3 total
Civil Code of Quebec governs sale of marine engine parts despite maritime context.
The appellants, a Canadian shipping conglomerate, purchased reconditioned marine engine parts from the respondent supplier, whose contract contained a six-month warranty and a clause limiting liability to €50,000.
Well after the warranty expired, the ship's main engine suffered a major failure caused by a latent defect in the supplied crankshaft, and the appellants commenced proceedings for $5,661,830.33 in damages and lost profit.
The trial judge held that the Civil Code of Québec governed the dispute and that the limitation clause was unenforceable, but the Court of Appeal majority reversed, finding Canadian maritime law applicable and the clause valid.
A unanimous Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal, restoring the trial judge's conclusions, although the six-judge majority and the three-judge concurrence differed as to the constitutional analysis: the majority applied a modified pith and substance test followed by the integral connection test and concluded that while the sale of marine engine parts falls within both federal legislative authority and provincial property and civil rights power (a double aspect scenario), neither interjurisdictional immunity nor federal paramountcy displaces art. 1733 C.C.Q., which prevails over non-statutory Canadian maritime law; the concurrence would have resolved the matter solely through pith and substance, characterizing the dispute as one of sale of goods governed by s. 92(13).
Appeal allowed; Ontario lacks jurisdiction over cruise ship claim as defendant has no Canadian business.
The plaintiffs booked a cruise with the defendant through an Ontario travel agent, embarking in Italy and disembarking in England.
After cash was allegedly stolen from their stateroom, they sued the defendant in Ontario.
The defendant appealed the Small Claims Court's dismissal of its motion for summary judgment on the basis of territorial jurisdiction.
The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that under the Athens Convention, the action could not be brought in Canada because the defendant did not have a place of business in Canada, and the motion judge erred in piercing the corporate veil to attribute a parent company's Canadian business to the defendant.
Contractual choice of law upheld; expiration of limitation period does not justify exception to rule.
The plaintiffs sued a tour operator and a cruise provider after allegedly contracting an airborne virus on a Caribbean cruise.
The cruise provider appealed a motion judge's decision that Ontario law applied to the action, arguing that the contract specified the law of England, which would bar the claim under the two-year limitation period in the Athens Convention.
The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that the expiration of a limitation period does not constitute an injustice sufficient to override the contractual choice of law or the lex loci delicti rule.
The law of England was declared to apply to the issues between the plaintiffs and the cruise provider.
