General Motors Acceptance Corp. v. Furjanic
T-699-94
Cullen J.
19/5/94
15 pp.
Motion to strike statement of claim, originating notice of motion, plaintiff's motion to recover possession of and to sell ship, and to vacate orders prohibiting any dealing with ship on ground Court lacking jurisdiction to grant relief sought-Mr. Furjanic entering into conditional sales contract for purchase of ship-Part of purchase price satisfied by trade-in of boat owned by wife-Vendor failing to register ship under Canada Shipping Act-Assigning contract to General Motors Acceptance Corporation (GMAC)-GMAC registering financing statement against Furjanic and purchase money security interest pursuant to Ontario Personal Property Security Act (PPSA)-Furjanic registered ship under Canada Shipping Act, advising Registrar GMAC providing financing-Furjanic purporting to transfer ownership of ship to wife-Ship registered in wife's name-Application for registration accompanied by wife's sworn declaration sole owner of ship-Plaintiff pleading conveyance, declaration fraudulent and registration obtained by fraudulent means-Furjanic defaulting in payments-In accordance with PPSA, GMAC delivering notice of sale dated December 30, 1993 to Juranic-GMAC unaware of ship's registration under Canada Shipping Act prior to March 16, 1994-Rothstein J. ordering any dealing with ship prohibited on applicant's undertaking to commence action forthwith-Defendants submitting plaintiff's recourse against conveyance of ship from husband to wife to Ontario court pursuant to Fraudulent Conveyances Act of Ontario-Further submitting real matter in dispute between parties one of contract law, dealing with security interests and personal property and therefore one whose pith and substance dealing with property and civil rights under provincial jurisdiction-Submitting facts of case not satisfying tripartite test to determine whether Court having jurisdiction as set out in ITO-International Terminal Operators Ltd. v. Miida Electronics et al., [1986] 1 S.C.R. 752, and summarized in Roberts v. Canada, [1989] 1 S.C.R. 322-Three findings necessary to ground jurisdiction in this Court: (1) statutory grant of jurisdiction by federal Parliament; (2) existing body of federal law essential to disposition of case and nourishing statutory grant of jurisdiction; (3) law on which case based must be "law of Canada" as phrase used in Constitution Act, 1867, s. 101-Defendants submitting no federal law essential to disposition of case and which nourishes statutory grant of jurisdiction as simply conditional sales contract with registered security interest taken under provincial legislation-Plaintiff submitting originating notice of motion commenced under Canada Shipping Act, s. 44 and action commenced on basis of conditional sales contract and common law dealing with title to personal property-Submitting Court having jurisdiction to determine question of title to ship under Federal Court Act, s. 22(2)(a)-Federal Court Act, s. 22 granting jurisdiction to satisfy first branch of test-Federal Court Act, s. 2 defining "Canadian maritime law" as (1) law administered by Exchequer Court of Canada on its Admiralty side by virtue of Admiralty Act or any other statute; or (2) would have been so administered if Court had had on its Admiralty side unlimited jurisdiction in relation to maritime and admiralty matters-First category not applicable-According to Monk Corp. v. Island Fertilizers Ltd., [1991] 1 S.C.R. 779 plaintiff must show specific claims advanced integrally connected to maritime matters-Although decided prior to ITO, Monk, S.C.C. not mentioning Antares Shipping Corporation v. The Ship "Capricorn" et al., [1980] 1 S.C.R. 553 wherein held s. 22(2)(a) existing federal statutory law within class and subject of navigation and shipping-May still be applicable but question remains whether matter falling within subject of navigation and shipping by virtue of either approach to jurisdiction, i.e. s. 22(2) or tripartite test from ITO-Since object of contract ship, and although pleasure craft, not commercial vessel, within framework of s. 22(2)(a) and within Court's jurisdiction-Dispute clearly over title and possession of registered ship within meaning of Shipping Act, Federal Court Act, ss. 2, 22-Fact GMAC attempting to protect interest by registering under PPSA not fatal to proceedings in this Court-S. 22(2)(a) clearly vesting Court with jurisdiction to hear any claim with respect to title, possession or ownership of ship or any part interest therein or with respect to proceeds of sale of ship or any part interest therein-Expressly conferring jurisdiction to entertain remedies sought by plaintiff-Constitution Act, 1867, s. 91(10) vesting legislative competence over "navigation and shipping" not limited to commercial shipping-Extending to contractual dispute-Taking s. 22(2)(a), decisions of Supreme Court, this Court vested with jurisdiction to hear claim for possession of ship even though registered under PPSA of Ontario by party claiming title and registered by opposing party with Registrar-Within Rothstein J.'s jurisdiction to grant order prohibiting defendants from dealing with ship pursuant to Shipping Act, s. 44-Within Court's jurisdiction to entertain claim for possession of ship-Constitution Act, 1867, 30 & 31 Vict., c. 3 (U.K.) [R.S.C., 1985, Appendix II, No. 5], ss. 91(10), 92(13)-Federal Court Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. F-10, ss. 2, 22-Canada Shipping Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. S-9, s. 44-Personal Property Security Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.10-Fraudulent Conveyances Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. F.29.