship. The applicant argued, inter alia, that the award should be set aside on the grounds that the arbitrator was biased. The bias allegations included that there were private communications with
- [Algoma Central Corporation v. Canada](https://admiraltylaw.com/2009/12/17/algoma-central-corporation-v-canada/) - The issue in this case was the validity of harbour dues in respect of public (regional) ports under the Canada Marine Act. The first issue was whether the case ought to have been brought by way of judicial review proceedings. The Court held that the case should have been so brought but nonetheless decided to
- [R. v. Atlantic Towing Ltd.](https://admiraltylaw.com/2011/03/03/r-v-atlantic-towing-ltd/) - The defendant was charged under s. 118 of the Canada Shipping Act with having taken actions "that might jeopardize the safety of a vessel or of persons on board". The charges stemmed from a sinking of one of the defendant's vessel in adverse weather. All crew members were saved. At the time of the sinking
- [Cameco Corp. v. The MCP Altona](https://admiraltylaw.com/2013/01/10/cameco-corp-v-the-mcp-altona/) - Précis: The Federal Court considered s. 139 of the MLA but confirmed the priority of a mortgagee.
- [Morgan v. Guimond Boats Ltd.](https://admiraltylaw.com/2006/12/07/morgan-v-guimond-boats-ltd/) - In this matter the Plaintiff, a resident of Hawaii, commenced proceedings against the Defendant, a New Brunswick company, in Hawaii in relation to a contract for the design, manufacture and sale of a boat. The Defendant unsuccessfully contested the jurisdiction of the Hawaiian courts, filed a Statement of Defence to the action and participated in
- [Canada v. Berhad](https://admiraltylaw.com/2005/08/04/canada-v-berhad/) - This matter concerned the liability of Canada Steamship Inspectors for their alleged negligence and wrongful detention of the vessel "Lantau Peak". The facts were that the "Lantau Peak" arrived at Vancouver on 5 April 1997. It was intended to repair hull frames found to be detached during the voyage from Japan and then to load
- [Trans-Pacific Shipping Co. v. Atlantic & Orient Trust Co. Ltd. et al.](https://admiraltylaw.com/2005/04/27/trans-pacific-shipping-co-v-atlantic-orient-trust-co-ltd-et-al-2/) - In this unique matter a foreign arbitration award had been ordered to be registered by a Prothonotary. Subsequently, in another proceeding, it was determined by the Federal Court of Appeal that Prothonotaries did not have jurisdiction to register such awards. Accordingly, a motion was brought to re-register the award nunc pro tunc. The Defendant challenged
- [Navigation Madeleine Inc. v. Canada](https://admiraltylaw.com/2005/01/14/navigation-madeleine-inc-v-canada/) - The issue in this case was whether the ship "C.T.M.A. Vacancier" which operated on a route from the Iles-de-la-Madeleine to Montreal was a "ferry" within the meaning of the Pilotage Act and the Laurentian Pilotage Authority Regulations and therefore exempt from compulsory pilotage. The Federal Court of Appeal reviewed the relevant statutory provisions and dictionary
- [Strachan v. The "Constant Craving" et al.](https://admiraltylaw.com/2003/01/28/strachan-v-the-constant-craving-et-al/) - This was an action by the Plaintiffs against the Defendants in negligence for damage caused to the Plaintiffs' vessel when the Defendant's vessel caught fire. The Plaintiffs established through expert evidence that the cause of the fire was the ignition of gas fumes in the Defendant's vessel. The source of the fumes was a rusted
- [Seaspan International Ltd. v. Canada](https://admiraltylaw.com/2003/01/28/seaspan-international-ltd-v-canada/) - This case concerned the interpretation of section 23(8)(c) of the Excise Tax Act and in particular whether the Plaintiff was entitled to a refund of tax paid on diesel fuel used to generate electricity on board its vessels. The Court held that the Plaintiff was entitled to a refund of tax.
- [458093 BC Ltd. v. Dietterle et al.](https://admiraltylaw.com/2001/07/24/458093-bc-ltd-v-dietterle-et-al/) - This case concerned the interpretation of an agreement between the Plaintiff and Defendant relating to the roe herring fishery. The Plaintiff alleged an agreement between it and the Defendant fishermen the terms of which required the Plaintiff to lease the Defendant fishing licences and to provide specific services such as packing and trucking. In return,
- [R v. Ulybel Enterprises Ltd.](https://admiraltylaw.com/2001/09/27/r-v-ulybel-enterprises-ltd/) - This case concerned the interpretation of the forfeiture provisions of the Fisheries Act. Specifically, the issue was whether, upon conviction for a Fisheriforfeiture of the proceeds of sale of a vessel sold under the jurisdiction of the Federal Court of Canada. The Supreme Court of Canada thoroughly reviewed the forfeiture provisions of the Fisheries Act
- [Transport Navimex Canada Inc. v. Canada](https://admiraltylaw.com/2000/02/04/transport-navimex-canada-inc-v-canada/) - In this matter the Defendant, Transport Canada, had invited the submission of bids to transport cargo to Greenland. The Plaintiff submitted a bid to carry the cargo on the "Glencoe" which was accepted by the Defendant. After acceptance, the Defendant increased the amount of cargo it wished to transport and purported to terminate the agreement
- [Prior v. The "Talapus"](https://admiraltylaw.com/2000/07/18/prior-v-the-talapus/) - This was an action for unpaid seaman's wages. The Defendant defended the claim, inter alia, on the basis that a set-off should be made for food and accommodations supplied to the crew. The Court did not allow the set-off for these items as the evidence did not support that they were to be an agreed
- [Canadian Shipowners Assoc. v. Canada](https://admiraltylaw.com/1998/09/17/canadian-shipowners-assoc-v-canada/) - This was an appeal of a decision of the Trial Division in which the trial judge upheld the validity of the Marine Navigation Service Fees Regulations passed pursuant to the Financial Administration Act. The regulations provide for the payment of fees by commercial shipping, domestic and foreign, for marine navigation services provided by Canadian Coast
- [Calogeras Marine Inc. v. Navihouse S.A.](https://admiraltylaw.com/1997/01/27/calogeras-marine-inc-v-navihouse-s-a/) - In this matter the Plaintiff ship chandler recovered the unpaid portion of an invoice relating to goods supplied to the Defendant vessel. The only issue was whether the Plaintiff was entitled to recover a discount that had been given to the Defendants. The Court held the discount was conditional on prompt payment by the Defendants
- [Seamaid Fishing Ltd. v. 328174 B.C. Ltd.](https://admiraltylaw.com/1995/09/27/seamaid-fishing-ltd-v-328174-b-c-ltd/) - This was an action in negligence for failure on the part of a manufacturer of rebuilt injectors to warn of defects in the injectors. In December, 1988, twelve fuel injectors, rebuilt by the Defendant, were installed in the Plaintiff's vessel. In April, 1989, one of these injectors failed after only 200 hours service when a
- [Gilling v. Cox](https://admiraltylaw.com/2004/12/15/gilling-v-cox/) - In this matter the Plaintiff commenced proceedings for a declaration that he was the owner of a yacht, for an order declaring a purported sale of the yacht null and void and for damages against the Defendant for the unauthorized sale of the yacht. The Defendant did not appear at the hearing and the only
- [Clifts Marine Sales(1992) Ltd. et al. v. Moorco Inc. et al.](https://admiraltylaw.com/2001/12/12/clifts-marine-sales1992-ltd-et-al-v-moorco-inc-et-al/) - This was a claim by a yacht broker for commission. The Defendant denied the broker was entitled to a commission as the Listing Agreement had been terminated and the vessel was sold to a person who had not been introduced by the broker. The Prothonotary found, however, that the Defendant terminated the Listing Agreement to
- [Sproule v. The "Compass Rose II"](https://admiraltylaw.com/2001/11/27/sproule-v-the-compass-rose-ii/) - This was an action by the Plaintiff to recover the balance of $25,000.00 alleged to be owing on a written contract of purchase and sale of a vessel. The defence was that there had been an oral variation of the written contract whereby the Plaintiff agreed to accept a lesser amount in return for prompt
- [Grosvenor v. Streifel](https://admiraltylaw.com/1999/05/13/grosvenor-v-streifel/) - This was an action for the unpaid balance of the purchase price of a used vessel. The Statement of Defence and Counterclaim alleged that the vendor had made false representations. Specifically, the purchaser alleged he was induced to enter into the transaction by a marine survey that was given to him by the vendor and
- [Amirault v. Prince Nova (The)](https://admiraltylaw.com/1998/05/01/amirault-v-prince-nova-the/) - This was a motion to strike the Statement of Claim as being outside the jurisdiction of the court. The Plaintiff, a ship broker, alleged that it had entered into an option to the "Prince Nova" with the corporate Defendant. the owner of the "Prince Nova". The alleged terms of the option were that it was
- [North Star Ship Chandler Inc. v. The Giuseppe Di Vittorio](https://admiraltylaw.com/1998/06/03/north-star-ship-chandler-inc-v-the-giuseppe-di-vittorio/) - This was a motion to dismiss the action in rem and set aside the arrest of a sistership. The Defendant maintained that the alleged sistership, the "Lynx", had a different owner from the "Giuseppe Di Vittorio", the ship was the subject of the action. The Defendant relied on the Lloyd's List of Shipowners and Monthly
- [McPhail's Equipment Co. v. Prairie Warehouse Leasing Corp.](https://admiraltylaw.com/1997/06/03/mcphails-equipment-co-v-prairie-warehouse-leasing-corp/) - This was an action by the buyer of a yacht against the vendor for damages for conveying the yacht to a third party and, against the buyer's solicitor for negligence in the handling of the transaction. The Court found that the Defendant vendor deliberately attempted to avoid the sale to the Plaintiff because it had
- [Colley West Shipping Company Ltd. v. Minister of Citizenship and Immigration](https://admiraltylaw.com/2006/11/23/colley-west-shipping-company-ltd-v-minister-of-citizenship-and-immigration/) - This was an application for judicial review of a decision ordering the Applicant to pay the costs of deporting a stowaway who had entered Canada illegally. The Applicant provided services to tramp ships on a fee for services basis and had been the agent for the ship that brought the stowaway to Canada. The issue
- [Greer Shipping Ltd. v. Canada](https://admiraltylaw.com/2002/03/01/greer-shipping-ltd-v-canada/) - This was an appeal from a decision of the Trial Division holding the agent of the ship liable for the costs of deportation of a crew member who deserted the ship while at Vancouver in 1992. The appeal turned on the definition of "transportation company" in the Immigration Act. The Federal Court of Appeal noted
- [March Shipping v. Canada](https://admiraltylaw.com/2002/03/19/march-shipping-v-canada/) - This was a request for judicial review of the filing of a certificate under the Immigration Act requiring the Applicant to post security in the amount of $120,000.00. The certificate was filed against the Applicant as the agent for the owner of a ship. The ship owner became insolvent and eight crew members deserted. The
- [Lewis v. Canada](https://admiraltylaw.com/1995/07/20/lewis-v-canada/) - This case concerned a total loss of a vessel due to fire. At the time of the fire the vessel was under the command of someone other than the assured. The policy, however, contained a provision that prohibited anyone other than the named insured from operating the vessel without the prior approval of the insurer
- [Poirier v. Laurentian Casualty Co](https://admiraltylaw.com/1995/11/08/poirier-v-laurentian-casualty-co/) - This case concerned a claim under an insurance policy for theft of a boat and trailer allegedly left on the side of a road when the trailer tire became flat. The Court held that the assured and his witnesses were not credible and concluded the assured had failed to prove his case. In reaching its
- [Mercury Launch & Tug Ltd. v. Texada Quarrying Ltd.](https://admiraltylaw.com/2006/04/10/mercury-launch-tug-ltd-v-texada-quarrying-ltd/) - The barge "MLT HWY" was damaged when she broke her moorings in extreme weather and grounded upon nearby rocks. The Plaintiff was the owner of the barge, which had been moored at the Defendant's facility for the loading of a cargo of crushed stone. The Plaintiff's tug, which had towed the barge to the facility,
- [Mosquito Creek Marina v. Malecek](https://admiraltylaw.com/2006/04/06/mosquito-creek-marina-v-malecek/) - In this matter the Defendant had moored her pleasure vessel at the Plaintiff's marina for a number of years. During that time moorage was paid, sometimes in cash, to the marina's bookkeeper. The bookkeeper had apparently not been recording all payments received and was fired. The new bookkeeper after reviewing the books determined the Defendant
- [Dryburgh v. Oak Bay Marina (1992) Ltd.](https://admiraltylaw.com/2001/06/18/dryburgh-v-oak-bay-marina-1992-ltd/) - This was an action for damages caused to a pleasure craft when docks at the Defendant marina broke apart during a severe wind storm. The claim was against the marina and its President. The Plaintiff alleged that the marina was poorly designed and constructed and that the President oversaw the design and construction. The Defendants
- [Canada v. Cote](https://admiraltylaw.com/2005/09/14/canada-v-cote/) - In this matter a vessel had been moored in an area of the harbour controlled by the municipality and the owner had refused to move the vessel when requested to do so. The municipality then seized and detained the vessel and brought this application for the sale of the vessel under s.19 of the Fishing
- [LeCleir Bros. Contracting Ltd v. Canoe Cove Marina Ltd.](https://admiraltylaw.com/1999/03/05/lecleir-bros-contracting-ltd-v-canoe-cove-marina-ltd/) - This case concerned the interpretation of a marina moorage contract. The Plaintiff had moored his boat and boathouse at the Defendant marina for many years. The moorage agreement gave the Defendant the right the cancel the agreement and demand the immediate removal of the Plaintiff's personal effects. It also provided for a right of renewal
- [Robin Maritime Inc. v. Chemarketing Industries](https://admiraltylaw.com/1998/10/16/robin-maritime-inc-v-chemarketing-industries/) - This was an action for wharfage dues. The Plaintiff, an agent for the vessel owner, paid wharfage dues to the Port of Montreal and sought reimbursement from the Defendant, the charterer of the vessel and consignee of the cargo. The Plaintiff claimed that it either paid the charges as agent for the Defendant or that
- [Swinburne v. Dike](https://admiraltylaw.com/1995/05/09/swinburne-v-dike/) - This was a summary judgment application by a group of small vessel owners against a marina for damage caused to their vessels when the marina broke apart during a severe storm. In defence of the claims the marina relied upon an exclusion clause in the moorage contracts that exempted it from liability for "loss of
- [Laursen v. Bemister](https://admiraltylaw.com/1999/10/01/laursen-v-bemister/) - This was an action in negligence, breach of contract and bailment against the Defendant in respect of damage to the Plaintiffs' vessels that were stored in the Defendant's barn when the roof collapsed under a snow load. The action was dismissed. The court held that the Defendant was aware of the potential risk from snow
- [Sealand Marine Electronics Sales & Services Ltd. v. The "Lukey's Boat"](https://admiraltylaw.com/2009/01/13/sealand-marine-electronics-sales-services-ltd-v-the-lukeys-boat/) - This was a simplified action for recovery of a balance owing on an invoice relating to the supply of electrical equipment to a vessel. The main factual issue in the case was whether, when the order for the equipment was placed, the price was to include a transducer. The Court found as a fact that
- [Logistec Stevedoring Inc. v. Amican Navigation Inc. et al.](https://admiraltylaw.com/2001/06/21/logistec-stevedoring-inc-v-amican-navigation-inc-et-al/) - This was an action by the Plaintiff stevedoring company to recover $240,000.00 in stevedoring charges. The Defendants were the shipowner and the shipowner's general agent. The shipowner did not appear at the trial and default judgment was given against it. The agent argued that it had contracted with the Plaintiff as agent only and was
- [Trans Tec Services Inc. v. The "Lyubov Orlova"](https://admiraltylaw.com/2002/06/25/trans-tec-services-inc-v-the-lyubov-orlova/) - This was an appeal from a summary trial application in which the Plaintiff's claim was dismissed. The Plaintiff had supplied bunkers to the defendant ship pursuant to a contract between the Plaintiff and the charterer. The Defendant was a sub-charterer who had paid to the Plaintiff the amounts said to be owing in respect of
- [Trenton Cold Storage Ltd. v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Co.](https://admiraltylaw.com/2001/05/17/trenton-cold-storage-ltd-v-st-paul-fire-marine-insurance-co/) - Although not a marine insurance case this decision relates to an issue that marine underwriters are often called upon to deal with. The case concerned a fire at the assured's warehouse which resulted in damage to goods belonging to one of its customers. The assured had two liability policies; a warehouseman's legal liability policy and
- [Commercial Union Assurance Company PLC. v. M.T. Fishing Co. Ltd.](https://admiraltylaw.com/1999/01/14/commercial-union-assurance-company-plc-v-m-t-fishing-co-ltd/) - In this matter the Plaintiff insurers paid out a fire damage claim. Subsequently, it was learned that the fire may have been intentionally set. The insurers then instituted a fresh investigation into these allegations which ultimately resulted in commencement of the present action to recover the insurance moneys paid. At issue in this motion was
- [Russell v. Canadian General Insurance Co.](https://admiraltylaw.com/1999/01/01/russell-v-canadian-general-insurance-co/) - In this matter the Plaintiff claimed under an all risks marine policy for damage caused to a sailboat by the accumulation of water in the interior of the vessel. The damage to the sailboat occurred during the period from 1990 to 1993. The assured put the vessel into storage at the end of the summer
- [Shearwater Marine Ltd. v. Guardian Insurance Co. et.al.](https://admiraltylaw.com/1998/10/01/shearwater-marine-ltd-v-guardian-insurance-co-et-al/) - The Plaintiff claimed under a marine insurance policy for the constructive total loss of a 93 year old converted wooden fish packer. The vessel sank while moored to a log boom breakwater. The Defendant insurers denied coverage arguing that the assured had breached a warranty that provided: "Vessel inspected daily basis and pumped as necessary".
- [Lockwood v. Moreira](https://admiraltylaw.com/1998/04/24/lockwood-v-moreira/) - In this matter the insured's pleasure craft was broken into by vandals who used citronella candles in the interior of the vessel. As a consequence, a thick sooty substance covered the interior of the vessel. The assured made a claim under the insurance policy and the insurers responded by having the interior of the vessel
- [Queen Charlotte Lodge Ltd. v. Hiway Refrigeration Ltd. and Royal Insurance](https://admiraltylaw.com/1998/01/07/queen-charlotte-lodge-ltd-v-hiway-refrigeration-ltd-and-royal-insurance/) - In this matter the Plaintiff had purchased a used refrigeration unit from one of the defendants for use in transporting meat and vegetables to the Plaintiff's fishing lodge in the Queen Charlotte islands. The goods were insured under a policy of insurance that included the Institute Frozen Meat Clauses A-24. These clauses contained an exclusion
- [Strangemore's Electrical Limited v. Insurance Corporation of Newfoundland Limited](https://admiraltylaw.com/1997/01/01/strangemores-electrical-limited-v-insurance-corporation-of-newfoundland-limited/) - This was an action under a policy of commercial insurance. The Plaintiff was in the business of servicing and repairing vessels. One such vessel (which incidentally was owned by the President of the Plaintiff company) was destroyed by fire while in the possession of the Plaintiff for servicing. The boat owner brought an action against
- [Percy v. West Bay Boat Builders and Shipyards Ltd. et.al.](https://admiraltylaw.com/1997/10/28/percy-v-west-bay-boat-builders-and-shipyards-ltd-et-al/) - This was an appeal of a decision in which an insurance broker was found liable for not obtaining the proper coverage for its client, a yacht builder. The issue arose when the builder was sued by a customer after the customer's yacht caught fire. The customer alleged that the boat was negligently manufactured by the
- [Demitri v. General Accident Indemnity Co.](https://admiraltylaw.com/1996/11/26/demitri-v-general-accident-indemnity-co/) - This is not a recent case but it is one which we have only recently become aware of. The Plaintiff was injured and his vessel was damaged when it was rammed by a vessel insured by the Defendant. The Plaintiff obtained judgement against the assured but was unable to recover from the assured and was
- [Marler v. Royal Insurance Company et.al](https://admiraltylaw.com/1996/10/03/marler-v-royal-insurance-company-et-al/) - This was an action by a vessel owner against his underwriter and insurance broker. The underwriter provided the broker with a quotation for insurance which contemplated issuance of an All Risk policy upon compliance with all survey recommendations and a re-survey. It also included a warranty: "Warranted laid-up and out of commission ". The quotation
- [Catherwood Towing Ltd. v. Commercial Union Assurance Co. et.al.](https://admiraltylaw.com/1996/07/17/catherwood-towing-ltd-v-commercial-union-assurance-co-et-al/) - The issue in this case was whether the tug owner's P&I policy offered coverage in respect of loss of or damage to cargo on board a barge. The barge and cargo were owned by the same person and were being towed by the tug owner pursuant to a contract of towage at the time of
- [Burrard Towing Co. v. Reed Stenhouse Limited](https://admiraltylaw.com/1996/05/07/burrard-towing-co-v-reed-stenhouse-limited/) - This case involved the interpretation of a Tower's Legal Liability Policy. The facts were that a barge under demise charter to a tug company capsized while under tow and the cargo was lost. The barge was an insured vessel under the tug company's policy. The issue in the case was whether the tug company had
- [Snair v. Halifax Insurance](https://admiraltylaw.com/1995/10/06/snair-v-halifax-insurance/) - In this matter the Plaintiff sought a declaration of coverage. The Plaintiff had earlier been found 100% liable for a very serious boating accident that rendered his former housemate a quadriplegic. The insurer denied coverage on the grounds of an exclusion in the policy excluding coverage to " any person residing in your household "
- [Conohan v. The Cooperators](https://admiraltylaw.com/2002/02/11/conohan-v-the-cooperators/) - This case arose out of a collision between the "Lady Brittany" and "Cape Light II" off Prince Edward Island. At the time of the collision the "Cape Light II" was at anchor. Following the collision, blood alcohol readings were taken from the Master of the "Lady Brittany" which indicated his blood alcohol content was above
- [Garfield Container Transport Inc. v. Chubb Insurance Co. of Canada](https://admiraltylaw.com/2002/03/19/garfield-container-transport-inc-v-chubb-insurance-co-of-canada/) - The Plaintiff was a transportation company specializing in taking cargo from ships and delivering such cargo to the customs clearance warehouse and, eventually, to the purchaser. The Plaintiff was insured by the Defendant under a policy which provided coverage for goods shipped under a bill of lading and in due course of transit. In this
- [Continental Insurance Co. v. Almassa International Inc.](https://admiraltylaw.com/2002/01/18/continental-insurance-co-v-almassa-international-inc-2/) - This matter concerned a cargo policy taken out by a Quebec merchant from an Ontario based insurer insuring a cargo of lumber carried from Quebec to Saudi Arabia. During the course of the voyage the ship suffered engine damage and called at an intermediate port for repairs. As a result of the delay, the lumber
- [Elkhorn Developments Ltd. v. Sovereign General Insurance Co. et al.](https://admiraltylaw.com/2001/04/02/elkhorn-developments-ltd-v-sovereign-general-insurance-co-et-al/) - This was an application by the Defendants for summary dismissal of the Plaintiff's claim for coverage under a hull and machinery policy. The policy contained a warranty that any movements of the barge would be subject to underwriters' prior approval. In breach of this warranty, the barge was moved without any notice to underwriters and
- [Waterworks Construction Ltd. v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Co.](https://admiraltylaw.com/2001/09/24/waterworks-construction-ltd-v-liberty-mutual-insurance-co/) - This action arose out of the sinking of a concrete casing which was determined to be a hazard. The Plaintiff alleged that its liability for the cost of removal of the casing was covered by an insurance policy issued by the Defendant. There was, however, a second action between the Plaintiff and other parties relating
- [Chubb Insurance Co. of Canada v. Cast Line Ltd.](https://admiraltylaw.com/2001/05/14/chubb-insurance-co-of-canada-v-cast-line-ltd/) - This was a subrogated action by a cargo insurer against an ocean carrier for damage occasioned to a container of cheese. The Defendant carrier brought this motion arguing that the Plaintiff insurer had no right to bring the action as it had no rights of subrogation. The Defendant relied upon the terms of the receipt
- [1013799 Ontario Ltd. v. Kent Line International Ltd.](https://admiraltylaw.com/2000/11/08/1013799-ontario-ltd-v-kent-line-international-ltd/) - This was an action against a freight forwarder and insurance broker for breach of contract and negligence arising out of damage to a cargo of chocolate bars shipped to Trinidad. The cargo was insured subject to the Institute Frozen Food Clauses which only provided coverage in the event of mechanical breakdown of the reefer units
- [Rainbow Technicoloured Wood Veneer Ltd. v. The "Canmar Conquest" et al.](https://admiraltylaw.com/2000/06/28/rainbow-technicoloured-wood-veneer-ltd-v-the-canmar-conquest-et-al/) - This was an action by the Plaintiff against its cargo insurer for damage to a guillotine press in an amount in excess of $100,000.00. The Defendant insurer argued that coverage was excluded by clause 4.3 of the Institute Cargo Clauses (A) in that the press was insufficiently packed and prepared for shipment. The Court reviewed
- [Laing v. Boreal Pacific](https://admiraltylaw.com/2000/10/13/laing-v-boreal-pacific/) - This was an appeal from a judgment of the Trial Division dismissing a claim under a marine insurance policy for the loss of an excavator. The excavator was loaded on the self-propelled barge, "Palaquin", and was being carried across the Strait of Georgia. During the crossing the seas became rough and the excavator shifted and
- [Bevan v. Gartside Marine Engines Ltd. et al.](https://admiraltylaw.com/2000/01/21/bevan-v-gartside-marine-engines-ltd-et-al/) - This was an action against a repairer and an insurer under an all risks policy for damage caused when a transmission overheated. The Plaintiff alleged that the repairer had been negligent in performing prior repairs to the trolling valve control linkage. The Plaintiff further alleged that the damage was covered by his all risks policy.
- [Fraser River Pile & Dredge Ltd. v. Can-Dive Services Ltd.](https://admiraltylaw.com/2000/01/07/fraser-river-pile-dredge-ltd-v-can-dive-services-ltd/) - This was an action by the owners and underwriters of the derrick barge "Sceptre Squamish" against the charterer of the barge. The "Sceptre Squamish" was lost in the Strait of Georgia when it was left by the charterer unattended in heavy weather. The charterer defended the action alleging that the loss of the barge was
- [Nelson Marketing International Inc. v. Royal & Sun Alliance Insurance Company of Canada](https://admiraltylaw.com/2006/06/28/nelson-marketing-international-inc-v-royal-sun-alliance-insurance-company-of-canada/) - This matter concerned damage to three separate shipments of laminated wood flooring carried on three different vessels from Singapore to Long Beach. Upon arrival all three shipments were found to be damaged by moisture. The major issue in the case was whether the damage was due to a fortuity, and therefore covered by the all
- [566935 B.C. Ltd d.b.a West Coast Resorts v. Allianz Insurance Co. of Canada](https://admiraltylaw.com/2006/10/24/566935-b-c-ltd-d-b-a-west-coast-resorts-v-allianz-insurance-co-of-canada/) - The issue in this case was whether the sinking of a barge was due to perils of the sea. The barge had been built in 1933 and had been used as a floating sport fishing lodge since 1995. She had been laid up for the winter in September 1999 and sank in March 2000. At
- [Niagara Gorge Jet Boating Ltd. v. AXA Canada Inc.](https://admiraltylaw.com/2006/02/20/niagara-gorge-jet-boating-ltd-v-axa-canada-inc/) - The Plaintiff operated jet boats on the Niagara River and had protection and indemnity insurance through the Defendant on the SP23 form. On 6 July 1995 the Plaintiff received a letter from a third party putting it on notice of a claim for damages and injuries sustained as a result of the manner in which
- [Secunda Marine Services Limited v. Fabco Industries Limited](https://admiraltylaw.com/2005/11/18/secunda-marine-services-limited-v-fabco-industries-limited/) - The Plaintiff in this matter hired the Defendant to perform welding and other work on its vessel "Burin Sea". During the course of the work there was a fire that the Plaintiff alleged was caused by the negligence of the Defendant. The Defendant disputed the allegations of negligence and also defended arguing that the action
- [Abell v. Lloyd's](https://admiraltylaw.com/2005/12/05/abell-v-lloyds/) - The Plaintiff in this matter purchased a floating home which burned to the waterline six months after the purchase. The home was originally moored at Cowichan Bay and insurance was taken out which contained a warranty that it would be permanently moored at that location. The Plaintiff then entered into a contract to purchase a
- [McAsphalt Marine Transport Ltd. v. Liberty International Canada](https://admiraltylaw.com/2005/04/14/mcasphalt-marine-transport-ltd-v-liberty-international-canada/) - This was an application for leave to appeal the decision of an arbitrator. The Applicant was the owner of the barge "Norman McLeod" which it had purchased in China. Arrangements were made to have the barge towed from Shanghai to Vancouver together with another barge also destined for Canada. Prior to the tow the Applicant
- [Forestex Management Corp. et al. v. Underwriters at Lloyds et al.](https://admiraltylaw.com/2004/09/22/forestex-management-corp-et-al-v-underwriters-at-lloyds-et-al/) - "Many years ago when small boys wore suspenders and ships had gender..." So begins the Reasons for judgment of Prothonotary Hargrave in this application by the Defendants to strike out the Statement of Claim of the Plaintiff. The facts were that on 4 August 2000 the "Texada" went aground in a passage in the Queen
- [Gartsman et al. v. Elite Insurance et al.](https://admiraltylaw.com/2004/04/20/gartsman-et-al-v-elite-insurance-et-al/) - The Plaintiff in this matter purchased a vessel from the Defendant marina and asked the marina about insurance. She was told that the marina could not provide insurance but was given the name of a broker who arranged insurance with the Defendant insurer. A temporary binder was issued for 30 days that was conditional on
- [Nelson Marketing International v. Royal and Sun Alliance Insurance](https://admiraltylaw.com/2003/03/24/nelson-marketing-international-v-royal-and-sun-alliance-insurance/) - The issue in this appeal was whether the Master had correctly set aside a jury notice. The underlying facts were that a cargo of wooden flooring carried from Malaysia to Long Beach, California was damaged. The cargo was insured by the Plaintiff with the Defendant but the Defendant denied coverage on various grounds. At first
- [North Coast Sea Products Ltd. v. NG Insurance Company of Canada](https://admiraltylaw.com/2004/02/13/north-coast-sea-products-ltd-v-ng-insurance-company-of-canada/) - The insured Plaintiffs incurred expenses in recovering trays and the oysters in them from the seabed when the lines of their oyster farm were vandalized. The Plaintiffs were insured for the loss of the trays but not for the oysters themselves. They claimed under the sue and labour provisions of their marine insurance policy for
- [Solway v. Lloyd's Underwriters](https://admiraltylaw.com/2005/04/08/solway-v-lloyds-underwriters/) - In this matter the Plaintiffs arranged for a motor carrier to move and store their personal belongings. The truck was stolen and the Plaintiffs' belongings were never recovered. The Plaintiffs obtained a judgment against the carrier which was not satisfied. The Plaintiffs then commenced this direct action against the carrier's primary and excess liability underwriters.
- [Continental Insurance Co. v. Almassa International Inc.](https://admiraltylaw.com/2003/03/24/continental-insurance-co-v-almassa-international-inc/) - This case concerned a shipment of lumber carried from Canada to Saudi Arabia, some of which was loaded on deck and some of which under deck. During the voyage the vessel suffered engine failure and had to be towed to Piraeus, Greece for repairs. The shipment was insured under an open cargo policy. The assured
- [North King Lodge Ltd. v. Gowlland Towing Ltd. et al.](https://admiraltylaw.com/2005/11/21/north-king-lodge-ltd-v-gowlland-towing-ltd-et-al/) - This matter concerned liability for the sinking of the barge "Sea Lion VI". The barge had been hired by the Plaintiff, the owner of the barge, to the first Defendant, a logging company, for use as an accommodation barge at a remote logging camp. One of the terms of the agreement was that the owner
- [Whiten v. Pilot Insurance Co.](https://admiraltylaw.com/2002/02/22/whiten-v-pilot-insurance-co/) - Although not a marine insurance case, this decision by the Supreme Court of Canada is of significant interest to marine insurers. The facts were that the Plaintiff's home was destroyed in a fire. The Defendant, the Plaintiff's insurer, denied the claim made under the insurance policy on the grounds that the fire had been deliberately
- [Cox v. Brown](https://admiraltylaw.com/1996/10/04/cox-v-brown/) - This was a summary trial for a declaration that the Defendant was entitled to limit her liability under the Canada Shipping Act. The facts were that a small motor boat operated by the Defendant struck a swimmer in Okanagan Lake. At the time, the Defendant was operating the boat without the permission of the owner,
- [Daniele v. Creglia](https://admiraltylaw.com/1995/10/06/daniele-v-creglia/) - This was an action by a Plaintiff/passenger against an owner/master for damages for personal injury suffered when a small vessel crashed into a breakwater. The Court held that the owner/master was clearly negligent in travelling at an excessive rate of speed and in not maintaining a proper lookout. The only real issue was whether the
- [Meeker Log and Timber Ltd. v. The "Sea Imp VIII"](https://admiraltylaw.com/1995/01/01/meeker-log-and-timber-ltd-v-the-sea-imp-viii/) - The Court held that the exchange rate to be used for converting SDRs to Canadian Dollars is the rate in effect on the date the fund is established, whether the fund is established by judgment or payment into court.
- [Valley Towing Ltd. v. Celtic Shipyards  (1988) Ltd.](https://admiraltylaw.com/1995/07/31/valley-towing-ltd-v-celtic-shipyards-1988-ltd-2/) - In this matter a barge under tow of the Plaintiff's tug collided with and caused extensive damage to various docks and vessels. The Plaintiff tug owner admitted liability and commenced limitation proceedings. The Plaintiff then brought a motion for a stay of all proceedings upon payment of the limitation fund ($42,000) into Court. The Court
- [More Marine Ltd. v. Axa Pacific Insurance Company](https://admiraltylaw.com/2010/01/22/more-marine-ltd-v-axa-pacific-insurance-company/) - The policy in issue in this case contained a clause stipulating an annual aggregate deductible ("AAD") of $250,000. The assured alleged that the clause was added without its knowledge and without consideration. Additionally, the assured alleged that its broker was negligent. The evidence established that in the initial correspondence between the broker and the insurer
- [Oppenheim v. Midnight Marine Ltd.](https://admiraltylaw.com/2010/01/07/oppenheim-v-midnight-marine-ltd/) - The plaintiff's barge sank at sea while carrying cargo and while being towed by one of the plaintiff's tugs. The cargo owners subsequently commenced proceedings against the plaintiff and arrested the tug. The plaintiff advised the defendant, the insurer of the barge, of the action but the insurer refused to provide security or a defence
- [Hodder Tugboat Co. Ltd. v. JJM Construction Ltd. et al.](https://admiraltylaw.com/2010/10/21/hodder-tugboat-co-ltd-v-jjm-construction-ltd-et-al/) - This case involved damage to two barges that were under charter. Following the incidents giving rise to the damage an action was commenced in the name of the owner and the charterer against Texada and Pacific. This action was essentially a subrogated action brought by the underwriters of the barges. Subsequently a second action was
- [Lafarge Canada Inc. v. JJM Construction Ltd.](https://admiraltylaw.com/2010/08/23/lafarge-canada-inc-v-jjm-construction-ltd-2/) - The parties entered into four identical charter parties which required that disputes be settled by arbitration. Pursuant to the charter parties the charterer was to be liable for damage to the barges except for normal wear and tear and was also responsible for obtaining hull and machinery insurance naming the owner as an additional insured.
- [Universal Sales Limited v. Edinburgh Assurance Co. Ltd.](https://admiraltylaw.com/2009/02/12/universal-sales-limited-v-edinburgh-assurance-co-ltd-2/) - The plaintiffs (the insureds) sought indemnity from the defendants (the insurers) for a settlement payment made by the plaintiffs to the federal government related to the sinking and raising of the "Irving Whale". The insurers denied coverage alleging the settlement was made without their consent contrary to the terms of the policy. In these applications
- [Ocean Masters Inc. v. AGF M.A.T. (Allianz AGF MAT Ltd.)](https://admiraltylaw.com/2007/05/16/ocean-masters-inc-v-agf-m-a-t-allianz-agf-mat-ltd/) - The Plaintiff's fishing vessel caught fire and sank 40 miles off the coast of Newfoundland. At the time, the vessel was en route to recover its crab gear which was already in the water at a location 170 miles off the coast. However, the vessel's CSI certificate limited the vessel's operation to within 120 miles
- [McIntosh v. Royal & Sun Alliance](https://admiraltylaw.com/2007/01/29/mcintosh-v-royal-sun-alliance/) - In 2002 the Plaintiff/assured purchased a high performance power boat and took out insurance with the Defendant/insurer through the co-Defendant broker. The Plaintiff intended at some point to use the boat in a business but obtained a policy that was for pleasure use only. The Plaintiff's broker knew of the assured's intended use and attempted
- [Secunda Marine Services Ltd. v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Co.](https://admiraltylaw.com/2006/06/30/secunda-marine-services-ltd-v-liberty-mutual-insurance-co/) - The Plaintiff's vessel lost its propeller when its tail shaft broke while towing a barge. The cost of salvage and repairs was approximately $700,000. The vessel was insured at the material times by the Defendant pursuant to a policy that incorporated the Institute Time Clauses (Hulls) amended to include a Liner Negligence clause in place
- [Nicholson v. Canada](https://admiraltylaw.com/2000/02/17/nicholson-v-canada/) - This was a summary judgment motion by the Crown for an order dismissing the claims of the Plaintiffs as time barred. The Plaintiffs were the dependents and the executor of the deceased who died when his vessel hit a rock and sank. The Plaintiffs alleged that the accident was caused by the breach of statutory
- [Sidmar N.V. v. Fednav International Ltd.](https://admiraltylaw.com/1996/10/11/sidmar-n-v-v-fednav-international-ltd/) - This matter concerned the interpretation of various agreements to extend suit time in a carriage of goods case. The cargo was carried by sea from Belgium to Detroit and Chicago under bills of lading which provided that suit should be brought in Canada. The carrier granted suit time extensions which were conditional on any subsequent
- [Smallwood v. Hill](https://admiraltylaw.com/1997/01/08/smallwood-v-hill/) - This was an appeal from an order under s. 572 (3) of the Canada Shipping Act extending the time in which to issue a Statement of Claim. The facts of the matter were that a boating accident occurred on August 4, 1990, but action was not commenced by the injured Plaintiff until January 26, 1995
- [Marine Services International Ltd. v. Ryan Estate](https://admiraltylaw.com/2013/08/02/marine-services-international-ltd-v-ryan-estate/) - Précis: The Supreme Court of Canada held that the bar to litigation in a workers compensation statute was constitutionally valid and applicable to fatal injuries involving crew of a vessel. In so doing the Supreme Court has clarified the constitutional analysis required when dealing with Canadian maritime law and expanded the opportunities for provincial statutes to apply to maritime law matters.
- [DHL Global Forwarding (Canada) Inc. v. CMA-CGM S.A.](https://admiraltylaw.com/2013/05/23/dhl-global-forwarding-canada-inc-v-cma-cgm-s-a/) - Précis: A jurisdiction clause in a bill of lading was enforced against the shipper's agent.
- [Mary-Ellen Hawkins v. The Margaret Elizabeth No.1](https://admiraltylaw.com/1997/06/10/mary-ellen-hawkins-v-the-margaret-elizabeth-no-1/) - The plaintiff was injured when a vessel departed from a wharf. This case is essentially an assessment of damages.
- [Cuppen v. Queen Charlotte Lodge Ltd. et al](https://admiraltylaw.com/2006/10/02/cuppen-v-queen-charlotte-lodge-ltd-et-al/) - The Plaintiff was a guest at the Defendant's fishing lodge. He was provided with a fishing boat by the Defendant and was injured while operating the boat. The trial Judge found that the boat veered suddenly and dramatically through no fault on the part of the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff was thrown against the starboard side
- [Vukorep v. Bartulin](https://admiraltylaw.com/2005/03/10/vukorep-v-bartulin/) - In July 1998 the Plaintiff was injured on board the Defendant's pleasure craft when the vessel hit a wave from a passing ferry. At the time of the accident the vessel was being operated by the Defendant who was also the owner. The Defendant brought this application for a determination of whether he could limit
- [Capilano Fishing Ltd. v. The "Qualicum Producer"](https://admiraltylaw.com/2001/04/02/capilano-fishing-ltd-v-the-qualicum-producer/) - This was an action for damages suffered during the 1997 herring fishery when the Defendant's vessel cut the net of the Plaintiffs' vessel. The Plaintiffs claimed damages for the net, for the value of the lost catch and for the costs of fishing licences thrown away. The Defendants denied negligence and claimed the right to
- [Canadian Pacific Railway Company v. The "Sheena M"](https://admiraltylaw.com/2000/11/28/canadian-pacific-railway-company-v-the-sheena-m/) - This action arose out of the collision between the unmanned barge, "Rivtow 901", in tow of the "Sheena M", and the Mission Railway Bridge. The Plaintiffs, the owners of the "Sheena M", brought this application for summary judgment for an order that they were entitled to limit their liability under s. 577(1)(b) of the Canada
- [Canadian Pacific Railway Company v. The "Sheena M" et al.](https://admiraltylaw.com/2000/03/07/canadian-pacific-railway-company-v-the-sheena-m-et-al/) - This is another action arising out of the collision between the barge "Rivtow 101" in tow of the "Sheena M" and a railway bridge. As a result of the collision $5 million in damage was caused to the bridge. Two actions were commenced following the collision; one by the owners of the "Sheena M" for
- [Royal Bank of Scotland plc v. The Golden Trinity](https://admiraltylaw.com/2000/06/16/royal-bank-of-scotland-plc-v-the-golden-trinity/) - This was an application to strike out the affidavits of claim of the Plaintiff mortgagee on the grounds that the deponent produced for cross-examination was inadequately prepared. The Court agreed with the Applicant that the cross-examination was unsatisfactory in that the witness gave clearly incorrect answers and was not properly informed but refused to strike
- [Fraser Shipyard & Industrial Centre Ltd. v. The Atlantis Two](https://admiraltylaw.com/1999/06/11/fraser-shipyard-industrial-centre-ltd-v-the-atlantis-two/) - This was a hearing to determine priorities to the sale proceeds of the Defendant vessel. The claimants and their claims were: a bunker supplier for bunkers supplied pursuant to a court order granting a priority as Marshall's expenses; the crew for wages; the Master for disbursements; the Crown for the costs of repatriating the crew;
- [Holt Cargo Systems Inc. v. The "Brussel"](https://admiraltylaw.com/2000/02/11/holt-cargo-systems-inc-v-the-brussel-2/) - This was a hearing to determine priorities to the sale proceeds of the Defendant vessel. The claimants and their claims were: Holt Cargo Systems for costs of sale and Marshall's expenses; Halifax Port Corporation for port dues owed by the "Brussel" and her sister ships; Atlantic Pilotage Authority for pilotage services rendered to the "Brussel"
- [The "Barkley Sound" v. Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce](https://admiraltylaw.com/1999/03/04/the-barkley-sound-v-canadian-imperial-bank-of-commerce/) - This was an application to determine priorities. At issue was whether a ship repairer in possession could claim priority over the mortgagee for storage charges and interest. The court found that the repairer had retained possession of the vessel and that the storage charges were incurred for the purpose of protecting the repairer's interest. Under
- [The Bank of Scotland plc. v. The "Nel"](https://admiraltylaw.com/1999/01/05/the-bank-of-scotland-plc-v-the-nel/) - This was an application by a shipping agent and ad hoc supplier of bunkers to recover from the sale price of the Defendant vessel the value of bunkers sold with the ship and supplied by the applicant. The supplier did not render an invoice to the ship owner when the bunkers were delivered. The supplier
- [Bank of Scotland plc v. Kimisis III (Ship)](https://admiraltylaw.com/1999/02/09/bank-of-scotland-plc-v-kimisis-iii-ship/) - This was a motion by a mortgagee for an order that the owner of a cargo of wheat on board the "Kimisis III" remove the cargo at its expense. The motion was denied on the grounds that it was premature as the mortgagee had not entered into possession of the vessel and had not applied
- [Bank of Scotland v. The "Golden Trinity" et al.,](https://admiraltylaw.com/1999/05/19/bank-of-scotland-v-the-golden-trinity-et-al/) - These reasons dealt with a reconsideration of a previous Order made from the bench allowing an advance payment to the mortgagees of the Defendant vessel from the sale proceeds of the Defendant vessel. The court confirmed the previous Order on the grounds that the advertising and search of lien claimants had been completed, the funds
- [The Governor and Company of the Bank of Scotland v. The "Nel"](https://admiraltylaw.com/1998/12/30/the-governor-and-company-of-the-bank-of-scotland-v-the-nel-3/) - This was a motion by the Plaintiff for leave to rely upon documents produced by it at cross examination and for leave to file a supplementary affidavit of claim. The Prothonotary held that documents produced at the cross examination did not form part of the evidence to be used at the upcoming priorities hearings unless
- [The Governor and Company of the Bank of Scotland v. The "Nel"](https://admiraltylaw.com/1998/10/19/the-governor-and-company-of-the-bank-of-scotland-v-the-nel-4/) - This was an application to strike out the affidavit of claim of the Plaintiff on the grounds that proper production of documents had not been made or, in the alternative, an order for production. During the course of his reasons the Prothonotary noted that a cross examination on an affidavit is not as free ranging
- [The Governor and Company of the Bank of Scotland v. The](https://admiraltylaw.com/1998/10/19/the-governor-and-company-of-the-bank-of-scotland-v-the/) - This was motion by in rem creditors of the Defendant vessel to compel production from the Plaintiff mortgagee of various documents relating to the financing of the Defendant ship and of a sister ship. In the course of his reasons the Prothonotary considered at length the doctrine of marshalling and whether it could apply to
- [Doris v. The "Ferdinand"](https://admiraltylaw.com/1998/09/23/doris-v-the-ferdinand/) - The Plaintiff was the C.E.O. of a company that in turn owned 12 other companies each of which owned one ship. The ships were floating homes. The Plaintiff alleged that as Master of the ships he disbursed funds for the payment of maintenance expenses. The Plaintiff claimed a maritime lien for Master's disbursements in respect
- [Fraser Shipyard and Industrial Centre v. The 'Atlantis Two](https://admiraltylaw.com/1998/08/04/fraser-shipyard-and-industrial-centre-v-the-atlantis-two/) - This was an application by Lloyd's for an order that it be given priority for amounts due to it for classification services rendered to the "Atlantis Two" in 1997 and 1998. At the time of the motion the "Atlantis Two" had been ordered to be sold pendente lite. The Acting Marshall had requested that Lloyd's
- [Holt Cargo Systems Inc. v. The Brussel](https://admiraltylaw.com/1998/12/03/holt-cargo-systems-inc-v-the-brussel-3/) - This was an application by a terminal operator to recover movement and storage charges for abandoned containers from the proceeds of sale of the Defendant ship as if those charges had been a Marshall's expense of arrest. The containers had been off-loaded from the Defendant ship pursuant to a Court order. The motions judge granted
- [The Governor and Company of the Bank of Scotland v. The "Nel"](https://admiraltylaw.com/1998/02/05/the-governor-and-company-of-the-bank-of-scotland-v-the-nel-5/) - This was an application by the Plaintiff mortgagee for payment out of Court of part of the proceeds from the sale of the Defendant vessel. The Prothonotary noted that there has been a practice to pay out, from sale proceeds, funds which are clearly in excess of the amount needed to satisfy the claims against
- [Scott Steel Ltd. v. Alarissa](https://admiraltylaw.com/1997/01/30/scott-steel-ltd-v-alarissa/) - This was an appeal from the order of the Prothonotary setting the priorities among various claimants to the proceeds of the Court ordered sale of the stern wheeler "Edmonton Queen". The contest was between the builder who had a possessory lien over the vessel, the mortgagee who held a builder's mortgage which matured into a
- [Brotchie v. The Karie T](https://admiraltylaw.com/1994/01/01/brotchie-v-the-karie-t/) - In this matter the Court confirmed that the normal order of priorities upon the sale of an arrested vessel is as follows: first, to the Admiralty Marshall for reasonable charges and disbursements; second, to holders of maritime liens such as those arising out of a collision; and third, to holders of registered mortgages.
