Lloyd's Maritime and Commercial Law Quarterly
CANADIAN MARITIME LAW DECISIONS 1987–88
William Tetley*
A. General Average
Century Insurance Co. of Canada v. N. V. Bocimar S. A.1
Where the shipowner has not exercised due diligence to make the ship seaworthy, he has no claim for general average contribution by the cargo owner in respect of expenses incurred in a fire at sea. The Supreme Court of Canada held that the Court of Appeal overstepped its limited jurisdiction by weighing the evidence of an expert witness, rather than considering the findings of the trial court.2
In dissent, Lamer, J., found the Supreme Court of Canada’s jurisdiction to be limited. As a second appellate court, it should have interfered with the judgment of the Court of Appeal only if clearly satisfied that the Court of Appeal had been wrong in assessing the facts from the expert’s testimony.3
The Supreme Court also declared that the Court of Appeal had erred in assessing damages on the date of breach at the conversion rate for foreign currency on that date. Such a rate does not accurately reflect a declining foreign currency and would have resulted in overcompensation if it had been allowed. The Supreme Court, however, offered no rate or date of conversion of its own.
B. Jurisdiction
1. Gulf Trollers Association v. Canada 4
The regulation of the fishing of Chinook salmon off the British Columbian coast is within the jurisdiction of the Federal Government by virtue of the Constitution Act 1867, s. 91(12) and does not fall within the authority of the provinces under s. 92(13) of the same Act. Consequently, the Federal Government, under the Fisheries Act, s. 34,5 may delegate to fisheries officers the regulation of the permissible time for catching Chinook salmon, including the granting to sport fishermen of a longer season than their commercial counterparts.
* Q.C., Professor of Maritime Law, McGill University; Distinguished Visiting Professor, Tulane University. The author acknowledges the assistance of Lisa Balaban, B.A., who verified the text.
1. [1987] 1 S.C.R. (Can. S.C.).
2. See Stein v. The Kathy K [1976] 2 S.C.R. 802.
3. See Dorval v. Bouvier [1968] S.C.R. 288.
4. (1987) 72 N.R. 31 (Fed. C.A.).
5. R.S.C. 1970, c. F-14, s. 34(2).
89