Marc Nadon

The appellant's tug, the Ohio, was leading a flotilla towing a barge when navigational errors by the Ohio's master caused the barge to collide with a moored ship.

The appellant sought to limit its liability under s. 647(2) of the Canada Shipping Act.

The lower courts held the appellant could not limit its liability because the master was a 'directing mind' of the corporation, making his negligence the 'actual fault or privity' of the company.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal, holding that the master was not a directing mind as he did not have governing executive authority over corporate policy.

The Court further held that the appellant was entitled to limit its liability based solely on the tonnage of the tug Ohio, rather than the aggregate tonnage of all its vessels in the flotilla.

The respondent carrier transported electronic calculators by sea to Montreal, where they were stored by the appellant stevedore/terminal operator.

Thieves stole a portion of the cargo from the terminal operator's shed due to inadequate security.

The consignee sued both the carrier and the terminal operator in the Federal Court.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that the Federal Court had jurisdiction because the short-term storage of cargo within the port area is integrally connected to the contract of carriage by sea, falling within Canadian maritime law.

The Court further held that the 'Himalaya clause' in the bill of lading effectively extended the carrier's limitation of liability to the terminal operator, and that the exemption clauses were broad enough to cover the terminal operator's negligence.

Consequently, the actions against both the carrier and the terminal operator were dismissed.

The respondent carrier transported electronic calculators by sea to Montreal, where they were stored by the appellant stevedore/terminal operator.

Thieves stole a portion of the cargo from the terminal operator's shed due to inadequate security.

The consignee sued both the carrier and the terminal operator in the Federal Court.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that the Federal Court had jurisdiction because the short-term storage of cargo within the port area is integrally connected to the contract of carriage by sea, falling within Canadian maritime law.

The Court further held that the 'Himalaya clause' in the bill of lading effectively extended the carrier's limitation of liability to the terminal operator, and that the exemption clauses were broad enough to cover the terminal operator's negligence.

Consequently, the actions against both the carrier and the terminal operator were dismissed.