- [Frugoli v. Services Aériens des cantons de L'Est inc.](https://admiraltylaw.com/2009/06/19/frugoli-v-services-aariens-des-cantons-de-lest-inc/) - This was an action by dependents of two persons who were presumed drowned when the boat they were in capsized. The boat had been chartered and operated by the defendant. The issue was whether the limitation period was the three year period prescribed in the Quebec Civil Code, the two year period prescribed by s.
- [Russell et al. v. MacKay](https://admiraltylaw.com/2007/06/28/russell-et-al-v-mackay/) - The Plaintiff was a passenger on a whale watching vessel and was injured at sea when she tripped over a cooler while leaving the washroom on the vessel. The accident occurred on 3 August 2003 but action was not commenced until 20 July 2006. The Defendants brought this motion to dismiss the Plaintiff's claim on
- [Croisieres A.M.L. Inc. v. Goelette Marie Clarisse Inc.](https://admiraltylaw.com/2000/09/29/croisieres-a-m-l-inc-v-goelette-marie-clarisse-inc/) - This was an application to extend the two year limitation period set by s. 572(1) of the Canada Shipping Act for the commencement of an action against a ship for damage to property or personal injury. The evidence showed that the Plaintiff had sent the Defendant a notice of its claim within the two year
- [Finansbanken ASA v. The "GTS Katie"](https://admiraltylaw.com/2002/04/02/finansbanken-asa-v-the-gts-katie-2/) - In this matter a supplier of necessaries attempted to obtain priority by entering into an agreement with the ship owner for the transfer of property on board the ship. The property transferred consisted of plans, manuals, drawings, 5 life rafts and 2 breathing apparatus. The agreement provided that the ship owner could retake possession and
- [False Creek Harbour Authority v. The "Shoda"](https://admiraltylaw.com/2002/03/13/false-creek-harbour-authority-v-the-shoda/) - This was an action for outstanding moorage and miscellaneous charges. The moorage agreement required, inter alia, that the vessel owner not cause a nuisance or disturbance and provided that in the event the owner breached the terms of the agreement the Harbour Authority could seize the vessel and exercise a warehouseman's lien pursuant to the
- [Holt Cargo Systems Inc. v. ABC Container Line N.V.](https://admiraltylaw.com/2001/12/20/holt-cargo-systems-inc-v-abc-container-line-n-v/) - These cases address the issue of the apparent conflict between the law and procedures of bankruptcy and Canadian Maritime Law. They arose out of the arrest of the ship "Brussel" at Halifax by the Respondent, a maritime lien holder. Shortly after the arrest the Belgium owner was declared a bankrupt and a Trustee in bankruptcy
- [Imperial Oil Limited v. Petromar Inc.](https://admiraltylaw.com/2001/12/14/imperial-oil-limited-v-petromar-inc/) - This was an appeal from a decision of the Trial Division declaring that the Defendant had a maritime lien. The issue in the case was whether the contract for the supply of marine lubricants was subject to American law and, consequently, whether the Defendant had a maritime lien. The Defendant, an American corporation, supplied lubricants
- [Global Enterprises International v. The "Aquarius", "Sagran" and "Admiral Arciszewski"](https://admiraltylaw.com/2001/11/28/global-enterprises-international-v-the-aquarius-sagran-and-admiral-arciszewski/) - In this case the Polish trustee in bankruptcy of the owner of the Defendant ships had filed an affidavit of claim claiming the entire proceeds of sale of the vessels for the purpose of distributing the proceeds in the Polish bankruptcy proceedings. An Intervening creditor brought this application to strike the trustee's affidavit of claim.
- [Finansbanken ASA v. The "GTS Katie"](https://admiraltylaw.com/2001/11/29/finansbanken-asa-v-the-gts-katie-3/) - In this case a bunker supplier claimed a priority over mortgage creditors under Egyptian law for bunkers ordered by the charterer of the Defendant ship and supplied to the ship at Gibraltar while it was under charter. The bunker delivery receipt stated that the vessel was under charter and that the charterer had no right
- [Greeley v. The "Tami Joan"](https://admiraltylaw.com/2001/07/19/greeley-v-the-tami-joan/) - This was a contest between the mortgagee and lessee of the fishing vessel "Tami Joan". The Plaintiff had leased the vessel from its owner and had effected improvements to it. Unknown to the Plaintiff the vessel was mortgaged and the mortgage was in arrears. The mortgagee seized the vessel pursuant to the mortgage and it
- [Unitor ASA v. The "Seabreeze I"](https://admiraltylaw.com/2001/05/01/unitor-asa-v-the-seabreeze-i/) - In this matter a claimant alleged that the Defendant vessel was sold by judicial sale to a nominee of the ship's mortgagee. This information came from various published newspaper reports. The claimant sought to compel the mortgagee to answer questions on cross-examination and to produce documents relating to the identity of the purchaser at the
- [Governor and Company of the Bank of Scotland v. The "Nel"](https://admiraltylaw.com/2000/08/02/governor-and-company-of-the-bank-of-scotland-v-the-nel/) - This was a hearing to determine the priorities of claimants to the proceeds of sale of the "Nel" which had been sold pendente lite for US$5,000,000. The claimants and their claims were: the mortgagee under a fleet mortgage for the expenses of sale, for wages paid to the crew and repatriation costs, and for the
- [Holt Cargo Systems Inc. v. The "Brussel"](https://admiraltylaw.com/2000/03/30/holt-cargo-systems-inc-v-the-brussel/) - This was an assessment of costs pursuant to a court order granting the Plaintiff costs on a solicitor and client basis for the arranging of the appraisal and sale of the "Brussel". The submitted Bill of Costs was challenged on the basis that it included many matters not related to the appraisal and sale and
- [Nedship Bank N. V. v. The "Zoodotis"](https://admiraltylaw.com/2000/05/18/nedship-bank-n-v-v-the-zoodotis-3/) - The Plaintiff mortgagee was unable to produce the deponent of its affidavit of claim for cross-examination and brought this application for leave to substitute another witness for cross-examination. The Court stated that the general rule was affidavits will be struck out if the deponent is not produced for cross-examination and replacement affidavits will not be
- [Royal Bank of Scotland plc v. The "Golden Trinity" et al.](https://admiraltylaw.com/2000/05/29/royal-bank-of-scotland-plc-v-the-golden-trinity-et-al-2/) - This motion considered the scope of cross-examination on affidavits of claim in a proceeding to determine priorities. The Prothonotary reviewed the various authorities relating to the issue and noted that the authorities supported both a narrow approach and a broad approach, depending on the context. The Prothonotary borrowed concepts from both approaches to arrive at
- [Royal Bank of Scotland plc v. The Kimisis](https://admiraltylaw.com/2001/04/09/royal-bank-of-scotland-plc-v-the-kimisis/) - This was an application by a lien claimant for leave to file a supplementary affidavit of claim attaching a document showing delivery of necessaries supplied to the defendant ship. The Court refused the application noting that the document had been specifically requested one year earlier and not produced and that the time for filing affidavits
- [Royal Bank of Scotland PLC v. The "Golden Trinity" et al.](https://admiraltylaw.com/2004/05/31/royal-bank-of-scotland-plc-v-the-golden-trinity-et-al/) - This was a hearing to determine the priorities to the proceeds of sale from three vessels owned by various one ship companies but mortgaged under fleet type mortgages. The vessels were all under the management of a single company, the principal of whom was a Mr. Peter Lygnos. The main claimants were the mortgagees of
- [TJ Inspection Services v. Halifax Shipyards](https://admiraltylaw.com/2004/09/20/tj-inspection-services-v-halifax-shipyards/) - In this matter the Plaintiff was retained by the Defendant to provide detailed inspection services in connection with the construction of a production platform which, when completed, would be towed on board a barge to the off-shore production site. When placed the platform would rest on four legs on the sea floor. The Plaintiff was
- [C.I.B.C. v. "Le Chene No. 1" et al.](https://admiraltylaw.com/2003/07/14/c-i-b-c-v-le-chene-no-1-et-al/) - The main issue in this case was whether a claim for severance pay or damages for wrongful dismissal is a maritime lien entitling the claimant to priority over a ship's mortgage. The claimant had been employed by the shipowner on a full time basis for 12 years and had worked as chief engineer on various
- [British Columbia v. PT Car and Yacht Rental Inc.](https://admiraltylaw.com/2003/07/08/british-columbia-v-pt-car-and-yacht-rental-inc/) - The primary issue in this application was whether the Crown in right of the Province of British Columbia had priority over the Respondent for taxes owing to it by the judgment debtor. The Respondent had loaned money to the debtor for the purchase of a motor vessel which was registered under the Canada Shipping Act.
- [Ranjbar v. Islamic Republic of Iran Shipping Lines](https://admiraltylaw.com/2014/10/22/ranjbar-v-islamic-republic-of-iran-shipping-lines/) - Précis: A crew member was injured on an automatic gangway and the terminal was found liable for not properly warning users of the dangers inherent in such an automatic gangway.The plaintiff, however, failed to mitigate damages.
- [Canada v. Neves](https://admiraltylaw.com/2002/12/16/canada-v-neves/) - This was an appeal from an order of a motions Judge setting priorities to the sale proceeds of the Defendant vessel. The vessel had been seized by the Crown for violations of the Fisheries Act and was later arrested and sold at the application of the Crown. The claimants were the Crown, the mortgagee, and
- [Richardson International Ltd v. The "MYS CHIKHACHEVA" et al.](https://admiraltylaw.com/2002/03/22/richardson-international-ltd-v-the-mys-chikhacheva-et-al-2/) - This was an appeal from a decision of the Trial Division allowing the Plaintiff's claim for necessaries supplied to the "Mys Chikhacheva". The facts of the case were very complicated. The Plaintiff and one Defendant, Starodubskoe, had entered into a series of agreements relating to the re-fitting of a vessel, the supply and purchase of
- [Neves v. The "Kristina Logos"](https://admiraltylaw.com/2002/03/04/neves-v-the-kristina-logos/) - In a previous priorities hearing the Crown had been awarded priority in respect of its costs incurred in the sale of the defendant ship in a reasonable amount to be agreed or, failing agreement, to be taxed. The issue in this case was whether the Crown's costs were to be taxed on a solicitor and
- [Kirgan Holding SA v. The "Panamax Leader"](https://admiraltylaw.com/2002/11/29/kirgan-holding-sa-v-the-panamax-leader/) - In this case the Plaintiff had entered into a contract with the agent for the demise charterer of the Defendant ship for the supply of bunkers. The contract contained a provision requiring the application of U.S. law. Bunkers were supplied to the ship by sub-contractors of the Plaintiff and were not paid for by the
- [Finansbanken ASA v. The "GTS Katie"](https://admiraltylaw.com/2002/01/22/finansbanken-asa-v-the-gts-katie/) - The issue in this case was whether the claimant had a subrogated interest in the wage lien of the crew of the defendant vessel. The claimant alleged that he had entered into an agreement with the vessel owner to provide the owner with US$40,000.00 to pay the crew. In return, and with the full knowledge
- [Ens v. Gabany](https://admiraltylaw.com/1996/01/19/ens-v-gabany/) - Apportionment of liability was the issue in this small vessel collision case. The Plaintiff's vessel was at anchor and was hit by the Defendant's vessel. The Court apportioned liability 70% to the Defendant and 30% to the Plaintiff. The faults on the part of the Defendant were traveling at night at an excessive rate of
- [Sanmammas Compania Maritima S.A. v. The " Netuno"](https://admiraltylaw.com/1995/08/23/sanmammas-compania-maritima-s-a-v-the-netuno/) - The issue in this case was damages. The Plaintiff's ship was hit while moored. The Defendants, who admitted liability, argued that the ship was detained for a longer period than necessary because of other repairs being done at the same time as the repairs to the areas damaged by the collision. On the evidence presented,
- [Rast v. Killoran](https://admiraltylaw.com/1995/06/19/rast-v-killoran/) - This case involved an action for personal injury suffered by a passenger when a small vessel collided with a submerged log. The impact caused the driver to lose his grip on the outboard motor and, as a consequence, to momentarily lose control over the vessel. The facts established that the boat driver had disabled two
- [Dupras v. Bezzina](https://admiraltylaw.com/1995/02/23/dupras-v-bezzina/) - This case dealt with an interesting issue concerning the validity and applicability of section 572 of the Canada Shipping Act. Section 572 provides for a two year limitation period in actions involving, inter alia, personal injury suffered by a person on board a vessel. The Plaintiffs had rented a vessel which went dead and was
- [Teschner v. Yarish](https://admiraltylaw.com/1995/05/24/teschner-v-yarish/) - This matter concerned a collision between two sailboats shortly before the commencement of a sailing race. The Plaintiff's vessel was on a starboard tack. The Defendant's vessel approached the Plaintiff's vessel on the port side at an angle higher than the perpendicular. The Defendant attempted a starboard tack to cross in front of the Plaintiff
- [St. Anthony Seafoods Ltd. Partnership v. "F.V. Independence" (The)](https://admiraltylaw.com/2010/06/10/st-anthony-seafoods-ltd-partnership-v-f-v-independence-the/) - This was an application by the plaintiff/mortgagee for possession of the defendant vessel for the purpose of selling it pursuant to s.69 of the Canada Shipping Act, 2001 (s.69 gives the mortgagee of a registered vessel a power of sale). The plaintiff alleged that there had been various breaches of a loan agreement but the
- [Kent Trade and Finance Inc. v. JPMorgan Chase Bank](https://admiraltylaw.com/2008/12/12/kent-trade-and-finance-inc-v-jpmorgan-chase-bank/) - This was a hearing to determine the priorities of various claimants to proceeds from the sale of the Lanner. The competing claimants were the mortgagee and 15 suppliers of necessaries. The suppliers, who would normally rank below the mortgagee, challenged the validity of the mortgage. Some of them argued they had maritime liens under American
- [Nanaimo Harbour Link Corp. v. Abakhan & Associates Inc.](https://admiraltylaw.com/2007/01/29/nanaimo-harbour-link-corp-v-abakhan-associates-inc/) - This matter concerned the bankruptcy of the owner and operator of a passenger ferry. The issue was whether maritime lien claimants are caught by the statutory stay of proceedings under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act. More specifically, the issue was whether the maritime claimants could proceed with their actions in the Federal Court and have
- [Nordea Bank Norge ASA v. KINGUK (Ship)](https://admiraltylaw.com/2007/04/24/nordea-bank-norge-asa-v-kinguk-ship/) - Two vessels had been sold by the Court for the sum of $5.8 million and this case was to determine priorities and distribute the proceeds. The fees and disbursements incurred in selling the ships were incurred by the mortgagee. These fees and expenses, including solicitors fees and brokerage fees, were given priority akin to Marshall's
- [JPMorgan Chase Bank v. Mystras Maritime Corp.](https://admiraltylaw.com/2005/04/12/jpmorgan-chase-bank-v-mystras-maritime-corp/) - This was an appeal from an order of a Prothonotary refusing leave to file an expert's affidavit on foreign law after the expiry of the deadline set out in a previous direction from the court and virtually on the eve of the priorities hearing. The motions Judge dismissed the appeal on the basis that the
- [Chameau Exploration Ltd. v. Nova Scotia (Attorney General)](https://admiraltylaw.com/2007/12/11/chameau-exploration-ltd-v-nova-scotia-attorney-general/) - This interesting case concerned attempts to explore what was believed to be the 1812 wreck of a Royal Navy sloop. The case came before the court as an application for judicial review of a decision of the Executive Director of the Nova Scotia Museum. The Director had declined to issue a research permit to explore
- [Calogeras & Master Supplies Inc v. Ceres Hellenic Shipping Enterprises Ltd.](https://admiraltylaw.com/2012/09/20/calogeras-master-supplies-inc-v-ceres-hellenic-shipping-enterprises-ltd-2/) - The plaintiff, ship chandler, had been successful at trial and was awarded damages of approximately $100,000 for unpaid invoices. The plaintiff now sought to recover its legal fees, which were recoverable pursuant to the terms of the contract. The defendant also sought costs on the basis that the plaintiff's award did not exceed a settlement
- [Chadwick et al. v. Philbrooks Boatyard Ltd.](https://admiraltylaw.com/2006/10/30/chadwick-et-al-v-philbrooks-boatyard-ltd/) - This was an application by the Plaintiff for an order that it be permitted to inspect two engines in the possession of the Defendant. The Defendant opposed the application on the grounds that it had a possessory lien over the engines which would be lost if the engines were removed from its possession for inspection.
- [Nordea Bank Norge ASA v. The "Kinguk"](https://admiraltylaw.com/2006/10/27/nordea-bank-norge-asa-v-the-kinguk/) - This was an application by the Plaintiff mortgagee to realize its mortgage security over two vessels, and its default judgment, through the private sale of the vessels. The application was opposed on the apparent grounds that there had not been a formal appraisal of the vessels. The Court noted that generally it will require a
- [Middleton et al. v. Farquharson et al.](https://admiraltylaw.com/2004/01/13/middleton-et-al-v-farquharson-et-al/) - In this matter the Defendant sold the vessel "Ocean Tribune" and her C licence to the Plaintiff for $135,000.00 payable $100,000 in cash and the balance by way of vendor financing for one year at 10%. The vendor financing arrangement was documented with a promissory note, a collateral marine mortgage and a registered marine mortgage.
- [Webasto (Hagedorn) v. Shasta Equities Ltd. (The Helios)](https://admiraltylaw.com/2014/05/22/webasto-hagedorn-v-shasta-equities-ltd-the-helios/) - Précis: The Federal Court of Appeal held that preliminary investigation reports were not privileged even though counsel had been retained.
- [Offshore Interiors Inc. v. Worldspan Marine Inc.](https://admiraltylaw.com/2015/02/16/offshore-interiors-inc-v-worldspan-marine-inc/) - Précis: The Federal Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal and confirmed the trial judgment holding that a Builder's mortgage secured advances made by the purchaser and that the builder was under an obligation to repay those advances.
- [Mitsubishi Heavy Industries Ltd. v. Canadian National Railway Company,](https://admiraltylaw.com/2012/09/27/mitsubishi-heavy-industries-ltd-v-canadian-national-railway-company/) - Précis: The British Columbia Supreme Court held a rail carrier was entitled to limit its liability even though there was no contract between it and the plaintiff.
- [Woodbury v. Hamilton](https://admiraltylaw.com/2012/08/22/woodbury-v-hamilton/) - The plaintiff was injured when riding in a tube being pulled behind a vessel operated by the first defendant. The tube crashed into a boat being operated by the second defendant. At the time of the incident the second defendant also had a tube at the immediate stern of the vessel upon which three children
- [R v. Escott](https://admiraltylaw.com/2012/11/01/r-v-escott/) - The accused was charged with dangerous operation of a vessel causing death. The charge arose out of a collision between a vessel being operated by the accused and another vessel. A passenger in the accused's vessel died as a result. The collision occurred at night in total darkness. The accused's vessel was displaying no navigation
- [R v. Kerr](https://admiraltylaw.com/2012/09/05/r-v-kerr/) - The accused was charged with dangerous operation of a vessel causing death and two counts of dangerous operation of a vessel causing bodily harm. The charges stem from an incident on 1 August 2008 when a vessel he was driving collided with an island at night. At the time the vessel was proceeding at a
- [Durunna v. Air Canada](https://admiraltylaw.com/2013/02/08/durunna-v-air-canada/) - The plaintiff shipped 10 laptop computers with Air Canada from Canada to Nigeria. The computers disappeared en route. Air Canada defended the action arguing that its liability was limited pursuant to the terms of the Montreal Convention. Decision: Plaintiff is entitled to judgment for the value of the computers plus shipping costs. Held: The Montreal
- [North Ridge Fishing Ltd. et al. v. The Prosperity](https://admiraltylaw.com/2000/07/21/north-ridge-fishing-ltd-et-al-v-the-prosperity/) - This action arose out of a shotgun opening in the roe herring fishery, an event described by the Court as "a most unusual maritime adventure where, from an opening 'gun', many vessels -sometimes dozens- would set their nets at speed in very close proximity during a short period of time". During the course of the
- [Kajat v. The "Arctic Taglu"](https://admiraltylaw.com/2000/02/15/kajat-v-the-arctic-taglu-2/) - This was an appeal from a judgement of the Trial Division in which the Defendants were found 85% at fault for a collision between the fishing vessel "Bona Vista" and a tug-barge combination operated by one of the Defendants. A critical determination made by the Trial Judge was that the accident occurred because of the
- [Sutton et.al. v. Petman](https://admiraltylaw.com/1996/06/14/sutton-et-al-v-petman/) - This was a motion to dismiss a Third Party action. The matter arose out of a fatal collision between two pleasure craft. One vessel was owned by the Third Party but had been loaned to, and was being operated by, the Third Party's son at the time of the accident. The Defendant, the owner and
- [Conrad v. Snair](https://admiraltylaw.com/1995/12/07/conrad-v-snair/) - This case involved a collision at night between a Boston Whaler and an anchored unlit sailboat. As a result of the collision, a passenger of the Boston Whaler was seriously injured. The issues concerned the liability for the collision, contributory negligence, and limitation of liability. Both the trial Judge and the Court of Appeal found
- [Nordholm I/S v. The Queen](https://admiraltylaw.com/1996/01/08/nordholm-i-s-v-the-queen/) - This interesting case involved a collision between the Canadian Naval vessel "Kootenay" and the "Nordpol" on June 1, 1989, in conditions of fog. At the time of the collision the "Kootenay" was engaged in anti-submarine exercises that required her not to emit any radar or radio signals. The "Kootenay" was observed on radar by those
- [Thatcher v. Schell](https://admiraltylaw.com/2005/07/29/thatcher-v-schell/) - This case involved a collision on Okanagan Lake between a 26' sailboat operating under power and a 19' motorboat. The collision occurred at dusk. Both vessels were destroyed and the occupants of each were injured. The owner of the sailboat alleged that the collision was caused by the negligence of the other vessel in proceeding
- [The Queen v. The "Delta Pride" et al.](https://admiraltylaw.com/2003/01/13/the-queen-v-the-delta-pride-et-al/) - This was an action for damage allegedly caused to a breakwater by the Defendant vessel while manoeuvring. The facts established that one of the tugs assisting the Defendant vessel made contact with the breakwater. The Defendants, the owners of the vessel, argued that they were not liable for any contact between the tug and the
- [Dixon v. Leggat](https://admiraltylaw.com/2003/01/13/dixon-v-leggat/) - A pleasure craft ran into a rock face in Lake Rosseau, Ontario. As a result of the accident two passengers were injured, one fatally. These actions were commenced against the owner of the pleasure craft and the driver of the pleasure craft, the owner's brother. At trial, the trial Judge found the driver liable in
- [Gravel and Lake Services Ltd. v. Bay Ocean Management Inc.](https://admiraltylaw.com/2002/11/20/gravel-and-lake-services-ltd-v-bay-ocean-management-inc/) - This was an appeal from the Trial Division wherein the trial Judge apportioned liability for a grounding 75% to the "Lake Charles" and 25% to the "Robert John". The case arose out of an alleged collision between the "Lake Charles" and the tug "Robert John" in the Port of Thunder Bay. The Plaintiff, the owner
- [De Merchant Estate v. Price](https://admiraltylaw.com/2001/07/10/de-merchant-estate-v-price/) - This matter involved a collision between a small runabout and a sailboat under power in a narrow channel. The main issue in the case was liability and apportionment. The Trial Judge found the parties equally at fault. The operator of the sailboat was at fault for not having the proper lights, for operating on the
- [ALT Navigation Ltd. v. United States of America](https://admiraltylaw.com/2001/12/03/alt-navigation-ltd-v-united-states-of-america/) - This case arose out of a collision 130 miles off the coast of Massachusetts between the F/V "Starbound" and an unidentified vessel. As a result of the collision the F/V "Starbound" sank and three of her crew drowned. The T/V "Virgo" subsequently called at ports in Newfoundland where she was inspected by Transport Canada officials
- [Wilson Fishing Co. Ltd. v. The Western Investor](https://admiraltylaw.com/2001/12/17/wilson-fishing-co-ltd-v-the-western-investor/) - This was another collision action that occurred during the shotgun roe herring fishery, a fishery which the Trial Judge described as "a most unusual kind of maritime adventure,one that compels masters to sacrifice good seamanship for profit". The Plaintiff alleged that due to the negligence of the Defendants , the Defendant vessel collided with the
- [Canadian Salt Company Limited v. The Irving Cedar et al](https://admiraltylaw.com/2000/09/06/canadian-salt-company-limited-v-the-irving-cedar-et-al/) - This action arose out of a collision between a ship and a wharf that occurred when the ship was performing ice breaking operations for the Plaintiff in the vicinity of the wharf. The Defendants denied liability on the grounds that they were not negligent and further relied upon an exclusion clause and time for suit
- [TAM International Inc. v. The MCP Altona](https://admiraltylaw.com/2013/01/07/tam-international-inc-v-the-mcp-altona/) - The defendant ship was ordered to be sold and the order of sale provided that all reasonable expenses and agency fees necessary for the preservation, safekeeping or maintenance of the vessel were to be treated as sheriff's costs. Upon assessment of the sheriff's costs certain invoices and expenses were contested by one of the parties.
- [Cameco Corporation v. The MCP Altona](https://admiraltylaw.com/2013/02/20/cameco-corporation-v-the-mcp-altona-2/) - Précis: A party was ordered to pay the costs of a priorities hearing, an unusual order as normally costs are a charge on the funds in court.
- [North Ridge Fishing Ltd. v. The "Prosperity" et al.](https://admiraltylaw.com/2000/04/19/north-ridge-fishing-ltd-v-the-prosperity-et-al/) - This was an appeal from a summary trial application. The appeal arose out of a net cutting incident that occurred during the roe herring fishery. The Plaintiff alleged that the Defendant vessel "Prosperity" negligently cut its net during the fishery resulting in a loss of fish. At the time, the "Prosperity" had been chartered for
- [Sail Labrador Ltd. v. The "Challenge One"](https://admiraltylaw.com/1999/02/04/sail-labrador-ltd-v-the-challenge-one/) - This was an appeal from the Federal Court of Appeal. The Appellant/Plaintiff had entered into a 5 year charter party with the Respondent/Defendant. The terms of the charter party included an option to purchase the vessel at the end of the five year term subject to "full performance" of its obligations under the charter party.
- [Spellacy v. Marine Management Inc.](https://admiraltylaw.com/1998/02/04/spellacy-v-marine-management-inc/) - The issue in this case was the brokerage fee to which the Plaintiff was entitled. The Plaintiff had negotiated a two year charter of a tug at $1,100.00 per day with an option to purchase for $900,000.00. The option to purchase was exercised. The Plaintiff argued that he was entitled to a 5% commission on
- [Halla Merchant Marine Co. Ltd. v. The "Lok Maheshwari" et. al.](https://admiraltylaw.com/1997/02/26/halla-merchant-marine-co-ltd-v-the-lok-maheshwari-et-al/) - This was an application for summary judgment by the disponent owner of the Defendant ship against the charterer for charter hire. The charterer defended the application on the grounds that it had a right of set off in respect of a claim for demurrage. The Court held that there was no valid right of set
- [Melsa International Inc. v. Adecon Shipping Lines Inc. et.al.](https://admiraltylaw.com/1997/04/11/melsa-international-inc-v-adecon-shipping-lines-inc-et-al/) - This was an application by the defendant for summary judgment dismissing the Plaintiff's action. The Plaintiff's action was for breach of a charter-party agreement. The Plaintiff and Defendant had entered into a charter-party agreement in the Gencon form. The Defendant was not able to meet the agreed upon loading date and, as a consequence, the
- [Peracomo Inc. v. Telus Communications](https://admiraltylaw.com/2014/04/23/peracomo-inc-v-telus-communications/) - Précis: The Supreme Court of Canada overturned a decision of the Federal Court of Appeal in which a vessel operator was held to be disentitled to the benefit of limitation of liability. The Supreme Court of Canada held that limitation of liability was available to the operator who had intentionally cut a submarine cable. However, the operator's conduct did constitute "wilful misconduct" within the meaning of the Marine Insurance Act and, as a consequence, the loss was excluded from the insurance coverage.
- [Laichkwiltach Enterprises Ltd. v. F/V Pacific Faith (Ship)](https://admiraltylaw.com/2009/04/08/laichkwiltach-enterprises-ltd-v-f-v-pacific-faith-ship/) - This was an action for damages arising out of a collision. The plaintiff's ship was moored at a wharf when the defendant's vessel struck it while attempting to dock. The trial Judge held that the defendants were prima facie negligent as there is a presumption of fault when a moored vessel is struck by a
- [British Columbia Ferry Services Inc. v. Canadian Transportation Accident Investigation & Safety Board](https://admiraltylaw.com/2008/01/28/british-columbia-ferry-services-inc-v-canadian-transportation-accident-investigation-safety-board/) - This application arose out of the sinking of a passenger ferry, the Queen of the North. The sinking was investigated by the Transportation Safety Board ("TSB") who, as part of the investigation, retrieved the electronic chart system ("ECS") hard drive from the sunken wreck. The data was provided to the ship owner by the TSB
- [Omega Salmon Group Ltd. v. The "Pubnico Gemini"](https://admiraltylaw.com/2007/01/17/omega-salmon-group-ltd-v-the-pubnico-gemini/) - The Plaintiff was the owner of a fish farm that was damaged when the "Pubnico Gemini" collided with it. Liability for the collision was admitted and the only issues were in relation to damages. Specifically, the Defendants argued that: (i) the damages should be based on the cost to repair the damaged fish pens rather
- [R. v. Cloutier](https://admiraltylaw.com/2007/12/14/r-v-cloutier/) - This case arose out of a collision in the St. Lawrence Seaway between a freighter and a sail boat. Two of the four crew of the sailboat died as a result of the collision. The Pilot of the freighter was charged with failing to comply with the Collision Regulations. The Court extensively reviewed the evidence
- [R. v. Bridle](https://admiraltylaw.com/2008/01/18/r-v-bridle/) - This case arose out of a collision at night between two pleasure craft, one of which was at anchor. At the time of the collision the anchored vessel was not displaying the all-round white light required by the Collision Regulations. The accused was the owner/operator of the anchored vessel. The accused said that he only
- [R. v. MacKay](https://admiraltylaw.com/2008/02/29/r-v-mackay/) - The accused was the owner and operator of a pleasure craft that collided with a buoy in Halifax Harbour. A passenger was killed in the collision. With respect to the test for criminal negligence, the Court said "if his operation of the vessel was a marked and substantial departure from the standard of the reasonable
- [Rioux v. Bégin](https://admiraltylaw.com/2007/02/28/rioux-v-bagin/) - The issue in this case was whether the Court should exercises its discretion under s.23(2) of the Marine Liability Act to extend the limitation period. The Plaintiff was an infant and the limitation period had apparently been missed because legal advisors thought the provincial limitation period of two years applied. The Court granted the request
- [Vogelsang v. Vandale](https://admiraltylaw.com/2008/11/12/vogelsang-v-vandale/) - This was a collision between two small pleasure craft on a lake. The Defendant admitted negligence but also alleged that the Plaintiff, the operator of the other vessel, had been partly at fault. When the collision occurred the Plaintiff had been heading west and the Defendant North. The Defendant was towing water tubers. The Defendant's
- [Wappen-Reederei GmbH & Co. KG v. The "Hyde Park"](https://admiraltylaw.com/2006/02/17/wappen-reederei-gmbh-co-kg-v-the-hyde-park/) - This is an important case dealing with the interpretation of sections 28 and 29 of the Canadian Transportation Accident Investigation and Safety Board Act and questions of privilege. [Section 28 of the Act deals with "on-board recordings" (defined as recordings originating from or received on or in the bridge or control room of a ship)
- [Meurin v. Canadian Airlines International Inc.](https://admiraltylaw.com/1994/05/13/meurin-v-canadian-airlines-international-inc/) - The Plaintiff purchased a ticket from Canadian Airlines for travel from Calgary to Montreal via Toronto. Canadian Airlines cancelled its flight from Calgary to Toronto and substituted a flight with Air Canada. The Plaintiff delivered her luggage to Air Canada and flew from Calgary to Toronto with Air Canada. Her luggage was to be transferred
- [Quinn v. Canadian Airlines International](https://admiraltylaw.com/1994/05/30/quinn-v-canadian-airlines-international/) - The 72 year old Plaintiff who suffered from advanced osteoporosis sued the Defendant airline. The Plaintiff was a passenger on the airlines charter flight from Toronto to St. Petersburg, Florida which encountered air turbulence. She alleged that, as a result of the turbulence, she suffered a compression fracture of three vertebrae. The Plaintiff contended that
- [Van Halderen v. Canada 3000 Airlines Ltd.](https://admiraltylaw.com/1994/01/01/van-halderen-v-canada-3000-airlines-ltd/) - The Plaintiff flew from Vancouver to Costa Rica return with the Defendant airline. The Plaintiff's luggage was not delivered to him on his return to Vancouver. The Plaintiff did not have the usual baggage tags but his ticket was marked indicating he checked two bags. He sued the Defendant to recover the value of the
- [George Straith Ltd. v. Air Canada](https://admiraltylaw.com/1991/09/20/george-straith-ltd-v-air-canada/) - The Plaintiff purchased three cartons of sweaters in Scotland and the seller arranged the shipment through Rockwood International Freight Ltd. The three cartons were delivered to the Defendant, Air Canada, at Heathrow Airport in London and consigned to Rockwood International Freight Inc. at Vancouver. When the three cartons were received, one had been opened and
- [Air Canada v. Demond](https://admiraltylaw.com/1990/04/19/air-canada-v-demond/) - The Plaintiff, Air Canada, contracted to deliver video equipment to Concept Music Video in Newfoundland. The Defendant, who had contracted to buy the video equipment from Concept Music Video, instructed Air Canada to transship the equipment from Newfoundland to Halifax for pickup by it. Air Canada did as requested. Concept Music Video then made a
- [Cameco Corporation v. The "MCP Altona"](https://admiraltylaw.com/2012/03/19/cameco-corporation-v-the-mcp-altona/) - Précis: The court declined to return security given by cargo interests even though the shipowner was bankrupt, unbeknownst to the parties, at the time security was given.
- [Universal Sales Limited v. Edinburgh Assurance Co. Ltd.](https://admiraltylaw.com/2012/04/12/universal-sales-limited-v-edinburgh-assurance-co-ltd/) - Précis: Underwriters were required to reimburse the assured for a settlement payment made in respect of an action for wreck removal costs.
- [The Mercury XII (aka Wells Fargo) v. The MLT-3](https://admiraltylaw.com/2013/04/10/the-mercury-xii-aka-wells-fargo-v-the-mlt-3/) - Précis: The Federal Court of Appeal held that the hire of a tug and barge was not a contract of carriage to which the Hague-Visby Rules applied.
- [Canada v. Toney](https://admiraltylaw.com/2012/06/06/canada-v-toney/) - This was an in rem and in personam action against both the federal and provincial crowns and a vessel owned by the Alberta government. The action concerned a fatal accident that occurred on an Alberta lake. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants were negligent in their performance of search and rescue duties. The Alberta defendants
- [M/S Apollo Tiger Shipping GmbH & Co. KG v. R](https://admiraltylaw.com/2005/05/03/m-s-apollo-tiger-shipping-gmbh-co-kg-v-r/) - The registered owner of the subject vessel was charged with an offence under the Safe Working Practices Regulations passed pursuant to the Canada Shipping Act following an accident involving a crane on the vessel in which two stevedores were injured. The owner brought a non-suit motion following the conclusion of the Crown's case arguing that
- [Armonikos Corp. v. Saskatchewan Wheat Pool](https://admiraltylaw.com/2002/07/18/armonikos-corp-v-saskatchewan-wheat-pool/) - The issue in this case was whether a charter party had been concluded between the brokers acting for the parties. The Defendant argued that no charter party had been agreed because there had not been a meeting of the minds regarding a significant term, notably, whether the vessel to be chartered was certified by the
- [Champion International v. The "Sabina"](https://admiraltylaw.com/2002/11/06/champion-international-v-the-sabina/) - Again the issue in this case was whether there was a concluded agreement between the parties. The Plaintiff and Defendant, through their respective agents, had entered into negotiations for the carriage of the Plaintiff's cargo. All substantial matters had been agreed with the exception of lay days and quantity of cargo which were characterized as
- [Barber Dubai Shipping Agencies Co. v. Angel Maritime Inc.](https://admiraltylaw.com/2002/01/17/barber-dubai-shipping-agencies-co-v-angel-maritime-inc/) - This was a dispute over fees payable to a broker by a shipowner. The charter party provided for daily demurrage which had been unpaid by the charterer. The shipowner attempted to set-off the unpaid demurrage from the fees payable to the broker. Both at first instance and on appeal the court held that the shipowner
- [Boutchev v. D.H.L. International Ltd.](https://admiraltylaw.com/2000/01/04/boutchev-v-d-h-l-international-ltd/) - The issue in this small claims matter was whether the Defendant courier could rely upon terms in its waybill limiting its liability. The Court found that the terms on the waybill had not been properly brought to the attention of the Plaintiff and that the totality of the terms and conditions were "neither plain nor
- [Haldane Products Inc. v. United Parcel Service Canada Ltd.](https://admiraltylaw.com/1999/05/14/haldane-products-inc-v-united-parcel-service-canada-ltd/) - Although not a sea carriage matter, this case is nevertheless of interest. The Plaintiff entered into a contract with UPS for the carriage of cargo to Vancouver. The contract was governed by UPS's service conditions which were provided to the Plaintiff in advance. These conditions provided that the liability of UPS was limited to $100
- [Canadian National Railway v. Southern Railway of British Columbia](https://admiraltylaw.com/1998/05/11/canadian-national-railway-v-southern-railway-of-british-columbia/) - Both the Plaintiff and Defendant in this matter were rail carriers. They had entered into an agreement with Johnson & Johnson for the carriage of goods from Quebec to British Columbia. Some of the goods were destroyed by fire. The Plaintiff paid Johnson & Johnson the full amount of its loss. Subsequently, pursuant to an
- [North American Van Lines v. Rosenau Transport Ltd.](https://admiraltylaw.com/1998/09/04/north-american-van-lines-v-rosenau-transport-ltd/) - This was an action for damage to a cargo of photocopiers. The Court held that the damage was caused by the negligence of the Defendant in failing to properly secure the photocopiers for transit. The defence was that there was an agreement between the parties that the Defendant would not be liable for any damage.
- [Connaught Laboratories Limited v. British Airways](https://admiraltylaw.com/2005/05/19/connaught-laboratories-limited-v-british-airways/) - This case concerned damage to four cartons of vaccines carried by air from Toronto to Sydney, Australia via Heathrow. The cartons bore labels directing that they be kept refrigerated at between 2 and 8 degrees Celsius. A similar direction was printed on the air waybills. At Heathrow, the cartons were not placed in a refrigerated
- [Pro-Service Forwarding Co. of Canada v. Sales Corp. Intl. Group Inc.](https://admiraltylaw.com/2005/02/28/pro-service-forwarding-co-of-canada-v-sales-corp-intl-group-inc/) - This was an application by the Plaintiff freight forwarder to recover the amount of its invoice to the Defendant, its customer. The Defendant claimed a set-off and counter-claim for delay in delivering its goods. The Court held that the delay was due to a downsizing of the aircraft by Air Canada and was not the
- [Green Computer AB v. Federal Express Corp. et al.](https://admiraltylaw.com/2004/03/16/green-computer-ab-v-federal-express-corp-et-al/) - This was a claim for the loss of one carton of integrated circuits valued at $50,000 carried by air from Sweden to Markham, Ontario. The Defendant air carrier argued that it was not liable as the Plaintiff had not given the notice required by Article 26 of the Warsaw Convention. Alternatively, the Defendant argued it
- [MDSI Mobile Data Solutions Inc. v. Federal Express](https://admiraltylaw.com/2003/01/07/mdsi-mobile-data-solutions-inc-v-federal-express/) - This was an appeal from an application by the Plaintiff for summary judgment for damage to computer equipment that occurred during the course of air carriage from Vancouver, British Columbia to Atlanta, Georgia. At trial, the Plaintiff sought to recover the full amount of its loss (approximately $240,000) or, in the alternative, the declared value
- [Nuvo Electronics Inc. v. London Assurance et al.](https://admiraltylaw.com/2000/06/14/nuvo-electronics-inc-v-london-assurance-et-al/) - This matter arose out of the loss of 15 cartons of integrated circuits valued at US$1,403,000 and carried by air from San Francisco to Toronto. The shipment left San Franciso on August 10, 1996, and arrived at Toronto on the morning of August 11, 1996. It was then placed in the Air Canada cargo warehouse
- [World of Art nc. v. Koninklijke Luchtraart Maatschappij N.V.](https://admiraltylaw.com/2000/11/30/world-of-art-nc-v-koninklijke-luchtraart-maatschappij-n-v/) - This was an application for summary judgment for the loss of cargo to be carried by air from Iran. The loss apparently occurred because the goods were rerouted through the United States where they were seized by U.S. Customs. The Defendant air carrier was aware of this possibility as a similar incident had occurred previously.
