Ferguson v. Arctic Transportation Ltd.
T-1941-93
McKeown J.
29/7/97
11 pp.
Prothonotary submitting following issue to Court for preliminary determination: whether jurisdiction in Court to determine issues raised in third party proceedings-Main action in tort against Arctic Transportation Ltd. (ATL) for injuries suffered when wire snapped on ATL's vessel while transiting Panama Canal and while vessel piloted by Panama Canal Commission (PCC) pilot-Plaintiff employee of third party PCC but cannot sue employer because of statutory prohibition-ATL claiming indemnification from PCC on basis at time of accident, vessel under sole direction and control of PCC-Jurisdiction in Federal Court to determine issues raised in third party proceedings-Fact main action within jurisdiction of Federal Court not automatically giving Court jurisdiction to deal with third party proceedings-Jurisdiction must be established with respect to third party claim-Whether third party claim so integrally connected to maritime matters as to be legitimate Canadian maritime law within federal competence-(1) Statutory grant of jurisdiction by federal Parliament: Federal Court Act, ss. 2, 22(1),(2), 43 (see Wire Rope Industries of Canada (1966) Ltd. v. B.C. Marine Shipbuilders Ltd. et al., [1981] 1 S.C.R. 363)-(2) Existing body of federal law essential to disposition of case and nourishing statutory grant of jurisdiction (see ITO-International Terminal Operators Ltd. v. Miida Electronics Inc. et al., [1986] 1 S.C.R. 752)-Claim herein relating to pilotage, matter within exclusive competence of federal government under navigation and shipping-Fact cause of action herein arose outside Canada and requiring application of foreign law not depriving Federal Court of jurisdiction to hear third party claim-Common law principles of torts, contract and bailment form part of Canadian maritime law and may be applied by Federal Court-Similarly, common law of agency forms part of Canadian maritime law-Since plaintiff alleging personal injuries arose out of negligence of ATL or ATL's agents, law of agency applicable and will have bearing on determination of issues-Under common law of agency, principal can seek indemnification from agent where principal responsible for conduct of agent-(3) Applicable law "law of Canada" as phrase used in Constitution Act, 1867, s. 101-Case arising out of marine tort-Plaintiff injured on vessel-Defendant added PCC as third party because PCC operated vessel-In pith and substance, claim maritime in nature-Claim meeting test of Federal Court Act, s. 22(1)-Claim for relief by virtue of Canadian maritime law as required by s. 22 and law in question, Canadian maritime law, deals with navigation, shipping and, accordingly, coming within Constitution Act, 1867, s. 91(10)-Not primarily case in tort-Federal Court Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. F-7, ss. 2 (as am. by S.C. 1990, c. 8, s. 1), 22, 43 (as am. idem, s. 12)-Constitution Act, 1867, 30 & 31 Vict., c. 3 (U.K.) [R.S.C., 1985, Appendix II, No. 5], ss. 91(10), 101.