Peracomo Inc. v. Telus Communications, 2012 FCA 199, 2014 SCC 29

In Collisions and Ships on (Updated )

PrĂ©cis: 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.

Full Summary

Alstom Canada Inc. v. Canadian National Railway Company, 2008 FC 1311

In Carriage of Goods by Road/Rail on (Updated )

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 which contained a limitation clause …

Full Summary

Cuppen v. Queen Charlotte Lodge Ltd. et al, 2006 BCCA 443

In Personal Injury and Maritime Law on (Updated )

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 of the boat and suffered …

Full Summary

Valmet Paper Machinery Inc. v. Hapag-Lloyd AG, 2004 BCCA 518

In Carriage of Goods by Road/Rail on (Updated )

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 Defendant motor carrier admitted liability …

Full Summary

Byers v. United Parcel Service Canada Ltd., 2004 SKPC 66

In Carriage of Goods by Road/Rail on (Updated )

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 statute.

Full Summary

Green Computer AB v. Federal Express Corp. et al., 2004 FCA 111

In Carriage of Goods by Air on (Updated )

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 was entitled to limit liability …

Full Summary

Dixon v. Leggat, 2003 CanLII 21626 (ON CA)

In Collisions and Ships on (Updated )

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 that he was operating the …

Full Summary

Capilano Fishing Ltd. v. The "Qualicum Producer", 2001 BCCA 244

In Collisions and Ships on (Updated )

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 limit liability. On the issue …

Full Summary

World of Art nc. v. Koninklijke Luchtraart Maatschappij N.V., 2000 CanLII 16982

In Carriage of Goods by Air on (Updated )

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. As a result, its systems …

Full Summary