- [Markham Meat Industries Supplies Inc. v. Air France](https://admiraltylaw.com/1998/07/09/markham-meat-industries-supplies-inc-v-air-france/) - This action concerned damage to cargo carried by air from Paris, France to Montreal. The cargo arrived on June 27, 1995 and was delivered on June 28, 1995. The air carriers were, however, not notified of the damage to the cargo until September 19, 1995. The carriers therefore brought this motion to dismiss the Plaintiff's
- [Huxley v. Aquila Air Ltd.](https://admiraltylaw.com/1995/02/17/huxley-v-aquila-air-ltd/) - This was a fatal accident claim brought by the children of the deceased, Mr. Huxley, who died in the crash of a commercial aircraft operated by the Defendant, Aquila Air Ltd., on a flight from Nanaimo to Vancouver. The Defendant sought a determination by the Court that the Defendant's liability was governed by the Federal
- [Bertex Fashions Inc. v. Cargonaut Canada Inc.](https://admiraltylaw.com/1995/05/29/bertex-fashions-inc-v-cargonaut-canada-inc/) - The issue in this case was the liability of a freight forwarder for damage to cargo shipped under a through bill of lading issued by the forwarder. The forwarder argued that it acted only as agent for the Plaintiff and was therefore not liable. The Court held, however, that the forwarder was liable as a
- [Wepruk v. Great Canadian Van Lines Ltd](https://admiraltylaw.com/2009/06/01/wepruk-v-great-canadian-van-lines-ltd/) - The main issues in this action were whether the defendant carrier could rely on the special conditions of carriage on the reverse of its bill of lading. The Court held that the conditions on the bill of lading did not apply as the bill of lading was delivered after the contract had been breached. The
- [Alstom Canada Inc. v. Canadian National Railway Company](https://admiraltylaw.com/2008/11/27/alstom-canada-inc-v-canadian-national-railway-company/) - The Plaintiffs claimed in excess of $1.8 million for shock and impact damage caused to a transformer during rail carriage from Halifax to Manitoba. The Defendant rail carrier brought this application for summary judgment to limit its liability to $50,000 pursuant to a term in its tariff. However, the Defendant had two tariffs, one of
- [Canadian National Railway v. Neptune Bulk Terminals (Canada) Ltd.](https://admiraltylaw.com/2006/07/11/canadian-national-railway-v-neptune-bulk-terminals-canada-ltd/) - The Plaintiff railway company brought this action against the Defendant terminal operator to recover demurrage charges for delay in the loading and unloading of grain from the Plaintiff's rail cars. The Plaintiff argued that it was entitled to the payment of demurrage in accordance with its tariffs published pursuant to the Canadian Transportation Act. The
- [Day & Ross Inc. v. Beaulieu](https://admiraltylaw.com/2005/02/24/day-ross-inc-v-beaulieu/) - This appeal from a judgment of the New Brunswick Court of Queen's Bench addresses many of the arguments usually advanced to defeat a carrier's right to limit liability pursuant to the Uniform Conditions of Carriage in force in most provinces. The case concerned the loss of a package valued at $1,350. The carrier accepted liability
- [Byers v. United Parcel Service Canada Ltd.](https://admiraltylaw.com/2004/05/12/byers-v-united-parcel-service-canada-ltd/) - In this case the Defendant courier sought to limit its liability pursuant to the uniform conditions of carriage passed under the Motor Carrier Act of Saskatchewan. The Court held, however, that the courier was not entitled to rely upon the limits when it had failed to issue a bill of lading as required by the
- [Valmet Paper Machinery Inc. v. Hapag-Lloyd AG](https://admiraltylaw.com/2004/10/12/valmet-paper-machinery-inc-v-hapag-lloyd-ag/) - The Plaintiff was the shipper of a piece of heavy equipment from Helsinki to Port Alberni, British Columbia. The equipment was carried by sea from Helsinki to Vancouver and by truck from Vancouver to Port Alberni. Ten kilometres short of its destination the equipment fell off the truck and was a constructive total loss. The
- [Shooters Production Services Inc. v. Arnold Bros. Transport Ltd.](https://admiraltylaw.com/2003/01/17/shooters-production-services-inc-v-arnold-bros-transport-ltd/) - This was an action for damage to a trailer transported by the Defendant from Ontario to British Columbia. The Defendant carrier argued that it was not liable because it had been agreed that the Plaintiff would provide insurance and because a final statement of claim was not issued within 9 months. Moreover, the Defendant argued
- [Paine Machine Tool Inc. v. Can-am West Carriers Inc.](https://admiraltylaw.com/2003/01/27/paine-machine-tool-inc-v-can-am-west-carriers-inc/) - Two high precision machine tools carried by the Defendant were damaged when they struck an overpass. In answer to the Plaintiff's claim for damages, the Defendant argued that its liability was limited to $4.41 per kilogram pursuant to the Uniform Conditions of Carriage in Part 7 of the Regulations under the Motor Vehicle Act of
- [Phoenix Bio-Tech Corp. v. Day & Ross Inc.](https://admiraltylaw.com/2003/09/09/phoenix-bio-tech-corp-v-day-ross-inc/) - This case concerned carriage of a package from Mississauga to Orillia, Ontario. The package contained goods that were required to be maintained at a temperature of between 2 and 8 degrees Celsius. The package was picked up on 7 August 2001 and a bill of lading was issued by the carrier and acknowledged by the
- [Trident Freight Logistics Ltd. v. Meyer's Sheet Metal Ltd.](https://admiraltylaw.com/2003/06/06/trident-freight-logistics-ltd-v-meyers-sheet-metal-ltd/) - This was a counterclaim for water damage to a cargo of 19 pallets of galvanized sheet metal carried from Calgary to Nanaimo. The cargo was loaded onto a flat bed trailer in Calgary by employees of the shipper who placed tarpaulins over the pallets. The decision to use a flat bed trailer was made by
- [Wenner v. Willow Creek Carriers Inc.](https://admiraltylaw.com/2002/10/08/wenner-v-willow-creek-carriers-inc/) - This case concerned damage to two grain dryers carried from Nebraska to Saskatchewan. The damage occurred when the dryers struck an overpass. The Defendant carrier argued that it was entitled to limit its liability to $2.00 per pound pursuant to the provisions of the Motor Carrier Act and the Regulations. However, both at trial and
- [SC International Enterprises Inc. v. Consolidated Freightways Corp.](https://admiraltylaw.com/2002/05/17/sc-international-enterprises-inc-v-consolidated-freightways-corp/) - This case concerned shortage to a cargo shipped from Mexico to New Jersey. The shortage was discovered during the course of carriage at Laredo, Texas. The issue in this motion was whether British Columbia was an appropriate jurisdiction. The motions Judge held that British Columbia had jurisdiction to hear the dispute based on the facts
- [Alberta Garment Manufacturing Co. v. Purolator Courier Ltd.](https://admiraltylaw.com/2000/03/17/alberta-garment-manufacturing-co-v-purolator-courier-ltd/) - The Plaintiff had delivered goods to the Defendant for carriage. On the face of the bill of lading the Plaintiff inserted a clause requiring the Defendant to obtain a certified cheque before effecting delivery. The Defendant did not do so and the Plaintiff was never paid for the goods. The Defendant relied upon a term
- [Jian Sheng Co. Ltd. v. Great Tempo S.A.](https://admiraltylaw.com/1998/04/14/jian-sheng-co-ltd-v-great-tempo-s-a/) - This is an important case on the issue of the identity of the carrier under a bill of lading although the case arose in the context of a motion for a stay of proceedings under a jurisdiction clause. The Federal Court of Appeal held that where the bill of lading is signed for or on
- [Canusa Systems Ltd. v. The "Canmar Ambassador"](https://admiraltylaw.com/1998/02/16/canusa-systems-ltd-v-the-canmar-ambassador/) - This was a motion by the Plaintiff for summary judgment against the Defendant freight forwarder for damage caused to a cargo of heat shrunk tubing. The Defendant admitted that it had arranged the shipment of the goods and that the goods were damaged but argued that as freight forwarder it was not responsible for the
- [American President Lines Ltd. v. Pannill Veneer Co. Ltd.](https://admiraltylaw.com/1997/09/17/american-president-lines-ltd-v-pannill-veneer-co-ltd/) - This was an action by an ocean carrier to recover freight charges. The Defendant shipper had retained a freight forwarder who made the carriage arrangements with the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff invoiced the freight forwarder who in turn invoiced the Defendant. The Defendant paid the freight forwarder but the forwarder became insolvent and did not pay
- [Union Carbide Corporation v. Fednav Limited](https://admiraltylaw.com/1997/05/20/union-carbide-corporation-v-fednav-limited/) - This was a claim for damage to a cargo of synthetic resin shipped from Montreal to Bangkok and Manila on board the ship "Hudson Bay". The Plaintiffs were the shipper of the cargo and the consignees. The consignees purchased the cargo on cif Bangkok and cif Manila terms. The "Hudson Bay" was under time charter
- [Me Thierry Van Dooselaere v. Unispeed Group Inc. and SGS Supervision Services](https://admiraltylaw.com/1997/01/27/me-thierry-van-dooselaere-v-unispeed-group-inc-and-sgs-supervision-services/) - This was an action by the Plaintiff shipper against the carrier and surveyors for excessive freight charges. The Plaintiff negotiated a freight rate for 1486 metric tonnes of creosoted poles. During the course of loading the poles it was discovered that the cargo occupied more space than anticipated and the carrier demanded additional freight which
- [Bethlehem Resources Corporation v. Vancouver Wharves](https://admiraltylaw.com/1997/01/09/bethlehem-resources-corporation-v-vancouver-wharves/) - This was a motion for summary judgment brought by the Plaintiff against the Defendant, a terminal operator, for shortages to ore concentrate shipped through the Defendant's facility. The relationship between the parties was governed by an agreement which specifically provided that the terminal would only be liable for "proven negligence". The Court held that normal
- [Alcan Aluminum Ltd. v. Unican International S.A. et.al.](https://admiraltylaw.com/1996/12/17/alcan-aluminum-ltd-v-unican-international-s-a-et-al/) - In this matter the Plaintiff claimed damages against the owner and time charterer of the "CarryBulk" for breach of a booking note contract. Due to engine problems the vessel did not have sufficient power to make its way through the ice to the agreed port of loading and the time charterer ordered the ship to
- [Alcan Aluminum Ltd. v. Unican International S.A.](https://admiraltylaw.com/1996/09/25/alcan-aluminum-ltd-v-unican-international-s-a/) - In this matter the Plaintiff had been awarded damages against the Defendant ship owner for breach of a time charter. The parties could, however, not agree on issues of interest and costs and the case was referred back to the Court . The Court held that the Plaintiff was only entitled to pre-judgment interest at
- [Wirth Limited et.al. v. The "Federal Danube"](https://admiraltylaw.com/1996/05/10/wirth-limited-et-al-v-the-federal-danube/) - This case concerned damage to a cargo of steel rails carried from Antwerp to Montreal. The carrier acknowledged receipt of the cargo at Antwerp in apparent good order and condition except for some slight rusting. Upon discharge at Montreal the cargo was noted as being in substantially the same condition except one rail was damaged.
- [Mackay v. Scott Packing and Warehousing Co.](https://admiraltylaw.com/1995/12/22/mackay-v-scott-packing-and-warehousing-co/) - The Plaintiff in this case had entered into a contract with the Defendant moving company for the carriage of his personal possessions to England. A large number of articles became lost or damaged during transit. The Defendant accepted liability but argued that it was entitled to rely upon a limitation clause in its contract with
- [Brereton v. KLC Freight Services Ltd.](https://admiraltylaw.com/1997/11/26/brereton-v-klc-freight-services-ltd/) - This was an appeal of a judgement rendered by the Ontario Small Claims Court. The action involved a shipment of personal effects from Toronto to Trinidad. Sixteen pieces were delivered by the Plaintiff to the Defendant for carriage but only fifteen pieces were ultimately delivered. The contract between the Plaintiff and Defendant specified that the
- [Mediterranean Shipping company S.A. v. Sipco Inc.](https://admiraltylaw.com/2001/09/25/mediterranean-shipping-company-s-a-v-sipco-inc/) - The Plaintiff in this action claimed against the Defendant for ocean freight owing in respect of the carriage by sea of nine containers from Toronto to the Persian Gulf. The Defendant admitted non-payment of freight but alleged that it was entitled to a set-off and brought a counterclaim alleging breaches of the contract by the
- [Porto Seguro Companhia De Seguros Gerais v. The "Federal Danube" et al.](https://admiraltylaw.com/2001/01/31/porto-seguro-companhia-de-seguros-gerais-v-the-federal-danube-et-al/) - This was the re-trial of an action that had been previously dismissed by the Federal Court Trial Division in a judgment reported at [1995] 82 F.T.R. 127. That judgment was ultimately overturned by the Supreme Court of Canada and a new trial ordered on the grounds that the Trial Judge erred in refusing to hear
- [Barzelex v. The "EBN Al Waleed"](https://admiraltylaw.com/2001/04/05/barzelex-v-the-ebn-al-waleed/) - This was an appeal from the Federal Court Trial Division. The bill of lading contained a general paramount clause incorporating the Hague Rules as enacted in the country of shipment. The country of shipment was Turkey. However, Turkey had enacted the Hague Rules twice into its legislation. Initially, the Rules were enacted through ratification of
- [Kanematsu GMBH v. Acadia Shipbrokers Limited et al.](https://admiraltylaw.com/2000/06/21/kanematsu-gmbh-v-acadia-shipbrokers-limited-et-al/) - This was an appeal from a motion in which the Plaintiff was granted summary judgment against the Defendant charterers for having induced the ship owner to deliver up the cargo to a third party without proper presentation of the bill of lading. The Defendants argued that the case was not appropriate for summary judgment as
- [Canadian Forest Products Inc. v. Termar Navigation Co. Inc.](https://admiraltylaw.com/2000/03/15/canadian-forest-products-inc-v-termar-navigation-co-inc/) - This was an appeal from a judgment of the Trial Division reported at [1998] 2 F.C. 328. The claim was by the carrier to recover the costs of discharging and re-stowing the Plaintiff's cargo after it shifted when the vessel encountered a large wave in rough seas. The Trial Judge held that the Plaintiff was
- [Pantainer Ltd. v. 996660 Ontario Ltd.](https://admiraltylaw.com/2000/03/17/pantainer-ltd-v-996660-ontario-ltd/) - This was a claim for freight charges owing. The Defendant alleged that it was entitled to a set-off for damage caused to cargo carried by the Defendant. The Court held the general rule was that freight is to be paid without deduction and that the Defendant accordingly had no right of set-off. One of the
- [Canadian Pacific Forest Products Limited et al. v. The "Beltimber" et al.](https://admiraltylaw.com/1999/06/10/canadian-pacific-forest-products-limited-et-al-v-the-beltimber-et-al/) - This was an appeal from a decision of the Trial Division. The case involved the loss of a part cargo of lumber carried on deck from Canada to Europe. The bills of lading were claused "on deck at shipper's risk" and clause 8 of the bill of lading was a "liberty" clause which specifically allowed
- [Morlines Maritime Agency Ltd. v. IKO Industries Ltd.](https://admiraltylaw.com/1999/12/07/morlines-maritime-agency-ltd-v-iko-industries-ltd/) - The issue in this case was whether the shipper was liable for the ocean carrier's freight charges when it had already paid the freight forwarder who went bankrupt without paying the carrier. The court relied upon the decision in C.P. Ships v Les Industries Lyons Corduroys Lte., [1983] 1 F.C. 736, where it was held
- [Riva Stahl GmbH v. The "Bergen Sea" et al.](https://admiraltylaw.com/1999/05/17/riva-stahl-gmbh-v-the-bergen-sea-et-al/) - This was an appeal from a decision of the Trial Division in which an application for summary judgment by the Defendants based on a time limitation defence was allowed. The case illustrates the dangers to Plaintiffs of suit time extensions. The Plaintiffs in the case obtained a suit time extension from the shipowner to June
- [MacKay v. Scott Packing & Warehousing Co.](https://admiraltylaw.com/1999/01/07/mackay-v-scott-packing-warehousing-co/) - This was a reference to determine the damages of the Plaintiff based upon a limitation of liability clause contained in the contract of carriage. The limitation clause limited the defendant's liability to 10 pounds sterling per cubic foot of the cubic capacity of the item lost or damaged or, at the Defendant's option, to the
- [Westwood Shipping Lines v. Geo International Inc. et al.](https://admiraltylaw.com/1999/03/23/westwood-shipping-lines-v-geo-international-inc-et-al/) - This was an action for fraudulent misrepresentation against the General Manager of the corporate Defendant. The corporate Defendant was the "Notify Party" on order bills of lading. The corporate Defendant obtained delivery of the cargo from the Plaintiff without surrendering the original endorsed bills of lading and without paying the purchase price to the shipper/vendor.
- [Kodak v. Racine Terminal (Montreal) Ltd.](https://admiraltylaw.com/1999/03/09/kodak-v-racine-terminal-montreal-ltd/) - This was an application for summary judgment by a cargo owner for damage to a shipment of paper. The cargo was damaged by the crane operator of the Defendant terminal during unloading. The only issue in the case was whether the terminal could rely upon a Himalaya clause contained in the bill of lading. Although
- [Voest-Alpine Stahl Linz GmbH v. The "Federal St. Clair" et al.](https://admiraltylaw.com/1999/08/31/voest-alpine-stahl-linz-gmbh-v-the-federal-st-clair-et-al/) - This was an action for damage to 35 steel coils. The coils were manufactured in Austria and carried by barge to Antwerp where they were loaded on board the Defendant vessel and carried to Montreal. A pre-loading survey at Antwerp noted some minor rusting to the coils. The cargo was not surveyed at Montreal. It
- [Westwood Shipping Lines v. Geo International Inc.](https://admiraltylaw.com/1998/06/24/westwood-shipping-lines-v-geo-international-inc/) - This was an application for summary judgement by the Plaintiff carrier against the Defendant for conversion. The Defendant was the "Notify Party" on order bills of lading. The Defendant obtained delivery of the cargo without surrendering the original endorsed bills of lading and without paying the purchase price to the shipper/vendor. The Plaintiff maintained that
- [Braber Equipment Ltd. v. Fraser Surrey Docks Ltd.](https://admiraltylaw.com/1999/10/06/braber-equipment-ltd-v-fraser-surrey-docks-ltd/) - This case involved damage to a container of equipment admittedly caused by the negligence of the terminal operator. The terminal operator sought to limit its liability to $100.00 per package pursuant to a limitation clause contained in its tariff. The Court found, however, that the Plaintiff had no knowledge of the tariff and was not
- [Lovat inc. v. Blue Anchor Line](https://admiraltylaw.com/2007/05/04/lovat-inc-v-blue-anchor-line/) - This was an action for damage to a bearing shipped from Toronto to Turkey. The bearing was allegedly damaged by rust when it was delivered at its destination in Turkey. The evidence was that the cargo was in apparent good condition when discharged from the last carrying vessel at Istanbul, however, when it was delivered
- [Rio Tinto Shipping (Asia) Pte Ltd. v. Korea Line Corporation](https://admiraltylaw.com/2008/12/16/rio-tinto-shipping-asia-pte-ltd-v-korea-line-corporation/) - In this matter the applicant, a voyage charterer, applied to pay into court the freight which it admitted was owing. The reason was that there were conflicting claims by two parities as to entitlement to the freight. The Court recognized the conundrum of the applicant and allowed it to pay the freight into court in
- [Gearbulk Pool Ltd. v. Seaboard Shipping Co.](https://admiraltylaw.com/2006/12/06/gearbulk-pool-ltd-v-seaboard-shipping-co/) - This matter involved a claim for indemnity by the Plaintiff ocean carrier against the Defendant for damages the Plaintiff was ordered to pay in the matter of Timberwest Forest Ltd. v Gearbulk Pool Ltd. et al., 2003 BCCA 39 (the "underlying action"). In the underlying action the cargo of lumber was comprised of two consignments
- [Shtutman v. Ocean Marine Shipping Inc.](https://admiraltylaw.com/2005/10/31/shtutman-v-ocean-marine-shipping-inc/) - The Plaintiff alleged that the carrier was liable for the loss of the contents of a container carried by sea from Halifax to Conakry. Specifically, the Plaintiff alleged that the carrier had either mis-delivered the container or that the contents of the container had been stolen while the container was in the possession of the
- [Elders Grain Company Limited et al. v. The "Ralph Misener" et al.](https://admiraltylaw.com/2005/04/15/elders-grain-company-limited-et-al-v-the-ralph-misener-et-al/) - This matter involved the carriage of a cargo of alfalfa pellets from Thunder Bay to Montreal. During the discharge of the cargo in Montreal a fire broke out damaging the cargo and the carrying ship. The Plaintiffs claimed for the damage to the cargo and the Defendants counter-claimed for the damage to the ship. The
- [Elders Grain Company Limited et al. v. The "Ralph Misener" et al.](https://admiraltylaw.com/2004/09/20/elders-grain-company-limited-et-al-v-the-ralph-misener-et-al-2/) - In this matter the Defendant had been successful in its counterclaim and now sought compound interest. The Court referred to the Supreme Court of Canada decision in Bank of America Canada v Mutual Trust Co., [2002] SCR 601, wherein it was held that compound interest will generally be limited to breach of contract cases where
- [Asian Exports International v. Zim Israel Navigation Co. Ltd. et al.](https://admiraltylaw.com/2004/02/11/asian-exports-international-v-zim-israel-navigation-co-ltd-et-al/) - In this matter the Plaintiff had paid for goods that were shipped from China and was the named consignee on a non-negotiable bill of lading. The vendor however refused to give the Plaintiff the original bill of lading by which to obtain delivery of the goods from the carrier. When the container arrived the Plaintiff
- [Sea-Link Marine Services Ltd. et al. v. Doman Forest Products Limited](https://admiraltylaw.com/2003/06/13/sea-link-marine-services-ltd-et-al-v-doman-forest-products-limited/) - A cargo of lumber was partially lost during carriage on "SEA-LINK YARDER" a dumb barge under tow between ports on Vancouver Island. During a portion of the transit on the outer coast of Vancouver Island the tug and tow encountered heavy weather and the cargo shifted resulting in loss of some cargo and damage to
- [Mediterranean Shipping Company SA v. BPB Westroc Inc](https://admiraltylaw.com/2003/07/31/mediterranean-shipping-company-sa-v-bpb-westroc-inc/) - This was an action by the Plaintiff carrier to recover freight from the Defendant shipper. The Defendant's defence was that it had paid the freight to its freight forwarder. Unfortunately, the freight forwarder went bankrupt without remitting the payments to the carrier. The Prothonotary reviewed the applicable case law and held that a shipper is
- [Timberwest Forest Ltd. v. Gearbulk Pool Ltd. et al.](https://admiraltylaw.com/2003/01/21/timberwest-forest-ltd-v-gearbulk-pool-ltd-et-al/) - This case concerned the meaning of "goods" as defined in the Hague-Visby Rules and deals with the need for clarity and accuracy in descriptions of deck cargo. The Plaintiffs were the shippers and consignees of 1725 packages of lumber carried from Vancouver to Antwerp. The cargo was comprised of two consignments destined to two different
- [American Risk Management Inc. v. APL Co. Pte. Ltd.](https://admiraltylaw.com/2002/09/30/american-risk-management-inc-v-apl-co-pte-ltd/) - This was an action for damage to a cargo of 52 rolls of fabric carried by land, sea and rail from Pakistan to Toronto, Ontario. The cargo was initially received at its destination without any notations as to damage. However, a few days later it was discovered that the rolls were damaged by mould and
- [Nova Steel Ltd. et al. v. The "Kapitonas Gudin"](https://admiraltylaw.com/2002/01/29/nova-steel-ltd-et-al-v-the-kapitonas-gudin/) - These cases were for damage to rolled coils carried from Latvia to Montreal. The coils were "pitted", allegedly by sea water. The Defendants denied liability arguing the damage was caused by the excepted perils of peril of the sea (condensation), act or omission of the shipper (defective packaging) or inherent defect (mill defects in the
- [Vandenburg v. Randy Houston International](https://admiraltylaw.com/2002/02/07/vandenburg-v-randy-houston-international/) - The Plaintiff hired the Defendant to ship her goods from Toronto to Nigeria. Based on representations made by the Defendant, she understood that it was experienced in the shipment of such goods. The Plaintiff travelled to Nigeria but her goods never arrived. She claimed against the Defendant for the return of the freight she had
- [Cami Automotive, Inc v. Westwood Shipping Lines Inc](https://admiraltylaw.com/2010/01/08/cami-automotive-inc-v-westwood-shipping-lines-inc/) - This was a case involving a claim against a rail carrier and vessel for damage to cargo. The plaintiff recovered only the limitation amount of $50,000. The vessel and rail carrier each claimed entitlement to double costs on the basis that the rail carrier had paid the plaintiff Cdn$50,000 and the vessel had made an
- [Caterpillar Overseas S.A. v. Canmar Victory (The)](https://admiraltylaw.com/1999/11/25/caterpillar-overseas-s-a-v-canmar-victory-the/) - This was an appeal from a decision of the Trial Division denying a motion by the Third Party Defendant for an order dismissing the Third Party Claim on the grounds that the court lacked jurisdiction. The main claim by the Plaintiff was for damage caused to an engine shipped in a container and carried from
- [Canadian Forest Products Ltd. v. B.C. Rail et al.](https://admiraltylaw.com/2005/07/07/canadian-forest-products-ltd-v-b-c-rail-et-al/) - Wood pulp was loaded in apparent good order and condition onto rail cars in the BC interior, discharged at a port terminal and then loaded on board the carrying vessel. At final discharge, the pulp was found contaminated with wood splinters and rejected for use by the receiver's customer. The Plaintiff claimed against the rail
- [American Transport Logistics v. Kobi Group Inc.](https://admiraltylaw.com/2009/11/20/american-transport-logistics-v-kobi-group-inc/) - This was a motion for summary judgment brought by the plaintiff, an international freight forwarder, against the defendant, an international importer and exporter of commercial goods for resale. In January 2007, the defendant contacted the plaintiff to arrange the carriage of perishable goods from Germany to Kingston, Jamaica. The destination was later changed to St.
- [Allianz Global Risks US Insurance Co. v. Moosonee Trans. Ltd.](https://admiraltylaw.com/2009/08/05/allianz-global-risks-us-insurance-co-v-moosonee-trans-ltd/) - This was a subrogated claim for several vehicles and other cargo lost when a barge sank en route to James Bay. The defendants were a company that arranged the transportation and the actual carrier. A preliminary issue in the case was whether the claim was governed by Canadian maritime law or the Civil Code of
- [H. Paulin & Co. Ltd. v. A Plus Freight Forwarder Co. Ltd.](https://admiraltylaw.com/2009/07/16/h-paulin-co-ltd-v-a-plus-freight-forwarder-co-ltd/) - The issue in this case was whether the receiver of cargo under "freight Pre-paid" bills of lading was liable for non-payment of freight. The parties were: H. Paulin, the receiver/consignee; A Plus, a local forwarder who issued bills of lading and was held to be a NVOCC; Scanwell, a forwarder who had contracted with A
- [Boutique Jacob Inc. v. Pantainer Ltd.](https://admiraltylaw.com/2008/03/06/boutique-jacob-inc-v-pantainer-ltd/) - This was an action by the Plaintiff for damage to cargo caused during a train derailment. The Plaintiff had contracted with the first Defendant, Pantainer, for the carriage of its cargo from Hong Kong to Montreal. Pantainer then sub-contracted the entire carriage to OOCL. OOCL in turn contracted with Canadian Pacific for the carriage of
- [Alcoa, Inc. v. CP Ships (UK) Ltd.](https://admiraltylaw.com/2007/10/09/alcoa-inc-v-cp-ships-uk-ltd/) - The Plaintiff contracted with the first Defendant for the carriage of a cargo of aluminum from Massena, New York to Italy. The first Defendant had an arrangement with the second Defendant for the performance of the inland portion of the carriage from Massena to Montreal. It was intended that the first Defendant would then complete
- [Catalyst Paper Corp. v. Companhia de Navegação Norsul](https://admiraltylaw.com/2008/09/02/catalyst-paper-corp-v-companhia-de-navegaa§ao-norsul/) - This was an action for breach of a long term shipping contract. The contract was a three year contract of affreightment for the carriage of paper products to South America. The contract was negotiated using the "accept/reject" process. The main issue in the case was whether a final agreement had ever been concluded between the
- [Locher Evers International v. Canada Garlic Distribution Inc.](https://admiraltylaw.com/2008/03/07/locher-evers-international-v-canada-garlic-distribution-inc/) - This was an action for the recovery of freight in relation to the carriage of produce from China to Toronto. The Defendant did not dispute the freight was owing but alleged a right to set-off and argued that the agreement ousted the jurisdiction of the Federal Court. The agreement between the parties expressly incorporated the
- [R v. Jail Island Aquaculture Ltd.](https://admiraltylaw.com/2000/08/17/r-v-jail-island-aquaculture-ltd/) - In this matter the accused had been charged with various offences under the Occupational Health and Safety Act of New Brunswick. The charges arose out of a fatal accident that occurred on board the accused's barge while smolt salmon were being unloaded into a salmon cage. The accused argued that as the accident occurred on
- [The Queen v. Will](https://admiraltylaw.com/1999/03/15/the-queen-v-will/) - At issue in this case was the constitutional validity of a regulation passed pursuant the Provincial Parks Act of Ontario requiring visitors to provincial parks to purchase a $10 permit to stay in the park overnight. The accused anchored his boat in Echo Bay on the eastern shore of Georgian Bay in Lake Huron. Echo
- [Mackenzie v. Canada (Transportation Safety Board)](https://admiraltylaw.com/2018/03/20/mackenzie-v-canada-transportation-safety-board/) - Précis: The Federal Court refused to quash a warrant granted by the provincial court on the grounds that it was a collateral attack on the order of the provincial court.
- [R v. Williams](https://admiraltylaw.com/2000/03/13/r-v-williams/) - In this matter the accused was charged with selling liquor on board his vessel without a liquor licence in contravention of the Liquor Control and Licencing Act of British Columbia. The defences argued were that the Liquor Control and Licencing Act was ultra vires the province insofar as it attempted to regulate vessels, a matter
- [Ordon Estate v. Grail](https://admiraltylaw.com/1998/11/26/ordon-estate-v-grail/) - This case is essential reading for all Canadian maritime law practitioners. It concerns four separate actions commenced in the Ontario Court General Division. The actions involved two boating accidents which resulted in fatalities and in serious personal injury. The actions gave rise to similar legal issues. The issues were: Do the superior courts of the
- [Dreifelds v. Burton](https://admiraltylaw.com/1998/03/06/dreifelds-v-burton/) - This was an appeal from a decision of the Ontario Court General Division. The case concerned a fatal scuba diving accident in Lake Ontario. A chartered vessel was used to take the divers to the dive site but the vessel was otherwise not involved in the accident. The deceased died from a gas embolism. The
- [Bow Valley Husky Ltd. v. St. John Shipbuilding Ltd.](https://admiraltylaw.com/1997/12/18/bow-valley-husky-ltd-v-st-john-shipbuilding-ltd/) - This is an extremely important case that all maritime law practitioners should read carefully. The case involved a breach of contract and negligence claim relating to the building of an off shore oil platform owned by the Plaintiff. The significant maritime law issue was whether the Plaintiff's claim was barred by reason of contributory negligence.
- [Canada v. Mallett and Associates Engineering Ltd.](https://admiraltylaw.com/1997/01/24/canada-v-mallett-and-associates-engineering-ltd/) - This was an action against the Defendant for breach of contract and negligence in relation to dredging of the Liverpool Harbour and construction of a containment facility. The Defendant in turn brought Third Party proceedings against subcontractors. The Third Parties brought this application to strike out the Third Party proceedings on the grounds that they
- [Vogel v. Sawbridge et.al.](https://admiraltylaw.com/1996/04/03/vogel-v-sawbridge-et-al/) - This was a summary trial to dismiss two actions as time barred. The actions arose out of the deaths of two persons aboard the yacht "Kingfisher" while it was moored at Nanaimo Harbour, British Columbia. It was alleged in the Statement of Claim that the deaths were caused by the faulty operation of a heater
- [Secunda Marine Services Limited v. The Queen et al.](https://admiraltylaw.com/2003/01/09/secunda-marine-services-limited-v-the-queen-et-al/) - In this matter the Plaintiff shipowner had obtained an arbitration award against one of the Defendants in London for breach of a charterparty. The Plaintiff subsequently registered the award in the Federal Court and then brought this action against the charterer and against various related companies and the individual alleged to have effective control of
- [Corcovado yacht Charters Ltd. v. Forshore Projects Ltd.](https://admiraltylaw.com/1998/02/09/corcovado-yacht-charters-ltd-v-forshore-projects-ltd/) - The issue in this case was whether the Federal Court had jurisdiction to determine a dispute relating to the refusal of a landlord to renew a lease on a building that was, in part, built on pilings at Granville Island in False Creek, Vancouver. The Court held that the lease and its cancellation or non-renewal
- [MIL Davie Inc. v. Hibernia Management and Development Co.](https://admiraltylaw.com/1998/05/07/mil-davie-inc-v-hibernia-management-and-development-co/) - This was a motion by the Defendant to strike the Statement of Claim as being outside the jurisdiction of the Federal Court. The Plaintiff relied on the Competition Act as the jurisdictional basis for the claim. The Plaintiff alleged that the Defendants engaged in anti-competitive behaviour, contrary to that Act, in the awarding of a
- [Jean v. The "Capitaine Duval"](https://admiraltylaw.com/1998/06/26/jean-v-the-capitaine-duval-2/) - This was an application to strike out the Statement of Claim as being outside the jurisdiction of the Court. The Plaintiffs were former shareholders and officers of the Defendant. The claim was to recover various expenses paid by the Plaintiffs on behalf of the Defendant. The expenses were in relation to the construction of a
- [Herrenknecht Tunnelling Systems USA Inc. v. Canadian Pacific Railway](https://admiraltylaw.com/2002/10/21/herrenknecht-tunnelling-systems-usa-inc-v-canadian-pacific-railway/) - The issue in this case was whether the Federal Court had jurisdiction over a claim for damage caused to cargo during the course of carriage from Quebec to Tacoma, Washington. The cargo was damaged when the train derailed in Ontario. The Judge identified the test as being: 1. There must be a statutory grant of
- [Radil Bros. Fishing Co. Ltd. v. Her Majesty the Queen et al.](https://admiraltylaw.com/2001/10/19/radil-bros-fishing-co-ltd-v-her-majesty-the-queen-et-al/) - The facts of this case are quite complicated involving licence swaps, fishing quotas and catch history. One of the issues in the case was whether the Federal Court had jurisdiction to entertain a claim arising out of an agreement of purchase and sale of a fishing licence. The Federal Court of Appeal concluded that such
- [Ruby Trading S.A. v. Parsons et al.](https://admiraltylaw.com/2000/11/21/ruby-trading-s-a-v-parsons-et-al/) - This matter concerned the jurisdiction of the Federal Court to entertain an action by a foreign ship owner against foreign crew members for breach of contract of employment and against a Canadian union for inducing breach of contract. While the "Japan Rainbow II" was loading a cargo of grain wage demands were made by the
- [John E. Canning Ltd. v. Tripap Inc.](https://admiraltylaw.com/2000/04/05/john-e-canning-ltd-v-tripap-inc/) - This was an application to dismiss the Plaintiff's claim on the grounds that it was not a maritime matter and the Federal Court lacked jurisdiction. The claim arose from an agreement between the Plaintiff and Defendant pursuant to which the Plaintiff had agreed to sell and deliver by barge wood to the Defendant. The Defendant
- [Royal Bank v. 1132959 Ontario Ltd.](https://admiraltylaw.com/2008/08/14/royal-bank-v-1132959-ontario-ltd/) - This was an application by the Appellant bank (the "Bank") for possession of a yacht pursuant to rights allegedly acquired through a general security interest. The application was opposed by the Respondent, who was registered as the owner of the yacht under the Canada Shipping Act ("CSA"), on the grounds that the bank's interest was
- [Isen v. Simms](https://admiraltylaw.com/2006/10/05/isen-v-simms/) - The Defendant was injured when a bungee cord that was being used to secure the engine cover of a small pleasure boat slipped from the hands of the Plaintiff shipowner and struck the Defendant in the eye. At the time of the incident the pleasure boat had just been removed from the lake and was
- [Jackson v. Fisheries and Oceans Canada](https://admiraltylaw.com/2006/10/05/jackson-v-fisheries-and-oceans-canada/) - This case concerned the constitutional applicability of the Occupiers Liability Act of British Columbia to a slip and fall that occurred while the Plaintiff was walking down a ramp from the shore to a wharf administered by Fisheries and Oceans Canada. The Defendants argued that the Occupiers Liability Act had no application as the matter
- [Inter Atlantic Canada Ltd. v. The Rio Cuyaguateje](https://admiraltylaw.com/2000/01/18/inter-atlantic-canada-ltd-v-the-rio-cuyaguateje/) - This was an application to strike out the Statement of Claim and set aside the warrant of arrest on the grounds that the Federal Court lacked jurisdiction. The subject matter of the action was an alleged breach of an agreement relating to the utilization and allocation of North Atlantic shrimp to Cuba. The court held
- [Early Recovered Resources Inc. v. British Columbia](https://admiraltylaw.com/2005/07/18/early-recovered-resources-inc-v-british-columbia/) - The issue in this case was the constitutional validity or applicability of: first, Part 9 of the Forest Act of British Columbia and the associated Log Salvage Regulation passed pursuant thereto; and second, the Canada Shipping Act and the International Convention on Salvage (the "Salvage Convention"). Part 9 of the Forest Act and the Log
- [Laboucane v. Brooks et al.](https://admiraltylaw.com/2003/08/13/laboucane-v-brooks-et-al/) - The issue in this important summary trial application was whether section 10(1) of the Workers Compensation Act of British Columbia was valid provincial law or whether it was ultra vires the province as infringing upon Federal jurisdiction over navigation and shipping. The underlying facts were that the Plaintiff was injured while performing a welding job
- [Kusugak v. Northern Transportation Co. et al.](https://admiraltylaw.com/2004/12/03/kusugak-v-northern-transportation-co-et-al/) - In this case the Plaintiffs were the dependants of crew members of the "Avatuq" which sank on 25 August 2002 while en route from Churchill, Manitoba to Arviat, Nunavut. All of the crew members perished. The Defendants included the Commissioner of Nunavut, the Government of Nunavut and some of their employees (the "Nunavut Defendants"). The
- [Gulf Log Salvage Co-Operative Assoc. v. Early Recovered Resources](https://admiraltylaw.com/2003/01/24/gulf-log-salvage-co-operative-assoc-v-early-recovered-resources/) - This case concerned the constitutional validity of the Log Salvage Regulations of British Columbia. An application for summary judgment was brought by the Province of British Columbia for a declaration that the Regulations were valid. The motions Judge dismissed that application leaving no doubt that he considered the Regulations ultra vires (2002 FCT 184). The
- [Island Tug & Barge Ltd. v. Communication, Energy and Paperworkers Union](https://admiraltylaw.com/2003/04/30/island-tug-barge-ltd-v-communication-energy-and-paperworkers-union/) - The Respondent union had set up a "water" picket attempting to prevent vessels from berthing at the Petro-Canada terminal in Vancouver where the union was on strike. The Appellant tug and barge operators sought an injunction from the BC Supreme Court to restrict or limit the picketing. The BC Supreme Court held that it did
- [R v. Kupchanko](https://admiraltylaw.com/2002/01/30/r-v-kupchanko/) - This case raised the issue of the constitutional validity of an Order made pursuant to section 7(4) of the Wildlife Act of British Columbia prohibiting motorized vessels in excess of 10 horsepower from navigating part of the Columbia River. The accused argued that the Order was an invalid infringement on Federal Government jurisdiction over navigation
- [Franklin v. U Haul Co. (Canada) Ltd.](https://admiraltylaw.com/2009/01/07/franklin-v-u-haul-co-canada-ltd/) - This was a claim for water damage to goods transported in a rental truck. There was heavy rain during the transportation and, upon arrival at the destination, the plaintiff kept the rental truck parked outside in heavy rain for an additional 2 days prior to unloading. On inspection of the truck, it was discovered that
- [Tan v. The "Pacific Brilliance" et.al.](https://admiraltylaw.com/1996/10/07/tan-v-the-pacific-brilliance-et-al/) - This was an application to strike out a Third Party Claim. The main action arose out of the death of a shipyard employee who fell from a gangplank while disembarking from the vessel. The dependents of the deceased commenced action against the owners and operators of the ship who, in turn, sought to third party
- [Granville Shipping Co. v. Pegasus Lines Ltd.](https://admiraltylaw.com/1996/02/21/granville-shipping-co-v-pegasus-lines-ltd/) - This case involved a claim by the Plaintiff for unpaid hire under a charterparty and a counterclaim by the Defendant for damages for delay. The Plaintiff brought a motion for summary judgment on the main claim and a motion for an order staying the counterclaim and referring it to arbitration pursuant to the arbitration clause
- [Valley Towing Ltd. v. Celtic Shipyards (1988) Ltd.](https://admiraltylaw.com/1995/07/31/valley-towing-ltd-v-celtic-shipyards-1988-ltd/) - This was an application in limitation proceedings for inspection of a ship's steering system. The shipowner contested the application arguing that it would be inconvenient and that it should not be done until all claimants in the limitation proceedings were known. The Court acknowledged that the inconvenience of the shipowner was a matter to take
- [Fraser River Pile & Dredge Ltd. v. Empire Tug Boats Ltd.](https://admiraltylaw.com/1996/03/20/fraser-river-pile-dredge-ltd-v-empire-tug-boats-ltd/) - This was an application in limitation proceedings for inspection of a ship's steering system. The shipowner contested the application arguing that it would be inconvenient and that it should not be done until all claimants in the limitation proceedings were known. The Court acknowledged that the inconvenience of the shipowner was a matter to take
- [Durham v. Todd](https://admiraltylaw.com/2010/03/31/durham-v-todd/) - In this matter the defendant boat owner was charged with trespass under the Ontario Trespass to Property Act and with infractions of various municipal by-laws. The charges all related to anchoring in Port Whitby Harbour which was a harbour designated under the Fisheries and Recreational Harbours Act. The harbour was administered by the municipality pursuant
- [R. v. Latouche](https://admiraltylaw.com/2010/05/12/r-v-latouche/) - In this case the applicants were charged with not wearing life jackets while floating on an inflatable raft down the Elbow River in Calgary contrary to a municipal bylaw. The applicants challenged the constitutional validity of the bylaw saying that the bylaw encroached on Parliament's exclusive jurisdiction over navigation and shipping. It was conceded that
- [Lafarge Canada Inc. v. JJM Construction Ltd.](https://admiraltylaw.com/2011/11/09/lafarge-canada-inc-v-jjm-construction-ltd/) - The parties entered into four identical charter parties pursuant to which the charterer was to be liable for damage to the barges except for normal wear and tear. The charterer was also responsible for obtaining hull and machinery insurance naming the owner as an additional insured. The barges were returned with damage but not all
- [JP Morgan Chase Bank v. Mystras Maritime Corporation](https://admiraltylaw.com/2010/10/26/jp-morgan-chase-bank-v-mystras-maritime-corporation/) - This matter concerned a dispute between two former shareholders and directors of the judgment creditor concerning who was entitled to the proceeds of an in rem action. The Court held that it was without jurisdiction to determine the dispute which was held not to be integrally connected to maritime matters.
- [British Columbia (Attorney General) v. Lafarge Canada Inc.](https://admiraltylaw.com/2007/05/31/british-columbia-attorney-general-v-lafarge-canada-inc/) - The issue in this case was whether the Vancouver Port Authority was required to obtain a City development permit to build a cement plant on port lands. The Supreme Court of Canada noted that the development of waterfront lands could come under either federal or provincial jurisdiction but applied the doctrine of paramountcy and held
- [R. v. Mersey Seafoods Ltd.](https://admiraltylaw.com/2008/07/24/r-v-mersey-seafoods-ltd/) - The accused in this case was a corporation that operated various factory fishing vessels. The accused was charged with offences under the Nova Scotia Occupational Health and Safety Act ("OHSA"). The charges were dismissed in the lower courts on grounds that the safety and operation of vessels was within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Federal
- [Salt Spring Island Local Trust Committee v. B & B Ganges Marina Ltd.](https://admiraltylaw.com/2008/12/29/salt-spring-island-local-trust-committee-v-b-b-ganges-marina-ltd/) - The issue in this case was whether a municipal bylaw limiting the size and height of buildings applied to an oil-tank barge that had been converted to a two storey floating camp. The Defendant marina argued the bylaw was constitutionally invalid or inapplicable which turned, in part, on whether the floating camp was a ship.
- [Ramara (Township) v. Guettler](https://admiraltylaw.com/2007/05/09/ramara-township-v-guettler/) - The Defendant argued that a municipal bylaw prohibiting mooring in any "canal, waterway or slip" owned by the municipality was constitutionally invalid. In very short reasons the Court held that as the municipality owned the lands above and below the water of the canal it had the power to legislate. The Court noted that the
- [Railink v. Fedmar Limited](https://admiraltylaw.com/2009/04/08/railink-v-fedmar-limited/) - This was an appeal from a Small Claims Court decision finding the defendant "FedMar" liable to the plaintiff, "SOR", for demurrage charges on railcars at FedMar's premises. Although there was no direct contract between SOR and FedMar, SOR had issued tariffs to FedMar setting out the demurrage fees prior to the dispute. The trial Judge's
- [Cargo Dynamics Logistics Inc. v. Apex Micro Manufacturing Corp.](https://admiraltylaw.com/2009/06/23/cargo-dynamics-logistics-inc-v-apex-micro-manufacturing-corp/) - This was an action for freight owing in respect of a number of shipments. The defendant was the consignee of the shipments and alleged that it was not liable for the freight as the plaintiff/carrier had contracted with the shipper. The evidence established, however, that the carriage arrangements were made between the plaintiff and defendant,
- [Goodman Yachts LLC v. The "Gertrude Oldendorff" et al.](https://admiraltylaw.com/2003/06/16/goodman-yachts-llc-v-the-gertrude-oldendorff-et-al-2/) - This was an application for a first stage contempt order, pursuant to Rule 467, brought against two Defendants by the Applicant, also a Defendant in the action. The underlying action involved the loss of a yacht being carried on the deck of the Defendant vessel from Singapore for delivery at Vancouver. The alleged contempt arose
- [Tempo Marble & Granite Ltd. v. The "Mecklenburg I"](https://admiraltylaw.com/2002/11/14/tempo-marble-granite-ltd-v-the-mecklenburg-i/) - This was an application by the Defendants to strike two affidavits containing the evidence in chief of the Plaintiff in this simplified action. The basis for the application was that the evidence in the affidavits contradicted earlier evidence given at the discovery phase in answers to interrogatories. The Prothonotary found that the evidence did, in
- [Gearbulk Pool Ltd. v. Scac Transport Canada Ltd.](https://admiraltylaw.com/2002/03/27/gearbulk-pool-ltd-v-scac-transport-canada-ltd/) - This was an appeal from a determination of a point of law under Rule 220 of the Federal Court Rules, 1998 which proceeded under an Agreed Statement of Facts. The issue was whether a mutual release in a cargo action was a bar to the claim by Gearbulk, the Plaintiff in the present action, for
- [Pacifica Papers Inc. v. The "Haida Monarch"](https://admiraltylaw.com/2002/06/14/pacifica-papers-inc-v-the-haida-monarch/) - This was a motion for summary judgment by the Plaintiff. The case concerned the partial loss of a cargo of logs being carried from Alaska to Powell River. It was common ground that the action by the Plaintiff was a subrogated action brought by the Plaintiff's insurer. The Defendants alleged, inter alia, that the Plaintiff's
- [249387 BC Ltd. v. The "Edith Cavell"](https://admiraltylaw.com/2002/07/17/249387-bc-ltd-v-the-edith-cavell/) - This was an application for in rem judgment in default of a defence. The Prothonotary granted the judgment but adjourned the balance of the motion to set the amount of the judgment pending the filing of proper affidavit evidence. The Prothonotary reviewed the authorities and held that the amount of the default judgment could not
- [Island Tug & Barge Ltd. v. Haedon Co. Ltd. et al](https://admiraltylaw.com/2002/03/05/island-tug-barge-ltd-v-haedon-co-ltd-et-al/) - This was an application by the Plaintiff for judgment in default of defence. Although the motion was not opposed, the court considered whether a reference to determine damages was necessary given that the action was in rem. The Prothonotary held that he had the discretion to give default judgment without a reference provided the claim
- [Shipdock Amsterdam B.V. v. Cast Group Inc.](https://admiraltylaw.com/2000/03/07/shipdock-amsterdam-b-v-v-cast-group-inc/) - This case is of importance in that it reiterates that a solicitor should not file his or her own affidavit on a motion when the solicitor or a member of his or her firm argues the motion. The Court noted that there are exceptions to this rule such as where the solicitor is the only
- [I. Deveau Fisheries Ltd. v. Cummins Americas, Inc.](https://admiraltylaw.com/1996/06/11/i-deveau-fisheries-ltd-v-cummins-americas-inc/) - This case concerned a claim by the Plaintiff against the Defendant for negligent repair of a ship's engine. The Defendant in turn commenced Third Party proceedings against a sub-contractor for contribution and indemnity in respect of work done by the sub-contractor to the cylinder heads of the engine. The sub-contractor brought a motion to strike
- [Olbert Metal Sales Limited v. The "Harmac Dawn" et.al.](https://admiraltylaw.com/1996/12/05/olbert-metal-sales-limited-v-the-harmac-dawn-et-al/) - This was a carriage of goods case in which both the shipper and consignee were initially added as Plaintiffs. The Plaintiff, shipper, later brought this motion for leave to discontinue its action against the Defendant carriers. The grounds were that both Plaintiffs were initially joined because of uncertainty as to who had title when the
- [Corner Brook Pulp & Paper Ltd v. Comm. Energy & Paper Workers Union](https://admiraltylaw.com/1999/07/23/corner-brook-pulp-paper-ltd-v-comm-energy-paper-workers-union/) - This was an ex parte application for an injunction to restrain the Defendants from picketing the Plaintiff's wharf. The Defendants had erected a rope fence in the water opposite the Plaintiff's wharf and used small boats to allegedly interfere with vessels intending to dock at the wharf. The court noted that only in the most
- [Ordina Ship Management Ltd. v. Unispeed](https://admiraltylaw.com/1998/11/20/ordina-ship-management-ltd-v-unispeed/) - This was an action was for non-payment of charter hire. The Plaintiff obtained an ex parte mareva injunction which was later continued. The Plaintiff subsequently brought a motion to stay the action in favour of arbitration pursuant to the terms of the charter party and abandoned its injunction. The Defendant thereafter brought this application for
- [Navi Mont Inc. v. Rigel Shipping Canada Inc.](https://admiraltylaw.com/1997/05/28/navi-mont-inc-v-rigel-shipping-canada-inc/) - This was an application for an interlocutory injunction directing the Defendant to continue to operate various ships in accordance with a contract of affreightment. The underlying issue in the action was whether one of the Plaintiffs was entitled to assign its interest in the contract of affreightment to the other Plaintiff that was specifically created
- [Westwood Shipping Lines v. Geo International et.al](https://admiraltylaw.com/1998/09/09/westwood-shipping-lines-v-geo-international-et-al/) - In this matter the Defendant was found to have converted three containers of hikers shoes and was ordered to pay into court a substantial sum. When the Defendant failed to pay the money into court, the Plaintiff brought a motion for a writ of sequestration against the property of the President of the Defendant. The
- [The Governor and Company of the Bank of Scotland v. The Nel](https://admiraltylaw.com/1998/02/05/the-governor-and-company-of-the-bank-of-scotland-v-the-nel-2/) - This was an appeal from an order of the Prothonotary in which the Prothonotary refused an adjournment of a pending motion and refused to allow counsel to appear by telephone conference call on short notice. The appeal was denied. The Judge on appeal noted, as did the Prothonotary, that the Court often tries to proceed
- [Porto Seguro Companhia De Seguros Gerais v. Belcan S.A. et.al.,](https://admiraltylaw.com/1997/12/18/porto-seguro-companhia-de-seguros-gerais-v-belcan-s-a-et-al-2/) - This was an appeal from the Federal Court of Appeal. The issue was whether a party may call expert evidence when the Court has appointed assessors. At trial, the trial Judge applied a well established rule of admiralty and, pursuant to that rule, she refused to disclose to the parties the questions put to assessors
- [A. Paschos K. Katsikopoulos S.A. v. The "Polar" et al.](https://admiraltylaw.com/2003/05/12/a-paschos-k-katsikopoulos-s-a-v-the-polar-et-al/) - This was an application to strike out the Statement of Claim because the Plaintiff had commenced an earlier action in Greece involving the same parties or, in the alternative, to stay the proceedings on the basis of forum non conveniens. The court was also requested to review the amount of the security that had been
- [Vilhena Shipping Ltd. v. Agro-hall Ltd.](https://admiraltylaw.com/2003/06/18/vilhena-shipping-ltd-v-agro-hall-ltd/) - This was an application by the Defendant to dismiss the proceedings or, alternatively, for a stay of proceedings. The ground for the application was that the Plaintiff had commenced parallel proceedings for the same relief in France. The Plaintiff had attempted to withdraw those proceedings but this was not allowed by the French Tribunal. Under
- [Royal & Sun Alliance v. The "Renegade III"](https://admiraltylaw.com/2001/09/25/royal-sun-alliance-v-the-renegade-iii/) - This was an application for a stay of proceedings. The applicant was the owner of the Defendant yacht which had been damaged during the 2000 Victoria-Maui race. The applicant made a claim under his insurance policy for approximately $122,000 which was paid except for the sum of approximately $12,000. Subsequent to the payment the underwriters
- [Nissho Iwai Company Limited et al v. Shanghai Ocean Shipping Company](https://admiraltylaw.com/2000/06/20/nissho-iwai-company-limited-et-al-v-shanghai-ocean-shipping-company/) - This was an application to stay proceedings on the grounds that Canada was not the convenient forum. The action arose out of the grounding of the "Ning Hai" in the Kurile Islands and the consequent loss of the Plaintiff's cargo. The Plaintiff alleged that the Defendant, as provider of the officers and crew of the
- [Humble v. The "Queen of Alberni"](https://admiraltylaw.com/1995/10/19/humble-v-the-queen-of-alberni/) - This was an application by the Defendant for a stay of the Plaintiff's action on the grounds that there were similar actions pending in the Federal Court of Canada. The Defendant wanted all actions consolidated. The British Columbia Supreme Court refused the application on the basis that the Plaintiff's claim might be time barred in
- [Alpha Trading Monaco Sam v. Sarah Desgagnés (Ship)](https://admiraltylaw.com/2010/06/24/alpha-trading-monaco-sam-v-sarah-desgagnas-ship/) - This was an application by the defendant owner of the subject ship for an anti-suit injunction restraining the plaintiff from continuing proceedings commenced in Belgium. The plaintiff was a bunker supplier who had supplied the defendant ship with bunkers at various ports including ports in Canada. The ship was under time charter at the time
- [Olsen v. The Bank of Nova Scotia](https://admiraltylaw.com/2010/10/29/olsen-v-the-bank-of-nova-scotia/) - This was an application for an injunction restraining payment under a letter of credit. The letter of credit had been issued to obtain the release of a vessel from arrest and to secure claims that were the subject of arbitration. The arbitrations were decided in favour of the defendant ship builders and applications to review
- [Aosta Shipping Co. v. Gulf Overseas General Trading LLC](https://admiraltylaw.com/2007/03/14/aosta-shipping-co-v-gulf-overseas-general-trading-llc/) - This was an application to set aside a mareva injunction that had been granted ex parte. The injunction seized bunker fuel on board a ship that was chartered by the Defendant. The Plaintiff's claim against the Defendant was in relation to a freight dispute in an earlier unrelated charter and which had been submitted to
- [Laudon v. Roberts](https://admiraltylaw.com/2007/04/17/laudon-v-roberts/) - The issue in this application was the admissibility of an expert report. The reports were challenged, inter alia, on the grounds that they were not necessary, that they usurped the function of the judge or jury, and that they contained opinions on matters of law. The Court reviewed both reports which contained assessments of negligence,
- [Front Carriers Ltd. v. Atlantic & Orient Shipping Corporation](https://admiraltylaw.com/2006/01/11/front-carriers-ltd-v-atlantic-orient-shipping-corporation/) - This was an application for a Mareva injunction to freeze the assets of the Defendant within British Columbia pending arbitration in London. The underlying action concerned an alleged repudiation of a charter party agreement between the parties. The motions Judge set out the applicable tri-partite test for an interlocutory injunction, being: 1. a preliminary assessment
- [Cores Worldwide Inc. v. The "Camilla" et al.](https://admiraltylaw.com/2004/08/20/cores-worldwide-inc-v-the-camilla-et-al/) - This was an application for summary judgment to recover outstanding payments allegedly owed on the sale and purchase of a generator and pump. The application was denied on the grounds that there were a number of key facts upon which the parties did not agree. The motions Judge noted that for a summary trial the
- [Mil Davie Inc. v. Hibernia Management and Development Co. Ltd.](https://admiraltylaw.com/2003/03/12/mil-davie-inc-v-hibernia-management-and-development-co-ltd/) - This was an application by the Defendant for summary judgment dismissing the Plaintiff's action. In the underlying action the Plaintiff, a ship repair yard, alleged that the Defendant awarded contracts to a competitor without seeking tenders and in violation of the Competition Act and the Offshore Accord Acts. The motions Judge reviewed the jurisprudence on
- [Parrish & Heimbecker Limited v. The "Mapleglen" et al.](https://admiraltylaw.com/2004/08/31/parrish-heimbecker-limited-v-the-mapleglen-et-al/) - This was an application by the Plaintiff to adjourn the trial which was scheduled to commence in approximately two months time. The underlying action concerned short delivery of a cargo of grain. The reason for the requested adjournment was that the Plaintiff had recently obtained scale tickets from the discharging terminal which indicated that the
- [Exalta Transport Corp. v. C & A Industries Inc.](https://admiraltylaw.com/2008/10/14/exalta-transport-corp-v-c-a-industries-inc/) - This matter involved the failure of a road carrier to notify the shipper of the unsuccessful delivery of cargo. Pursuant to the applicable Alberta statute, the uniform conditions of carriage applied regardless of whether a proper bill of lading was issued. The issue was whether the statutory limitation applied in these circumstances. The statutory limitation
- [Ridsdale Transport Ltd. v. Transwest Air](https://admiraltylaw.com/2009/09/29/ridsdale-transport-ltd-v-transwest-air/) - This case involved the carriage of a drum clearly marked as containing dangerous goods along with other food cargoes. Upon arrival at the destination it was discovered that the contents of the drum had leaked contaminating the food cargoes. The carrier sought indemnification from the shipper and relied, inter alia, on the shipper's implied warranty
- [James Fisher & Sons PLC v. Pegasus Lines Limited S.A.](https://admiraltylaw.com/1999/08/13/james-fisher-sons-plc-v-pegasus-lines-limited-s-a/) - In this matter the court ordered that a representative of the general agent of the Defendant shipping line could be examined in aid of execution as an "officer" of the Defendant within the meaning of Rule 426. The court held that the term "officer" should not be restricted to the president, vice president and secretary.
- [Margem Chartering Co. Inc v. Cosena SRL and The "Bocsa"](https://admiraltylaw.com/1997/06/30/margem-chartering-co-inc-v-cosena-srl-and-the-bocsa-2/) - This was an application by the Defendant to have the Plaintiff's action dismissed for failing to provide security for costs as required by a previous peremptory order. The Court considered the test to be applied when a party fails to comply with a peremptory order (also referred to as an "unless" order). The Court noted
- [Alpha Trading v. Sarah Desgagnés (Ship)](https://admiraltylaw.com/2010/08/11/alpha-trading-v-sarah-desgagnas-ship/) - In this matter the respondent had obtained an anti-suit injunction and an order requiring the appellant to release the defendant ship from arrest in proceedings in Belgium. The appellant sought a stay of the order pending the hearing of the appeal. The application was granted. The Court noted that the test for granting a stay
- [Kremikovtzi Trade v. Phoenix Bulk Carriers Limited](https://admiraltylaw.com/2006/01/26/kremikovtzi-trade-v-phoenix-bulk-carriers-limited/) - In an application under section 37.1 of the Supreme Court Act for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada, the Federal Court of Appeal, although noting that the Supreme Court should be allowed to set its own agenda and that it should rarely grant leave, nevertheless granted leave reasoning that the issue was
- [Ford Aquitaine Industries SAS et al. v. The "Canmar Pride" et al.](https://admiraltylaw.com/2005/03/31/ford-aquitaine-industries-sas-et-al-v-the-canmar-pride-et-al/) - This action concerned the loss of or damage to several containers carried from LeHavre to Montreal. The damages were estimated at $6 million. The carriage was pursuant to a transportation services agreement which provided for American law and jurisdiction. The carrier under the transportation services agreement was OOCL but OOCL was expressly permitted to subcontract
- [Hapag-Lloyd Container Line GmbH v. Moo Transport & Commodities Inc.](https://admiraltylaw.com/2009/02/27/hapag-lloyd-container-line-gmbh-v-moo-transport-commodities-inc/) - The issue in this case was whether a counterclaim for damage to cargo and non-delivery should be dismissed on the grounds that the counterclaim was made out of time. The moving party relied upon a clause in the bill of lading that stipulated the carrier would be discharged from all liability unless suit was brought
- [Sabina A.G. v. Carisbrooke Shipping Limited](https://admiraltylaw.com/2003/10/02/sabina-a-g-v-carisbrooke-shipping-limited/) - This was an appeal by the Defendant from the judgment of the trial Judge who found there was a contract between the parties on the basis of documents, conversations and the evidence as a whole. The appeal was dismissed because the appellate Court would not interfere with the trial Judge's findings of fact unless there
- [Ferguson v. Arctic Transportation Ltd. et.al.](https://admiraltylaw.com/1997/07/29/ferguson-v-arctic-transportation-ltd-et-al/) - The issue in this matter was whether the Federal Court had jurisdiction to determine issues of contribution and indemnity raised in a Third Party action. The facts were that the Plaintiff, a pilot with the Panama Canal Commission, was injured on board a ship owned and operated by the Defendants while it was transiting the
- [Matsuura Machiner Corporation et.al. v. Melburn Truck Lines Ltd](https://admiraltylaw.com/1997/03/12/matsuura-machiner-corporation-et-al-v-melburn-truck-lines-ltd/) - These three appeals concerned the jurisdiction of the Court over a road carrier in a through transit situation. Specifically, the Court considered whether s. 22(2)f (which grants the Court jurisdiction over claims "arising out of an agreement relating to the carriage of goods on a ship under a through bill of lading") supported jurisdiction against
- [Saskatchewan Wheat Pool v. Armonikos Corp. Ltd.](https://admiraltylaw.com/2002/11/13/saskatchewan-wheat-pool-v-armonikos-corp-ltd/) - In this matter the Appellant applied for a stay of a judgement pending appeal. The judgement appealed from had ordered that the Federal Court proceedings be stayed in favour of London arbitration pursuant to an arbitration clause in a charter party. The court noted that the test to be applied was three-fold: (a) there must
- [Labki Finance Inc. v. Glovertown Shipyards Limited](https://admiraltylaw.com/2010/04/06/labki-finance-inc-v-glovertown-shipyards-limited/) - The underlying proceedings in this matter were commenced in the Supreme Court of Newfoundland by the defendant shipbuilder for an order requiring the owner of the vessel to remove the vessel from its shipyard and for storage fees of $1,000 per day. A second proceeding had also been commenced by the mortgagee of the vessel
- [DSL Corporation v. Bulk Atlantic Inc.](https://admiraltylaw.com/2003/09/15/dsl-corporation-v-bulk-atlantic-inc/) - The Plaintiff claimed against the Defendant for damage to steel pipe carried from Turkey to Houston. The Defendant applied to set aside the ex juris service of the Statement of Claim or stay the proceedings on the grounds there was no real and substantial connection between the matter and Canada. The Plaintiff was an American
- [Porto Seguro Companhia De Seguros Gerais v. Belcan S.A. et.al.](https://admiraltylaw.com/1998/08/11/porto-seguro-companhia-de-seguros-gerais-v-belcan-s-a-et-al/) - This was an appeal from a decision of the Prothonotary in which the Prothonotary refused to pay out money paid into court as security for costs. The Plaintiff's action against the Defendant had been dismissed at trial. The Plaintiff appealed to the Federal Court of Appeal and the appeal was dismissed. The Plaintiff further appealed
- [Kajat v. The Arctic Taglu](https://admiraltylaw.com/1997/12/04/kajat-v-the-arctic-taglu/) - This case concerned a collision between a fishing vessel and a tug and tow combination. The full facts of the case are summarized under Collisions. This application was to determine costs, amongst other issues. The Plaintiff applied for increased costs on the grounds that the Defendant had taken extreme positions and that some of the
- [CSL Group Inc. v. Canada](https://admiraltylaw.com/1997/10/17/csl-group-inc-v-canada/) - This was an application by the Defendant for increased costs. The Defendant had been successful in its defence of an action brought by the Plaintiff. The action had been a test case in which the Plaintiff sought to recover substantial damages for delays experienced by its ships in the transit of the St. Lawrence Seaway
- [Canadian Pacific Forest Products v. Termar Navigation Co. Inc.](https://admiraltylaw.com/1998/03/23/canadian-pacific-forest-products-v-termar-navigation-co-inc/) - This was a motion for costs by the successful Plaintiff. The Plaintiff sought costs assessed on a solicitor,client basis or, in the alternative in accordance with the maximum number of units under Column IV of Part II Tariff B and a doubling of the counsel fee as a result of offers to settle. The claim
- [Shorworld International Inc. et.al. v. Fednav Ltd. et.al.](https://admiraltylaw.com/1997/01/13/shorworld-international-inc-et-al-v-fednav-ltd-et-al/) - In this carriage of goods case the Defendant delivered a formal offer to settle pursuant to Rule 344.1. The offer did not provide for costs but the Plaintiff accepted it and demanded costs up to the date of the offer based on column III of Part I of Tariff B. The Court held that the
- [Morgan v. Guimond Boats Limited](https://admiraltylaw.com/2008/09/08/morgan-v-guimond-boats-limited/) - In a judgment rendered December 2006 the Federal Court of Appeal upheld an award recognizing a foreign judgement against the Defendant. At a judgment debtor examination it was learned that the Defendant owned real property which was leased and generated a monthly rent. In fact, there was both a head lease and a sub-lease. An
- [Trans-Pacific Shipping Co. v. Atlantic & Orient Trust Co. Ltd. et al.](https://admiraltylaw.com/2005/03/02/trans-pacific-shipping-co-v-atlantic-orient-trust-co-ltd-et-al/) - In this matter the Plaintiff shipowner had obtained an arbitration award against one of the Defendants in London for breach of a charterparty. The Plaintiff subsequently registered the award in the Federal Court and then brought this action against the charterer and against various related companies and the individual alleged to have effective control of
- [Pan Liberty Navigation Co. Ltd. v. World Link (HK) Resources Ltd.](https://admiraltylaw.com/2005/04/08/pan-liberty-navigation-co-ltd-v-world-link-hk-resources-ltd/) - In this matter the Plaintiff had obtained an arbitration award in London against a defaulting charterer under a charter party that required English law and arbitration. The Plaintiff commenced this action against the defaulting charterer to enforce the award but also included as Defendants various other corporate entities. The Plaintiff alleged that the corporate entities
- [TMR Energy Limited v. State Property Fund of Ukraine et al.](https://admiraltylaw.com/2005/01/24/tmr-energy-limited-v-state-property-fund-of-ukraine-et-al/) - This case concerned the validity of the seizure of an Anatov aircraft owned by the State of Ukraine which had landed in Newfoundland. The Plaintiff had obtained an ex parte order recognizing and enforcing a Swedish arbitration award in its favour against "State Property Fund of Ukraine". In its Federal Court pleadings the Plaintiff described
- [Roxford Enterprises SA v. Cuba et al.](https://admiraltylaw.com/2003/06/19/roxford-enterprises-sa-v-cuba-et-al/) - The issue in this case was whether the assets of Cubana de Aviacion S.A. ("Cubana") were available for seizure to satisfy a judgment obtained by default against the government of Cuba. Cubana was not a party to the original action but, according to the Plaintiff, the government of Cuba was the true owner of Cubana's
- [Foresight Shipping Co. Ltd. v. Union of India et al.](https://admiraltylaw.com/2004/10/26/foresight-shipping-co-ltd-v-union-of-india-et-al/) - This was an appeal from an Order of a Prothonotary in which the Prothonotary had set aside the seizure of the ship. The facts were that the Plaintiff had obtained an arbitral award against the Union of India and the Food Corporation of India and registered the judgment in the Federal Court. The award/judgment was
- [Angloflora Ltd. v. The "Cast Elk"](https://admiraltylaw.com/2002/11/27/angloflora-ltd-v-the-cast-elk/) - This was an appeal from an order of a Prothonotary dismissing the Plaintiff's claim for failure to comply with a peremptory order that required the Plaintiff to pay costs. The appeal Judge dismissed the appeal and upheld the order striking the Plaintiff's claim. The appeal Judge noted that the only relevant consideration on such a
- [Joy Shipping Inc. v. Empressa Cubana Des Fletes of Cuba et al.](https://admiraltylaw.com/2000/06/20/joy-shipping-inc-v-empressa-cubana-des-fletes-of-cuba-et-al/) - This was an application to set aside a Writ of Seizure and Sale directing the Sheriff to seize the ship "Rio Cuyaguateje". The Writ was issued to enforce a judgment of the Superior Court of England and Wales which had been registered previously with the Federal Court. The Applicant brought this application to set aside
- [Korea Heavy Industries & Const. Co. Ltd. v. Polar Steamship Line](https://admiraltylaw.com/2002/05/06/korea-heavy-industries-const-co-ltd-v-polar-steamship-line/) - This was an application to dismiss an appeal for delay in failing to file appeal books within the prescribed time. The facts were that the Plaintiffs had notified the Defendants of their intention to examine representatives of the Defendants for discovery but failed to do so and failed to move their case forward. As a
- [Global Enterprises International v. The "Aquarius"](https://admiraltylaw.com/2002/02/21/global-enterprises-international-v-the-aquarius/) - This was an application by the Polish trustee in bankruptcy of the Defendant shipowner for an extension of time in which to file appeal of an order striking the trustee's affidavit of claim and of an order refusing the appointment of pro bono counsel. The Prothonotary dismissed the application on the grounds that there was
- [Ferrostaal Metals Ltd. v. The "Herakles" et al.](https://admiraltylaw.com/2001/10/11/ferrostaal-metals-ltd-v-the-herakles-et-al/) - This was an appeal from an order made by the Prothonotary and affirmed by the Motions Judge dismissing the action for delay. The facts were that the Statement of Claim was filed on December 12, 1995 but was not served until a year later. The Plaintiff further delayed in waiting almost one year to file
- [Baldwin v. The "Jennifer Martha"](https://admiraltylaw.com/1997/03/19/baldwin-v-the-jennifer-martha/) - This was an application to dismiss the underlying action for want of prosecution. The action involved a collision which had occurred on May 15, 1989, and the action was commenced on May 11, 1990. The Court cited the applicable test as being threefold: whether there has been inordinate delay, whether the delay is inexcusable, and
- [Quinlan Brothers Limited v. The "Tricon Commander" et.al.](https://admiraltylaw.com/1996/05/23/quinlan-brothers-limited-v-the-tricon-commander-et-al/) - In this matter the surety of a bail bond brought an application for their bond to be released. The action had been commenced and the Defendant ship arrested in November, 1984. Bail was posted in January 1986 and the ship was released from arrest the following month. Nine years then passed without any significant action
- [Pennecon v. The "Jean Raymond"](https://admiraltylaw.com/1996/01/12/pennecon-v-the-jean-raymond/) - This was a motion to dismiss a claim for want of prosecution. The claim had been filed in August, 1985. The Statement of Defence was not filed until November 1, 1989. On November 15, 1991, the Plaintiff filed a Notice of Intention to Proceed but no steps were taken. Various minor notices were sent over
- [More Marine Ltd. v. The "Western King"](https://admiraltylaw.com/2009/04/15/more-marine-ltd-v-the-western-king/) - In this matter the plaintiff made an offer to settle and the defendants subsequently made a number of counter-offers, none of which were accepted. The defendants then purported to accept the plaintiff's first offer. The issue was whether the counter-offers extinguished the plaintiff's initial offer. The Court held that Rule 37B of the British Columbia
- [Francosteel Canada Inc. v. The "African Cape" et al.](https://admiraltylaw.com/2003/03/06/francosteel-canada-inc-v-the-african-cape-et-al/) - This matter concerned an action for damages to cargo in the alleged amount of $500,000. Early in the proceedings the Defendants offered to settle the Plaintiff's claim for $125,000. The offer was not accepted and the case proceeded to arbitration. The Defendants' offer of settlement was withdrawn on the fourth day of the arbitration. The
- [Elders Grain Company Limited v. "Ralph Misener"](https://admiraltylaw.com/2003/10/07/elders-grain-company-limited-v-ralph-misener/) - The Defendant, who was successful on the main action and counterclaim, sought an order directing the taxing officer to tax its costs in accordance with the high side of Column V of Part II of Tariff B and doubling their costs after the date of their offer to settle the case on a "drop hands"
- [Strachan v. Constant Craving](https://admiraltylaw.com/2003/10/10/strachan-v-constant-craving/) - This was a judgment dealing with costs of the trial in a simplified action where the Defendants were substantially successful on their counterclaim against the Plaintiff. The Court refused to award the Defendants solicitor-client costs as such costs are awarded only in rare circumstances where conduct in the proceeding is scandalous or outrageous or deserving
- [Goodman Yachts LLC v. The "Gertrude Oldendorff" et al.](https://admiraltylaw.com/2004/01/13/goodman-yachts-llc-v-the-gertrude-oldendorff-et-al/) - This was a motion by the Plaintiff for additional security for costs. The underlying action involved damage to a yacht carried as deck cargo from Singapore to Vancouver. The Plaintiff was not a resident of Canada and had no Canadian assets. The Defendants had been previously granted security for costs in the amount of $50,000
- [Offrey v. Ryan](https://admiraltylaw.com/2003/01/16/offrey-v-ryan/) - This was an application to require the Plaintiff to post security for costs. The underlying action was for damages allegedly suffered in a collision between two fishing vessels. The action was a subrogated action brought by the Plaintiff's insurers, although the Plaintiff did have an interest in his deductible. The Court held that the Plaintiff
- [Fish Maker LLC v. The "Zodiak" et al.](https://admiraltylaw.com/2004/08/03/fish-maker-llc-v-the-zodiak-et-al-2/) - The Plaintiff in this matter had been ordered to post security for costs within a specified time. It failed to do so and the Defendant brought an application to dismiss the action for delay. The Plaintiff also brought an application for a 60 day extension of time within which to post the security. The Court
- [Kuehne  & Nagel Ltd. v. Agrimax Ltd.](https://admiraltylaw.com/2010/12/17/kuehne-nagel-ltd-v-agrimax-ltd/) - This was an action by a freight forwarder for payment of freight. The forwarder also had the "pen" of the NVOCC and was authorized to issue bills of lading on its behalf. The defendant argued that it was not liable for the freight because the forwarder refused to issue bills of lading with a date
- [Nedship Bank N.V. v. The "Zoodotis"](https://admiraltylaw.com/2001/06/26/nedship-bank-n-v-v-the-zoodotis-2/) - This was an application by the Plaintiff mortgagee for an order that one of the claimants to a priorities action be required to post security for costs. The Plaintiff argued that the claimant was a foreign corporation and that it was participating in the proceedings more as a party than a traditional lien claimant. Specifically,
- [Barzelex v. Ebn Al Waleed (The)](https://admiraltylaw.com/1999/12/30/barzelex-v-ebn-al-waleed-the/) - In this matter the Defendant had delivered two offers of settlement. The first was lower than the amount the Plaintiff was later awarded. The second was higher. The court held that the Plaintiff was entitled to normal costs up to the time of the second offer and the Defendant was entitled to double costs pursuant
- [Richardson International Ltd. v. The Starodubskoe](https://admiraltylaw.com/1999/04/16/richardson-international-ltd-v-the-starodubskoe/) - In this case the court held that the cost of posting bail is an appropriate matter to factor into an award of security for costs. The court noted that local bonding costs might be a guide to the amount of security. The court reviewed the evidence as to the actual cost of posting the bail
- [Bow Valley Husky (Bermuda) Ltd. v. Saint John Shipbuilding Ltd.](https://admiraltylaw.com/1999/10/06/bow-valley-husky-bermuda-ltd-v-saint-john-shipbuilding-ltd/) - This was an application to determine the costs to be awarded the successful Defendant. The case is important because it illustrates how significant a cost award can be in a difficult and complex case. The action arose out of a fire on an oil rig. The trial of the action took 53 days and was
- [Jean v. The "Capitaine Duval"](https://admiraltylaw.com/1998/09/15/jean-v-the-capitaine-duval/) - This was a motion for solicitor client costs. The applicants had been successful in a prior motion to strike the Statement of Claim on the grounds that it was outside the jurisdiction of the court. The motions judge granted increased costs in the amount of $20,000.00. The motions judge said he was satisfied that there
- [Reano v. The "Jennie W"](https://admiraltylaw.com/1997/12/11/reano-v-the-jennie-w/) - This was an appeal from the dismissal of a motion to set aside a default judgement. The action was for wages and expenses. The action was commenced in May 1996. The Statement of Claim did not contain the required endorsement in Form 4. The Statement of Claim and Warrant of arrest were served on the
- [Elders Grain Company Limited v. The Ralph Misener](https://admiraltylaw.com/1997/01/17/elders-grain-company-limited-v-the-ralph-misener/) - In this matter an In Rem Statement of Claim was served upon a ship by delivering a copy of the Statement of Claim to the Master on board the ship. The issue was whether such service was valid service under Rule 1002 which specifically provides that service on a ship is to be effected by
- [Valmet Paper Machinery Inc. v. Hapag-Lloyd AG et.al.](https://admiraltylaw.com/1996/12/23/valmet-paper-machinery-inc-v-hapag-lloyd-ag-et-al/) - This was an application by the Defendant freight forwarder to set aside service ex juris of the Statement of Claim and for an order staying the action on the basis of a jurisdiction clause. On the first point the Court found that the Plaintiff had established a good arguable case that the Defendant's contractual obligation
- [Portbec Forest Products Ltd. v. The "Bosporus"](https://admiraltylaw.com/1996/02/22/portbec-forest-products-ltd-v-the-bosporus/) - This case concerned Rule 310(2) of the Federal Court Rules which permits a non-resident to be served by serving an agent within the jurisdiction. The Plaintiff served the Defendant shipping line and shipowner by serving a local port agent who had been authorized to sign bills of lading and to attend to the Defendant ships
- [Companhia Siderurgica Nacional v. The "Imperial Confidence"](https://admiraltylaw.com/1996/04/23/companhia-siderurgica-nacional-v-the-imperial-confidence/) - This was an ex parte motion by the Plaintiff to extend the time for service of the Statement of Claim. The Prothonotary extended the time for service in rem as the Defendant vessel had not been in the jurisdiction since the Statement of Claim was issued. However, the Court refused to extend the time for
- [Putjotik Fisheries Ltd. v. The "Mersey Viking"](https://admiraltylaw.com/2006/04/18/putjotik-fisheries-ltd-v-the-mersey-viking/) - In this matter the Court dismissed the action of the Plaintiff for undue delay. In dismissing the action the Court agreed with the Defendant that the Plaintiff had demonstrated a lack of interest in advancing the claim both prior to and subsequent to a status review. In particular, the Plaintiff failed to produce a meaningful
- [Timberwest Forest Corp. v. Pacific Link Ocean Services Corporation](https://admiraltylaw.com/2009/04/17/timberwest-forest-corp-v-pacific-link-ocean-services-corporation/) - This was a subrogated claim for the loss of approximately C$1 million worth of logs. The logs were lost from the deck of a barge while en route from Vancouver to California. The issues in the case were: first, whether the cargo was sufficiently described as deck cargo to remove it from the application of
- [Precision Drilling International B.V. v. The "BBC Japan" et al.](https://admiraltylaw.com/2004/05/14/precision-drilling-international-b-v-v-the-bbc-japan-et-al/) - This was an appeal from an order of a Prothonotary dismissing the action for delay after a status review. The only explanation for the delay was that the Plaintiff had been negotiating a settlement with one of the Defendants. The appeal Judge considered first whether discretion should be exercised de novo on the appeal and
- [Intertech Marine Limited v. The "Nautica" et al.](https://admiraltylaw.com/2004/10/21/intertech-marine-limited-v-the-nautica-et-al/) - This was an application by the Defendant to dismiss the Plaintiff's action for delay or alternatively for security for costs. The motions Judge noted that there had been significant delay in moving the action forward and further noted that the Plaintiff had failed to comply with a number of court orders and directions. She referred
- [Haylock et al. v. Norwegian Cruise Lines](https://admiraltylaw.com/2005/04/13/haylock-et-al-v-norwegian-cruise-lines/) - This was an application by the Defendants to dismiss the actions of several of the Plaintiffs for failure to deliver written answers to examination questions on the date specified in the case management schedule. The answers were to be delivered by 1 November 2004 but by 1 April 2005 they still had not been delivered
- [Budget Steel Ltd. v. Seaspan International Ltd.](https://admiraltylaw.com/2003/05/15/budget-steel-ltd-v-seaspan-international-ltd/) - This was an appeal to the Federal Court of a Prothonotary's order granting the Plaintiffs an extension of time to file a defence to counterclaim. The Plaintiffs claimed damages for the loss of a cargo of scrap steel when the Defendant's barge capsized. The Defendant filed a defence and counterclaimed for loss of freight and
- [Finlandia Cheese Inc. v. Shoreline Shipping SA et al.](https://admiraltylaw.com/2003/08/11/finlandia-cheese-inc-v-shoreline-shipping-sa-et-al/) - In this matter the Prothonotary granted the Plaintiff an extension of time within which to serve its Statement of Claim and validated service by mail. The facts were that the Plaintiff had mailed the Statement of Claim to the Defendant but the Defendant had changed its address without advising the Plaintiff. When the Plaintiff became
- [Armonikos Corporation Ltd. v. Saskatchewan Wheat Pool](https://admiraltylaw.com/2002/05/08/armonikos-corporation-ltd-v-saskatchewan-wheat-pool/) - This was an application by the Defendant for an extension of time to file rebuttal expert evidence. The primary ground argued was that the report had not been filed in time because of the illness of Defendant's counsel. The Prothonotary allowed the application and in doing so identified the applicable test as being: a continuing
- [Finora Canada Ltd. v. Clipper Spirit Shipping Ltd.](https://admiraltylaw.com/2001/06/13/finora-canada-ltd-v-clipper-spirit-shipping-ltd/) - This was an application by the Defendant carrier to dismiss the claims of three Plaintiffs for failure to produce documents which had previously been ordered to be produced. Two of the Plaintiffs had produced the required documents but did so after the deadline imposed by the order requiring production. The other Plaintiff had failed to
- [Ghadban v. The "Cleo D"](https://admiraltylaw.com/2000/04/05/ghadban-v-the-cleo-d/) - This was an application by the Defendant for leave to continue the examination for discovery of the Plaintiff. The ground advanced in support of the application was that the Defendant's former solicitors had not dealt properly with the various issues relevant to the case. The Court declined the application holding that there must be special
- [Bayside Towing Ltd. v. Canadian Pacific Railway](https://admiraltylaw.com/2000/08/22/bayside-towing-ltd-v-canadian-pacific-railway/) - This was an application to examine a non-party for discovery pursuant to Rule 238 of the Federal Court Rules. The underlying action was a limitation action brought by the tug owner to limit its liability for damage done to a bridge owned by the Defendant. The Defendant brought this motion to examine an experienced tug
- [Pioneer Grain Company Ltd. v. Far Eastern Shipping Co. et al.](https://admiraltylaw.com/1999/12/15/pioneer-grain-company-ltd-v-far-eastern-shipping-co-et-al/) - This was an application to dismiss the Plaintiff's action on the grounds that the Plaintiff failed to comply with four successive orders of the court requiring production of specified documents. The court granted the order holding that the actions of the Plaintiff in ignoring the court orders amounted to an abuse of process.
- [B.C. Hydro & Power Authority v. The  "CSL Cabo"](https://admiraltylaw.com/1999/12/03/b-c-hydro-csl-cabo/) - This was a motion to compel production of a report prepared by the Plaintiff. The evidence established that the Plaintiff was requested to prepare the report by its counsel. Plaintiff's counsel requested the report "for use in litigation". A later memo of the Plaintiff recorded that the report was required "for file and legal purposes".
- [Galehead Inc. v. The "Trinity"](https://admiraltylaw.com/1998/11/03/galehead-inc-v-the-trinity/) - This was a motion for production of documents. The significant issue in the motion was whether production of documents under the Federal Court Rules, 1998 was wider than under the old rules. The Prothonotary reviewed Rules 223(1) and 222(2) and determined that the definition of relevancy under the new rules was, if anything, narrower than
- [Shinwa Kaiun K.K. v. The "Queen of Alberni"](https://admiraltylaw.com/1997/05/21/shinwa-kaiun-k-k-v-the-queen-of-alberni/) - The issue in this motion was whether the representative of a party on examination for discovery could be required to locate and inform himself from former employees. The Court ordered the party to use best efforts to locate the former employees and obtain the requested information.
- [Pusan Pipe America Inc. v. The "Nicole" et.al.](https://admiraltylaw.com/1996/09/06/pusan-pipe-america-inc-v-the-nicole-et-al/) - This application before the Prothonotary at Vancouver concerned production of documents. The Court upheld a claim for privilege over various survey reports which the Court found were prepared on the instructions of counsel in anticipation of litigation and not as a matter of routine.
- [Jordan v. Towns Marine Electronics Ltd. et.al.](https://admiraltylaw.com/1996/04/30/jordan-v-towns-marine-electronics-ltd-et-al/) - This was an appeal from a decision of the Prothonotary in which the Defendant was ordered to produce three adjuster's reports. The Defendant had claimed privilege over the reports arguing they were made in contemplation of litigation. On appeal, the Defendant argued that as the adjusters were appointed by the liability insurer of the Defendant,
- [Arrow Corporation Inc. v. The "Sea Tiger" et al.](https://admiraltylaw.com/2004/10/26/arrow-corporation-inc-v-the-sea-tiger-et-al/) - This was an application to extend time for service of a Statement of Claim on one of the Defendants. The facts were that the Plaintiff had provided the Defendant with a copy of the Statement of Claim shortly after it was issued and later asked the Defendant to acknowledge service. The Defendant did not acknowledge
- [McCain Produce Inc. v. Visser Potato Ltd.](https://admiraltylaw.com/2001/09/05/mccain-produce-inc-v-visser-potato-ltd/) - This was an ex parte motion by the Plaintiff for judgment in default of defence against the Defendant ship and her owners. The Defendants, including the ship, were apparently served in the Netherlands and a certificate of the Government of the Netherlands was offered in proof of service. Although the certificate did not indicate what
- [North Shore Health Region v. Cosmos Shipping Lines](https://admiraltylaw.com/1998/11/01/north-shore-health-region-v-cosmos-shipping-lines/) - This was an appeal of a decision by the Prothonotary in which the Prothonotary upheld personal service of a Statement of Claim on solicitors as business agents for the Defendant. The facts were that a crew member of one of the Defendant's vessels was seriously injured at Vancouver. The crew member was hospitalized. His medical
- [458093 B.C. Ltd. v. The "Zomby Woof"](https://admiraltylaw.com/1998/01/26/458093-b-c-ltd-v-the-zomby-woof/) - It is generally thought that there can not be substitutional service on a ship of an in rem Statement of Claim or Warrant for arrest. However, there are exceptions to even the most steadfast rules, as this case demonstrates. We can do no better but to introduce this case using the words of Prothonotary Hargrave.
- [Berhad v. Canada](https://admiraltylaw.com/2002/03/19/berhad-v-canada/) - In this matter the Defendant brought a motion to strike the Statement of Claim on various grounds including that it failed to disclose a reasonable cause of action and was frivolous and vexatious. The Defendant additionally brought a motion for leave to amend its Statement of Defence to plead that the Statement of Claim failed
- [Ed Wahl Boat Builders and Repairs Ltd. v. Holm](https://admiraltylaw.com/2000/07/12/ed-wahl-boat-builders-and-repairs-ltd-v-holm-2/) - This was an application to strike out a paragraph of the Statement of Claim pleading a claim for unjust enrichment in the alternative to a main claim for breach of contract for the building of a boat. The Court allowed the application and struck out the offending paragraph on the basis that facts in support
- [Bayside Towing Ltd. v. Canadian Pacific Railway Company](https://admiraltylaw.com/2000/02/02/bayside-towing-ltd-v-canadian-pacific-railway-company/) - This was a limitation action by the owner of the tug "Sheena M" in relation to a collision between the barge "Rivtow 101" in tow of the "Sheena M" and a railway bridge owned by the Defendant. The Defendant challenged the right of the Plaintiff to limit liability pursuant to the 1976 Convention. The Plaintiff
- [State of Alaska v. John Doe et.al](https://admiraltylaw.com/1997/11/03/state-of-alaska-v-john-doe-et-al/) - This is the second volley in the litigation surrounding the blockade of the Alaskan ferry "Malaspina" by B.C. fishermen in July of 1997. The motion was brought by various fishermen for an order that the action was not properly commenced as against them. The Statement of Claim initially named 17 vessels, John Doe, Jane Doe,
- [Ferguson v. Arctic Transportation Ltd.](https://admiraltylaw.com/1995/12/07/ferguson-v-arctic-transportation-ltd/) - This was an action by the Plaintiff against the Defendant shipowner for personal injuries suffered by the Plaintiff while the Defendant ship was transiting the Panama Canal. At the time of the accident the Plaintiff was employed as a Pilot by the Panama Canal Commission. The Defendant in the case had previously joined the Panama
- [Galerie au Chocolat Inc. v. Orient Overseas Container Line Ltd.](https://admiraltylaw.com/2010/03/23/galerie-au-chocolat-inc-v-orient-overseas-container-line-ltd/) - Technically this was an application to appeal a case management order of a prothonotary, however, it raised issues relating to discovery. Specifically, the defendant had requested a case management conference to address whether the plaintiff had failed to provide satisfactory answers to requests/undertakings given at discovery. The prothonotary refused the request and ordered the defendant
- [The Administrator of the Ship-Source Oil Pollution Fund v. The "Anangel Splendour",](https://admiraltylaw.com/2006/06/07/the-administrator-of-the-ship-source-oil-pollution-fund-v-the-anangel-splendour/) - This was an action by the Administrator of the Ship-Source Oil Pollution Fund to recover pollution clean-up costs it had paid to two claimants, QCM and the Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO), pursuant to the statutory scheme in the Marine Liability Act. The Defendant brought this motion for an order that the Administrator put
- [Thyssenkrupp Materials NA Inc. v. The "Stewart Island"](https://admiraltylaw.com/2005/01/12/thyssenkrupp-materials-na-inc-v-the-stewart-island/) - The Plaintiff brought this application for leave to examine the Chief Engineer of the Defendant vessel under Rule 238 of the Federal Court Rules, 1998. The Prothonotary at first instance accepted that the Chief Engineer had relevant information and that his examination would not cause undue delay, inconvenience or expense but nevertheless denied the application
- [N.M. Patterson & Sons Limited v. The St. Lawrence Seaway Mgt. Corp.](https://admiraltylaw.com/2004/05/28/n-m-patterson-sons-limited-v-the-st-lawrence-seaway-mgt-corp/) - This was an appeal from a motion in which a solicitor was found in contempt of court for disclosing to the media information obtained on examination for discovery. The appeal was dismissed. This important case reminds practitioners that documents and information received through the discovery process are subject to an implied obligation of confidentiality. Such
- [Seaspan International Ltd. et al. v. The Ship "Ewa"](https://admiraltylaw.com/2004/01/26/seaspan-international-ltd-et-al-v-the-ship-ewa/) - This was a motion by the Defendant to compel the re-attendance of various discovery witnesses to answer questions which had been refused at examinations for discovery. The questions related generally to claims and settlement agreements as between the Plaintiffs and sought the production of any settlement agreements. As a preliminary point the Prothonotary considered whether
- [Haylock et al. v. Norwegian Cruise Lines et al.](https://admiraltylaw.com/2003/07/29/haylock-et-al-v-norwegian-cruise-lines-et-al/) - This was an application by the Defendant shipowner in two actions for an Order that examinations for discovery of the 16 Plaintiffs, all cruise ship medical officers claiming wages for overtime, take place by way of written examination and then by such oral examination as the Defendant may reasonably require. The Prothonotary acknowledged that this
- [Seatech Construction Ltd. v. "Inlet Challenger"](https://admiraltylaw.com/2003/10/10/seatech-construction-ltd-v-inlet-challenger/) - This was an application by the Defendant for an order that the Plaintiff's representative re-attend to answer questions objected to at the examination for discovery. The case involved a claim by the Plaintiff for damage to a barge towed from Campbell River to Mimmo Bay. The Plaintiff was not required to answer questions related to
- [Island Tug & Barge Ltd. v. The "99 Haedong Star"](https://admiraltylaw.com/2002/04/15/island-tug-barge-ltd-v-the-99-haedong-star/) - This case once again illustrates the dangers of failing to comply with court orders. The Prothonotary had ordered that the Defendants provide the Plaintiff with originals of various documents and that the Plaintiff's surveyor be allowed to inspect the defendant vessel. The Defendants failed to provide all of the documents required and failed to allow
- [Goodman Yachts Llc. v. The "Gertrude Oldendorff"](https://admiraltylaw.com/2002/11/08/goodman-yachts-llc-v-the-gertrude-oldendorff/) - The sole issue in this matter was whether discovery witnesses travelling from India and Singapore to Vancouver were entitled to Business Class air travel. The Prothonotary held that in the circumstances of the case Business Class was appropriate. The Prothonotary cautioned, however, that such a premium mode of travel would not be appropriate in all
- [Fiddler Enterprises Ltd. et al. v. Allied Shipbuilders Ltd.](https://admiraltylaw.com/2002/01/15/fiddler-enterprises-ltd-et-al-v-allied-shipbuilders-ltd/) - This was an application by the Defendant shipyard for production of a Statement of Particular Average. The underlying case was for fire damage caused to the Plaintiffs' vessel. The Defendant sought production of the adjuster's report as it would disclose owner's work from fire damage work. The Prothonotary ordered that the report be produced. In
- [Freightlift Private Limited v. Entrepot DMS Warehouse Inc.,](https://admiraltylaw.com/2011/03/09/freightlift-private-limited-v-entrepot-dms-warehouse-inc/) - The plaintiff in this action was an Indian freight forwarder who had been retained to arrange shipment of four containers of clothing to Montreal. The bills of lading for the containers named the plaintiff as consignee because the purchaser had not paid for the cargo. The purchaser was in fact unable to pay for the
- [Shell Canada Energy v. General MPP Carriers](https://admiraltylaw.com/2011/02/24/shell-canada-energy-v-general-mpp-carriers/) - This was an application by the owner of one of the defendant ships to set aside service and a corollary application to amend the Statement of Claim. The plaintiff had filed a Statement of Claim for damage to cargo on the last day of the one year limitation period. The Statement of Claim included the
- [Bank of the West v. The 26' Well Craft Scarab (Ship)](https://admiraltylaw.com/2007/10/26/bank-of-the-west-v-the-26-well-craft-scarab-ship/) - The Defendant marine insurer sought leave to amend its pleading to plead a limitation period contained in its policy. At first instance the Prothonotary denied the application without giving reasons. On appeal, the motions Judge noted the general rule is to allow amendments at any stage of an action provided there is no prejudice or
- [Addo v. OT Africa Line et al.](https://admiraltylaw.com/2006/09/15/addo-v-ot-africa-line-et-al/) - The Plaintiff was the owner of goods that were damaged when the container in which the goods were stowed was dropped at the Port of Antwerp. The Plaintiff commenced proceedings against various parties including the operator of the port where the container was dropped. That Defendant brought this motion to strike the Plaintiff's claim on
- [Canada Steamship Lines Inc. v. Elliott](https://admiraltylaw.com/2006/05/01/canada-steamship-lines-inc-v-elliott/) - This was a motion to strike a counterclaim on the grounds that it failed to disclose a reasonable cause of action. The counterclaim alleged an intentional interference with contractual relations relating to the use of a ship. The motion was denied by the Prothonotary who reviewed the relevant authorities and concluded that the impugned pleading
- [Kona Concept Inc. v. Guimond Boats Limited](https://admiraltylaw.com/2005/02/10/kona-concept-inc-v-guimond-boats-limited/) - In this matter the Plaintiff commenced proceedings against the Defendant in Hawaii in relation to a contract for the design, manufacture and sale of a tuna fishing boat. The Defendant initially contested the jurisdiction of the Hawaiian courts but after having lost its jurisdiction motion withdrew from that action. The Plaintiff subsequently obtained a default
- [1340232 Ontario Inc. v. St. Lawrence Seaway Management Corp.](https://admiraltylaw.com/2004/02/09/1340232-ontario-inc-v-st-lawrence-seaway-management-corp/) - This was an application to strike the claim of the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff's claim was for damages for business losses incurred as a result of the closure of a bridge over the Welland Canal, which closure it was alleged was due to the negligence of the Defendant. The Plaintiff had no proprietary interest in the
- [Berhad v. The Queen](https://admiraltylaw.com/2003/08/02/berhad-v-the-queen/) - This was an application to strike out the Statement of Claim. The underlying action was a claim by the owner of the vessel "Lantau Peak" against the Federal government and two steamship inspectors. The two inspectors detained the vessel and would not allow it to be moved until repairs were completed. The Plaintiff wanted to
- [Budget Steel Ltd. v. FMW Towing Ltd.](https://admiraltylaw.com/2004/08/17/budget-steel-ltd-v-fmw-towing-ltd/) - This matter concerned the capsizing of a barge and the consequential loss of her cargo. The Plaintiff, the owner of the cargo, originally commenced these proceedings against the owners of the barge and the tugs towing her. More than two years after the capsize the Plaintiff brought this application to add the owners of a
- [Early Recovered Resources Ltd. v. Gulf Log Salvage Co-operative Association et al.](https://admiraltylaw.com/2003/05/02/early-recovered-resources-ltd-v-gulf-log-salvage-co-operative-association-et-al/) - This was a motion to add two associations of forestry companies who were owners of logs as either interveners or defendants in the Plaintiff's action for salvage in respect of 17 unidentified logs from the BC coast. In the original action, the Province had been named as a Defendant but had a limited interest to
- [Valentino Gennarini SRL v. Andromeda Navigation Inc.](https://admiraltylaw.com/2003/05/08/valentino-gennarini-srl-v-andromeda-navigation-inc/) - This was a simplified action for disbursements incurred and for ship agency services rendered by the Plaintiff at the port of Taranto, Italy. The case is of interest because of the way a number of procedural matters were decided. The Defendant sought to adduce affidavit evidence that it was acting as agent for a third
- [Pacific Tractor Rentals (V.I.)Ltd. v. The "Palaquin"](https://admiraltylaw.com/1996/06/14/pacific-tractor-rentals-v-i-ltd-v-the-palaquin/) - The issues in this case were whether an arrest warrant extends to property taken off a vessel prior to arrest and whether repairs to a vessel under arrest paid for by the vessel's owner form part of the arresting party's security. The case concerned machinery owned by the Plaintiff that had been lost overboard from
- [Atlantic Shipping (London) Ltd v. The Captain Forever](https://admiraltylaw.com/1995/06/12/atlantic-shipping-london-ltd-v-the-captain-forever/) - In this matter the Plaintiff had commenced arbitration proceedings in England for reimbursement of moneys paid for bunkers under a charter party, and had negotiated security for the bunkers claim. The Plaintiff later commenced action for breach of charter party and for the bunkers claim. The Plaintiff sought a much higher sum as security. The
- [Keybank National Association v. The "Atchafalaya"](https://admiraltylaw.com/2010/04/14/keybank-national-association-v-the-atchafalaya/) - This was a motion to intervene and to set aside an in rem judgment and order for sale. The intervenor was Dragage Verreault ("DV"), the plaintiff in another action who had a claim against the same vessel. The plaintiff in this action, Keybank, had been advised of the other action. Keybank obtained a judgment in
- [Ricci v. Tully](https://admiraltylaw.com/2009/05/12/ricci-v-tully/) - This was a dispute between a husband and wife involved in divorce proceedings as to the ownership of a sailboat named "Forever Lost". The boat was purchased with funds raised by the plaintiff/wife from a mortgage on her home but was registered in the name of the defendant/husband. The plaintiff claimed that she was the
- [Franklin Lumber Ltd. v. The "Essington II" et al.](https://admiraltylaw.com/2005/01/20/franklin-lumber-ltd-v-the-essington-ii-et-al/) - This was an application by a mortgagee for a substantial extension of time (more than six years) within which to serve and arrest the vessel and a further application for Court approval of a private sale pendente lite. In deciding to grant the time extension, the Prothonotary applied the three-part test from Registered Public Accountants
- [Global Enterprises International v. The Ships "Aquarius","Sagran" and "Admiral Arciszewski"](https://admiraltylaw.com/2001/06/06/global-enterprises-international-v-the-ships-aquariussagran-and-admiral-arciszewski/) - This was an application by the Polish trustee in bankruptcy of the Defendant shipowner for an extension of time in which to file an appeal of an order authorizing the sale of the Defendant ships and for a stay of the sale proceedings. The Prothonotary reviewed the case authorities on time extensions and noted that
- [Nedship Bank N.V. v. The Zoodotis](https://admiraltylaw.com/1999/03/24/nedship-bank-n-v-v-the-zoodotis/) - This was an application by the second highest bidder for the Defendant vessel to set aside an ex parte order that extended by two days the deadline by which the successful bidder was to pay the purchase price. The ex parte order was granted because there had been a transfer error by bankers. The court
- [Annacis Auto Terminals (1997) Ltd. v. The "Cali"](https://admiraltylaw.com/1999/09/07/annacis-auto-terminals-1997-ltd-v-the-cali/) - This was a motion by the mortgagee to vary an order of sale. The motion arose because one of the terms of the sale order was that any moorage charges from the date of the sale order to the time the ship left the berth were to be given priority as sheriff's costs. At the
- [Annacis Auto Terminals (1997) Ltd. v. Cali (Ship)](https://admiraltylaw.com/1999/02/24/annacis-auto-terminals-1997-ltd-v-cali-ship/) - This was an application for reconsideration of an Order in which the court gave the owners until October 31, 1998 to complete a private sale of the ship failing which the ship would then be sold by the Court. The applicant was of the view that the order was deficient in that it ought to
- [The Governor and Company of the Bank of Scotland v. The "Nel"](https://admiraltylaw.com/1997/12/09/the-governor-and-company-of-the-bank-of-scotland-v-the-nel/) - This was an application by the mortgagee of the Defendant vessel for Court approval of a private sale. The mortgage covered four vessels and was outstanding in the amount of US$12 million. All of the vessels were in various stages of sale proceedings and it appeared likely that there would be a deficiency under the
- [Mario Neves et.al. v. The "Kristina Logos"](https://admiraltylaw.com/1997/02/20/mario-neves-et-al-v-the-kristina-logos/) - This was an application by the Crown for leave to sell the Defendant vessel pendente lite. The application was granted on the grounds that the costs of maintaining the vessel amounted to over $500,000.00 and the ongoing cost was $60,000.00 per year. Further, there was evidence the vessel was deteriorating in value and its classification
- [The Queen v. The "Western Horizion"](https://admiraltylaw.com/1997/11/19/the-queen-v-the-western-horizion/) - This was a motion by the Plaintiff to sell the "Western Horizon" pendente lite and a motion by the Defendant to stay any such sale. The Plaintiff was the holder of a registered mortgage against the vessel in the amount of $200,000.00. The vessel, however, was only valued at approximately $60,000.00. The Plaintiff's motion was
- [Striebel v. The "Chairman"](https://admiraltylaw.com/2002/05/10/striebel-v-the-chairman/) - This case concerned a ship building contract that went awry. The Plaintiffs, the mortgagees and intended owners of the defendant ship, commenced this action against the shipbuilder for damages. The Defendant shipbuilder counterclaimed for lost opportunity to complete the construction of the vessel. These reasons deal with three interlocutory motions. The first was an ex
- [Striebel v. The "Chairman"](https://admiraltylaw.com/2002/08/30/striebel-v-the-chairman-2/) - The issue in this motion concerned the amount of security to be provided to a shipbuilder who had failed to complete construction of a yacht within the time frame required by the building contract. The purchasers took possession of the yacht as mortgagees and moved it to the yard of another builder for completion. The
- [Richardson International Ltd. v. The "MYS CHIKHACHEVA" et al.](https://admiraltylaw.com/2002/04/26/richardson-international-ltd-v-the-mys-chikhacheva-et-al/) - The issue in this motion was the interpretation of a letter of guarantee given by the Royal Bank of Canada to secure the release of the defendant vessel from arrest. By the letter of guarantee the bank agreed that if the owners did not pay a judgment against them execution could issue against the bank.
- [Cyber Sea Technologies Inc. v. Underwater Harvester](https://admiraltylaw.com/2002/07/16/cyber-sea-technologies-inc-v-underwater-harvester/) - In this matter a submersible was arrested and the Defendant brought an application, inter alia, to release the submersible without bail or, in the alternative, to post security. The grounds for the Defendant's application were that the action was without merit and that the dispute was subject to arbitration. The Prothonotary held that it is
- [C.P. Ships (Bermuda) Ltd. v. The "Panther Max"](https://admiraltylaw.com/2002/04/10/c-p-ships-bermuda-ltd-v-the-panther-max/) - This was an appeal from an order of a Prothonotary requiring the Defendants to pay $780,500.00 as security to obtain the release from arrest of the Defendant vessel and an additional 20% as a provision for interest and costs. The appeal Judge affirmed the award of the Prothonotary holding that he had properly understood and
- [Ed Wahl Boat Builders and Repairs Ltd. v. Holm](https://admiraltylaw.com/2000/08/28/ed-wahl-boat-builders-and-repairs-ltd-v-holm/) - In this matter the Plaintiff boat builder commenced proceedings for an amount said to be owing by the Defendants in respect of a boat under construction and had the boat arrested. The Defendants counterclaimed for defective construction. During the course of the proceedings the Plaintiff ran into various difficulties with creditors, its counsel and its
- [Third Ocean Marine Navigation LLC v. The "GTS Katie"](https://admiraltylaw.com/2000/10/23/third-ocean-marine-navigation-llc-v-the-gts-katie/) - This matter arose out of the much publicized events surrounding the return of Canadian military equipment on board the "GTS Katie" from overseas peacekeeping operations. During the course of that voyage a dispute arose concerning payment of freight and, as a consequence, the "GTS Katie" refused to sail to the delivery port to deliver the
- [Campbell's Meat Market Ltd. v. The "Merak"](https://admiraltylaw.com/2000/07/21/campbells-meat-market-ltd-v-the-merak/) - The issue in this case was whether an arrest of a cargo of shrimp should be set aside on the grounds that the cargo had been sold prior to the service of the Statement of Claim and Warrant of Arrest. The Court reviewed the evidence and found as a fact that the cargo had been
- [Trade Arbed Inc. v. Toles Ltd.](https://admiraltylaw.com/2000/07/12/trade-arbed-inc-v-toles-ltd/) - This was an appeal from an order of a Prothonotary in which the Prothonotary refused to award solicitor-client costs payable by the solicitor personally after the Statement of Claim in rem was ordered struck and an arrest of cargo set aside. On appeal, the Motions Judge held that the seizure of cargo is an extraordinary
- [Trade Arbed Inc. v. Toles Limited et al.](https://admiraltylaw.com/1999/10/20/trade-arbed-inc-v-toles-limited-et-al/) - This was an application to set aside the arrest of certain cargo belonging to the second Defendant. The underlying action was for breach of charter party. The Plaintiff had entered into a Gencon charter party with the first Defendant, the owner of the ship "Ideal", for the carriage of used axles to Newark on board
- [Abitibi-Price Sales v. C.V. The "Bontegracht"](https://admiraltylaw.com/1998/10/14/abitibi-price-sales-v-c-v-the-bontegracht/) - This was an appeal from a decision of a Prothonotary. The Statement of Claim had been issued on July 11, 1997. On August 14, 1998, after the Statement of Claim had expired, the Plaintiff obtained a Warrant of Arrest and threatened to arrest the "Bontegracht" at Baie Comeau, Quebec. The Defendants provided a letter of
- [Gleason v. The Dawn Light](https://admiraltylaw.com/1998/01/29/gleason-v-the-dawn-light/) - This was a summary judgment application to dismiss the Plaintiff's claim for specific performance of an agreement of purchase and sale of the Defendant vessel and an application to set aside the arrest of the vessel. The Plaintiff alleged that the Defendant had agreed to sell the Defendant vessel to him but then sold it
- [Viktor Overseas Ltd. v. The "Filomena Lembo" et.al.](https://admiraltylaw.com/1997/11/07/viktor-overseas-ltd-v-the-filomena-lembo-et-al/) - This was an application to set aside a Warrant for arrest in a claim for unpaid repairs to the vessel. The shipowner argued that the Plaintiff had no right to arrest because the repairs were ordered by the bareboat charterer who had no authority to contract on behalf of the owner. However, the Court noted
- [Amican Navigation Inc. v. The "Necat A" et al.](https://admiraltylaw.com/1997/08/25/amican-navigation-inc-v-the-necat-a-et-al/) - This was an appeal from the Prothonotary. The original motion was by the shipowner to reduce the amount of bail that had been posted to secure the release of the ship from arrest. The underlying action was for breach of charterparty. The Plaintiff alleged the Defendant failed to provide a ship to load a cargo
- [Armada Lines Ltd. v. Chaleur Fertilizers Ltd.](https://admiraltylaw.com/1997/06/26/armada-lines-ltd-v-chaleur-fertilizers-ltd/) - This important case concerns when an arresting party is liable for wrongful arrest. In a ground breaking decision reported at [1995] 1 F.C. 3, the Federal Court of Appeal held that an arresting party could be liable for wrongful arrest merely upon a finding that the arrest was "illegal" or "without legal justification". The Supreme
- [Labrador Sea Products Incorporated v. Northern Auk (Ship)](https://admiraltylaw.com/2007/06/21/labrador-sea-products-incorporated-v-northern-auk-ship/) - In this matter the Defendants had apparently removed fishing gear and other equipment from a vessel that was under arrest. The Court found the Defendants guilty of contempt, fined them $5,000 each and ordered that they pay costs fixed at $15,000. The Court noted that the requirements for contempt are: 1. the party alleging contempt
- [Hansen v. The Trinity (Ship)](https://admiraltylaw.com/2007/02/16/hansen-v-the-trinity-ship/) - This was an application to set aside a warrant of arrest on the grounds of material non-disclosure by the Plaintiffs. The material non-disclosure was an earlier action for the same damages in which the Plaintiffs had applied for and been refused a mareva injunction. The Court held, for the first time, that full and frank
- [Les Courtiers Breen Ltee. v. Mediterranean Shipping Co.](https://admiraltylaw.com/2011/11/23/les-courtiers-breen-ltee-v-mediterranean-shipping-co/) - The main issue in this case was the liability of the carrier for damage to a cargo of clementines carried from South Africa to Montreal via New York. The container in which the cargo was stowed had been stowed and sealed by the shipper and the carrier argued that the plaintiff had not proven the
- [Canadian Sub Sea Hydraulics Limited v. The "Cormorant"](https://admiraltylaw.com/2006/09/01/canadian-sub-sea-hydraulics-limited-v-the-cormorant/) - This was an application by the Defendant to set bail for the release of its ship from arrest. The underlying claim of the Plaintiff was for unpaid invoices relating to the provision of goods and services to the ship. There was also a counterclaim by the Defendant. The Court noted that bail was to be
- [Calogeras & Master Supplies Inc. v. Ceres Hellenic Shipping Enterprises Ltd.](https://admiraltylaw.com/2006/06/15/calogeras-master-supplies-inc-v-ceres-hellenic-shipping-enterprises-ltd/) - This was an application to set the amount of bail. The Court noted that the general rule was that bail should be sufficient to cover the Plaintiff's reasonably arguable best case including interest and costs but limited by the value of the arrested vessel. An apparently novel point raised in the motion was the standard
- [Fish Maker LLC v. The "Zodiak" et al.](https://admiraltylaw.com/2004/05/06/fish-maker-llc-v-the-zodiak-et-al/) - The Defendants brought this application to release the Defendant vessel from arrest without bail or, alternatively, to set bail. The Prothonotary refused to release the ship without bail noting that this will only be done in rare instances where the circumstances are quite extraordinary or where the case is beyond doubt hopeless. Accordingly, the Prothonotary
- [Norgate Marine Management v. Genfreight Limited (The "Conti Will")](https://admiraltylaw.com/2003/04/16/norgate-marine-management-v-genfreight-limited-the-conti-will/) - This was an application, inter alia, to reduce the amount of security posted to release the vessel from arrest. The Court reduced the amount of security by 20% on the basis that the Court was satisfied that the claim would not succeed in full. The Court noted that the right of a Plaintiff to full
- [Zhoushan Zhongchang Shipping Co. v. The "Otello Manship" et al.](https://admiraltylaw.com/2004/08/27/zhoushan-zhongchang-shipping-co-v-the-otello-manship-et-al/) - This was an application to set bail. The underlying action was for breach of contract for the sale and delivery of a bulk carrier. By the contract of sale the Defendant was required to deliver the vessel in China by 20 January 2004 which was later extended to 12 February 2004. The Defendants did not
- [NHM Internatinal Inc. v. F.C. Yachts Ltd. et al.](https://admiraltylaw.com/2003/03/28/nhm-internatinal-inc-v-f-c-yachts-ltd-et-al/) - This matter concerned a dispute over the construction of a vessel. The Defendant had agreed to construct the vessel for a fixed price and progress payments were made by the Plaintiff during the course of construction. The vessel was, however, not completed on time and the Plaintiff went into possession as mortgagee under a builder's
- [North King Lodge v. The "Gowlland Chief" et al.](https://admiraltylaw.com/2003/06/05/north-king-lodge-v-the-gowlland-chief-et-al/) - This was an application to set aside the arrest of the Defendant vessel or alternatively for setting the form and amount of security. The underlying action concerned the sinking of the Plaintiff's vessel due to the alleged negligence of the Defendants. The motions Judge considered first whether the arrest should be set aside due to
- [Whyte v. The "Sandpiper VI"](https://admiraltylaw.com/2002/05/16/whyte-v-the-sandpiper-vi/) - In this matter the Plaintiff had arrested the Defendant dredge and afterwards learned that the "spoils pipeline" had been rented to a third party and moved. The Plaintiff thereafter brought this motion which was treated as an application to show cause order. The Defendant argued that the rented pipeline was not caught by the arrest
- [Cold Ocean Inc. v. The Gornostaevka](https://admiraltylaw.com/1999/05/28/cold-ocean-inc-v-the-gornostaevka/) - This action concerned a claim by the Plaintiff for breach of a fishing agreement by the Defendant who was the demise charterer of the two Defendant ships. The Plaintiff arrested the ships and the cargo on board one of the vessels. The moving party, the sub-charterer of the ships and the owner of the cargo
- [Fibreco Pulp Inc. v. Star Shipping A/S et.al.](https://admiraltylaw.com/2000/05/24/fibreco-pulp-inc-v-star-shipping-a-s-et-al/) - This was an appeal from the order of a Motions Judge upholding the decision of a Prothonotary in which the Prothonotary ordered that the action be stayed not only against parties to an arbitration agreement but also against Defendants not parties to the agreement. The case involved two shipments of pulp from Squamish, British Columbia
- [Scandia Shipping Agencies Inc. v. Alam Veracruz (The)](https://admiraltylaw.com/1997/12/23/scandia-shipping-agencies-inc-v-alam-veracruz-the/) - The issue in this case was whether an action In Rem is available against all property of a Defendant or only against the property that is the subject of the action. The underlying action involved a claim by the Plaintiff agent alleging that the Defendant shipping line had wrongfully terminated the brokerage agreement between them.
- [Belgo Nineira Commercial Exportadora S.A. et. al. v. Hadley Shipping Co. Ltd. et.al.](https://admiraltylaw.com/1997/05/14/belgo-nineira-commercial-exportadora-s-a-et-al-v-hadley-shipping-co-ltd-et-al/) - In this matter the Plaintiff had commenced action against the wrong-doing vessel and three sister ships. One of the sister ships had been in the jurisdiction but it had not been served by the Plaintiff who subsequently obtained an order extending the time for service of the Statement of Claim. The same sister ship later
- [Margem Chartering Co. Inc. v. Cosena SRL and The "Bocsa"](https://admiraltylaw.com/1997/03/05/margem-chartering-co-inc-v-cosena-srl-and-the-bocsa/) - This was a motion by the shipowner to strike out the In Rem Statement of Claim and set aside the arrest . The Plaintiff had entered into a charter party agreement with the "disponent owner" of the ship for the carriage of coal. Upon arrival at the port of loading the vessel was detained by
- [Domtar Inc. v. Lineas De Navigation Gema S.A. et.al.](https://admiraltylaw.com/1997/04/11/domtar-inc-v-lineas-de-navigation-gema-s-a-et-al/) - This was a motion by the Defendant shipowner to set aside an arrest and strike the in rem portions of the claim. The Plaintiff's action was for breach of a booking note contract. The Defendant shipowner argued that the vessel could not be arrested as it was not a party to the booking note contract.
- [Elecnor S.A. v. The "Soren Tourbo" et.al.](https://admiraltylaw.com/1996/05/30/elecnor-s-a-v-the-soren-tourbo-et-al/) - This case addresses the issue of whether the Plaintiff must name all sisterships in a Statement of Claim. The action was originally commenced on January 25, 1995, against the ship "Soren Turbo". The Statement of Claim was renewed on January 15, 1996 for a further twelve months. This renewal was, however, subject to the proviso
- [Feoso Oil Limited v. The "Sarla"](https://admiraltylaw.com/1995/06/05/feoso-oil-limited-v-the-sarla/) - This was a motion for summary judgment involving a claim by the Plaintiff for non-payment of an invoice relating to bunkers supplied to the Defendant ship. The ship had been under a time charter although it was not clear whether the charter had come to an end before the bunkers were ordered. The Defendant owners
- [Key Marine Industries Ltd. v. The "Glen Coe"](https://admiraltylaw.com/1995/03/20/key-marine-industries-ltd-v-the-glen-coe/) - The Plaintiff in this matter applied for default judgment against the Defendants. The Plaintiff had effected service of the Statement of Claim on the ship but had not served the owners and no Statement of Defence had been filed. The filing of a defence would have amounted to an appearance in the action by the
- [Dragage Verreault Inc. v. The Atchafalaya](https://admiraltylaw.com/2009/03/17/dragage-verreault-inc-v-the-atchafalaya/) - This matter arose out of a contract for the dredging of a channel. The plaintiff was the head contractor under the dredging contract. The plaintiff subcontracted the job to a company known as B+B Dredging. The contract specified the work was to be done by the "Atchafalaya" which was owned by a company called Proteus
- [Morecorp Holdings Ltd. v. Island Tug & Barge Ltd.](https://admiraltylaw.com/2009/10/01/morecorp-holdings-ltd-v-island-tug-barge-ltd/) - This was an application to set aside the arrest of the "ITB Pioneer". The case concerned various allegations of breaches of a share purchase agreement between the parties. The plaintiff alleged, inter alia, that it was a term of the share purchase agreement that the parties would enter into a further agreement whereby the plaintiff's
- [Artificial Reef Society of Nova Scotia v. Canada](https://admiraltylaw.com/2010/09/01/artificial-reef-society-of-nova-scotia-v-canada/) - The plaintiff in this matter arrested a decommissioned naval vessel. Although it is not obvious from the reported reasons, the plaintiff appears to have alleged an agreement with the Crown for the transfer of the vessel to it but the Crown intended to have the vessel scrapped. In any event, the vessel was arrested at
- [F.C. Yachts Ltd. v. Vessel Bearing Hull No. QFY10703E709 (Yacht)](https://admiraltylaw.com/2007/11/30/f-c-yachts-ltd-v-vessel-bearing-hull-no-qfy10703e709-yacht/) - The Plaintiff builder was building two yachts for the Defendant. The first yacht was substantially completed and payments were up to date. The Defendant was, however, alleged to be in arrears on the payments in respect of the second yacht. The builder commenced proceedings in respect of the second yacht but arrested the first yacht
- [Norcan Electrical Systems Inc. v. Feeding Systems A/S et al.](https://admiraltylaw.com/2003/06/02/norcan-electrical-systems-inc-v-feeding-systems-a-s-et-al/) - These were two actions for necessaries. The first was for necessaries supplied to the vessels "FB XIX" and "FB XX" . The second action was for necessaries supplied to the vessels "FB XXII" and "FB XXIII", which were alleged to be sister ships of "FB XIX" and "FB XX". The vessels "FB XIX" and "FB
- [Pakistan National Shipping Corp. v. Canada](https://admiraltylaw.com/1997/04/30/pakistan-national-shipping-corp-v-canada/) - This was an interlocutory application to strike a third party action on the grounds that the Federal Court had no jurisdiction over the subject matter. The main action was brought by the Plaintiff carrier against the Defendant shipper to recover expenses incurred when plastic drums containing the Defendant's cargo of canola oil began to leak
- [Marley Co. v. Cast North America (1983) Inc. et.al.](https://admiraltylaw.com/1995/03/31/marley-co-v-cast-north-america-1983-inc-et-al/) - The Plaintiff in the case had entered into a contract with CAST for the carriage of a container of goods from Illinois to Holland via Montreal. CAST in turn entered into a contract with a rail carrier for carriage of the container to Montreal. The container was damaged while being loaded in Illinois. The Plaintiff
- [ICS Petroleum (Montreal) Ltd. v. es Dauphins du St. Laurent et al.](https://admiraltylaw.com/2005/02/16/ics-petroleum-montreal-ltd-v-es-dauphins-du-st-laurent-et-al/) - The Plaintiff in this action was a fuel supplier that had supplied fuel to a shore tank for use in three ships allegedly owned by the now bankrupt in personam Defendant. Two of the ships were in fact owned by the Defendant but the third ship, the "Corona Borealis", was merely demise chartered to the
- [Northwest Delta Yacht Services Inc. v. Sovereign Yachts et al.](https://admiraltylaw.com/2004/03/02/northwest-delta-yacht-services-inc-v-sovereign-yachts-et-al/) - The Plaintiff in this action had installed teak decking on the Defendant yacht pursuant to a contract with the builder. The Plaintiff was not paid by the builder and brought this proceeding in rem against the yacht and in personam against the builder and against the purchasers of the yacht. The statement of claim was
- [Atlantic Yacht 7 Ship Inc. v. Sovereign Yachts Inc. et al.](https://admiraltylaw.com/2003/08/08/atlantic-yacht-7-ship-inc-v-sovereign-yachts-inc-et-al/) - The Plaintiff in this matter alleged that it was owed commission by the Defendant yacht builder in respect of the Defendant yacht, the purchaser of which had been introduced by the Plaintiff to the Defendant. To secure its claim the Plaintiff effected an arrest of the Defendant yacht. The purchaser of that yacht brought this
- [Roberts v. Andrews](https://admiraltylaw.com/2003/06/26/roberts-v-andrews/) - This was an application to set aside a warrant of arrest and strike an in rem action. The case concerned a joint venture fishing operation in which the Plaintiff provided fishing licenses and the Defendant provided, inter alia, a fish packing vessel. A dispute arose as to the distribution of profits and the Plaintiff commenced
- [Brooks Aviation Inc. v. Wrecked and Abandoned Boeing Sb-17g Aircraft](https://admiraltylaw.com/2002/05/01/brooks-aviation-inc-v-wrecked-and-abandoned-boeing-sb-17g-aircraft/) - This very interesting application was for an order dispensing with service of the Statement of Claim, Affidavit to Lead Warrant and Warrant. The res was a B-17 aircraft that had crash landed on a lake in Labrador during the winter of 1947. The following year the aircraft sank during the spring thaw and it remains
- [Coath v. The "Bruno Gerussi"](https://admiraltylaw.com/2002/04/05/coath-v-the-bruno-gerussi/) - This was an application for default judgment in personam and in rem. The Prothonotary granted the judgment in personam but refused the judgement in rem as the Statement of Claim had not been served on the vessel but instead had merely been given to the person in charge of the vessel. The Prothonotary noted that
- [Trawlercat Marine Inc. v. The "Amity"](https://admiraltylaw.com/2002/11/13/trawlercat-marine-inc-v-the-amity/) - The Defendant obtained plans from the Plaintiff for a 55' catamaran which the Defendant intended to build. The Defendant decided not to proceed with the project and later retained a naval architect to design a 70' catamaran. The Plaintiff subsequently commenced this in personam and in rem action alleging breach of a contract to execute
- [Balcan ehf v. The "Atlas"](https://admiraltylaw.com/2001/12/04/balcan-ehf-v-the-atlas/) - At issue in this case was the validity of the Plaintiff's claim against the Defendant ship. The Plaintiff alleged it had a valid claim as a supplier of necessaries. The Court held, however, that the Plaintiff had neither supplied necessaries to the ship nor had it paid for the necessaries that were supplied by third
- [Roxford Enterprises S.A. v. The Calix](https://admiraltylaw.com/2000/05/15/roxford-enterprises-s-a-v-the-calix/) - These matters were applications to strike an action in rem and to set aside the arrest of an alleged sister ship. The underlying claims were for breach of contract of sale. The Plaintiff alleged that it had purchased the "Calix" free and clear of encumbrances but that after the sale it had to pay off
- [Middleton et al v. Owner & Farquharson et al](https://admiraltylaw.com/2000/11/10/middleton-et-al-v-owner-farquharson-et-al/) - This was a motion to strike out the action in rem. The Plaintiff's action was to set aside a sale of the Defendant vessel by the mortgagee to a company controlled by the mortgagee at a price that was substantially less than the value of the vessel as appraised at the time the mortgagee took
- [Paramount Enterprises International Inc. v. The  "An Xin Jiang" et al.](https://admiraltylaw.com/2000/12/15/paramount-enterprises-international-inc-v-the-an-xin-jiang-et-al/) - The issue on this appeal was whether the claims in rem against the Defendant ship and her cargo should be struck. The underlying action was for breach of contract against one Defendant and for wrongful interference with contractual relations against the other Defendant. The facts were that the Plaintiff had entered into a contract with
- [F.C. Yachts Ltd. v. P.R. Yacht Builders Ltd.](https://admiraltylaw.com/2010/10/28/f-c-yachts-ltd-v-p-r-yacht-builders-ltd/) - This was an application by the mortgagee of a vessel under construction for intervenor status. The vessel was being built under a contract between the purchaser, NWEY, and the builder, PRYB. This contract contained an arbitration clause. PRYB had, however, sub-contracted the labour part of the build to a related company, FCY. The subcontract contained
- [Phoenix Bulk Carriers Ltd. v. Kremikovtzi Trade](https://admiraltylaw.com/2007/03/16/phoenix-bulk-carriers-ltd-v-kremikovtzi-trade/) - By contract of affreightment between the Appellant and the Respondent, the Respondent agreed to ship a cargo of coal on the Appellant's vessel. In alleged breach of this contract, the Respondent entered into a second contract of carriage with another shipowner and loaded the coal on board that shipowner's vessel. The Appellant commenced an in
- [Kremikovtzi Trade v. Phoenix Bulk Carriers Ltd.](https://admiraltylaw.com/2007/12/04/kremikovtzi-trade-v-phoenix-bulk-carriers-ltd/) - This was a claim in rem against the owners and all others interested in a particular cargo. This particular application was a re-hearing of various issues that had been referred back to the Court of Appeal after the Supreme Court of Canada overturned the Court of Appeal on the issue of in rem jurisdiction in
- [Maritima de Ecologia, S.A. de C.V. v. Maersk Defender (Ship)](https://admiraltylaw.com/2007/05/18/maritima-de-ecologia-s-a-de-c-v-v-maersk-defender-ship/) - In this matter Secunda discussed with the Appellant an arrangement whereby Secunda, or a company controlled by it, would purchase the Maersk Defender, modify the vessel to meet the requirements of the Appellant and then charter the vessel to the Appellant. Subsequently Atlantic, a company controlled by Secunda, entered into an agreement with Maersk to

## Pages

- [Terms of Use](https://admiraltylaw.com/terms-of-use/) - This website is not currently up to date. The information on this website is not intended as legal advice and should not be treated as such. If you require legal advice, you are strongly urged to consult a lawyer in the appropriate jurisdiction. We, being League and Williams Law Corporation, and its lawyers and staff,
- [Fisheries Law Homepage](https://admiraltylaw.com/fisheries-law-homepage/) - These summaries of Fisheries law cases were prepared by retired lawyer Brad Caldwell. Readers are cautioned this material is not up to date and are urged to consult CanLii for updated cases.
- [Papers](https://admiraltylaw.com/papers/) - This page contains links to pdf copies of papers by retired lawyer Christopher Giaschi. If you have your browser configured to display pdf documents, the links will open in a new tab or window. Readers are cautioned that these papers are not updated to reflect current developments. For papers and articles on Fisheries Law, go
- [Homepage](https://admiraltylaw.com/7264-2/) - Welcome to AdmiraltyLaw.com. This site is about Canadian maritime law, shipping law, marine law, fisheries law, the law of marine insurance and the law of the sea, ships and shipping. There are over 1,000 cases in our database which we have summarized and categorized. In addition, we have commentaries and papers on various topics of
- [Fisheries Papers & Articles](https://admiraltylaw.com/fisheries-papers/) - These summaries of Fisheries law cases were prepared by retired lawyer Brad Caldwell. Readers are cautioned this material is not up to date and are urged to consult CanLii for updated cases. This page contains links to pdf copies of papers and articles that were authored by retired lawyer Brad Caldwell. Readers are cautioned that these papers are
- [Statutes](https://admiraltylaw.com/statutes/) - The links to the following statutes and regulations are to the CanLii website. Please note that we have included only select regulations in the below list. For a full set of the regulations applicable to a particular statute visit the CanLii website or Transport Canada. Arctic Waters Pollution Prevention Act Arctic Shipping Pollution Prevention Regulations
- [Links](https://admiraltylaw.com/links/) - Useful Sites for Maritime Law Lawyers EquasisA great and free resource to search for information on a ship. Marine TrafficA great and free resource to find a ship's location. Vessel FinderAnother ship finder service. Canada Vessel Registration Query U.S. Vessel Registration Query Search Weather Sites National Oceanic and Atmospheric AdministrationThis is the place to go

## Commentaries

- [Carriage of Passengers](https://admiraltylaw.com/commentaries/carriage-of-passengers/) - Carriage of Passengers The carriage of passengers is regulated by Part 4 of the Marine Liability Act which implements the 1974 Athens Convention relating to the Carriage of Passengers and their Luggage by Sea and the 1990 Protocol and introduces special Canadian amendments. The operative section is Section 37 which gives the Convention and Protocol
- [Carriage of Goods by Sea](https://admiraltylaw.com/commentaries/carriage-of-goods-by-sea/) - Carriage of Goods by Sea Part 5 of the Marine Liability Act (formerly the Carriage of Goods by Water Act) governs the carriage of goods by sea to or from Canada and within Canada. The Act implements the Hague-Visby Rules and provides for the possible future implementation of the Hamburg Rules. Pursuant to the Hague-Visby
- [Marine Insurance](https://admiraltylaw.com/commentaries/marine-insurance/) - Marine Insurance Marine insurance in Canada is governed by the Marine Insurance Act which is modeled on the English Act of 1906. Over the years we have prepared various papers relating to marine insurance. Links to these papers are provided below. Readers are cautioned that the papers, though current as of the date prepared, are
- [Personal Injury in the Marine Context](https://admiraltylaw.com/commentaries/personal-injury-in-the-marine-context/) - Personal Injury Is the Injured Person's Claim Governed by Part 4 of the MLA? For cases involving personal injury or fatalities to persons on board a ship or caused by a ship, the first step is to determine whether the injured person is a "passenger" within the meaning of Part 4 of the Marine Liability
- [Collisions](https://admiraltylaw.com/commentaries/collisions/) - Collisions See the Collision Regulations.
- [Maritime Liens, Mortgages and Priorities](https://admiraltylaw.com/commentaries/maritime-liens-mortgages-and-priorities/) - Maritime Liens, Mortgages and Priorities The substantive law applicable to maritime liens, ship's mortgages and priorities differs significantly from the law that is applied to land based property as does the procedural law. Mortgages Registered Vessels The law applicable to mortgages on ships is dependant on whether the particular ship is a "registered" vessel under
- [Pollution](https://admiraltylaw.com/commentaries/pollution/) - Pollution Marine pollution is predominantly now governed by statute law but the common law can still have some application. The torts of nuisance, trespass and negligence and the Rylands v Fletcher doctrine still can have some application. The main federal statutes that address pollution from ships are: Canada Shipping Act 2001, Parts 8 and 9
- [Constitutional Issues in Canadian Maritime Law](https://admiraltylaw.com/commentaries/constitutional-issues-in-canadian-maritime-law/) - Constitutional Issues/Canadian Maritime Law The cases under this topic consider the division of powers between the federal and provincial governments under the Constitution Act in relation to maritime matters. Such issues normally arise where a provincial law of general application purports to apply to a fact situation with a marine component or where a provincial
- [Salvage and Wreck](https://admiraltylaw.com/commentaries/salvage-and-wreck/) - Salvage and Wreck We are frequently asked questions about the law of salvage and wrecks. These questions are usually something like "If I find a vessel adrift or in trouble and put a line on it or otherwise save it, is it mine?" or "If something washes up on the beach, can I keep it?"
- [Carriage of Goods by Road](https://admiraltylaw.com/commentaries/carriage-of-goods-by-road/) - Carriage of Goods by Road The law applicable to carriage of goods by road depends on whether the carriage is intra-provincial (within a single province) or extra-provincial (between provinces or between a province and a foreign state). Where the carriage is intra-provincial, the law of the province in which the carriage occurs applies and most
- [Limitation Periods](https://admiraltylaw.com/commentaries/limitation-periods/) - Limitation Periods The limitation periods that apply to claims governed by maritime law are not always easy to identify or locate. The federally prescribed limitation periods for many of the more common claims subject to maritime law are addressed below. For those claims for which there is not a specific limitation period, s. 140 of
- [Limitation of Liability](https://admiraltylaw.com/commentaries/limitation-of-liability/) - Limitation of Liability Note: Where a limitation amount is expressed in SDRs we have used an exchange rate of 1 SDR=Cdn$1.75. This rate does however fluctuate. The current rate of exchange can be found at various internet sites including here. Introduction Limitation of liability is dealt with in Part 3 of the Marine Liability Act.
- [Admiralty Jurisdiction](https://admiraltylaw.com/commentaries/admiralty-jurisdiction/) - Admiralty Jurisdiction The cases under this title consider the Admiralty jurisdiction of the courts and which court has jurisdiction to hear a particular matter. More specifically, because the provincial superior courts have inherent jurisdiction, the cases usually concern the whether the Federal Court's admiralty jurisdiction is invoked. It is important to note that the Admiralty
- [Carriage by Air](https://admiraltylaw.com/commentaries/carriage-by-air/) - Carriage by Air Domestic Air Carriage The domestic carriage of goods by air is not extensively governed by legislation. The Carriage by Air Act does not apply to domestic carriage. The only legislation governing the form and content of domestic air carriage contracts is the Air Transportation Regulations passed pursuant to the provisions of the
- [Admiralty Practice & Procedure](https://admiraltylaw.com/commentaries/admiralty-practice-procedure/) - Admiralty Practice & Procedure For an overview of the law of Admiralty practice and procedure review the paper entitled Admiralty Practice and Procedure: An Overview - 2005. For sister ship arrest, see the paper Sister Ship Arrest in the Federal Court of Canada: A Wreck in Need of Salvage, which considers the cases involving sister
- [Tug and Tow](https://admiraltylaw.com/commentaries/tug-and-tow/) - Tug and Tow Towage vs Carriage It is always important to distinguish a contract of towage from one of carriage as different legal regimes apply. A contract of towage is one where the tug owner supplies a tug to tow (or push or assist) a ship, barge or other object belonging to someone else. Examples

## Fisheries Cases

- [Ahousaht Indian Band v. Canada (Attorney General), 2021 BCCA 155](https://admiraltylaw.com/fisheries/ahousaht-indian-band-v-canada-attorney-general-2021-bcca-155/) - This is a case that was commenced in 2003 and since then has undergone a 100 plus day trial, at least three appeals to the B.C.C.A. and three appeals to the SCC. Earlier decisions are digested on this site. A condensed summary of the April 2021 decision as prepared by the B.C. Court of appeal
- [Ahousaht First Nation v. Canada (Fisheries, Oceans and Coastguard), 2019 FC 1116](https://admiraltylaw.com/fisheries/ahousaht-first-nation-v-canada-fisheries-oceans-and-coastguard-2019-fc-1116/) - This case involved an application for an interlocutory injunction by five of the 14 Nuu-chah-nulth group located on the West Coast of Vancouver Island. The injunction was for the increase of their allocation of AABM chinook salmon of at least 5,000 additional pieces. In a lengthy decision (65 pages), the court rejected that application on
- [Robinson v. Canada (Attorney General), 2019 FC 876](https://admiraltylaw.com/fisheries/robinson-v-canada-attorney-general-2019-fc-876/) - This case involves a NS lobster fisherman who is unable to fish due to illness and has exceeded the limited 5-year exception enabling him to appoint a "medical substitute operator". PIIFCAF generally requires a lobster licence to be personally fished by its owner, i.e., "owner-operator". Mr. Robinson asserts that the Minister's decision not to approve
- [Kinghorne v. Canada (Attorney General), 2019 FC 1183](https://admiraltylaw.com/fisheries/kinghorne-v-canada-attorney-general-2019-fc-1183/) - Kinghorne v. Canada (Attorney General), 2019 FC 1183(link) This case involved a challenge by a NB fisherman who sought access to a small craft harbour to berth his fishing vessel at the start of the lobster fishing season. The harbour was situated close to nearby fishing grounds and there was significant local interest in setting
- [R. v. Dawe, 2019 CanLii (N.L. Prov. Ct.)](https://admiraltylaw.com/fisheries/r-v-dawe-2019-canlii-n-l-prov-ct/) - This case involved a fishing vessel that was purse seining for capelin. In this fishery, the most common method of estimating the weight of one’s catch is to use baffle boards. On the day in question, the accused’s vessel was using this method. The seine net was off the starboard side of the vessel and
- [Andrews v. Canada (Attorney General), 2019 NLSC 42](https://admiraltylaw.com/fisheries/andrews-v-canada-attorney-general/) - This case involved an alleged 1993 agreement between the Minister of Fisheries and the Area 3K snow crab fishing fleet in Newfoundland that if the fleet supported the Minister in allocating an increase in snow crab quota to fish harvesters adversely impacted by the moratorium on cod instead of the snow crab fleet, he would
- [R v. Dudoward et al.](https://admiraltylaw.com/fisheries/r-v-dudoward-et-al/) - Four vessel operators were charged with gill net fishing for salmon in a closed area after drifting from an open area into a closed area. The open area was open to fishing for a number of different species of salmon but closed for chum salmon because there was a run of chum salmon in the
- [Gavin v. R](https://admiraltylaw.com/fisheries/gavin-v-r/) - This case involved a charge of fishing for lobster in a closed area. The accused's fishing vessel was observed by a surveillance aircraft using (1) a state of the art camera, (2) a very high-powered telescope, (3) a software program that enhanced the live video, (4) radar assisted/integrated info software, (5) forward looking infrared radar,
- [Gillett v. Canada and Hurley](https://admiraltylaw.com/fisheries/gillett-v-canada-and-hurley/) - In response to increasing fishing pressure in the capelin fishery, in 2007 Fisheries and Oceans Canada ("DFO") imposed a management measure that only allowed capelin licence holders to fish in one management area per year. As a result, licence holders in the Newfoundland region who leased their capelin fishing vessels to licence holders in another
- [R v. McNeill Fishing Ltd.](https://admiraltylaw.com/fisheries/r-v-mcneill-fishing-ltd/) - Section 71(2) of the Fisheries Act provides that ". . . a court may order any . . . thing seized under this Act to be returned to the person from whom it was seized if security is given to Her Majesty in a form and amount satisfactory to the Minister." In this case, the
- [Griffin v. R](https://admiraltylaw.com/fisheries/griffin-v-r/) - Section 78.4 of the Fisheries Act provides that: "In any prosecution for an offence under this Act, it is sufficient proof of the offence to establish that it was committed by a person in respect of any matter relating to any operations under a lease or licence issued to the accused pursuant to this Act
- [Ahousaht Indian Band and Nation v. Canada (Attorney General)](https://admiraltylaw.com/fisheries/ahousaht-indian-band-and-nation-v-canada-attorney-general-3/) - INTRODUCTION This case involved a claim by five Nuu-chah-nulth First Nations with territories situated on the west coast of Vancouver Island to a wide range of aboriginal fishing rights over a large geographical area including submerged lands extending 100 nautical miles into the ocean and rivers. After a lengthy trial, in 2009 the trial court:
- [R v. Pisces Fishery Incorporated](https://admiraltylaw.com/fisheries/r-v-pisces-fishery-incorporated/) - This case involved a company that employed a captain to operate its commercial fishing vessel on a lake in Ontario. The Crown planted a covertly installed tracking device on the vessel and then later compared the daily catch reports prepared by the captain to the information provided by the tracking device. As a result, it
- [R v. Henneberry](https://admiraltylaw.com/fisheries/r-v-henneberry-2/) - This case involved a charge of failing to hail the accurate round weight of ground fish as required by the condition of a fishing licence. The Crown gave evidence that the round weight of the catch of halibut that was not hailed was 28 per cent of what was hailed or 22 per cent of
- [R v. Fudge](https://admiraltylaw.com/fisheries/r-v-fudge/) - This case involved a fish harvester who plead guilty to catching undersize whelk. After a general review of the principals of sentencing for fisheries matters, the court dealt with the issue of forfeiture of the catch. In doing so it said "[T]he amount of the fine must be set in conjunction with the issue of
- [R v. Martin](https://admiraltylaw.com/fisheries/r-v-martin/) - The summary as included in the judgement is as follows: Beginning in 1994 and in each ensuing year the federal Department of Fisheries and Oceans entered into Agreements with the Waycobah First Nation concerning, among other things, a food, social and ceremonial fishing allocation to members of that aboriginal community. These Agreements emanated from an
- [R v. Preston Grandy](https://admiraltylaw.com/fisheries/r-v-preston-grandy/) - This is a fairly straightforward case where the accused was found guilty of all of the charges.
- [R v. Strickland](https://admiraltylaw.com/fisheries/r-v-strickland/) - This case involved a fisheries officer and two fisheries guardians who were conducting a patrol in a Zodiac when they observed the accused in his dory. Although they were some distance away, they thought they observed him fishing. The fisheries officer motioned for the accused to come over to the fishing vessel, but instead the
- [Giroux v. Canada (Attorney General)](https://admiraltylaw.com/fisheries/giroux-v-canada-attorney-general-2/) - This case involved in group of Scallop Fishers in the Bay of Fundy area who challenged a decision of the Minister of Fisheries of issue licences to another group with licence conditions that allowed them to fish in area SFA 29 West. After setting out the discretionary authority of the Minister, the Motions Court denied
- [R v. McKinnell Fishing Ltd.](https://admiraltylaw.com/fisheries/r-v-mckinnell-fishing-ltd/) - This case was summarized by the Court of Appeal as follows: "The appellant crabbing company was found guilty of "fishing for" crabs in closed waters, contrary to the Fisheries Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. F 14. It argues that the phrase "fishing for" in s. 2 of the Fisheries Act does not include the act of
- [Calwell Fishing Ltd. v. Canada](https://admiraltylaw.com/fisheries/calwell-fishing-ltd-v-canada-2/) - This case was brought by a group of fish packer owners whose businesses declined to the point where they were no longer economically viable. They sought a declaration based upon the common law doctrine of "taking". They argued that the state cannot take property without compensation except where such taking is supported by clear unambiguous
- [R v. Harris](https://admiraltylaw.com/fisheries/r-v-harris-3/) - This case involved a crab fishing vessel that was required under its licence to have the licence holder or a designated operator on board the fishing vessel at all times when fishing and offloading. When the licence holder could not be on board the fishing vessel because of health reasons, she and her son attempted
- [Elson v. Canada (Attorney General)](https://admiraltylaw.com/fisheries/elson-v-canada-attorney-general/) - This case involved judicial review of a decision by the Minister of Fisheries (based upon a recommendation of the Atlantic Fisheries Appeal Board) to deny the Applicant's appeal in which he sought an exemption from the Preserving the Independence of the Inshore Fleet in Canada's Atlantic Fisheries policy ("PIIFCAF Policy" or Policy). BACKGROUND In 2007
- [Anglehart v. Canada](https://admiraltylaw.com/fisheries/anglehart-v-canada/) - This cased involved a complaint by one group of snow crab fish harvesters who objected to the Minister reducing the quota in their area by 35 per cent. After rejecting a number of grounds of review, the court imposed liability based upon the tort of misfeasance in public office. In doing so, the court remarked
- [R v. Echodh](https://admiraltylaw.com/fisheries/r-v-echodh/) - This case involved a fish harvester commercial ice fishing in Saskatchewan. He took the most profitable fish (walleye) to market but left the less profitable fish (whitefish and pike) on the ice mixed in with fish offal. After rejecting much of the evidence presented by the accused, the court convicted him under s. 92(C) of
- [Giroux v. Canada (Attorney General)](https://admiraltylaw.com/fisheries/giroux-v-canada-attorney-general/) - This case involved a challenge by group of commercial scallop fishers from one area when the Minister of Fisheries issued licenses to another group that allowed the other group to fish in the first groups historical area. This application was denied on the grounds that the Minister had very broad discretion to manage fisheries and
- [Marion et al. v. Perley et al.](https://admiraltylaw.com/fisheries/marion-et-al-v-perley-et-al/) - This case involved an alleged agreement whereby the plaintiff paid a First Nation for the exclusive right to manage and operate its commercial fisheries for the 2013, 2014 and 2015 fisheries. The agreement allegedly gave the plaintiff full control over the commercial fishery operations, the right to lease licences at will from the First Nation
- [R v. Balsom](https://admiraltylaw.com/fisheries/r-v-balsom/) - This case involved a a 71 year old man who was caught setting a net across a creek from which three trout were retrieved. He was fined $3,000 for illegally fishing with a net and $1,000 for illegal possession of three trout. After reviewing a number of authorities regarding forfeitures under the Fisheries Act and
- [Minister of Fisheries and Oceans v. Ahousaht First Nation et al.](https://admiraltylaw.com/fisheries/minister-of-fisheries-and-oceans-v-ahousaht-first-nation-et-al/) - This case involved the appeal of a decision of the Federal Court issued on 28 February 2014 restraining the Minister of Fisheries from opening a commercial herring roe fishery(digested on this website). Since the commercial herring fishery was completed before the Crown requested an expedited appeal in June of 2014, the court ruled that there
- [R v. Beaverbones](https://admiraltylaw.com/fisheries/r-v-beaverbones/) - This case involved charges under the Federal Fisheries Act of fishing during a closed season. The main defence in the case involved a challenge of the authority of the Regional Director to make a variation order that purported to close the waters in question to fishing on the grounds that it had been improperly subdelegated
- [Ahousaht Indian Band and Nation v. Canada (Attorney General](https://admiraltylaw.com/fisheries/ahousaht-indian-band-and-nation-v-canada-attorney-general-2/) - This is a aboriginal fishing rights case where the justification stage of the proceeding was delayed until after the parties had had an opportunity to consult and negotiate accommodation of a declared right to fish any species within their fishing territories (other than for geoduck clams later excluded by the Court of Appeal). Prior to
- [Calwell Fishing Ltd. v. Canada](https://admiraltylaw.com/fisheries/calwell-fishing-ltd-v-canada/) - This case was brought by a group of fish packer owners whose businesses declined to the point where they were no longer economically viable. They sought a declaration based upon the common law doctrine of "taking". They argued that the state cannot take property without compensation except where such taking is supported by clear unambiguous
- [Her Majesty the Queen v. . 100193 P.E.I. Inc. et al.](https://admiraltylaw.com/fisheries/her-majesty-the-queen-v-100193-p-e-i-inc-et-al/) - This was an appeal and cross appeal from a decision of the Federal Court (2015 FC 932) allowing in part the Appellant/Defendant's motion for summary judgement to dismiss the Respondent/Plaintiffs' claims. In their action, the Plaintiffs' claim included the following: 1) Expropriation without compensation; 2) Breach of contract; 3) Unjust enrichment; and 4) Misfeasance of
- [R v. Bavin](https://admiraltylaw.com/fisheries/r-v-bavin/) - This case involved a aboriginal fishing rights defence to a charge of illegal gillnet fishing. Upon summary conviction appeal, the appeal court upheld a decision rejecting the aboriginal defence upon the grounds that the accused did not establish the date of effective control by Europeans at the required time.
- [Malonie v. Shubenacadie Indian Band](https://admiraltylaw.com/fisheries/malonie-v-shubenacadie-indian-band/) - The applicant band member obtained a bank loan to purchase a fish boat upon the assurance of her Band Council that she would be given use of a communal snow crab licence and quota for a period of six years. She purchased the fish boat and had use of the licence and quota for three
- [Burnell v. Canada (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans)](https://admiraltylaw.com/fisheries/burnell-v-canada-minister-of-fisheries-and-oceans/) - This case involved a class action by a group of halibut fishers against the Minister of Fisheries alleging that the halibut management scheme that held back 10 per cent of the halibut quota and assigned it to the Pacific Halibut Management Society was illegal and that it cost the fishers more to access the quota
- [R v. Rideout](https://admiraltylaw.com/fisheries/r-v-rideout-4/) - This case involved a fish harvester who was charged with violating a licence condition that prohibited him from retaining whelk that were less than 63 mm in overall length. At trial the fish harvester gave evidence that his primary method of grading the whelk for size was by using a grading table that that was
- [R v. Ai](https://admiraltylaw.com/fisheries/r-v-ai/) - In this case, a provincial court judge quashed a ticket information on the grounds that s. 79.7(2) of the Fisheries Act requires both the summons and the information portion of the ticket comply with all of the s. 79.7(2) requirements. In doing so, the provincial court judge found that there was an ambiguity in the
- [Layman Estate v. Layman](https://admiraltylaw.com/fisheries/layman-estate-v-layman/)
- [Morton v. Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and Marine Harvest Canada Inc.](https://admiraltylaw.com/fisheries/morton-v-minister-of-fisheries-and-oceans-and-marine-harvest-canada-inc/) - This case involved judicial review of conditions in Salmon Farm licences on the Pacific Coast that allowed the transfer of diseased smolts from hatcheries to fish farms if, amongst other things, the fish farm's veterinarian deems the transfer to be of low risk. After a lengthy analysis, the court granted an order declaring that the
- [R v. Howell](https://admiraltylaw.com/fisheries/r-v-howell/) - A due diligence defence was not established, as writing down catch numbers on a piece of cardboard does not constitute due diligence.
- [R v. Dempsey](https://admiraltylaw.com/fisheries/r-v-dempsey/) - This case involved a fishing vessel that was observed by a Fisheries Officer in a plane to have fishing gear in a closed area. The fisheries officer conducted an interview of the captain of the fishing vessel by radio. The accused captain attempted to exclude the evidence at trial on sections 7 and 10 of
- [D'Eon Fisheries Ltd. (Re) v.](https://admiraltylaw.com/fisheries/deon-fisheries-ltd-re-v/) - This case involved a borrower that granted a number of Personal Property Security Act ("PPSA") interests under the Nova Scotia PPSA Act over its enterprise allocation of silver hake. Two of the PPSA security holders had registered their security interests as follows: "all of the debtor's rights, title and interest of every kind which the
- [R v. Duncan](https://admiraltylaw.com/fisheries/r-v-duncan/) - This case involved a commercial salmon seine fishery that for some time had been pooled in the sense that only some of the available fishing vessel are allowed to participate in the fishery. In the past, vessels that were assigned a catch in the pool, but did not have the required license to fish, purchased
- [Doucette v. Her Majesty the Queen (Minister of Fisheries)](https://admiraltylaw.com/fisheries/doucette-v-her-majesty-the-queen-minister-of-fisheries/) - In this case, the Applicant was a commercial fish harvester residing in Prince Edward Island who wished to move to New Brunswick. In order to do so, he sold the fishing license that he used while living in Prince Edward Island. After consulting with the Department of Fisheries and Oceans ("DFO"), he moved to New
- [Malcolm v. Canada (Minister of Fisheries)](https://admiraltylaw.com/fisheries/malcolm-v-canada-minister-of-fisheries/) - This case involved a representative proceeding brought by the applicant on behalf of all commercial halibut licence holders in British Columbia. The applicant sought judicial review of a decision of the Minister of Fisheries changing the allocation of the total allowable catch ("TAC") of halibut between the commercial sector and the recreational sector from 88%
- [R v. Langan](https://admiraltylaw.com/fisheries/r-v-langan/)
- [R v. v. Steer](https://admiraltylaw.com/fisheries/r-v-v-steer/) - This is a fairly lengthy decision involving a large number of counts of allegations of intentional illegal fishing. The accused was convicted of all but two of the counts primarily on the basis of texts taken from a cell phone in his possession at the time of arrest.
- [Pilfold Estate v. v. R](https://admiraltylaw.com/fisheries/pilfold-estate-v-v-r/) - This case involved an exemption claimed by a roe-on-kelp and herring roe fisher who was a status Indian from the Musqueam First Nation. After applying the connecting factors test, the court did not allow the exemption that company minute books were kept on the reserve. Some of these factors included: "The fishing boat and fishing
- [R v. v. Daley](https://admiraltylaw.com/fisheries/r-v-v-daley/) - This case involved a fishing vessel operator who was also an elected representative of a crab fishermen committee. Trip limits were imposed in the conditions of the crab fishing licences at the request of fish processors. For a number of years the limits had not been enforced. Prior to the fishing season in question, the
- [R v. v. Gallant](https://admiraltylaw.com/fisheries/r-v-v-gallant/)
- [R v. v. May](https://admiraltylaw.com/fisheries/r-v-v-may/) - This case involved a fish harvester caught with crab caught under a improperly marked buoy. The crab was seized and sold for $6,832.80. After reviewing the applicable authorities including R v. Rideout, [2005] N.S.J. nO. 9 (N.S.S.C.) (digested herein), the court concluded that since it is possible that all the elements of the offence could
- [Ahousaht Indian Band v. Canada (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans)](https://admiraltylaw.com/fisheries/ahousaht-indian-band-v-canada-minister-of-fisheries-and-oceans/) - In this case the applicants were a group of five First Nations located on the West Coast of Vancouver Island who had recently had their right to to fish and sell fish affirmed by the Supreme Court of B.C. with the issue of justification and infringement to be later determined. When affirming this right, the
- [Canada (Fisheries and Oceans) v. David Suzuki Foundation](https://admiraltylaw.com/fisheries/canada-fisheries-and-oceans-v-david-suzuki-foundation/)
- [R v. Quipp](https://admiraltylaw.com/fisheries/r-v-quipp/)
- [Newfoundland v. Ryan Estate](https://admiraltylaw.com/fisheries/newfoundland-v-ryan-estate/) - In this case, the Newfoundland Trial Division (2009 NLTD 120) held that the statutory bar to litigation in the Nfld. Workplace Health, Safety and Compensation Act (WHSCA) is unconstitutional. Ryan Estate v. Universal Marine (Ryan's Commander) involved a claim by the estates of two crew members of the fishing vessel Ryan's Commander that capsized off
- [Ahousaht Indian Band and Nation v. Canada (Attorney General)](https://admiraltylaw.com/fisheries/ahousaht-indian-band-and-nation-v-canada-attorney-general/) - This case involved a claim by five Nuu-chah-nulth ("NCN") First Nations with territories situated on the west coast of Vancouver Island to a wide range of aboriginal fishing rights over a large geographical area including submerged lands extending 100 nautical miles into the ocean and rivers. After a lengthy trial, the trial court: (1) Granted
- [Weaver v. R.](https://admiraltylaw.com/fisheries/weaver-v-r/)
- [R v. Armstrong](https://admiraltylaw.com/fisheries/r-v-armstrong-2/)
- [R v. Classic Smokehouse (2003) Inc.](https://admiraltylaw.com/fisheries/r-v-classic-smokehouse-2003-inc/) - Editor's note: This entire decision deal with the question of whether fish seized pursuant to the Criminal Code should be detained for a period in excess of 90 days. However, it is arguable that the Criminal Code is not applicable to either the seizure of fish or for orders for continued detention. In this regards
- [Hogan v. Buote](https://admiraltylaw.com/fisheries/hogan-v-buote/) - The issue in this case was the apportionment of liability for a collision involving two fishing vessels. One vessel, under the command of Hogan, was in the process of laying lobster traps in a northerly direction while the other vessel, under the command of Buote, was proceeding westerly. Buote argued the collision was Hogan's fault
- [Tremblett v. Tremblett](https://admiraltylaw.com/fisheries/tremblett-v-tremblett/) - This case involved two brothers who fished together in Newfoundland for a period of 17 years. Initially they fished for groundfish and borrowed money together to purchase a vessel that they jointly owned. When government policy would not allow a partnership to hold a fishing licence, a valuable crab licence was put solely in the
- [R v. v. Crane](https://admiraltylaw.com/fisheries/r-v-v-crane/) - This case involved four charges including a charge of possession of undersized lobster. The issue in this case was whether the Department of Fisheries (DFO) breached the accused's charter rights by failing to provide the accused with an adequate photographic record of the measuring of the undersized lobster that were returned to the sea after
- [Kwicksutaineuk Ah-kw A-mish First Nation v. Canada (A.G.) et al.](https://admiraltylaw.com/fisheries/kwicksutaineuk-ah-kw-a-mish-first-nation-v-canada-a-g-et-al/) - This was an application for judicial review that was a direct consequence of the Morton decision that held the provincial regulatory regime over fin fish aquaculture was constitutionally invalid. As a result of this decision, the federal government was given one year to consider and put into place a regulatory regime over aquaculture in B.C.
- [K'omok First Nation v. Canada (A.G.)](https://admiraltylaw.com/fisheries/komok-first-nation-v-canada-a-g/) - This cased involved a challenge by the K'omoks First Nation ("FN") with respect to the granting of four aqua-culture licences issued to non-members of the FN in its claimed traditional territory in 2010 shortly after the Federal Government took over jurisdiction for regulating aqua-culture following the Morton decision. It also involved a challenge to the
- [R v. Shears](https://admiraltylaw.com/fisheries/r-v-shears/)
- [R v. Lavhey](https://admiraltylaw.com/fisheries/r-v-lavhey/)
- [R v. Legge](https://admiraltylaw.com/fisheries/r-v-legge/)
- [R v. Saulter](https://admiraltylaw.com/fisheries/r-v-saulter/)
- [Lax Kw'alaams Indian Band v. Canada (Attorney General)](https://admiraltylaw.com/fisheries/lax-kwalaams-indian-band-v-canada-attorney-general/) - This case involved a claim by a group of Coast Tsimshian First Nations located near Prince Rupert, B.C.) for a declaration of entitlement to harvest all species of fish, shellfish and aquatic plants in their tribal territories and sell them on a commercial scale. The trial and related proceeding took 125 days resulting in a
- [Devereauz v. Lewis](https://admiraltylaw.com/fisheries/devereauz-v-lewis/)
- [Quinlan Brothers Limited v. Coady](https://admiraltylaw.com/fisheries/quinlan-brothers-limited-v-coady/) - This case involved a somewhat convoluted fact situation involving three related agreements to sell a fish boat and two fishing licences. After the agreement to sell the fish boat was partially frustrated by a moratorium on cod fishing, both parties walked away from a partially completed contract to sell one of the fishing licences. Several
- [McDonald v. R](https://admiraltylaw.com/fisheries/mcdonald-v-r/) - Editor's note: This case, along with three similar cases (Bastien, Dube and Robertson, 2010 TCC 552) were under appeal at the time of posting (30 November 2011).
- [Canada v. Hache](https://admiraltylaw.com/fisheries/canada-v-hache/) - This case involved a snow crab and groundfish fisher who entered into an agreement with the Government of Canada in 2001 under the Fisheries Access Program ("FAP") to surrender his fishing licences and related gear for $3,050,000 dollars. The purpose of the FAP was to allow aboriginal groups to take part in the commercial fishery.
- [Canada v. Robertson](https://admiraltylaw.com/fisheries/canada-v-robertson/) - Application for leave to the Supreme Court of Canada was dismissed on 20 March 2012 2012 CanLII 64752 (SCC)
- [R v. Mission Western Development Ltd.](https://admiraltylaw.com/fisheries/r-v-mission-western-development-ltd/)
- [Kwicksutaineuk/Ah-Kwa-Mish First Nation v. Canada (Attorney General)](https://admiraltylaw.com/fisheries/kwicksutaineuk-ah-kwa-mish-first-nation-v-canada-attorney-general/) - Editor's Note: As of August 2012, an appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada is pending.
- [Kwicksutaineuk/Ah-kwa-Mish Fisrst Nation v. British Columbia (Minister of Agriculture & Lands)](https://admiraltylaw.com/fisheries/kwicksutaineuk-ah-kwa-mish-fisrst-nation-v-british-columbia-minister-of-agriculture-lands/)
- [McMillan v. Johnson (Estate)](https://admiraltylaw.com/fisheries/mcmillan-v-johnson-estate/)
- [Knowles Estate v. Knowles](https://admiraltylaw.com/fisheries/knowles-estate-v-knowles/)
- [Daley v. Coady](https://admiraltylaw.com/fisheries/daley-v-coady/)
- [Eidsvik v. Canada (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans)](https://admiraltylaw.com/fisheries/eidsvik-v-canada-minister-of-fisheries-and-oceans/)
- [Kimoto v. Canada (Attorney General)](https://admiraltylaw.com/fisheries/kimoto-v-canada-attorney-general/) - This case involved amendments to Chapter 3 of the Pacific Salmon Treaty that required Canada to reduce its catch of chinook salmon from the west coast of Vancouver Island and required the U.S. to provide 30 million dollars to Canada for a fisheries mitigation program to reduce effort in Canada's commercial troll fishery. After some
- [Association Des Crevettiers Acadiens Du Golfe Inc. v. Canada (Attorney General)](https://admiraltylaw.com/fisheries/association-des-crevettiers-acadiens-du-golfe-inc-v-canada-attorney-general/)
- [Iverson v. Canada (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans)](https://admiraltylaw.com/fisheries/iverson-v-canada-minister-of-fisheries-and-oceans/)
- [R v. Jones](https://admiraltylaw.com/fisheries/r-v-jones-2/)
- [R v. Lee](https://admiraltylaw.com/fisheries/r-v-lee/)
- [R v. McDonald](https://admiraltylaw.com/fisheries/r-v-mcdonald-2/)
- [Baker v. Smith](https://admiraltylaw.com/fisheries/baker-v-smith/) - This case involved an application for specific performance of a contract to whereby a purchaser would fish a vendor's snow crab licence and purchase it when it became transferable. The Court of Appeal upheld the ruling of the trial judge refusing to enforce the contract for the following reasons: There was no agreement or "meeting
- [458093 BC Ltd v. Dietterle](https://admiraltylaw.com/fisheries/458093-bc-ltd-v-dietterle/) - This case concerned the interpretation of an agreement between the Plaintiff and Defendant relating to the roe herring fishery. The Plaintiff alleged an agreement between it and the Defendant fishermen the terms of which required the Plaintiff to lease the Defendant fishing licences and to provide specific services such as packing and trucking. Expenses for
- [Baines v. Deluney](https://admiraltylaw.com/fisheries/baines-v-deluney/) - This case involved the issue of whether or not a shrimp licence transferred to a fisherman was transferred for the purpose of a sale or the purpose of a long-term lease. After reviewing all of the evidence, the court concluded that the transfer was for the purpose of a lease and not a sale. It
- [Fish Reduction Ltd. v. Malone](https://admiraltylaw.com/fisheries/fish-reduction-ltd-v-malone/) - This case involved an alleged arrangement whereby in order to get around a restriction upon the holding of fishing licences by companies, two companies arranged for an individual to hold a fishing licence in trust for the companies. In an action to enforce the alleged agreement, the court reviewed the evidence and declined to find
- [Gaudet v. Landry Estate](https://admiraltylaw.com/fisheries/gaudet-v-landry-estate/) - This case involved a dispute over an agreement to sell a lobster licence, a herring licence, a mackeral licence and a cod licence along with a small amount of fishing gear. An agreement was entered into with the vendor to sell the licence to a purchaser who was obtaining financing from and giving the use
- [Native Citizens Fisheries Ltd. v. James Walkus Fishing Co.](https://admiraltylaw.com/fisheries/native-citizens-fisheries-ltd-v-james-walkus-fishing-co/) - This case involved a dispute over whether or not a right of first refusal to lease two roe herring seine licences was properly exercised. After reviewing a great deal of evidence and some related issues such as res Judicata, mistake of law, and misrepresentation, the court ruled that the rights of first refusal had been
- [Franoice C. Cormier Fish Inc. v. Bouctouche Fish Market Ltd.](https://admiraltylaw.com/fisheries/franoice-c-cormier-fish-inc-v-bouctouche-fish-market-ltd/) - The Plaintiff was a commission fish buyer who purchased fish from lobster fishers on behalf of the Defendant, fish processor. It was standard practice in the lobster industry to pay a base price for lobsters which was later adjusted depending upon the price paid by the major processors. In two different years, there was a
- [Matsqui First Nation v. Canada (Attorney General)](https://admiraltylaw.com/fisheries/matsqui-first-nation-v-canada-attorney-general/)
- [R v. William David Sam](https://admiraltylaw.com/fisheries/r-v-william-david-sam/) - In this case the accused was charged under the British Columbia Sports Fishing Regulations with a number of offences including snagging, and not having a sport fishing licence. In the regulations, "sport fishing" was defined as " fishing for recreational purposes" . The accused was convicted at trial. He appealed on the grounds that it
- [R v. Vinh Van Vuong](https://admiraltylaw.com/fisheries/r-v-vinh-van-vuong/) - The accused was charged with failing to return undersized crabs to the water " forthwith" . Because the crew were busy hauling traps off of the ground line, undersized crabs remained out of water for periods of 5 to 30 minutes before being measured and returned. The Court reviewed some of the definitions of "
- [R v. Brendon Fitzpatrik](https://admiraltylaw.com/fisheries/r-v-brendon-fitzpatrik/) - This case involved a fisher who was accused of catching and retaining fish in excess of his quota. At trial, the Crown sought to admit evidence from hail reports and daily fishing logs. The fisher successfully argued that the use of these logs violated his right to be secure from self incrimination pursuant to section
- [Radil Bros. Fishing Co. v. Canada](https://admiraltylaw.com/fisheries/radil-bros-fishing-co-v-canada/) - This case involved a dispute over the entitlement to ground fish quota which was lost when a ground fish licence with a history of large landings was "swapped" with a licence from another vessel (with smaller landings) in order to facilitate the purchase of a salmon licence. In dismissing an application by the Defendant for
- [Matchim v. BGI Atlantic Inc.](https://admiraltylaw.com/fisheries/matchim-v-bgi-atlantic-inc/) - This case involved a dispute between a crab buyer and a crab harvester over whether or not an oral promise to pay a 60 cent per pound bonus above the union negotiated price for crab was a legally enforceable contract. At the trial level, the trial Court relied in part upon the case of Philpott
- [Hurley v. Power](https://admiraltylaw.com/fisheries/hurley-v-power/) - This case involved a claim by a plaintiff who allegedly paid $130,000 for a lobster licence. Since DFO regulations prevented him from holding it himself, he arranged to have it held by a nominee who later sold it and kept the proceeds of sale. In an action against the various parties involved, the court refused
- [Genge v. Dredge](https://admiraltylaw.com/fisheries/genge-v-dredge/) - This case involved a dispute over the breach of an oral agreement to lease a shrimp fishing licence by way of failing to make the agreed upon lease payments. In granting judgement to the original licence holder, the court made a number of findings and orders including the following: A fishing licence is an asset
- [Loder v. Citifinancial Canada Inc.](https://admiraltylaw.com/fisheries/loder-v-citifinancial-canada-inc/) - the applicant did not come to court with clean hands. Upon appeal, the appeal court reviewed the authorities and concluded that "the authorities do not support the restrictive view stated by the Chambers Judge" [para. 15]. The court further stated: Clearly the foregoing decisions, including those of this Court in Green v. Harnum, confirm that
- [Philpott and Hopkins v. Sullivan](https://admiraltylaw.com/fisheries/philpott-and-hopkins-v-sullivan/) - This case involved a dispute between a fish processor and a fisher over the enforceability of a trust agreement, which provided that the fisher would hold a crab licence as bare trustee for the processor. When the processor commenced and action to enforce the trust, the fisher raised a number of defences including non est
- [Ocean Fisheries Ltd. v. Mitchell](https://admiraltylaw.com/fisheries/ocean-fisheries-ltd-v-mitchell/) - This case involved an agreement between a herring fish harvester and a fish processor whereby the fish processor advanced money to the fish harvester in exchange for an agreement to deliver fish. The agreement did not address the issue of what would happen if there were not enough fish landed to cover the funds advanced.
- [Doucette v. Jones](https://admiraltylaw.com/fisheries/doucette-v-jones/) - See: Article about trial level decision as upheld by court of appeal: Licence Trusts and Frustration of Contracts.
- [Garland Estate v. Garland](https://admiraltylaw.com/fisheries/garland-estate-v-garland/) - This case involved a application by the estate of a deceased partner for an accounting from the remain partner with respect to a fishing partnership. After reviewing the applicable law and the fishing assets, the court found that the property in question, including fishing licences, was partnership property , valued the property and ordered a
- [Caul v. Caul](https://admiraltylaw.com/fisheries/caul-v-caul/) - This case involved a family fishing business. After the father retired, the five sons sought direction from the court as to who if any of them were partners. After reviewing the law of partnership in general and as it applies in fishing enterprises, per Johannes Estate v. Sheaves (1996), 23 B.C.L.R. (3d) 283, the court
- [R v. Chute](https://admiraltylaw.com/fisheries/r-v-chute/) - This case involved a fisher who was charged with failing to permit an observer to go on board his vessel. He was convicted at trial level and acquitted by a summary conviction appeal court. Mr. Justice Roscoe, for the Court of appeal restored the conviction of the trial court and held as follows: 1) section
- [R v. Feltham](https://admiraltylaw.com/fisheries/r-v-feltham/) - This was a summary conviction appeal of an acquittal of a charge of unlawfully fishing with a purse seine. The main issue of the case was whether the accused was fishing with a bar seine for which he held a valid licence, or a purse seine for which he did not. Given the fact that
- [R v. Gateway](https://admiraltylaw.com/fisheries/r-v-gateway/) - This case involved a motion to quash 10 of 13 counts of an information. The motion was successful in quashing a number of counts on the basis that they did not state the location of the offence so as to give the court territorial jurisdiction. The motion was unsuccessful in quashing counts of the information
- [R v. Glynn](https://admiraltylaw.com/fisheries/r-v-glynn/) - On a summary conviction appeal, the court confirmed that upon receiving a request from D.F.O., an agent hired by the owner of a fishing vessel to monitor offloading of fish, has an obligation to report catch information to D.F.O. Counsel for the Crown: Anne Fagan Counsel for the Accused: Robert Buckingham
- [R v. Harding](https://admiraltylaw.com/fisheries/r-v-harding/) - This case involved the issue of whether or not the definition of "angling" in the Newfoundland Fishery Regulations was mutually exclusive of the definition of "foul hooking or jigging in the same regulations". The Trial Judge and the first level of appeal held that they were mutually exclusive and acquitted the accused because he was
- [R v. Jackson](https://admiraltylaw.com/fisheries/r-v-jackson/) - This case involved proof that a fisher has exceeded his allowable catch of haddock by way of circumstantial evidence. The Court of Appeal adopted R. v. Jenkins (1908), 14 C.C.C. 21 (B.C.C.A.) and confirmed that the accused does not have to explain away suspicious circumstances.
- [R v. Nickerson](https://admiraltylaw.com/fisheries/r-v-nickerson/) - This case involved a string of 30 tagless traps with 5 traps at the end of the string with tags attached which had been issued to the accused. The Appeal Court upheld the conviction which was based primarily on circumstantial evidence.
- [R v. Skinner](https://admiraltylaw.com/fisheries/r-v-skinner/) - This case involved a vessel fishing for cod by Otter Trawl. The evidence was that the vessel had caught 60,000 lbs. of cod in a open area, but could only take 25,000 lbs. into its tanks at a time. While the first 25,000 lbs. was being processed, the cod end of the net was put
- [R v. Dowdle](https://admiraltylaw.com/fisheries/r-v-dowdle/) - The accused was apprehended lobster fishing at a wharf located within an area closed to fishing for lobster. The trial court acquitted the accused on the grounds that the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt the location where the accused had been fishing. On appeal, the P.E.I. Supreme Court set aside the acquittal
- [R v. Robert E. Morreau](https://admiraltylaw.com/fisheries/r-v-robert-e-morreau/) - In 1994 there was a blanket ban on herring fishing for the entire west coast. This ban was modified on rare occasions to allow fishing. During a 23 minute opening in an area near Comox the accused was charged with fishing outside the open area. The order opening the area for fishing described the boundaries
- [R v. Rose](https://admiraltylaw.com/fisheries/r-v-rose/) - This case was a summary conviction appeal involving an east coast halibut fisherman who was charged with exceeding the cod by-catch provisions as set out in his fishing licence. His licence provided that if a fisherman exceeds the 30 per cent by-catch level in any fishing trip, then on any subsequent fishing trip if he
- [R v. Tapper](https://admiraltylaw.com/fisheries/r-v-tapper/) - This case involved a lobster fisherman who had his fishing vessel seized by the Department of Fisheries as a result of charges laid in an unrelated matter. Since his gear was in the water at the time of the seizure, he wrote to the Regional Director and sought assistance in removing his herring nets and
- [R v. Rayner](https://admiraltylaw.com/fisheries/r-v-rayner/) - This case involved a lobster fisherman charged with unlawful of possession of female crabs. The issue was whether or not the trial judge erred in rejecting opinion evidence from two fisheries officers with respect to the gender of the crabs. In doing so, he was of the view that the evidence of the Fisheries Officers
- [R v. Burroughs](https://admiraltylaw.com/fisheries/r-v-burroughs/) - This case involved a charge of fishing with a herring gillnet having a mesh size of less than 57 mm contrary to s. 42(1)(d) of the Pacific Fishery Regulations. Evidence was led by the Crown that the net in question was measured by two different fisheries officers one of whom measured the net vertically while
- [R v. McIntyre](https://admiraltylaw.com/fisheries/r-v-mcintyre-2/) - This case involved a summary conviction appeal of an acquittal from charges of catching and retaining undersize clams. This case involved two fishermen who were in the water fishing for clams with a rake like tool at the time of apprehension. They had floating containers holding freshly picked clams, some of which were undersized. Despite
- [R v. Hung Nguyen](https://admiraltylaw.com/fisheries/r-v-hung-nguyen/) - In a prosecution under the Fisheries Act for fishing in U.S. waters, the Crown neglected to enter a document entitled "vessel licence" (presumably a Department of Transport licence). As a result, the court acquitted the accused on the basis of a failure of the Crown to prove that the fishing vessel was subject to the
- [R v. Huovinen et al.](https://admiraltylaw.com/fisheries/r-v-huovinen-et-al/) - This case was a test case involving a challenge to the Aboriginal Communal License Regulations. In June of 1998, D.F.O. opened a commercial fishery on the Fraser River which only members of certain Indian bands were allowed to participate in. The accused, all non aboriginals, participated in the fishery by way of protest and were
- [R v. Robertson](https://admiraltylaw.com/fisheries/r-v-robertson/) - This was a summary conviction appeal, which involved charges against the owner of a licensed fishing vessel, who used his fishing vessel at a time the commercial lobster fishery was closed, in order to assist a native person who was fishing pursuant to an aboriginal licence. According to the findings of the trial judge, the
- [Spain v. Canada](https://admiraltylaw.com/fisheries/spain-v-canada/) - This case involved the seizure of the Spanish fishing vessel "Estai" while fishing on the high seas pursuant to the provisions of the Coastal Fisheries Protection Act. By way of background information, in 1995, the North Atlantic Fisheries Organization (N.A.F.O). set a total allowable catch for turbot which was roughly one half of the previous
- [R v. Ardley](https://admiraltylaw.com/fisheries/r-v-ardley/) - This case involved a charge under section 61(1)(a) of the Fisheries Act for failing to provide answers to information requests from the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. The accused was convicted at the Provincial Court level and acquitted on a summary conviction appeal. Upon further appeal, the conviction was restored on the grounds that it
- [R v. Rice](https://admiraltylaw.com/fisheries/r-v-rice-2/) - This case involved a charge under s. 63(1) of the Fisheries Act of making a "false or misleading statement" when estimating the amount of crab caught for the purpose filling out fishing logs. After landing the crab and making deductions for ice, water and barnacles, the landed weight was 37,238 lbs while the estimated weight
- [R v. Douglas](https://admiraltylaw.com/fisheries/r-v-douglas-2/) - This case involved charges of both fishing in a closed area and possession of illegal fish against three members of the Cheam First Nation. At the end of the Crown's case the defence brought a no evidence motion. In dismissing the no evidence motion, the court applied the broad definition of fishing contained in The
- [R v. Kelly](https://admiraltylaw.com/fisheries/r-v-kelly/) - This was a summary conviction appeal by the Crown of an acquittal from a charge of fishing with an unregistered vessel. The unregistered vessel was a large scow that was being towed by a smaller registered scow for the purpose of attending a trap net set in the Miramichi River. Upon reaching the net, the
- [R v. Rideout](https://admiraltylaw.com/fisheries/r-v-rideout-3/) - This was a companion case to R. v. Cox 2003 NLSCTC 56 (digested herein). In addition to the issues raised in R. v. Cox, this summary conviction appeal also raised the issue of who has the onus of proof regarding the question of whether or not the licensing official was properly authorized to issue licence
- [R v. Golem](https://admiraltylaw.com/fisheries/r-v-golem/) - This case involved the discovery of an illegal gill net with two different identification numbers upon it. The accused, was the corporation who held a licence under one of the two identification numbers. At trial, no evidence was led with respect to the person to whom the second identification number was issued. Upon convicting the
- [R v. Johnstone](https://admiraltylaw.com/fisheries/r-v-johnstone/) - This case involved a new abalone aquaculture project arising out of a collaborative agreement to be entered into with D.F.O. While the final form of agreement was still being negotiated, an assistant deputy minister issued a letter indicating it would "allow for a small number of brood stocks to be collected pending the signing of
- [R v. Edwards](https://admiraltylaw.com/fisheries/r-v-edwards/) - This was a summary conviction appeal of a conviction for failing to comply with the terms and conditions of a fishing licence (taking rockfish without a quota amendment). At issue was whether or not the Crown proved that the set of licence conditions was physically attached to the fishing licence. Although a certified copy of
- [R v. Perry](https://admiraltylaw.com/fisheries/r-v-perry-2/) - This case involved the Captain of a U.S. flagged fishing vessel who was charged under s. 4(2) of the Coastal Fisheries Protection Act with illegally fishing on a portion of the continental shelf beyond the limits of Canadian fisheries waters. On a pre-trial application, the fisherman argued that the Crown could not rely upon vague
- [R v. Morgan](https://admiraltylaw.com/fisheries/r-v-morgan/) - This case involved a charge of violating a condition of a fishing licence, namely failing to have a dockside observer supervise the unloading of a crab vessel. One issue which arose at trial was the admissibility of a computer generated replication of the fisherman's fishing licence along with the conditions and schedules attached thereto. In
- [R v. Boutcher](https://admiraltylaw.com/fisheries/r-v-boutcher/) - This case involved a cod fisherman who after his quota had been exhausted, used a fishing vessel licensed in his name to assist his brother in fishing his cod quota. This assistance included the following: 1) Transporting his brother across open waters to a location where the brother's smaller vessel was tied up; 2) Removing
- [R v. Harris](https://admiraltylaw.com/fisheries/r-v-harris-2/) - This case involved charges against a ground fish cod fisherman for continuing to direct for skate or monkfish after landing catches in excess of his by-catch allowance. The issue was whether or not he had a defence of reasonable and honest mistake of fact. The evidence was that although the accused had been fishing for
- [R v. Norman](https://admiraltylaw.com/fisheries/r-v-norman/) - This case involved a charge under s. 33(2) of the Fishery (General) Regulations of failing to "forthwith" return incidentally caught fish. The fish in this case, were 12 dead salmon incidentally caught in a herring net set to catch bait for lobster traps. Upon being caught on the grounds with a bag containing 12 salmon,
- [R v. Norkum](https://admiraltylaw.com/fisheries/r-v-norkum/)
- [R v. Anderson](https://admiraltylaw.com/fisheries/r-v-anderson/) - This case involved charges of fishing during a closed time against 40 commercial fishermen who were protesting the refusal of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans ("D.F.O.") to open the fishery. At a sentencing hearing, the court extensively reviewed the evidence regarding the extremely large run size and the inequities surrounding the Aboriginal Pilot Sales
- [R v. Jimmy](https://admiraltylaw.com/fisheries/r-v-jimmy/)
- [R v. Kearly](https://admiraltylaw.com/fisheries/r-v-kearly/)
- [R v. Mark](https://admiraltylaw.com/fisheries/r-v-mark/) - This case involved a charge against a west coast trawl fisherman for fishing over a fishing area boundary line into a closed area that was delineated as being on the seaward side of a 40 fathom contour line. At trial, the court relied upon evidence from a navigator who used a global positioning device (G.P.S.)
- [R v. Tremblett](https://admiraltylaw.com/fisheries/r-v-tremblett-2/) - This case involved a fishing vessel fishing with an otter trawl. Although a "fish finder" did not indicated many fish in the area and the first four trawls caught few fish, on the fifth trawl a very large number of fish were caught. An attempt was made to winch the net aboard, but it was
- [R v. McIntyre](https://admiraltylaw.com/fisheries/r-v-mcintyre/)
- [R v. Sutherland](https://admiraltylaw.com/fisheries/r-v-sutherland/) - This case involved an aboriginal fisherman who delivered five pickerel caught without a commercial fishing licence to a fish plant to the account of a different fisherman holding a commercial licence. At trial, the the court gave the accused the benefit of the doubt with respect to whether or not he was "selling" the fish
- [R v. Hudson](https://admiraltylaw.com/fisheries/r-v-hudson-2/) - Not yet available.
- [R v. Russ](https://admiraltylaw.com/fisheries/r-v-russ/) - This case involved an aboriginal person charged with illegal harvest of eight pieces of abalone after a park warden opened a parcel that the accused had entrusted with a Parks Canada employee to deliver to his wife. After ruling evidence of the initial opening of the parcel illegal under the Charter of Rights, the court
- [R v. McLenaghan](https://admiraltylaw.com/fisheries/r-v-mclenaghan/) - Given the wording of s. 78.4 of the Fisheries Act, the failure of the licence holder to sign his licence was not fatal to the Crown's case. Editor's note: For a case in B.C. with a similar result see: R v. Pacific Offshore Fisheries Ltd. and Frank Gordon Melan (6 January 2005) Unreported Powell River
- [R v. Pittman](https://admiraltylaw.com/fisheries/r-v-pittman/) - This case involved a fish harvester who was charged with failing to comply with a term of his licence requiring his herring net to be set one fathom below the surface. At trial, a fishery guardian testified to finding the net in question attached to some buoys and floating less than one fathom below the
- [R v. Wong](https://admiraltylaw.com/fisheries/r-v-wong/) - This case involved charges of possession of abalone against an accused who was alleged to have purchased it from a known abalone poacher who had previously plead guilty to charges of abalone poaching and been sentenced on a joint submission basis after assuring the Crown that he would fully co-operate with the Crown with respect
- [R v. Watson](https://admiraltylaw.com/fisheries/r-v-watson/) - Although the regulations infringed s. 2b charter rights, the infringements were upheld as a reasonable and demonstrably justified under s. 1(para. 31).
- [R v. Hawkins](https://admiraltylaw.com/fisheries/r-v-hawkins/) - This is a case arising out of an evening stake out operation after fisheries officers noted that a boat that was usually moored in a location was missing with a pick up truck parked close by. At 9:15 p.m. the officers observed the boat motor into a harbour and then heard a boat with a
- [Canada v. White](https://admiraltylaw.com/fisheries/canada-v-white/) - This case involved charges against a person who was observed removing three salmon from a net in an area closed to fishing. At issue, was the definition of the term "fishing" as defined in the Fisheries Act and subsequent jurisprudence. At trial the accused was convicted of possession of fish, but acquitted on the charge
- [R v. Caines](https://admiraltylaw.com/fisheries/r-v-caines/) - This case involved a shrimp trawler who was charged with failing to maintain a distance of at least one-half nautical mile between his vessel, including any mobile gear attached thereto, and any previously set fishing gear. Based upon circumstantial type evidence, the court was prepared to find that the fisher had failed to keep his
- [R v. Reid and Gladstone](https://admiraltylaw.com/fisheries/r-v-reid-and-gladstone/) - This case involved charges of offering to sell sablefish not caught under the authority of a aboriginal fishing licence. Given a total delay of 63 months and an unjustified delay of at least three years along with prejudice to the accused's security of person, a stay of proceedings was granted.
- [R v. Nguyen](https://admiraltylaw.com/fisheries/r-v-nguyen/) - This case involved a charge against a crab fish harvester who was caught hauling his crab traps more than once per day contrary to the conditions of his crab licence. During final argument after electing to call no evidence, defence counsel objected to the charge on the grounds that it did not disclose an offence
- [R v. Ivy Fisheries Ltd](https://admiraltylaw.com/fisheries/r-v-ivy-fisheries-ltd/)
- [R v. Murray](https://admiraltylaw.com/fisheries/r-v-murray/) - This case involved a charge of failing to have a revival tank operating as required by a condition of the vessel owner's fishing licence. The primary defence was that s. 22(7) of the Fishery (General) Regulations requiring compliance with conditions of licences was both outside the scope of the regulation making power granted to the
- [R v. V.F. Pacific Offshore Fisheries Ltd. and Frank Gordon Melan](https://admiraltylaw.com/fisheries/r-v-v-f-pacific-offshore-fisheries-ltd-and-frank-gordon-melan/) - This case involved an accused who was charged with a number of offences which included an averment that he was fishing under the authority of a fishing licence. At trial the Crown entered into evidence an unsigned certified copy of a licence produced from the records of the D.F.O. licence unit. This licence contained a
- [R v. Donnell](https://admiraltylaw.com/fisheries/r-v-donnell/) - This case involved a number of charges against a fish harvester under the B.C. Sport Fishing Regulations. At trial, although it was established that the fish harvester had a fishing licence, the Crown did not lead evidence of whether it was a sports fishing licence, a food fishing licence or a commercial licence. The only
- [R v. Thornehill](https://admiraltylaw.com/fisheries/r-v-thornehill/)
- [R v. Frampton](https://admiraltylaw.com/fisheries/r-v-frampton/)
- [R v. Tibbo](https://admiraltylaw.com/fisheries/r-v-tibbo/) - This case involved a charge of failing to comply with a licence condition requiring fish harvesters to return to the water any lobster that have previously been marked with a V notch so as to show that they are capable of spawning. At a pre-trial application, the licence conditions were challenged as (1) being ultra
- [R v. Beck](https://admiraltylaw.com/fisheries/r-v-beck-2/) - This case involved a accused charged with "[o]n or about September 19, 2006 . . . [d]id set unmarked fishing gear . . .". At trial, the Trial Judge refused an application under s. 601(3) of the Criminal Code to amend the Information to insert the words "operate or leave unattended" after the word "set".
- [R v. Ramalheira](https://admiraltylaw.com/fisheries/r-v-ramalheira/) - This case involved charges against the Master of a foreign fishing vessel under the Coastal Waters Protection Act. After several trial adjournments, the Provincial Court refused an adjournment based upon the alleged poor health of the accused in part because the medical report in support of the application was "scant at best" and given the
- [R v. Fitzpatrick](https://admiraltylaw.com/fisheries/r-v-fitzpatrick/) - This case involved a father and son with long line crab fishing vessels who fished together. Since only the father's vessel was equipped with a power hauler, they surreptitiously used the father's vessel for hauling both sets of traps and then transferred some of the crab to the son' s boat to be landed by
- [R v. Barrett](https://admiraltylaw.com/fisheries/r-v-barrett-2/) - This decision involved the admissibility of statements made by four seal harvesters to DFO officers in the course of an investigation on charges related to illegally selling blue back seal pelts. In each case, the accused harvesters were contacted by telephone and then interviewed by Fisheries Officers in the front seat of DFO vehicles parked
- [R v. Mood](https://admiraltylaw.com/fisheries/r-v-mood/) - This case involved a fisherman convicted under section 13(1) (c) of the Atlantic Fishing Regulations of permitting his crew to haul previously set lobster traps without him (the licence holder) being aboard the vessel. Upon sentencing, the trial judge refused to apply the mandatory forfeiture provisions of section 72(1) of the Fisheries Act to the
- [R v. Gould](https://admiraltylaw.com/fisheries/r-v-gould/) - This was a sentencing case involving two brothers who pleaded guilty of unlawful possession of salmon. Both brothers were fined $1,000 dollars. In the court also ordered the forfeiture of the boat owned by one brother with a value of $12,000 dollars. Upon appeal, the court set aside the forfeiture of the vessel and substituted
- [R v. Hallohan](https://admiraltylaw.com/fisheries/r-v-hallohan/) - This case involved a fisher charged with recreational fishing for ground fish during a closed time. He was caught with 12 fish, was a first time offender, was not commercially trafficking in cod and plead guilty the first time the matter was brought before the court. The sentencing judge imposed a fine of $500 dollars
- [Greening v. Canada (Ministry of Fisheries and Oceans)](https://admiraltylaw.com/fisheries/greening-v-canada-ministry-of-fisheries-and-oceans/) - This case involved an application for relief from forfeiture pursuant to section 75 (4) of the Fisheries Act which provides as follows: 75. (4) Where, on the hearing of an application made pursuant to subsection (1), it is made to appear to the satisfaction of the judge, (a) that the applicant is innocent of any
- [R v. Grandy](https://admiraltylaw.com/fisheries/r-v-grandy/) - The accused was a commercial lobster fisherman who was caught hauling 14 unmarked lobster pots intermingled with his tagged pots. He plead guilty and a joint submission was made requesting: A fine of $2,000; Forfeiture of the 14 unmarked lobster pots; No forfeiture of his boat, motor and contents; and Prohibition from fishing for the
- [R v. Oldford](https://admiraltylaw.com/fisheries/r-v-oldford/) - This case involved a commercial lobster fish harvester and his son who plead guilty to catching five lobster for personal consumption (two of which were undersize) five days before the lobster season was scheduled to open. At the initial sentence hearing in Provincial Court, the court imposed fines of $2,500 and $1,100 for the father
- [R v. Barrett](https://admiraltylaw.com/fisheries/r-v-barrett/) - This case involved charges against a large number of seal harvesters for having sold "blueback seal pelts" contrary to the Marine Mammal Regulations. It is related to the case of R. v. Shiner, [2008] N.J. NO. 10. At trial a number of defences were raised. With respect to the defence of mistake of fact, the
- [R v. Shiner](https://admiraltylaw.com/fisheries/r-v-shiner-2/) - This case involved one of several persons who were charged with selling blueback seal pelts caught in 1996. After a constitutional challenge in the Ward case, the matter was remitted back to trial. After the Crown had proven all of the elements of the offence beyond a reasonable doubt, the trial judge entered a stay
- [R v. Cassell](https://admiraltylaw.com/fisheries/r-v-cassell/) - This case involved a snow crab fisher who offloaded all but two trays of crab while a dockside observer was present. The remain two trays were retained for crew members to take home. Upon being confronted by a fisheries officer while the crab was still aboard the fishing vessel, the fisher was given a written
- [R v. Derry](https://admiraltylaw.com/fisheries/r-v-derry/) - This case involved a master and vessel owner who were charged with exceeding the amount of catch provided by their halibut quota after they failed to properly process the papers necessary for the transfer of a second quota to their vessel. The summary conviction appeal court upheld the conviction imposed by the trial court after
- [R v. Armstrong](https://admiraltylaw.com/fisheries/r-v-armstrong/)
- [R v. Keough](https://admiraltylaw.com/fisheries/r-v-keough-2/)
- [R v. Boudreau](https://admiraltylaw.com/fisheries/r-v-boudreau-4/)
- [R v. Paul](https://admiraltylaw.com/fisheries/r-v-paul/) - This case involved an aboriginal fisher who, after participating in a test/protest snow crab fishery was convicted of: (1) having on board a crab trap without a valid tag, and (2) fishing for snow crab without a valid licence. Upon conviction, his sentence included a conditional discharge and a partial forfeiture of the proceeds of
- [R v. Sandover-Sly](https://admiraltylaw.com/fisheries/r-v-sandover-sly-2/) - This case involved the poaching of 4,100 abalone weighing 750 pounds with a value of $18,750 at a time when there had been a coast wide moratorium on the harvesting of abalone for approximately eight years. One of the accused plead guilty and was sentenced on a joint submission to a fine of $7,000 and
- [R v. Weaver](https://admiraltylaw.com/fisheries/r-v-weaver/) - This case involved two divers who were caught poaching 16 lobsters, three of which were short and one of which was a female with eggs. Upon entering guilty pleas, the sentencing judge imposed fines of $1,500 each plus forfeiture of a boat worth $5,000 and other gear worth $4,000 to $5,000. Upon appeal, the court
- [R v. Cobb](https://admiraltylaw.com/fisheries/r-v-cobb/) - The case involved an application under s. 75(1) of the Fisheries Act for return of a boat that had been forfeited pursuant to s. 72(1) of the Act. Although the act provided that the application must be made within 30 days after the forfeiture, the application was not made until 43 days after the forfeiture.
- [R v. Ulybel Enterprises Ltd.](https://admiraltylaw.com/fisheries/r-v-ulybel-enterprises-ltd/) - This case involved a Canadian registered ship which was given a provisional registration in Panama without first obtaining a deletion certificate from the Canadian Registrar of Ships. It then fished in the NAFO fishing zone without a licence, which it could do legally if it was a foreign ship, but not as a Canadian ship.
- [R v. Sandover-Sly](https://admiraltylaw.com/fisheries/r-v-sandover-sly-3/) - This case involved an appeal from a sentence for fishing for abalone without a licence, which imposed forfeiture of a tug and barge used in the commission of the offence in addition to a fine. Although the appellant was the general manager of the Company that owned the tug and barge, it was his father
- [R v. Hudson](https://admiraltylaw.com/fisheries/r-v-hudson/) - This was a sentence appeal involving an accused with a lengthy record who was convicted for illegal fishing of Lobster. Amongst other things, the court upheld an order for forfeiture of a dory, outboard motor and other miscellaneous items with an estimated value of $2,500.
- [R v. Weir](https://admiraltylaw.com/fisheries/r-v-weir/) - This case involved an appeal from a sentence imposed for fishing cod during a closed time. Upon appeal, the court upheld a crown appeal of an $800 fine as too low and set aside a forfeiture of boat and motor belonging to one of the accuseds. In doing so, Dymond J. reviewed some of the
- [R v. Cox <p>Forsey](https://admiraltylaw.com/fisheries/r-v-cox-forsey/) - This case involved two accuseds, who were convicted of taking an illegal bycatch of cod and other species while fishing for skate. The court considered section 51(b) of the Fisheries Act and exercised its discretion to not order forfeiture of intermixed fish. In exercising this discretion it considered, amongst other things, the following: 1) The
- [Mathews v. Canada](https://admiraltylaw.com/fisheries/mathews-v-canada/) - This case involved an East Coast snow crab fisherman who allegedly failed to comply with the terms and conditions of his licence by both failing to hail before changing areas and exceeding his quota on three different occasions. Although a prosecution in the courts was commenced, instead of continuing the prosecution, the Department of Fisheries
- [Kelley v. Canada](https://admiraltylaw.com/fisheries/kelley-v-canada/) - Mr. Justice MacKay followed his early decision in R. v. Mathews (digested herein) to hold that the Minister of Fisheries cannot use section 7 of the Fisheries Act to impose licence sanctions. In doing so, he distinguished Comeau Seafoods Ltd. v. Canada (digested herein). He then went on to hold that even if he is
- [R v. Craig](https://admiraltylaw.com/fisheries/r-v-craig/) - This is a non-fisheries case where the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that for offences under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act the totality approach should not be applied.
- [R v. Shiner](https://admiraltylaw.com/fisheries/r-v-shiner/) - This case involved the seizure of a large number of seal pelts pursuant to a prosecution under the Marine Mammal Regulations. After the expiration of an order granted by a justice of the peace to extend the time for detention of the seized items and before sentence for one accused and the trial of others,
- [Kelly v. Canada (Attorney General)](https://admiraltylaw.com/fisheries/kelly-v-canada-attorney-general/) - This case involved a vessel that was fishing during a closed in situation where the area had been closed by variation order shortly before the vessel started its fishing trip. At the trial of the licence holder, the licence holder did not appear and in his absence, after hearing evidence establishing the essential elements of
- [R v. Cox](https://admiraltylaw.com/fisheries/r-v-cox-2/) - Upon making an order for the forfeiture of a boat and outboard motor, the court said that: In determining the nature of any fine which is appropriate must consider any forfeiture order in applying the totality principle of sentencing (see R. v. Spellacy (1995), 131 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 127 (N.L.C.A.)) . . . If counsel
- [R v. McNeill](https://admiraltylaw.com/fisheries/r-v-mcneill/) - This is a sentencing case involving the poaching of a large number of abalone. In ruling that forfeiture of a boat, truck and other equipment should be considered part of the overall sentence (so as to reduce the fine or other sanctions that might otherwise be imposed), the court distinguished R v. Sandover-Sly 2002 BCCA
- [R v. Reid](https://admiraltylaw.com/fisheries/r-v-reid-2/) - This case involved approximately 12,000 pounds of sable fish that were seized pursuant to the provisions of the Fisheries Act and sold pending trial. After obtaining a stay of proceedings for failing to provide a trial within a reasonable time, the Crown brought an application for forfeiture of the proceeds of sale of the sable
- [R v. Rideout](https://admiraltylaw.com/fisheries/r-v-rideout-2/) - This case involved a snow crab fisherman who was convicted of fishing out of his licenced area. In awarding a fine of $4,000, but refusing to order forfeiture of the catch valued at $35,362, the trial court relied upon the following mitigating factors: (1) Although the accused's belief that he was fishing in his area
- [R v. Meade](https://admiraltylaw.com/fisheries/r-v-meade/) - Not yet available.
- [R v. Oates](https://admiraltylaw.com/fisheries/r-v-oates/)
- [R v. Perry](https://admiraltylaw.com/fisheries/r-v-perry/) - This case involved a charge against an American crab fisherman of illegal fishing pursuant to s. 4(2) of the Coast Fisheries Protection Act (See the digest of the case under "Offences"). After conviction, the Crown sought a fine of $30,000, forfeiture of two crab traps seized, the proceeds from sale of the crab that was
- [Hurley v. R.](https://admiraltylaw.com/fisheries/hurley-v-r/)
- [R v. Wilcox](https://admiraltylaw.com/fisheries/r-v-wilcox/) - This case involved a large number of charges against a snow crab fisherman who was alleged to have conspired with two dockside observers to land catches of snow crab in excess of his quota. Amongst other things the case concerned the admissibility of a "fish book" containing a hand written table of dates, names, quantities
- [R v. Sandover-sly](https://admiraltylaw.com/fisheries/r-v-sandover-sly/)
- [R v. Kinnear](https://admiraltylaw.com/fisheries/r-v-kinnear/) - Fisheries officers on a patrol had a suspicion that the accused might have undersize lobster on his vessel but did not have reasonable and probable grounds for believing so. Undersize lobsters were found as a result of a search /inspection of the vessel. The issue was whether the officers searched the vessel under section 49.1
- [R v. Boyd](https://admiraltylaw.com/fisheries/r-v-boyd-2/)
- [R v. Kukuljan and Emil K. Fishing Corp.](https://admiraltylaw.com/fisheries/r-v-kukuljan-and-emil-k-fishing-corp/) - This case involved charges against the the owner of a salmon fishing vessel for unlawfully retaining incidental catch of sockeye and coho salmon. Since the owner of the vessel was not aboard at the time of the offence, the owner was charged under both s. 78.3 of the Act with respect to liability of employers
- [R v. T.&T. Fisheries Inc.](https://admiraltylaw.com/fisheries/r-v-t-t-fisheries-inc/) - In a complicated fact situation involving a company owned fishing vessel that was illegally fishing for Lobster while the sole director was not aboard, based upon the rule in Hodge's case (1838), 168 E.R. 1136 and circumstantial evidence produced by the Crown, the court was not prepared to convict the director for his personal involvement.
- [R v. Hynes](https://admiraltylaw.com/fisheries/r-v-hynes/) - The accused was the holder of a licence allowing a fishing vessel to fish for snow crab in a defined area. The fishing vessel was observed in a area outside the defined fishing area with crab fishing gear hanging over its side. As well, buoys bearing the CFV number of the fishing vessel were found
- [R v. Forsey](https://admiraltylaw.com/fisheries/r-v-forsey/) - This was a companion case to R. v. Cox 2003 NLSCTC 56 (digested herein). In addition to the issues raised in the Cox decision, the court also dealt with the issues of whether or not the accused could be found guilty by virtue of s. 78.3 of the Fisheries Act (Offences by Employers) and s.
- [R v. Roy](https://admiraltylaw.com/fisheries/r-v-roy/) - This case involved a charge of possession of undersize lobsters. After the lobsters were seized, they were put in a bucket and carried by a fisheries officer to his truck. He then put the lobsters in a bag and marked it with a black marker. The bag was put into a freezer where it was
- [R v. Smith](https://admiraltylaw.com/fisheries/r-v-smith/) - The accused was the owner of a gill net vessel which participated in a commercial chum opening. His regular deckhand was not available and he was therefore required to hire another experienced deckhand. Before doing so, he obtained the recommendation of a previous employer of the deckhand. Evidence was led that it was common practice
- [R v. Corcoran](https://admiraltylaw.com/fisheries/r-v-corcoran/) - This case involved a charge against an inshore cod fisherman for fishing during a closed time (see digest of earlier decision from this case in 1997). This case is a summary conviction appeal on the grounds that the Regional Director General improperly delegated his authority to sign a variation order closing the fishery. After reviewing
- [R v. Gorman](https://admiraltylaw.com/fisheries/r-v-gorman/) - This was a summary conviction appeal of an order of a Provincial Court acquitting an accused fisher of an offence on the grounds that a Variation order had not been published in the Canada Gazette. The appeal court set aside the acquittal on the grounds that sections 15(1) and 7(1) j of the Statutory Instruments
- [R v. Corcoran](https://admiraltylaw.com/fisheries/r-v-corcoran-2/) - This case involved a variation order which declared that fishing was prohibited in a local area "beginning on January 1 and ending on December 31". The trial judge ruled that the variation order was vague and that it failed to properly prohibit fishing during a "specified period" as within the meaning of the Act. The
- [R v. Boudreau](https://admiraltylaw.com/fisheries/r-v-boudreau-3/) - This case involved a motion during a trial to exclude a statement made by the accused to a fisheries officer. Prior to the making of the statement the accused had been given a Charter warning and had advised that he did not want to call a lawyer "at this time". Based upon the British Columbia
- [R v. King](https://admiraltylaw.com/fisheries/r-v-king/) - Upon summary conviction appeal, the appeal court ruled that the act of waiting and watching some undersize lobster that had been discovered pursuant to a legal inspection under s. 49(1) of the Fisheries Act, "from within a warehouse, which was a limited access building that was used by a number of public agencies for various
- [R v. Kooktook](https://admiraltylaw.com/fisheries/r-v-kooktook/)
- [P v. Diep](https://admiraltylaw.com/fisheries/p-v-diep/) - This case involved a s. 8 Charter challenge of a warrantless inspection/search of a fish farm facility which in addition to finding unlicensed fish also discovered a large marijuana grow operation. The appeal court upheld the validity of the search for the following reasons: In R v. Jarvis [2002] 3 S.C.R. 757, the Supreme Court
- [R v. Leahy](https://admiraltylaw.com/fisheries/r-v-leahy/)
- [R v. Morrel](https://admiraltylaw.com/fisheries/r-v-morrel/) - Not yet available.
- [R v. Stengler](https://admiraltylaw.com/fisheries/r-v-stengler/) - This case involved a charge of exceeding a possession limit arising out of evidence obtained during a roadside search of a motor vehicle. The search was performed pursuant to s. 24 of the Fisheries Act (Saskatchewan), 1994. This section allows for search of a motor vehicle "[w]here due to circumstances, time or location, there could
- [R v. Rhyno](https://admiraltylaw.com/fisheries/r-v-rhyno/) - This case involved a crab boat that was owned by a group of fishermen who were under suspicion for illegal crab fishing. Although the vessel had not engaged in commercial fishing for some time, it was outfitted for fishing, it was tied up to a dock with crab traps piled upon it, and on the
- [R v. Peter Paul](https://admiraltylaw.com/fisheries/r-v-peter-paul-2/) - This was an aboriginal rights case where a vessel was seized as a result of a charge under the Fisheries Act. The issue was whether or not the Crown must bring an application under section 71(4) of the Fisheries Act for continued detention of a seized fishing boat within 90 days of the seizure. Upon
- [R v. Robie](https://admiraltylaw.com/fisheries/r-v-robie/) - This case involved a fisheries officer who was inspecting a property under s. 49 of the Fisheries Act to see if logging on the property had any impact on fish habitat. While attempting to question the woman who was the owner of the property in question, her husband, the accused, aggressively placed himself between his
- [R v. Cox](https://admiraltylaw.com/fisheries/r-v-cox/) - This was a summary conviction appeal of a case that involved a charge against the owner of a ground fish vessel for continuing to fish for a species (cod, plaice and halibut) after his allowable by-catch had been exceeded. Upon appeal, the following issues were raised: Correct interpretation the licence condition regarding when one must
- [R v. Puratich](https://admiraltylaw.com/fisheries/r-v-puratich/) - This case involved charges against a fisherman of landing halibut contrary to his commercial trawl licence on three different occasions. This licence provided that the fisherman could land an unlimited amount of turbot but only a set quota of other species caught as a by-catch. When these quotas are reached the vessel must stop fishing.
- [R v. Rideout](https://admiraltylaw.com/fisheries/r-v-rideout/) - This case involved a crab fisherman who was charged with contravening a condition of his licence that only allowed him to fish in sub-area 23d. At trial it was established that the accused was fishing outside sub-area 23d based upon a mistaken but honest belief that he was inside sub-area 23d. At issue in the
- [R v. Kavanagh](https://admiraltylaw.com/fisheries/r-v-kavanagh/) - This case involved a charge against a crab fisherman under s. 63(3) of the Fisheries Act of producing a fishing log with a misleading or false estimate of the size of his catch. Evidence was lead at trial that although discrepancy of 5 to 10 per cent was not uncommon, the actual catch of the
- [R v. Hennebery](https://admiraltylaw.com/fisheries/r-v-hennebery/) - This case involved the Atlantic Tuna fishery. As a result of an excessive swordfish by catch, D.F.O. negotiated a deal to get extra swordfish quota from Nova Scotia Swordfish Association. This allowed 12 vessels to continue fishing tuna, each with a swordfish by catch allowance of 1.2 tonnes. After being caught exceeding his quota, the
- [R v. Chung Hoa Truong and Ca Lun Ung](https://admiraltylaw.com/fisheries/r-v-chung-hoa-truong-and-ca-lun-ung/) - This cased involved a charge of fishing for crabs in waters which were other than Canadian waters. At trial, expert evidence was lead with respect to the difficulty of determining one's precise position in relation to the border because of such factors as the unreliability of range markers and global positioning systems and the difficulty
- [R v. Vanbuskirk](https://admiraltylaw.com/fisheries/r-v-vanbuskirk/) - This case was a summary conviction appeal by a fisherman who was convicted of failing to provide an accurate hail of the round weight of his catch. In setting aside his conviction and ordering a new trial, the court relied upon the following test as set out in R. v. Doucette (24 November 1998) No.
- [R v. LeBlanc](https://admiraltylaw.com/fisheries/r-v-leblanc/) - This was a summary conviction appeal of an acquittal of a fish boat Captain upon evidence that his son had been "sneaky enough" to hide under the floor without the knowledge of his father. The court upheld the acquittal without a great deal of analysis. It said "the judge did not want to convict the
- [R v. Harris](https://admiraltylaw.com/fisheries/r-v-harris/) - This case involved a charge against a fisher for failing to comply with a term of his fishing licence, namely exceeding the amount of by catch of Hake as allowed by his licence. At trial he gave evidence that he relied upon an experienced crew member to follow his instructions. The crew member had been
- [R v. Decker](https://admiraltylaw.com/fisheries/r-v-decker/) - This case involved a seal hunter who was unable to accommodate an observer because he already had a crew of ten and his Canadian Steamship Inspection (CSI) certificate only allowed him to have seven people on board. At trial, the summary conviction court acquitted the accused on the basis that D.F.O. ought to have provided
- [R v. Biggin](https://admiraltylaw.com/fisheries/r-v-biggin/) - This case involved a commercial crab fisher whose marked crab traps were found well within a closed area. After a useful review of the law regarding due diligence, mistake of fact, the definition of "fishing" and the onus of proof, the court rejected a due diligence defence on the following basis: In this case, the
- [R v. Raymond](https://admiraltylaw.com/fisheries/r-v-raymond/) - This case involved a trawl vessel that commenced fishing in a area where a lobster vessel had already set a string of traps. After entangling its trawl gear in the string of lobster traps, charges were laid under s. 37(1) of the Atlantic Fishery Regulations for failing to maintain a distance of at least one-half
- [R v. Keough](https://admiraltylaw.com/fisheries/r-v-keough/) - This case involved a charge of fishing for crab during a closed time. The accused ran a defence based upon evidence that he had been unable to retrieve his crab traps prior to the end of the season because of bad weather. He gave evidence that he contacted someone named "Tony" at the St. John's
- [R v. Doody](https://admiraltylaw.com/fisheries/r-v-doody/) - This case involved charges against a lobster fish harvester who had a bait fishing licence to catch herring by gillnet. It was a condition of the bait licence that the head rope of the net be at lease one meter below the surface of the water so as to allow Atlantic salmon to swim over
- [R v. Gallant](https://admiraltylaw.com/fisheries/r-v-gallant/) - This case involved an oyster fisherman who collected 7 tubs of oysters in his boat over a period of two hours and forty minutes and then moved to a more sheltered area adjacent to his oyster lease to sort the oysters and discard the undersize. Of 5,306 oysters, 4,480 were undersize. While acknowledging that under
- [R v. Chandler](https://admiraltylaw.com/fisheries/r-v-chandler/) - This case involved the captain of a crab fishing vessel who was charged with possession of undersize crabs. In upholding the trial judges finding of due diligence, the summary conviction appeal court distinguished two lobster cases (R. v. Cameron [1996] N.S.J. 83 and R. v. Morrison) because unlike the lobster cases, after the initial measuring
- [R v. Tremblett](https://admiraltylaw.com/fisheries/r-v-tremblett/) - This case involved a fishing vessel fishing with an otter trawl. Although a "fish finder" did not indicated many fish in the area and the first four trawls caught few fish, on the fifth trawl a very large number of fish were caught. An attempt was made to winch the net aboard, but it was
- [R v. Croft](https://admiraltylaw.com/fisheries/r-v-croft/) - Not yet available.
- [R v. Croft](https://admiraltylaw.com/fisheries/r-v-croft-2/) - This case involved a fisherman who was charged with catching six undersize lobsters out of a total catch of 100 to 150 lbs of lobsters. Despite evidence that he used a properly calibrated measuring device, the trial judge rejected a due diligence defence and apparently a separate defence based upon the maxim de minimus non
- [R v. Kinghorne](https://admiraltylaw.com/fisheries/r-v-kinghorne/) - This case involved a charge of having on board a fishing vessel scallops having more than the permitted average count of 45 meats per 500 grams. At trial a number of defences were raised including (1) illegal search, (2) due diligence, and (3) mistake of fact. With respect to the due diligence and mistake of
- [R v. Henneberry](https://admiraltylaw.com/fisheries/r-v-henneberry/) - Not yet available.
- [R v. Jones](https://admiraltylaw.com/fisheries/r-v-jones/) - This case involved the sentencing of poacher of Atlantic salmon. The Court imposed an overall fine of $3,500, a two year fishing prohibition and forfeiture of a boat that was used in the commission of the offence. With respect to the forfeiture order, the Court cited a number of authorities including R v. Smith (1978),
- [R v. Joyce](https://admiraltylaw.com/fisheries/r-v-joyce/) - Not yet available.
- [R v. Beck](https://admiraltylaw.com/fisheries/r-v-beck/) - Not yet avaiable.
- [R v. LaPorte](https://admiraltylaw.com/fisheries/r-v-laporte/) - Not yet available.
- [R v. Neary](https://admiraltylaw.com/fisheries/r-v-neary/) - This case involved charges under s. 48 of the Atlantic Fisheries Regulations for possessing undersize mackeral that were incidental catch. Section 48 of the Regulations provides as follows: (1)Subject to ss. (2) and (4), no person shall fish for, buy, sell or have in his possession any mackerel that is less than 25 cm in
- [R v. Arbuckle](https://admiraltylaw.com/fisheries/r-v-arbuckle/) - This case involved a charge under s. 44 of the Atlantic Fisheries Regulations for possession of undersize herring that was incidental catch. S. 44 of the Atlantic Fishery Regulations provided: 44. (1) Subject to subsections (2) and (4), no person shall fish for, buy, sell or have in his possession any herring that is less
- [Shawn Ralph v. Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada](https://admiraltylaw.com/fisheries/shawn-ralph-v-her-majesty-the-queen-in-right-of-canada/) - This case involved a fish harvester who was convicted at trial of conducting fishing activity while not being monitored by a Fisheries and Oceans approved Vessel Monitoring System ("VMS"). Upon summary conviction appeal, the appeal court held that the trial judge imposed too high a burden upon the fish harvester. The appeal court said as
- [F.H v. McDougall](https://admiraltylaw.com/fisheries/f-h-v-mcdougall/) - This is pronouncement by the Supreme Court of Canada on the civil burden of proof "on a balance of probabilities". Although this is not a fisheries case, since this is the burden of proof by which an accused fisher must establish a due diligence defence, it is an important decision for fisheries prosecutions. In this
- [R v. Ralph](https://admiraltylaw.com/fisheries/r-v-ralph-2/) - This case involved a fish harvester who was convicted at trial of conducting fishing activity while not being monitored by a Fisheries and Oceans approved Vessel Monitoring System ("VMS"). Upon summary conviction appeal, the appeal court held that the trial judge imposed too high a burden upon the fish harvester. The appeal court said as
- [R v. Patey](https://admiraltylaw.com/fisheries/r-v-patey-2/) - This case involved a angler who was observed by fisheries guardians to be in possession of two recently caught salmon with fish tags that had been affixed in a manner that allowed them to be removed and re-used. At trial, the anglers son gave evidence that he placed drinking straws into the locking mechanism without
- [R v. Quinlan Brothers Ltd.](https://admiraltylaw.com/fisheries/r-v-quinlan-brothers-ltd/) - This case involved a fish processing company and its two weigh masters who were charged with under-reporting the weight of a load of snow crab by approximately 5,000 pounds. At trial, the second weigh master advanced a defence of mistake of fact and the fish processor advanced a defence of due diligence. With respect to
- [R v. Mersey Seafoods Ltd.](https://admiraltylaw.com/fisheries/r-v-mersey-seafoods-ltd/) - Based upon the interjurisdictional immunity doctrine the trial court held that the Nova Scotia's Occupational Health and Safety legislation was inapplicable with respect to fishing vessels. Alternatively, it is inoperable pursuant to the Paramountcy doctrine.This decision was overturned on appeal(2008 NSCA 67). For a discussion of the interjurisdictional immunity doctrine see: A Reformulation of the
- [Dandy Dan's Fish Market Ltd. v. Newfoundland and Labrador](https://admiraltylaw.com/fisheries/dandy-dans-fish-market-ltd-v-newfoundland-and-labrador/) - This case involved a challenge to a licence issued under the Newfoundland Fish Inspection Act that imposed conditions restricting a fish processor and wholesaler from exporting fish. After performing a pith and substance analysis, the court upheld the trial court finding that "the core or essential character of the provincial licensing scheme is the regulation
- [R v. Patey](https://admiraltylaw.com/fisheries/r-v-patey/) - The case involved a sports fisher, fishing in Newfoundland inland waters who was charged with failing to affix a salmon tag to his fish a required by the provincial Wild Life Regulations. In defence, he challenged the constitutional validity of the provincial legislation. The Federal Crown did not intervene. After reviewing the jurisprudence, the court
- [R v. Ralph](https://admiraltylaw.com/fisheries/r-v-ralph/) - This case involved a fisher who refused to allow provincial fish inspectors to inspect his fishing vessel. He was subsequently convicted of obstructing an inspector. Upon seeking leave to appeal, the court denied his appeal for the following reasons: (1) He failed to give notice to the Attorney General of Canada; and (2) The proposed
- [Bouzan v. Canada](https://admiraltylaw.com/fisheries/bouzan-v-canada/) - This case involved two fish harvesters who were charged with failing to tag cod fish immediately after harvesting as required by their recreational fishing licences while fishing on inshore waters of Newfoundland. The case was defended primarily upon the grounds that the Federal Government did not have regulatory authority over the inshore cod fishery because
- [R v. Allen](https://admiraltylaw.com/fisheries/r-v-allen/) - The case involved charges of failing to pay dues are required by the Fisheries Organizations Support Act of Nova Scotia. This is legislation was enacted in 1996 for the stated purpose "to strengthen fisheries organizations in the province and provide a procedure to enable accredited fisheries organizations to collect mandatory annual dues from licence holders".
- [R v. Ward](https://admiraltylaw.com/fisheries/r-v-ward/) - This case involved a fisherman who was charged under section 27 of the Marine Mammals Regulations, SOR 56/93, passed pursuant to the Fisheries Act. This regulation prohibited the sale of, amongst other things, "blueback" seals, which are young hooded seals and whitecoats, which are young harp seals. The evidence lead at trial was that public
- [R v. Walsh](https://admiraltylaw.com/fisheries/r-v-walsh/)
- [R v. Boyd](https://admiraltylaw.com/fisheries/r-v-boyd/)
- [Erickson v. Bowie](https://admiraltylaw.com/fisheries/erickson-v-bowie/) - This case involved a 50 year old fish harvester who suffered injuries in a motor vehicle accident that prevented him from returning to work on a fishing vessel. In assessing his claim for both past and future loss of income, the court ruled that the claimant was not limited by his past earnings and made
- [D.C.T.B. Enterprises v. Original Fishboat Trader](https://admiraltylaw.com/fisheries/d-c-t-b-enterprises-v-original-fishboat-trader/) - This case involved a series of transactions in 2001 and 2002 where a fishing licence broker acted as agent with respect to the sale of halibut quota for a number of vendors. After the fact, the vendors claimed that the broker was negligent in allowing the 10 per cent Pacific Halibut Management Association ("PHMA") quota
- [Sable Offshore Energy Inc. v. Bingley](https://admiraltylaw.com/fisheries/sable-offshore-energy-inc-v-bingley/) - This case involved an action by a lobster fisherman against the builder of an underwater pipeline for loss of income due to a decrease in his lobster catch alleged to have been caused by construction activities while laying an the pipeline. At the conclusion of a Small Claims hearing, a Small Claims court adjudicator awarded
- [Ballantyne v. R.](https://admiraltylaw.com/fisheries/ballantyne-v-r/) - This case involved an aboriginal fisher who fished off reserve, but delivered his fish to and on reserve fishing co-operative that acted as agent for off reserve fish marketing company. The Tax Court ruled that the fishing income was not exempt from taxation.
- [Winsor v. Canada](https://admiraltylaw.com/fisheries/winsor-v-canada/) - This case involved the Atlantic Groundfish Retirement Program, (the "AGLRP") under which the Federal Government purchased fishing licences for the purpose of reducing the number of persons participating in the ground fish fishery. The Appellant was a fish harvester who sold his fishing licences to the AGLRP and agreed to permanently leave the commercial fishery
- [Blue Wave Seafoods Inc. v. Canada](https://admiraltylaw.com/fisheries/blue-wave-seafoods-inc-v-canada/)
- [F.A.S. Seafood Producers Ltd. v. Canada](https://admiraltylaw.com/fisheries/f-a-s-seafood-producers-ltd-v-canada/) - This case involved a Company which purchased both a category "C" vessel based licence and a category "ZN" personal licence in 1992 for $150,000 dollars. The purchaser claimed the cost of purchasing the licences as an expense when filing its 1992 income tax return. Revenue Canada disallowed this deduction. The issue of the case was
- [Masyk v. F.A.S. Seafood](https://admiraltylaw.com/fisheries/masyk-v-f-a-s-seafood/) - his case involved a deckhand who was suing the owner of several fishing vessels for wrongful dismissal without proper notice. One issue that was raised during a summary trial application was whether or not the deckhand was an employee so as to be able to sue for wrongful dismissal without notice. The court accepted the
- [Beaulieu v. New Brunswick](https://admiraltylaw.com/fisheries/beaulieu-v-new-brunswick/) - Not yet available.
- [R v. Nikal](https://admiraltylaw.com/fisheries/r-v-nikal/) - Editor's Note: See also "Riparian Rights and Public Foreshore Use in the Administration of Aquatic Crown Land" Occasional Paper NO. 5 Revised March 1995 Province of British Columbia ( (link) [If this link does not work, the paper can be accessed by searching the British Columbia Ministry of Agriculture and Lands website] For a historical case involving upholding the public
- [Morton v. British Columbia (Agriculture and Lands)](https://admiraltylaw.com/fisheries/morton-v-british-columbia-agriculture-and-lands/) - This case involved a challenge to the constitutional authority of the Provincial Government of British Columbia to regulate the aquaculture industry. The challenge was brought by Alexandra Morton and a number of other interest groups including the Area E Gillnetters Association. Apparently the applicants believed that the existing Provincial legislation would "not protect the environment"
- [Jim Pattison Enterprises et al. v. British Columbia (Workers' Compensation Board)](https://admiraltylaw.com/fisheries/jim-pattison-enterprises-et-al-v-british-columbia-workers-compensation-board/) - This case involved a challenge to the constitutional validity of occupational health and safety regulations relating to commercial fishing vessels enacted pursuant to the British Columbia Workers' Compensation Act. It involved one vessel that fished primarily in waters outside the British Columbia jurisdiction, but within Canadian territorial waters as well as other vessels that fished
- [Canada v. Peters](https://admiraltylaw.com/fisheries/canada-v-peters/) - This case involved three aboriginal fishermen charged with fishing the early Stuart run in the Fraser River without a licence. At trial, the Crown conceded that their aboriginal right to fish had been infringed. Accordingly, the issue before the court was whether or not the Crown was justified in imposing the closure of the fishery
- [R v. Seward](https://admiraltylaw.com/fisheries/r-v-seward/) - This case involved four first nations accuseds, who were charged with harvesting clams in a closed area, namely, the Nanaimo estuary. At trial, evidence was led that that the Nanaimo First Nations Band and the Federal Government had entered into an agreement to suspend the treaty rights to harvest in that area because of pollutants
- [R v. Joe](https://admiraltylaw.com/fisheries/r-v-joe/) - This case involved an aboriginal fisherman charged with fishing during a closed time. At issue during the trial was the requirement for notice of a regulation to all persons likely to be affected by it as required by section 11(2)(b) of the Statutory Instruments Act. At trial, the trial judge found that the communal licence
- [R v. John Martin Cummins](https://admiraltylaw.com/fisheries/r-v-john-martin-cummins/) - This was a test case involving a challenge to the aboriginal fishing strategy which allows aboriginal fishers to fish for commercial purposes under the Aboriginal Communal License Regulations. D.F.O. opened a fishery in the Fraser River for aboriginal commercial fishing and the accused, a non aboriginal (the Reform M.P. for Delta-South Richmond), set a net
- [Marshall v. R.](https://admiraltylaw.com/fisheries/marshall-v-r/) - This was an application by an intervener, West Nova Fisherman's Coalition, in the Marshall appeal to have the appeal reheard, with a stay pending appeal. Although the application was denied, the court issued reasons clarifying portions of its earlier judgment on September 17, 1999. In particular the court said as follows: (1) The Government of
- [Marshall v. Regina](https://admiraltylaw.com/fisheries/marshall-v-regina/) - This case involved a Mikmaq Indian who was charged with fishing with a prohibited net during a closed period and selling fish without a licence in violation of Federal fishery regulations. The main issue in the case was whether he possessed a treaty right to sell fish so as to be exempted from compliance with
- [Yale Indian Band v. Aitchelitz Indian Band](https://admiraltylaw.com/fisheries/yale-indian-band-v-aitchelitz-indian-band/) - This case involved an application by the Fisheries Council of B.C. for intervener status. The court held that since the action was essentially a "rivalry, skirmish and contest between Indian bands over where they might catch their given allocation of salmon, this is not a case where the Fisheries Council had a legitimate interest in
- [Nunavut Tunngavik Inc. v. Canada (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans)](https://admiraltylaw.com/fisheries/nunavut-tunngavik-inc-v-canada-minister-of-fisheries-and-oceans/) - This case involved a lands claims agreement between the Government of Canada and the Nunavut Inuit. Amongst other things, this agreement provided that the Government of Canada would "seek the advice of the NWMB (Nunavut Management Wildlife Board) with respect to any wildlife management decisions . . . which would affect the substance and the
- [Neskonlith Band v. Canada (Attorney General)](https://admiraltylaw.com/fisheries/neskonlith-band-v-canada-attorney-general/) - This case involved an application by an Aboriginal group fishing in the Thompson river system for an order suspending a D.F.O. variation order and substituting a court order providing for non possession and non retention of coho salmon in the British Columbia sport fishery. The application was attended by a number of intervenors. The court
- [R v. Francis](https://admiraltylaw.com/fisheries/r-v-francis/) - This case involved charges against an aboriginal defendant from the Acadia First Nations for illegal fishing during a closed time for lobster near Savory Park in Digby County, Nova Scotia. At trial defences were raised based upon treaty rights, aboriginal rights and due diligence. With respect to treaty rights, since the defendant was not able
- [R v. Houle](https://admiraltylaw.com/fisheries/r-v-houle/) - This case involved five aboriginal defendants charged with catching and retaining northern pike of a prohibited length while involved in a sport fishing derby. Amongst other things, a defence was raised based upon a right to fish pursuant to Treaty No. 6 of 1876. Upon review the evidence, the court rejected this defence because the
- [R v. Tommy, Nelson and Douglas](https://admiraltylaw.com/fisheries/r-v-tommy-nelson-and-douglas/) - This case arose out of charges of drift-net fishing without a licence in the Fraser River by members of both the Cheam Indian Band the Kwantlen Band. At trial the Crown conceded a Prima Facie infringement of an aboriginal right to fish. With respect to the issue the infringement, the court applied the Sparrow test
- [R v. Elijah Douglas Shanoss](https://admiraltylaw.com/fisheries/r-v-elijah-douglas-shanoss/) - This case involved an aboriginal defence to a charge of selling salmon caught without a fishing licence. At the time the offence took place, the accused was a member of the Gixsan First Nation that had signed an Interim Fisheries Measures Agreement and a subsequent allocation agreement that, amongst other things provided that during the
- [R v. Haines et al.](https://admiraltylaw.com/fisheries/r-v-haines-et-al/) - This case involved charges against of what is commonly called dual fishing. That is, fishing at the same time under the authority of both a commercial halibut licence and an aboriginal food fishing licence. Up until 1999, commercial by-catch of fish in excess of that allowed, could be relinquished to the Crown without penalty. At
- [R v. Simon](https://admiraltylaw.com/fisheries/r-v-simon/) - This case is the first post Marshall decision (digested herein) involving aboriginal fishing for lobster by members of the Burnt Church First Nation in Miramichi Bay. After the release of the Marshall decision, the accused was charged with illegal fishing for lobster in Miramichi Bay. After a trial upon an agreed state of facts, the
- [R v. Peter Paul](https://admiraltylaw.com/fisheries/r-v-peter-paul/) - This case involved illegal fishing charges against two First Nations defendants who wished to assert a defence based upon a Marshal type treaty right. Upon reviewing all of the facts, the court distinguished R. v. MacDonald [2001] N.S.J. No. 368 (N.S.C.A.) (digested herein) and granted state funded assistance on the basis of the test set
- [R v. George](https://admiraltylaw.com/fisheries/r-v-george/) - This case involved a charge against a First Nations defendant of offering to sell fish that was not caught under the authority of a fishing licence. At the commencement of the trial, the defence made an application for a judicial stay on the grounds that, "[t]hese delays have caused our clients, one of whom is
- [R v. Q.M.P. Fisheries Ltd. et al](https://admiraltylaw.com/fisheries/r-v-q-m-p-fisheries-ltd-et-al/) - This case involved charges of buying and selling salmon caught under the authority of a food fishing licence. This judgment was a ruling on a voice dire concerning the admissibility of documents seized under the authority of two search warrants issued under s. 487 of the Criminal Code. The court reviewed the affidavits filed in
- [R v. Arthur Aleck et al.](https://admiraltylaw.com/fisheries/r-v-arthur-aleck-et-al/) - This case involved charges against 17 members of the Cheam Indian Band for fishing within their traditional territory on the Fraser River during a time that the fishery had been closed by D.F.O. Since the Crown admitted a prima facie case of infringement, this decision focused primarily on whether or not that infringement could be
- [R v. Bartibogue](https://admiraltylaw.com/fisheries/r-v-bartibogue/) - This case involved and a number of aboriginal fishermen from New Brunswick who were charged with obstructing a fisheries officer and a number of other offences related to attempting to enforce their Marshall type claim to treaty rights to fish for lobster. At the Provincial Court level a successful pre-trial application was brought in the
- [R v. Dedam](https://admiraltylaw.com/fisheries/r-v-dedam/) - This case involved and an aboriginal lobster fisherman from New Brunswick who was charged with obstructing a fisheries officer. At a pre-trial application, the fisherman applied to have state funded counsel appointed to conduct a defence based upon aboriginal rights that was estimated to cost approximately one million dollars. After reviewing the authorities, the court
- [R v. Douglas](https://admiraltylaw.com/fisheries/r-v-douglas/) - This case involved a dispute between the Cheam First Nation and D.F.O. over D.F.O.'s decision to open a marine sport fishery permitting retention by non-aboriginal fishers of Early Stuart sockeye. This is run of special significance to the Cheam and most of the other First Nations on the Fraser river because (1) it is the
- [R v. Bonneau](https://admiraltylaw.com/fisheries/r-v-bonneau/)
- [R v. Eagle Child](https://admiraltylaw.com/fisheries/r-v-eagle-child/)
- [R v. Janvier](https://admiraltylaw.com/fisheries/r-v-janvier/)
- [Davis v. Canada (Attorney General)](https://admiraltylaw.com/fisheries/davis-v-canada-attorney-general/) - Not yet available.
- [R v. Gray](https://admiraltylaw.com/fisheries/r-v-gray/) - Not yet available.
- [R v. Reid](https://admiraltylaw.com/fisheries/r-v-reid/)
- [R v. Daigle](https://admiraltylaw.com/fisheries/r-v-daigle/)
- [R v. Lefthand](https://admiraltylaw.com/fisheries/r-v-lefthand/)
- [R v. Lindstrom](https://admiraltylaw.com/fisheries/r-v-lindstrom/)
- [R v. Cardinal](https://admiraltylaw.com/fisheries/r-v-cardinal/) - In this case, the trial court rejected a long list of defences based upon the inter-relationship between Treaty 6 rights and the Natural Resources Transfer Agreement ("NRTA"). With respect to the interjurisdictional immunity doctrine, the court concluded that since the Provincial hunting and fishing laws could not go the the "core of Indianness" because their
- [R v. Hamelin](https://admiraltylaw.com/fisheries/r-v-hamelin/)
- [Roberts v. R](https://admiraltylaw.com/fisheries/roberts-v-r/) - This case involved a status member of the Kitsumkalum First Nation who lived on a reserve near Port Essington approximately 70 miles from Prince Rupert, British Columbia. After being assessed income tax on fishing income earned while fishing outside his reserve, but in his traditional fishing territory the FN Fisher appealed his assessment to the
- [R v. Boudreau](https://admiraltylaw.com/fisheries/r-v-boudreau/)
- [R v. Rice](https://admiraltylaw.com/fisheries/r-v-rice/) - This case involved charges of illegal hunting and possession of moose by three aboriginal hunters. Although not a fisheries case, it is relevant to fisheries prosecutions because (1) it involved an inspection under s. 95 of the B.C. Wildlife Act, which is similar to an inspection under s. 49 of the federal Fisheries Act; (2)
- [R v. Boudreau](https://admiraltylaw.com/fisheries/r-v-boudreau-2/) - This case involved charges of illegal fishing for snow crab pursuant to Aboriginal Communal Fishing Regulations. When defence council discovered that the Band Council of the First Nation that that issued the Communal Fishing licences had discussed the case with several Government officials, including enforcement officers, he sought production of any reports and/or e-mails resulting
- [R v. Kapp](https://admiraltylaw.com/fisheries/r-v-kapp/) - Not yet available.
- [R v. Grant](https://admiraltylaw.com/fisheries/r-v-grant/) - This is a non-fisheries decision that purports to provide a new analytical framework for (1) determining whether or not there has been a detention for the purpose of ss. 9 and 10(b) of the Charter; and (2) determining whether or not to exclude illegally obtained evidence under s. 24(2). With respect to its application to
- [R v. Tommy](https://admiraltylaw.com/fisheries/r-v-tommy/) - This case involved a number of charges of illegal fishing by members of the Cheam First Nation on the Fraser River. With respect to some of the charges, the court ruled the Crown failed to justify closing aboriginal fishing on the Fraser River at a time while the recreational fishery was still open. With respect
- [Native Council of Nova Scotia v. Canada (Attorney General)](https://admiraltylaw.com/fisheries/native-council-of-nova-scotia-v-canada-attorney-general/) - This case involved an application for judicial review of a decision of the Minister of Fisheries to limit the permitted lobster catch under an Aboriginal Communal Food, Social and Ceremonial Licence issued to the Native Council of Nova Scotia ("NCNS"), a society that was created for the purpose of "assisting and giving a collective voice
- [Mime'j Seafoods Ltd v. Nova Scotia (Workers' Compensation Appeals Tribunal)](https://admiraltylaw.com/fisheries/mimej-seafoods-ltd-v-nova-scotia-workers-compensation-appeals-tribunal/) - This case involved judicial review of a decision of the Nova Scotia Workers' Compensation Appeal Tribunal that held that Mime'j Seafoods Ltd. was a employer for the purpose of assessments under the Workers' Compensation Act. Mime'j Seafoods Ltd. was an aboriginal communal fishing management entity that was incorporated for the sole purpose of accommodating D.F.O.'s
- [R v. Tammark](https://admiraltylaw.com/fisheries/r-v-tammark/) - This is not a fisheries case, but the decision of R. v. Hertel (1986) 32 C.C.C. 93d) 335 (B.C.S.C.) referred to herein, could be useful when interpreting s. 71(2) of the Fisheries Act. This section provides that "a court may order any fish or other thing seized under this Act to be returned to the
- [D.E. & Sons Fisheries Ltd. v. Goreham](https://admiraltylaw.com/fisheries/d-e-sons-fisheries-ltd-v-goreham/) - This case involved an action by a fish processing company to enforce an alleged agreement by a fisherman to hold a lobster licence as nominee for the company. Upon a summary judgement application, the court gave judgement for the fish processing company and ordered the fisherman to execute all necessary documents to transfer the licence
- [Greyhound Canada Transportation Corp. v. Brzozowski](https://admiraltylaw.com/fisheries/greyhound-canada-transportation-corp-v-brzozowski/) - This case involved section 10 of the British Columbia Workers Compensation Act which bars civil actions arising from injuries occurring during the course of employment. In this case, at the time of the injury, the plaintiffs were going home from Prince Rupert (a fishing port on the north coast of British Columbia) on a regularly
- [Capilano Fishing Ltd. v. Qualicum Producer (The)](https://admiraltylaw.com/fisheries/capilano-fishing-ltd-v-qualicum-producer-the/) - This was a net damage case involving a claim for damages incurred by a vessel when its net was fouled by another vessel during a very short opening in the 1997 herring seine fishery. The issues raised by this case included the following: 1)Recovery for contractual relational economic loss; 2)Limitation of Liability; 3)Restitution for unjust
- [North Ridge Fishing Ltd. et al v. The Prosperity](https://admiraltylaw.com/fisheries/north-ridge-fishing-ltd-et-al-v-the-prosperity/) - This case involved a collision between the net of the fishing vessel Savage Fisher (plaintiff) and the fishing vessel "Prosperity" in the 1997 herring seine fishery. This fishery was described by the trial judge as a "high stakes race . . . where from an opening 'gun', many vessels,sometimes dozens,would set their nets at speed
- [Inter Atlantic Canada Ltd. v. Rio Cuyaguateje (The)](https://admiraltylaw.com/fisheries/inter-atlantic-canada-ltd-v-rio-cuyaguateje-the/) - This was a motion for an order that an in rem statement of claim and warrant of arrest be struck. Amongst other things, the applicant argued that the following provision from the statement of claim be struck: [T]he provision of the fishing licence to the Defendant ship, a fishing ship, is the supply of a
- [Bornstein Seafoods Canada Ltd. v. Hutcheon](https://admiraltylaw.com/fisheries/bornstein-seafoods-canada-ltd-v-hutcheon/) - This case involves a claim by a fishing processor that the two defendants to the action conspired to transfer ground fish quota from one defendant to another, when the defendants knew the quota had been previously purchased by the plaintiff. When the action was commenced, the plaintiff arrested one of the defendant's vessels (upon which
- [Brotchie v. Karey T](https://admiraltylaw.com/fisheries/brotchie-v-karey-t/) - This was a taxation of a Deputy Marshal's account incurred in connection with the sale of a fishing vessel. It is of interest from a fisheries perspective, because it makes reference to the order of sale which specifically included the sale to the vessel's category "A" fishing licence.
- [Quebec (Attorney General) v. Moses](https://admiraltylaw.com/fisheries/quebec-attorney-general-v-moses/)
- [Comeau's Sea Foods Ltd. v. Canada (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans)](https://admiraltylaw.com/fisheries/comeaus-sea-foods-ltd-v-canada-minister-of-fisheries-and-oceans/) - In 1987 the Minister of Fisheries sent the Plaintiff, fishing company, a telex advising that he had authorized the issuance of 4 offshore lobster licences. The Plaintiff then provided the Minister with details of its fishing plans, including the fact that it would be converting its scallop vessels into lobster fishing vessels. After the initial
- [Burt Bankruptcy, RE v.](https://admiraltylaw.com/fisheries/burt-bankruptcy-re-v/) - This case involved a fish company that had loaned money to an individual for the purchase of a fishing licence. The fish harvester made an assignment into bankruptcy, but did not list his fishing licence as an asset. Despite a request by the fish company, the Trustee in Bankruptcy refused to take legal proceedings against
- [Saulnier v. Royal Bank of Canada](https://admiraltylaw.com/fisheries/saulnier-v-royal-bank-of-canada/) - This case involved the holder of a lobster licence, a herring licence, a swordfish licence and a mackerel licence, the combined value of which exceeded $600,000. Upon the holder of the licence making an assignment into bankruptcy (after being placed in receivership by the bank), an application was made by the Royal Bank for a
- [Fleming Estate v. Fleming](https://admiraltylaw.com/fisheries/fleming-estate-v-fleming/) - This case involved a groundfish licence that was transferred by a father to one of six sons. After his death, the father's estate commenced an action alleging that the licence was held pursuant to an express trust to hold it for the benefit of the holder's other siblings. After citing recent jurisprudence involving express trusts
- [Harnum v. Green](https://admiraltylaw.com/fisheries/harnum-v-green/) - This case involved a fishing enterprise type partnership where one partner continued to carry on the enterprise after the break up of the partnership. This appeal concerned the following issues: (1) Whether the trial judge erred in law in determining that the value of the assets, for the purpose of sharing between the partners, is
- [Gladstone v. Canada](https://admiraltylaw.com/fisheries/gladstone-v-canada/) - This case involved a quantity of herring spawn on kelp that was seized pursuant to s. 58(1) of the Fisheries Act (1970) and subsequently sold pursuant to s. 58(1) and paid into the consolidated revenue fund. After a successful appeal by the fishermen to the Supreme Court of Canada, the matter was eventually stayed by
- [Shand Fisheries v. Goreham & Goreham](https://admiraltylaw.com/fisheries/shand-fisheries-v-goreham-goreham/)
- [Dugas (Re Bankruptcy) v.](https://admiraltylaw.com/fisheries/dugas-re-bankruptcy-v/) - This case involved a bankrupt fisher who because of poor health, arranged for another person to fish his crab licence. At issue was the extent to which the trustee in bankruptcy could collect the revenue received from the licence revenue. Although it was agreed that the licence itself was exempt from seizure (see s. 2
- [144096 Canada (USA) v. Canada (Attorney General)](https://admiraltylaw.com/fisheries/144096-canada-usa-v-canada-attorney-general/) - Note: Although not a fisheries case, this case could be applicable to a case involving failure to maintain a fishboat that has been seized by the Department of Fisheries.
- [R v. McDonald](https://admiraltylaw.com/fisheries/r-v-mcdonald/) - This case involved an application under s. 71(4) of the Fisheries Act on behalf of a number of First Nations fishermen to have seized gear returned pending trial on charges of illegal fishing. At issue was whether or not the Crown had to make application under s. 71(4) of the Act if they wished to
- [Roberts v. Andrews](https://admiraltylaw.com/fisheries/roberts-v-andrews/) - This case involved an application to set aside the arrest of a commercial fish packing vessel. The Plaintiff alleged that gillnet herring licences supplied to a herring joint venture for vessels that caught fish and then delivered them to the fish packer were necessaries or services supplied to the packer. The court rejected this argument
- [Careen v. Few & Strathie Ltd.](https://admiraltylaw.com/fisheries/careen-v-few-strathie-ltd/) - This case involved the breach of agreement respecting the purchase and sale of a fishing licence. This agreement included a declaration of trust concerning the status of the licence prior to it being transferred to the purchaser. Prior to the licence being completely paid for and prior to the transfer of the licence, the vendor
- [Canada v. Neves (The "Kristina Logos)](https://admiraltylaw.com/fisheries/canada-v-neves-the-kristina-logos/) - This was an appeal from an order of a motions Judge setting priorities to the sale proceeds of the Defendant vessel. The vessel had been seized by the Crown for violations of the Fisheries Act and was later arrested and sold at the application of the Crown. The claimants were the Crown, the mortgagee, and
- [Radil Bros. Fishing Co. Ltd. v. Her Majesty the Queen et al.](https://admiraltylaw.com/fisheries/radil-bros-fishing-co-ltd-v-her-majesty-the-queen-et-al/) - This case involved an appeal from an order of the trial division of the Federal Court (2000 F.C.J. 1885) allowing an appeal from an order of a Prothonotary (reported at (1999) 175 F.T.R. 182). The alleged facts, as taken from several of the judgements, are quite complicated as the case arose out of what is
- [Mount Sinai Hospital Center v. Quebec](https://admiraltylaw.com/fisheries/mount-sinai-hospital-center-v-quebec/) - Although this is not a fisheries case, it is very similar to the Comeau's Seafood decision of the S.C.C. (digested herein) in the sense that it dealt with an initial promise by a Minister to issue a licence (for a short term care hospital facility), subsequent reliance on that promise, and then a refusal to
- [Shubenacadie Indian Band v. Canada (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans)](https://admiraltylaw.com/fisheries/shubenacadie-indian-band-v-canada-minister-of-fisheries-and-oceans/) - This case involved a Nova Scotia Indian Band which was relying upon the two R v. Marshall decisions (digested herein) in support of an application for an interlocutory injunction to enjoin D.F.O. from taking enforcement measures to prevent its members from participating in a Band regulated lobster fishery. The two main issues in the case
- [McKay v. Canada](https://admiraltylaw.com/fisheries/mckay-v-canada/) - This case involved an attack on the alleged privatization of the ground fish fishery in the Scotia-Fundy area by way of the creation of individual transferable fishing quotas. The case was brought as an action for both injunctive and declaratory relief. On a pre-trial application by the Defendant, the court struck the portions of the
- [International Fund for Animal Welfare, Inc. v. Canada (Attorney General)](https://admiraltylaw.com/fisheries/international-fund-for-animal-welfare-inc-v-canada-attorney-general/) - 1998) No. 98-CV-5100 Ontario Ct. of Justice (General Division) (Chadwick J.) This case involved a constitutional challenge of the conditions imposed upon observation licences for the East Coast seal fishery, issued under section 31 of the Marine Mammal Regulations. The Plaintiff argued that the conditions imposed upon the licences prevented the Plaintiff from fulfilling its
- [Carpenter Fishing Co. et al v. Minister of Fisheries and Oceans](https://admiraltylaw.com/fisheries/carpenter-fishing-co-et-al-v-minister-of-fisheries-and-oceans/) - On December 23, 1997, a unanimous decision of the Federal Court of Appeal overturned the Carpenter Fishing Decision. Background Information This case involved a challenge to the Current Owner Restriction (C.O.R.) of the individual quota system (I.V.Q.) set up for the halibut fishery in 1990. When the I.V.Q. system was implemented, it allocated the total
- [Labrador Metis Assn. v. Canada (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans)](https://admiraltylaw.com/fisheries/labrador-metis-assn-v-canada-minister-of-fisheries-and-oceans/) - This case involved a challenge by the Labrador Metis Association ("LMA") to the Minister of Fisheries for failing to respond to an application to issue it a communal fishing licence. D.F.O. presented evidence that it was concerned that a decision to issue a communal fishing licence could be interpreted my the LMA as recognition by
- [R v. Cummins](https://admiraltylaw.com/fisheries/r-v-cummins/) - This case involved an action for a declaration that that section 6 of the Aboriginal Communal Fishing Licences Regulations is invalid by reason of an unlawful sub delegation of legislative power. The Crown sought a stay of the proceedings on the grounds that the action was essentially a matter of judicial review which was within
- [Puddister Trading Corporation Ltd. v. Canada](https://admiraltylaw.com/fisheries/puddister-trading-corporation-ltd-v-canada/) - This case involved an application by a licence holder for compensation arising out of the closure of the offshore seal fishery of Newfoundland. While the plaintiff was not successful in its primary objective, of obtaining compensation for the closure of the fishery, it obtained limited success in obtaining damages against the Department of Fisheries and
- [Ecology Action Centre Society v. Canada (Attorney General)](https://admiraltylaw.com/fisheries/ecology-action-centre-society-v-canada-attorney-general-2/) - This case involved an application to quash a variation order that opened the Georges Bank for fishing by any means, including dragging. The Applicant argued that the variation order was beyond the jurisdiction of the decision maker because the use of draggers would cause damage to fish habitat. At the initial application before a Prothonotary,
- [North of Smokey Fisherman's Association v. Canada (Attorney General)](https://admiraltylaw.com/fisheries/north-of-smokey-fishermans-association-v-canada-attorney-general/) - This case involved a judicial review proceeding against the Minister of Fisheries challenging his decision to open a winter cod fishery in the Sydney Bight area east of Cape Breton. While the hearing of the proceeding was pending, the applicant, an association of fishermen, brought on a motion for an interlocutory injunction enjoining the Minister
- [Oak Island International Group Ltd. v. Canada (Attorney General)](https://admiraltylaw.com/fisheries/oak-island-international-group-ltd-v-canada-attorney-general/) - This case involved a Nova Scotia corporation involved in the business of fishing for silver hake and selling it to an offshore market. The company alleged that it was injured as a result of : (1) a delay in approving its fishing licence and quota in 1995; (2) it received a shortfall in its quota
- [Hache v. Canada (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans)](https://admiraltylaw.com/fisheries/hache-v-canada-minister-of-fisheries-and-oceans/) - This case is the sequel to Aucoin v. Canada (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans) [2001] F.C.J. 1157 (digested herein). Aucoin involved a challenge to a co-management agreement between D.F.O. and the East Coast (zone 12) snow crab fishermen. It is reported that as a result of changes to the Unemployment Insurance Act in 1995, it
- [Jada Fishing Co. Ltd. et al v. Canada (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans)](https://admiraltylaw.com/fisheries/jada-fishing-co-ltd-et-al-v-canada-minister-of-fisheries-and-oceans/) - In this case the motions judge (Pelletier J.), reviewed a recommendation regarding a quota allocation adjustment for an individual fisherman made by the Pacific Region Licence Appeal Board to the Minister of Fisheries. Using the Pushpanathan pragmatic and functional analysis as applied to an "expert tribunal," the motions judge applied a standard of review of
- [Jose Pereira E. Hijos, S.A. v. Canada (Attorney General)](https://admiraltylaw.com/fisheries/jose-pereira-e-hijos-s-a-v-canada-attorney-general/) - This case involved a damage action against the Federal Government alleging trespass, assault and negligent navigation arising out of the seizure of the Spanish fishing vessel "Estai" on the high seas in 1995. The decision involved a pre-trial application for an order that a Crown official answer a number questions with respect allegations that the
- [Fennelly v. Canada (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans)](https://admiraltylaw.com/fisheries/fennelly-v-canada-minister-of-fisheries-and-oceans/) - This case involved judicial review of a decision of the Minister of Fisheries to not re-issue an exploratory snow crab licence. The applicant was a fisherman who owned two boats, a 75 foot stern trawler (the "Bear Cove Point") and a 95 foot multipurpose trawler (the "Sandy Joanne"). In 1995 he was issued an exploratory
- [Tucker v. Canada (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans)](https://admiraltylaw.com/fisheries/tucker-v-canada-minister-of-fisheries-and-oceans/) - This case involved an action by a fisherman against the Minister of Fisheries for damages arising from a decision by the Minister requiring the fisherman to elect either to utilize an inshore fishing licence for groundfish or an offshore fishing licence for turbot. In reviewing the Minister's discretionary power to issue licences under section 7
- [Newell v. Canada](https://admiraltylaw.com/fisheries/newell-v-canada/) - This case involved a crab fisherman who exceeded his individual quota for 1999 crab landings and consequently had his 2000 individual quota reduced by an amount equal approximately to his overage in the previous year. In response, the fisherman commenced an action against the Crown seeking damages for the Crown's "intentional tortuous interference with his
- [Durant v. Canada (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans)](https://admiraltylaw.com/fisheries/durant-v-canada-minister-of-fisheries-and-oceans/) - This case involved an application for judicial review of a decision by the Minister of Fisheries to discontinue the practise of allowing oyster cleaners to go out onboard oyster boats to clean oysters while the boats fish. Although a fisher's registration card and a licence were apparently required to clean oysters aboard a fish boat,
- [Aucoin v. Canada (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans)](https://admiraltylaw.com/fisheries/aucoin-v-canada-minister-of-fisheries-and-oceans/) - This case involved a challenge to a co-management agreement between D.F.O. andthe East Coast (zone 12) snow crab fishermen. It is reported that as a result of changes to the Unemployment Insurance Act in 1995, it became apparent that numerous employees working in snow crab processing plants were not going to be able to work
- [Yale First Nation v. HMTQ In Right of Canada et al](https://admiraltylaw.com/fisheries/yale-first-nation-v-hmtq-in-right-of-canada-et-al/) - Yale First Nation v. HMTQ In Right of Canada et al 2001 BCSC 746 This case involved an alleged agreement between the Yale First Nation and the Minister of Fisheries to allow a pilot sale fishery in the year 2000 pursuant to the Aboriginal Communal Fishing Licence Regulations. In an application for summary judgment under
- [Cassie v. Canada (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans)](https://admiraltylaw.com/fisheries/cassie-v-canada-minister-of-fisheries-and-oceans/) - This case involved an application by a group of snow crab fishermen for an injunction ordering the Minister of Fisheries to issue snow crab licences to them. Whether or not the court could issue an order of mandamus compelling the Minister to issue the requested licences. In denying the application, the court relied upon Hahlon
- [Homalco Indian Band v. British Columbia](https://admiraltylaw.com/fisheries/homalco-indian-band-v-british-columbia/)
- [Armstrong v. Gill](https://admiraltylaw.com/fisheries/armstrong-v-gill/) - This case involved a prosecution under the Fisheries Act. In the course of a pre-trial application by the defence for disclosure of Crown documents, the matter was adjourned so that the parties could exchange and file written submissions. Although written submissions from both parties were filed, for some unexplained reason only the Crown's submissions were
- [Oak Island Group Limited v. A.G. (Canada)](https://admiraltylaw.com/fisheries/oak-island-group-limited-v-a-g-canada/)
- [Saulteau First Nation v. British Columbia (Oil and Gas Commission)](https://admiraltylaw.com/fisheries/saulteau-first-nation-v-british-columbia-oil-and-gas-commission/)
- [Chief Percy Williams et al. v. Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and Heritage Salmon Ltd.](https://admiraltylaw.com/fisheries/chief-percy-williams-et-al-v-minister-of-fisheries-and-oceans-and-heritage-salmon-ltd/) - This case involved an application by the Chief Percy Williams on behalf of the members of the Twicksutaineuk/Ah-kwa-mish Tribes for judicial review of a decision of the Minister of Fisheries to issue a Marine Mammal Predator licence to a fish farm for the purpose of killing of problem seals and seal lions. As a preliminary
- [Keeping v. Canada (Attorney General)](https://admiraltylaw.com/fisheries/keeping-v-canada-attorney-general/) - This case involved a crab fisherman who relied upon a fisheries officer to measure the tonnage of his boat in order to qualify for a fishing licence. In holding the fisheries officer liable in negligence, the trial court found that measuring the depth of a vessel and telling the owner where to place the measuring
- [Keating v. Minister of Fisheries](https://admiraltylaw.com/fisheries/keating-v-minister-of-fisheries/) - This case involved judicial review of a decision of the Minister of Fisheries to deny a fisherman's request for the reinstatement of his supplementary crab licence. After an appeal to the Atlantic Fisheries Licence Appeal Board, the Board recommended to the Minister that the licence be re-instated based upon extenuation circumstances such as the fisherman's
- [Pereira E. Hijos, S.A. v. Canada (Attorney General)](https://admiraltylaw.com/fisheries/pereira-e-hijos-s-a-v-canada-attorney-general/) - This case involved a damage action against the Federal Government alleging trespass, assault and negligent navigation arising out of the seizure of the Spanish fishing vessel "Estai" on the high seas in 1995. The decision involved a pre-trial application for an order that a Crown official answer a number questions with respect allegations that the
- [Mercer v. Canada (Minister of National Revenue)](https://admiraltylaw.com/fisheries/mercer-v-canada-minister-of-national-revenue/) - This case dealt the issue of whether or not the common law spouse of an East Coast fish boat owner who worked as a deckhand on his fishing vessel could be considered an employee for the purpose of a section of the Employment Insurance Act that excluded coverage for employees who do not work at
- [Benoit v. Canada](https://admiraltylaw.com/fisheries/benoit-v-canada/) - This case involved a fish harvester who was denied CORE status in 1996 and failed to overturn the initial denial after a series of eight appeals. With respect to the the non-binding recommendations of two advisory boards, the Court followed Jada Fishing Co. v. Canada 2002 FCA 103 (digested herein) to hold that these recommendations
- [Fennelly v. Canada (Attorney General)](https://admiraltylaw.com/fisheries/fennelly-v-canada-attorney-general/) - This case involved judicial review of a decision of the Minister of Fisheries to not re-issue an exploratory snow crab licence. During a previous judicial review application (digested herein), the court had made an order that the the Minister of Fisheries re-consider his decision based upon facts he had neglected to consider at the original
- [Canus v. Canada Customs](https://admiraltylaw.com/fisheries/canus-v-canada-customs/) - This case involved an audit by Canada Customs and Revenue Agency of a Canadian Fish Processor that sold fish to its U.S. parent company. As a result of this audit, the company was re-assessed tax in the amount of $1,031345 for improper transfer pricing. As a result of this re-assessment the Fish Processor was limited
- [Nunavut Territory (Attorney General) v. Canada](https://admiraltylaw.com/fisheries/nunavut-territory-attorney-general-v-canada/) - This case involved the challenge of a decision of the Minister of Fisheries involving the allocation of the benefit of a 29 per cent increase in the total allowable catch of shrimp. This 29 per cent increase amounted to 2,127 additional tons of catch. of that 2,127 tons, all but 940 tons were allocated to
- [Dobbin v. Department of Fisheries and Oceans, Canada](https://admiraltylaw.com/fisheries/dobbin-v-department-of-fisheries-and-oceans-canada/) - This case involved a decision by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans to open a new area for the fishing of snow crab to be managed by the Quebec Region with licences issued only to residents of Quebec. Upon challenging the decision under the s. 41(1)(c) of the Canadian Human Rights Act, R.S.C. 1985, c.
- [St. Anthony Seafoods  Limited Partnership v. Nfld.  & Labrador (Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture)](https://admiraltylaw.com/fisheries/st-anthony-seafoods-limited-partnership-v-nfld-labrador-minister-of-fisheries-and-aquaculture/) - This case involved a fish processing plant in Saint Anthony, Nfld. In 1998 the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture wrote to the processor and promised a multi-specie processing licence, including a licence to process snow crab. Although a licence to process shrimp was quickly granted, the Ministry never followed through on its promise to issue
- [Prince Edward Island v. Summerside Seafood](https://admiraltylaw.com/fisheries/prince-edward-island-v-summerside-seafood/) - This case involved a fish processing plant that was refused a fish processing licence from the Provincial Minister of Fisheries because of its alleged indebtedness to the Provincial Government arising from a loan guarantee. The fish processor commenced a judicial review proceeding against the Government and its officials and then obtained an interim declaration that
- [Decker v. Canada (Attorney General)](https://admiraltylaw.com/fisheries/decker-v-canada-attorney-general/) - This case involved a ground fish harvester whose application for a temporary shrimp permit was denied on the ground that his vessel was not fully geared up and ready to fish at the required time. Upon appealing the denial to the Atlantic Fisheries Licence Appeal Board, his appeal was turned down by the Minister. Upon
- [Blaney v. British Columbia (Minister of Agriculture Food & Fisheries)](https://admiraltylaw.com/fisheries/blaney-v-british-columbia-minister-of-agriculture-food-fisheries/) - This was a judicial review application challenging a decision of the Minister of Agriculture Food and Fisheries to approve an amendment of a aquaculture licence allow a change from Chinook salmon to Atlantic salmon. After hearing evidence the court granted a declaration that the Minister had a continuing duty to consult and adjourned the application
- [Ecology Action Centre Society v. Canada (Attorney General)](https://admiraltylaw.com/fisheries/ecology-action-centre-society-v-canada-attorney-general/)
- [Lorindale Holdings Ltd. v. British Columbia Assets & Land Corp.](https://admiraltylaw.com/fisheries/lorindale-holdings-ltd-v-british-columbia-assets-land-corp/)
- [Brennan v. Canada (Minister of Fisheries)](https://admiraltylaw.com/fisheries/brennan-v-canada-minister-of-fisheries/)
- [Andrews v. Canada (A.G.)](https://admiraltylaw.com/fisheries/andrews-v-canada-a-g/) - This case involved a superior court action by a group of snow crab fish harvesters who alleged that they had a contract with the Minister of Fisheries whereby they gave up their historic right to a proportionate share of a relatively large increase in the total allowable catch of snow crab in the 1990's in
- [Gwasslaam (Geroge Phillip Daniels) v. Canada (Fisheries and Oceans)](https://admiraltylaw.com/fisheries/gwasslaam-geroge-phillip-daniels-v-canada-fisheries-and-oceans/) - This case involved a claim to an aboriginal fishing right. In an application under Federal Court Rule 312 to admit supplemental affidavit evidence of oral history, the Prothonotary denied the application primarily on the grounds that the evidence of oral history was available at the time the application was filed. Upon appeal from a decision
- [Chiasson v. Canada](https://admiraltylaw.com/fisheries/chiasson-v-canada/) - This case involved an agreement reached between the Minister of Fisheries and the Association des Pescheurs de Poissions de Fond Acadiens Inc. ("APPFA") whereby the Minister would issue a snow crab fishing licence to the APPFA with an allocation of 1000 metric tons in exchange for an agreement from the APPFA to pay the Minister
- [Dunsmuir v. New Brunswick](https://admiraltylaw.com/fisheries/dunsmuir-v-new-brunswick/) - Although this is a non-fisheries case, it is listed because it is a SCC decision that has made a significant change to the standard of review to be applied in judicial review proceedings. As a result of this case, there will now only be two standards: (1) correctness and (2) reasonableness.
- [Ahousaht First Nation v. Canada](https://admiraltylaw.com/fisheries/ahousaht-first-nation-v-canada/) - This case involved an application by group of First Nations for judicial review of a decision of the Minister of Fisheries to implement a three year pilot plan for individual transferable fishing quotas in the for rockfish, lingcod and dogfish. It was alleged by the First Nations that the Minister had failed to satisfy its
- [Donovan v. Canada (Attorney General)](https://admiraltylaw.com/fisheries/donovan-v-canada-attorney-general/) - This case involved three crab fishers who commenced three separate tort actions against the Crown for failure to renew crab licences. The application's judge struck all three actions on the grounds that the causes of action involved challenges to ministerial decisions which were matters within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Federal Court. Upon appeal, one
- [Canada (Attorney General) v. Hijos](https://admiraltylaw.com/fisheries/canada-attorney-general-v-hijos/) - This case involved a civil action by the owner of the Spanish Trawler "Estai" against the Government of Canada arising out of its highly publicized seizure on the high seas in March of 1995. In response to various arguments advanced by the vessel owner, the trial court (2005 FC 1011 (link)) concluded as follows: (1)
- [Canada (Attorney General) v. Prince Edward Island](https://admiraltylaw.com/fisheries/canada-attorney-general-v-prince-edward-island/) - This case involves a statement of claim issued in the Prince Edward Island Supreme Court by the Government of Prince Edward Island against the Government of Canada claiming a series of declarations with respect both to the constitutionality of s. 7 of the Fisheries Act and a the validity of a series of historical management
- [Genge v. Canada (Attorney General)](https://admiraltylaw.com/fisheries/genge-v-canada-attorney-general/) - This case involved a negligent misrepresentation action against the Crown arising from a fisheries officer who mistakenly advised a seal fisher that a seal hunt had closed. The Crown brought an interlocutory application for an order striking out the claim on the grounds that the court lacked jurisdiction and for an order that the claim
- [Campbell v. Canada (Attorney General)](https://admiraltylaw.com/fisheries/campbell-v-canada-attorney-general/) - This case involved an application for judicial review of a decision of the Minister of Fisheries denying a request by nine applicants for access to the Nova Scotia snow crab fishery. With respect to the issue of mootness, since the fishing season had already passed there was no live controversy between the parties. Notwithstanding this
- [Barnard v. Geof Regan, Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, and Azulemar Fishing Ltd.](https://admiraltylaw.com/fisheries/barnard-v-geof-regan-minister-of-fisheries-and-oceans-and-azulemar-fishing-ltd/) - This case involved the ranking of Canadian fishing vessels on a list that allowed these vessels to participate in the U.S. tuna fishery. Under this list, it was anticipated that only the first 94 fishing vessels would be able to participate in this fishery in 2007 and thereafter. After being placed at 97th position on
- [Larocque v. Canada](https://admiraltylaw.com/fisheries/larocque-v-canada/) - This case involved the failure of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans ("DFO") in 2003 to negotiate a co-management arrangement with the snow crab fleet, which would have provided funding for scientific research related the snow crab fishery. As a result of that failure, DFO decided to undertake research itself by hiring a private contractor
- [Caines Re. v.](https://admiraltylaw.com/fisheries/caines-re-v/)
- [David Suzuki Foundation v. Canada (Fisheries and Oceans)](https://admiraltylaw.com/fisheries/david-suzuki-foundation-v-canada-fisheries-and-oceans/)
- [Nunavut Wildlife Management Board v. Minister of Fisheries and Oceans et al.](https://admiraltylaw.com/fisheries/nunavut-wildlife-management-board-v-minister-of-fisheries-and-oceans-et-al/) - Barry Group, a Canadian Fishing Company, sold 1900t of turbot quota to two other offshore fishing enterprises for in excess of $10 million. The Minister approved the transfer in late January 2008 and after completing the usual searches, the purchasers completed the transaction in early March 2008, more than 30 days after the Minister's decision.
- [R v. Wheadon](https://admiraltylaw.com/fisheries/r-v-wheadon/) - This case involved two fish harvesters who were charged with failing to tag cod fish immediately after harvesting as required by their recreational fishing licences while fishing on inshore waters of Newfoundland. The case was defended primarily upon the grounds that the Federal Government did not have regulatory authority over the inshore cod fishery because
- [Gaudet v. Dugas](https://admiraltylaw.com/fisheries/gaudet-v-dugas/)
- [Ralph v. Canada](https://admiraltylaw.com/fisheries/ralph-v-canada/) - This case involved an East coast fisher who applied for a turbot licence when a limited entry fishery was announced in 2000, but failed to obtain the licence because of insufficient landings during the qualifying period. He filed an appeal to the Atlantic Fisheries Licence Appeal Board ("AFLAB") and asked for that a licence be
- [Assoc. des Crabiers Acadiens Inc. v. Canada](https://admiraltylaw.com/fisheries/assoc-des-crabiers-acadiens-inc-v-canada/)
- [Arsenault v. Canada](https://admiraltylaw.com/fisheries/arsenault-v-canada/) - This case involved a group of traditional crabbers from Prince Edward Island who who were promised financial assistance totalling 37.4 million to offset a 10.85 per reduction in their share of the total allowable catch that was re-allocated to aboriginal fishers pursuant to the Marshall Response initiative. This compensation package was incorporated into the Management

## Categories

- [Uncategorized](https://admiraltylaw.com/category/uncategorized/)
- [Fish Cases](https://admiraltylaw.com/category/fish-cases/)
- [Fisheries Practice](https://admiraltylaw.com/category/fish-cases/fisheries-practice/)
- [Judicial Review/Crown Liability](https://admiraltylaw.com/category/fish-cases/judicial-review-crown-liability/)
- [Aboriginal Rights/Defences](https://admiraltylaw.com/category/fish-cases/aboriginal-rights-defences/)
- [Constitutional Cases](https://admiraltylaw.com/category/fish-cases/constitutional-cases/)
- [Torts](https://admiraltylaw.com/category/fish-cases/torts/)
- [Contracts](https://admiraltylaw.com/category/fish-cases/contracts/)
- [Taxation](https://admiraltylaw.com/category/fish-cases/taxation/)
- [Offences](https://admiraltylaw.com/category/fish-cases/offences/)
- [Employment Law](https://admiraltylaw.com/category/fish-cases/employment-law/)
- [Search and Seizure](https://admiraltylaw.com/category/fish-cases/offences/search-and-seizure-offences/)
- [Riparian Rights](https://admiraltylaw.com/category/fish-cases/riparian-rights/)
- [Due Diligence](https://admiraltylaw.com/category/fish-cases/offences/due-diligence/)
- [Miscellaneous](https://admiraltylaw.com/category/fish-cases/offences/miscellaneous-offences/)
- [Forfeiture](https://admiraltylaw.com/category/fish-cases/offences/forfeiture/)
- [Variation Orders](https://admiraltylaw.com/category/fish-cases/offences/variation-orders/)
- [Miscellaneous](https://admiraltylaw.com/category/fish-cases/miscellaneous-fish-cases/)
- [By Licence Holders and Employers](https://admiraltylaw.com/category/fish-cases/offences/by-licence-holders-and-employers/)
- [Sanctions](https://admiraltylaw.com/category/fish-cases/offences/sanctions/)
- [Fishing Prohibitions](https://admiraltylaw.com/category/fish-cases/offences/fishing-prohibitions/)
- [Officially Induced Error](https://admiraltylaw.com/category/fish-cases/offences/officially-induced-error/)
- [Due Diligence](https://admiraltylaw.com/category/fish-cases/due-diligence-fish-cases/)
- [Admiralty Practice](https://admiraltylaw.com/category/admiralty-practice/)
- [Parties](https://admiraltylaw.com/category/admiralty-practice/parties/)
- [In Rem Actions and Arrest](https://admiraltylaw.com/category/admiralty-practice/in-rem-actions-and-arrest/)
- [Admiralty Jurisdiction](https://admiraltylaw.com/category/admiralty-jurisdiction/)
- [Ship Suppliers](https://admiraltylaw.com/category/ship-suppliers/)
- [Arbitration/Jurisdiction Clauses in Maritime Law](https://admiraltylaw.com/category/arbitration-jurisdiction-clauses-in-maritime-law/)
- [Carriage of Goods by Sea](https://admiraltylaw.com/category/carriage-of-goods-by-sea/)
- [Purchase and Sale of Ships](https://admiraltylaw.com/category/purchase-and-sale-of-ships/)
- [Judicial Sales](https://admiraltylaw.com/category/admiralty-practice/judicial-sales/)
- [Pleadings](https://admiraltylaw.com/category/admiralty-practice/pleadings/)
- [Service](https://admiraltylaw.com/category/admiralty-practice/service-admiralty-practice/)
- [Limitation Periods in Maritime Law](https://admiraltylaw.com/category/limitation-periods-in-maritime-law/)
- [Salvage and Wrecks](https://admiraltylaw.com/category/salvage-and-wrecks/)
- [Limitation of Liability in Maritime Law](https://admiraltylaw.com/category/limitation-of-liability-in-maritime-law/)
- [Discovery](https://admiraltylaw.com/category/admiralty-practice/discovery/)
- [Delay and Time Extensions](https://admiraltylaw.com/category/admiralty-practice/delay-and-time-extensions-admiralty-practice/)
- [Marine Insurance](https://admiraltylaw.com/category/marine-insurance/)
- [Appeals](https://admiraltylaw.com/category/appeals/)
- [Experts and Expert Evidence](https://admiraltylaw.com/category/admiralty-practice/experts-and-expert-evidence/)
- [Appeals](https://admiraltylaw.com/category/admiralty-practice/appeals-admiralty-practice/)
- [Costs and Security for Costs](https://admiraltylaw.com/category/admiralty-practice/costs-and-security-for-costs-admiralty-practice/)
- [Judgments and Enforcement of Judgments](https://admiraltylaw.com/category/admiralty-practice/judgments-and-enforcement-of-judgments/)
- [Stays of Proceedings](https://admiraltylaw.com/category/admiralty-practice/stays-of-proceedings/)
- [Appeals](https://admiraltylaw.com/category/arbitration-jurisdiction-clauses-in-maritime-law/appeals-arbitration-jurisdiction-clauses-in-maritime-law/)
- [Constitutional Issues in Maritime Law](https://admiraltylaw.com/category/constitutional-issues-in-maritime-law/)
- [Carriage of Goods by Road/Rail](https://admiraltylaw.com/category/carriage-of-goods-by-road-rail/)
- [Injunctions](https://admiraltylaw.com/category/admiralty-practice/injunctions/)
- [Maritime Liens, Mortgages & Priorities](https://admiraltylaw.com/category/maritime-liens-mortgages-priorities/)
- [Charters of Ships](https://admiraltylaw.com/category/charters-of-ships/)
- [Other Practice Topics](https://admiraltylaw.com/category/admiralty-practice/other-practice-topics-admiralty-practice/)
- [Personal Injury and Maritime Law](https://admiraltylaw.com/category/personal-injury-and-maritime-law/)
- [Appeals](https://admiraltylaw.com/category/constitutional-issues-in-maritime-law/appeals-constitutional-issues-in-maritime-law/)
- [Miscellaneous Maritime Law Topics](https://admiraltylaw.com/category/miscellaneous-maritime-law-topics/)
- [Appeals](https://admiraltylaw.com/category/carriage-of-goods-by-sea/appeals-carriage-of-goods-by-sea/)
- [Collisions and Ships](https://admiraltylaw.com/category/collisions-and-ships/)
- [Carriage of Goods by Air](https://admiraltylaw.com/category/carriage-of-goods-by-air/)
- [Pollution (Ship Source)](https://admiraltylaw.com/category/pollution-ship-source/)
- [In Rem Actions and Arrest](https://admiraltylaw.com/category/carriage-of-goods-by-sea/in-rem-actions-and-arrest-carriage-of-goods-by-sea/)
- [Tug and Tow](https://admiraltylaw.com/category/tug-and-tow/)
- [In Rem Actions and Arrest](https://admiraltylaw.com/category/admiralty-jurisdiction/in-rem-actions-and-arrest-admiralty-jurisdiction/)
- [Offences in a Marine Context](https://admiraltylaw.com/category/offences-in-a-marine-context/)
- [Appeals](https://admiraltylaw.com/category/maritime-liens-mortgages-priorities/appeals-maritime-liens-mortgages-priorities/)
- [Ship Building and Repair](https://admiraltylaw.com/category/ship-building-and-repair/)
- [Experts and Expert Evidence](https://admiraltylaw.com/category/maritime-liens-mortgages-priorities/experts-and-expert-evidence-maritime-liens-mortgages-priorities/)
- [Discovery](https://admiraltylaw.com/category/maritime-liens-mortgages-priorities/discovery-maritime-liens-mortgages-priorities/)
- [Docks Wharves and Marinas](https://admiraltylaw.com/category/docks-wharves-and-marinas/)
- [Carriage of Passengers by Sea](https://admiraltylaw.com/category/carriage-of-passengers-by-sea/)
- [Stays of Proceedings](https://admiraltylaw.com/category/arbitration-jurisdiction-clauses-in-maritime-law/stays-of-proceedings-arbitration-jurisdiction-clauses-in-maritime-law/)
- [Pleadings](https://admiraltylaw.com/category/marine-insurance/pleadings-marine-insurance/)
- [Experts and Expert Evidence](https://admiraltylaw.com/category/marine-insurance/experts-and-expert-evidence-marine-insurance/)
- [Immigration and Shipping](https://admiraltylaw.com/category/immigration-and-shipping/)
- [Judicial Sales](https://admiraltylaw.com/category/maritime-liens-mortgages-priorities/judicial-sales-maritime-liens-mortgages-priorities/)
- [Costs and Security for Costs](https://admiraltylaw.com/category/marine-insurance/costs-and-security-for-costs-marine-insurance/)
- [Judgments and Enforcement of Judgments](https://admiraltylaw.com/category/carriage-of-goods-by-sea/judgments-and-enforcement-of-judgments-carriage-of-goods-by-sea/)
- [In Rem Actions and Arrest](https://admiraltylaw.com/category/maritime-liens-mortgages-priorities/in-rem-actions-and-arrest-maritime-liens-mortgages-priorities/)
- [Stays of Proceedings](https://admiraltylaw.com/category/ship-building-and-repair/stays-of-proceedings-ship-building-and-repair/)
- [In Rem Actions and Arrest](https://admiraltylaw.com/category/arbitration-jurisdiction-clauses-in-maritime-law/in-rem-actions-and-arrest-arbitration-jurisdiction-clauses-in-maritime-law/)
- [Costs and Security for Costs](https://admiraltylaw.com/category/arbitration-jurisdiction-clauses-in-maritime-law/costs-and-security-for-costs-arbitration-jurisdiction-clauses-in-maritime-law/)
- [Pleadings](https://admiraltylaw.com/category/admiralty-jurisdiction/pleadings-admiralty-jurisdiction/)
- [Parties](https://admiraltylaw.com/category/admiralty-jurisdiction/parties-admiralty-jurisdiction/)
- [Other Practice Topics](https://admiraltylaw.com/category/personal-injury-and-maritime-law/other-practice-topics-personal-injury-and-maritime-law/)
- [Costs and Security for Costs](https://admiraltylaw.com/category/collisions-and-ships/costs-and-security-for-costs-collisions-and-ships/)
- [Other Practice Topics](https://admiraltylaw.com/category/ship-building-and-repair/other-practice-topics-ship-building-and-repair/)
- [Judgments and Enforcement of Judgments](https://admiraltylaw.com/category/maritime-liens-mortgages-priorities/judgments-and-enforcement-of-judgments-maritime-liens-mortgages-priorities/)
- [Other Practice Topics](https://admiraltylaw.com/category/charters-of-ships/other-practice-topics-charters-of-ships/)
- [Other Practice Topics](https://admiraltylaw.com/category/maritime-liens-mortgages-priorities/other-practice-topics-maritime-liens-mortgages-priorities/)
- [Other Practice Topics](https://admiraltylaw.com/category/collisions-and-ships/other-practice-topics-collisions-and-ships/)
- [Stays of Proceedings](https://admiraltylaw.com/category/maritime-liens-mortgages-priorities/stays-of-proceedings-maritime-liens-mortgages-priorities/)
- [Judgments and Enforcement of Judgments](https://admiraltylaw.com/category/pollution-ship-source/judgments-and-enforcement-of-judgments-pollution-ship-source/)
- [Appeals](https://admiraltylaw.com/category/marine-insurance/appeals-marine-insurance/)
- [Injunctions](https://admiraltylaw.com/category/constitutional-issues-in-maritime-law/injunctions-constitutional-issues-in-maritime-law/)
- [Injunctions](https://admiraltylaw.com/category/miscellaneous-maritime-law-topics/injunctions-miscellaneous-maritime-law-topics/)
- [Other Practice Topics](https://admiraltylaw.com/category/admiralty-jurisdiction/other-practice-topics-admiralty-jurisdiction/)
- [Other Practice Topics](https://admiraltylaw.com/category/offences-in-a-marine-context/other-practice-topics-offences-in-a-marine-context/)
- [Experts and Expert Evidence](https://admiraltylaw.com/category/experts-and-expert-evidence-2/)
- [Stays of Proceedings](https://admiraltylaw.com/category/carriage-of-goods-by-sea/stays-of-proceedings-carriage-of-goods-by-sea/)
- [Delay and Time Extensions](https://admiraltylaw.com/category/offences-in-a-marine-context/delay-and-time-extensions-offences-in-a-marine-context/)
- [Discovery](https://admiraltylaw.com/category/collisions-and-ships/discovery-collisions-and-ships/)
- [Injunctions](https://admiraltylaw.com/category/docks-wharves-and-marinas/injunctions-docks-wharves-and-marinas/)
- [Judicial Sales](https://admiraltylaw.com/category/charters-of-ships/judicial-sales-charters-of-ships/)
- [In Rem Actions and Arrest](https://admiraltylaw.com/category/in-rem-actions-and-arrest-2/)
- [Other Practice Topics](https://admiraltylaw.com/category/pollution-ship-source/other-practice-topics-pollution-ship-source/)
- [In Rem Actions and Arrest](https://admiraltylaw.com/category/pollution-ship-source/in-rem-actions-and-arrest-pollution-ship-source/)
- [Appeals](https://admiraltylaw.com/category/miscellaneous-maritime-law-topics/appeals-miscellaneous-maritime-law-topics/)
- [Appeals](https://admiraltylaw.com/category/admiralty-jurisdiction/appeals-admiralty-jurisdiction/)
- [Other Practice Topics](https://admiraltylaw.com/category/docks-wharves-and-marinas/other-practice-topics-docks-wharves-and-marinas/)
- [Appeals](https://admiraltylaw.com/category/personal-injury-and-maritime-law/appeals-personal-injury-and-maritime-law/)
- [Other Practice Topics](https://admiraltylaw.com/category/salvage-and-wrecks/other-practice-topics-salvage-and-wrecks/)
- [Appeals](https://admiraltylaw.com/category/pollution-ship-source/appeals-pollution-ship-source/)
- [Stays of Proceedings](https://admiraltylaw.com/category/limitation-periods-in-maritime-law/stays-of-proceedings-limitation-periods-in-maritime-law/)
- [Judicial Sales](https://admiraltylaw.com/category/pollution-ship-source/judicial-sales-pollution-ship-source/)
- [Experts and Expert Evidence](https://admiraltylaw.com/category/carriage-of-goods-by-sea/experts-and-expert-evidence-carriage-of-goods-by-sea/)
- [Miscellaneous](https://admiraltylaw.com/category/fish-cases/judicial-review-crown-liability/miscellaneous/)
- [Search and Seizure](https://admiraltylaw.com/category/fish-cases/fisheries-practice/search-and-seizure/)
- [Miscellaneous](https://admiraltylaw.com/category/fish-cases/aboriginal-rights-defences/miscellaneous-aboriginal-rights-defences/)
- [Search and Seizure](https://admiraltylaw.com/category/fish-cases/aboriginal-rights-defences/search-and-seizure-aboriginal-rights-defences/)
- [Miscellaneous](https://admiraltylaw.com/category/fish-cases/constitutional-cases/miscellaneous-constitutional-cases/)
- [By Licence Holders and Employers](https://admiraltylaw.com/category/fish-cases/by-licence-holders-and-employers-fish-cases/)
- [Bail](https://admiraltylaw.com/category/admiralty-practice/bail/)
- [Judicial Review](https://admiraltylaw.com/category/appeals/judicial-review/)

## Tags

- [Practice](https://admiraltylaw.com/tag/practice/)
- [In Rem Proceeding](https://admiraltylaw.com/tag/in-rem-proceeding/)
- [Intervention by Mortgagee](https://admiraltylaw.com/tag/intervention-by-mortgagee/)
- [Collateral Attack](https://admiraltylaw.com/tag/collateral-attack/)
- [Stay](https://admiraltylaw.com/tag/stay/)
- [Sistership](https://admiraltylaw.com/tag/sistership/)
- [Arrest of Ships](https://admiraltylaw.com/tag/arrest-of-ships/)
- [Whether Sister Ships](https://admiraltylaw.com/tag/whether-sister-ships/)
- [Setting Bail](https://admiraltylaw.com/tag/setting-bail/)
- [Claim vs. Supplier of Packaging](https://admiraltylaw.com/tag/claim-vs-supplier-of-packaging/)
- [Claim against Sub-contractor](https://admiraltylaw.com/tag/claim-against-sub-contractor/)
- [In Rem Proceedings](https://admiraltylaw.com/tag/in-rem-proceedings/)
- [Striking](https://admiraltylaw.com/tag/striking/)
- [Arrest](https://admiraltylaw.com/tag/arrest/)
- [In Rem Actions](https://admiraltylaw.com/tag/in-rem-actions/)
- [Service on Proceeds](https://admiraltylaw.com/tag/service-on-proceeds/)
- [Summary Judgment](https://admiraltylaw.com/tag/summary-judgment/)
- [Repairers/Necessaries Suppliers](https://admiraltylaw.com/tag/repairers-necessaries-suppliers/)
- [In Rem Action](https://admiraltylaw.com/tag/in-rem-action/)
- [Commission Contract](https://admiraltylaw.com/tag/commission-contract/)
- [Fishing Licenses](https://admiraltylaw.com/tag/fishing-licenses/)
- [Breach of Agency Contract](https://admiraltylaw.com/tag/breach-of-agency-contract/)
- [Renewal of Writ and Sisterships](https://admiraltylaw.com/tag/renewal-of-writ-and-sisterships/)
- [Booking Note](https://admiraltylaw.com/tag/booking-note/)
- [Sisterships](https://admiraltylaw.com/tag/sisterships/)
- [Effect of Service on Ship](https://admiraltylaw.com/tag/effect-of-service-on-ship/)
- [Contempt](https://admiraltylaw.com/tag/contempt/)
- [Carriage by Sea](https://admiraltylaw.com/tag/carriage-by-sea/)
- [Fruit](https://admiraltylaw.com/tag/fruit/)
- [Bail](https://admiraltylaw.com/tag/bail/)
- [Amount](https://admiraltylaw.com/tag/amount/)
- [Proof](https://admiraltylaw.com/tag/proof/)
- [Standard of Proof](https://admiraltylaw.com/tag/standard-of-proof/)
- [Caveat Warrants](https://admiraltylaw.com/tag/caveat-warrants/)
- [Release without Bail](https://admiraltylaw.com/tag/release-without-bail/)
- [Security](https://admiraltylaw.com/tag/security/)
- [Security for Costs](https://admiraltylaw.com/tag/security-for-costs/)
- [Mitigation](https://admiraltylaw.com/tag/mitigation/)
- [Delivery](https://admiraltylaw.com/tag/delivery/)
- [Solicitor Client Costs](https://admiraltylaw.com/tag/solicitor-client-costs/)
- [Abuse of Process](https://admiraltylaw.com/tag/abuse-of-process/)
- [Release from Arrest](https://admiraltylaw.com/tag/release-from-arrest/)
- [Arrest of Freight](https://admiraltylaw.com/tag/arrest-of-freight/)
- [Wrongful Arrest](https://admiraltylaw.com/tag/wrongful-arrest/)
- [Arrest and Equipment](https://admiraltylaw.com/tag/arrest-and-equipment/)
- [Right to Re-Arrest](https://admiraltylaw.com/tag/right-to-re-arrest/)
- [Judicial Sale](https://admiraltylaw.com/tag/judicial-sale/)
- [Sale](https://admiraltylaw.com/tag/sale/)
- [Stay of Proceedings](https://admiraltylaw.com/tag/stay-of-proceedings/)
- [Extension of time for Service and Arrest](https://admiraltylaw.com/tag/extension-of-time-for-service-and-arrest/)
- [Order for Sale Pendente Lite](https://admiraltylaw.com/tag/order-for-sale-pendente-lite/)
- [Reconsideration of Sale Order](https://admiraltylaw.com/tag/reconsideration-of-sale-order/)
- [Court O