419:...the constitutional issues in the present case arise only because the choice of law clause in the agreement ... does not indicate whether Canadian maritime law or Quebec civil law governs the contract.... The clause merely provides that "he Contract shall be governed by and interpreted in accordance with the laws in force at the registered office of the Supplier". We understand that the trial judge interpreted the "office of the Supplier" as referring to Wärtsilä's place of business in Montréal, Quebec, where the contract was formed.... Yet the "laws in force" in Quebec include both provincial and federal laws.... This is why it remains necessary to undertake a constitutional analysis in the present case.
287:
29:
726:, and stated that both courts below had erred in their application of the test. In the present case, it is the "pith and substance" test, and not the "integral application" test, that "must be used to determine whether a matter comes within navigation and shipping or property and civil rights." It also expressed the idea that it may now be time to lay the "integral application" test to rest.
445:... the body of admiralty law, which was adopted from England as Canadian maritime law, encompassed both specialized rules and principles of admiralty and the rules and principles adopted from the common law and applied in admiralty cases as these rules and principles have been, and continue to be, modified and expanded in Canadian jurisprudence.
458:... while the same Canadian court may now adjudicate common law, civil law, and Canadian maritime law aspects of a dispute, each body of law is distinct within the Canadian system. And when Canadian maritime law validly governs a dispute, that body of law represents a seamless and ubiquitous web that is capable of resolving any legal dispute....
372:, Paquette SCJ stated that the test was, "Is the activity at stake so integrally connected to maritime matters such that it is practically necessary for Parliament to have jurisdiction over same, in order to properly exercise its legislative power over navigation and shipping?" She held that it was not, the
768:
departs from prior jurisprudence of the SCC in the field that held that maritime law must be uniform throughout Canada, and by implication allows for provincial legislation to apply to contracts in industries otherwise governed by federal law. The Court's observation that the paramountcy doctrine did
761:
One commentator noted that this decision "has potentially far-reaching implications for contracts and disputes involving the transportation of goods across borders and the construction of projects under federal jurisdiction." Another thought that "maritime lawyers and constitutional experts are going
772:
By holding that
Canadian maritime law is a body of law separate from either common or civil law, and that the dispute could have been avoided by a more precisely worded choice of law clause, parties to future maritime contracts will need to carefully consider consequences of their drafting. However,
449:
The Court's prior decisions in the field "make clear that
Canadian maritime law is a comprehensive body of law, uniform throughout Canada, that purports to deal with all claims in respect of maritime and admiralty matters, subject only to the scope of the federal power over navigation and shipping
471:
On the view I take, there is no "gap" that would allow for the application of provincial law. While the federal government has not passed contributory negligence legislation for maritime torts, the common law principles embodied in
Canadian maritime law remain applicable in the absence of federal
462:
Besides being "a comprehensive body of law", it has also been described as "a seamless web", and, "where
Canadian maritime law does not provide a specific rule governing the situation at hand, courts must extract and adopt relevant principles of law from both the common law and civil law, where
403:. In the majority ruling, Mainville JA stated that the lower court had erred in law by not noting that Canadian maritime law explicitly included matters concerning the supply of ships as well as their construction and repair. As Canadian maritime law has been held to include the UK
427:
Appeal was allowed with costs throughout, setting aside the judgment of the Court of Appeal and restoring that of the
Superior Court. The Justices split 6-3 as to the reasoning behind the ruling, and both sides were at variance with the reasons given by the lower courts.
54:
Desgagnés
Transport Inc, Desgagnés Transarctik Inc, Navigation Desgagnés Inc, Lloyds Underwriters and Institute of Lloyds Underwriters (ILU) Companies Subscribing to Policy Number B0856 09h0016 and Aim Insurance (Barbados) SCC v Wärtsilä Canada Inc and Wärtsilä Nederland
489:.... The test for making this determination is to ask whether the subject matter under consideration in the particular case is so integrally connected to maritime matters as to be legitimate Canadian maritime law within federal legislative competence.
498:
The Court observed that the Court of Appeal's analysis was incomplete, having stopped without considering whether there could be provincial jurisdiction as well in the matter. The majority's division of powers analysis proceeded as follows:
710:... Parliament's legislative authority under s. 91(10) is over navigation and shipping, not over Canadian maritime law. This is the language of the Constitution, and avoids the potential overbreadth of focusing on the
752:
It further clarified that its ruling did not express an opinion as to whether
Parliament could pass legislation with respect to contracts of trade at sea, or whether the "double aspect" doctrine could possibly apply.
648:
the core of navigation and shipping neither can nor should be defined in a manner so as to necessarily encompass contractual issues related to the sale of marine engine parts for use on a commercial vessel.
484:
The first step involves a determination of whether the specific subject matter at issue in a claim is within the exclusive federal legislative competence over navigation and shipping under s. 91(10)of the
677:" In our view, it would run contrary to the purpose of the federal paramountcy doctrine to declare that the non-statutory rules of Canadian maritime law can prevail over valid provincial legislation."
662:
Assess when valid provincial and federal legislation are incompatible. If such a conflict exists, the federal law prevails and the provincial law is declared inoperative to the extent of the conflict.
557:
the functional relationship between those elements, which involves consideration of, inter alia, whether the activity or good implicates seaworthiness, or, more generally, transportation by water;
548:
Application of the "integral application" test in matters concerning
Canadian maritime law, to ensure that federal law does not encroach on matters coming within provincial legislative powers
1277:
697:"is therefore operative and governs the dispute ... as it prevails over Canadian non-statutory maritime law following the principle of the primacy of a legislative enactment."
580:"he sale of marine engine parts intended for use on a commercial vessel is integrally connected to navigation and shipping so as to come within federal legislative authority."
1100:
463:
appropriate, so as to provide for a coherent resolution to the dispute." In 1997, responding to a submission that there was an absence of law concerning a maritime matter,
1258:
352:
that arose during the original assembly, which W denied. W also stated that the warranty period specified in the contract had already expired, which was allowed under
534:
The court determines whether the subject matter of the challenged legislation falls within the head of power being relied on to support the legislation's validity.
569:
the fact that the matter implicates standards, principles and practices that are specific to the maritime context or informed by maritime considerations;
603:
Both the Quebec legislature and
Parliament have a "compelling interest" in enacting legal rules over different aspects of the same activity or matter.
526:"he matter at issue can be characterized, with appropriate precision, as the sale of marine engine parts intended for use on a commercial vessel."
738:
745:, and was thus never part of the admiralty law considered by the latter Division. It therefore did not arise in the present context, and so the
1346:
1296:
769:
not apply where the
Parliament of Canada has not legislated on a particular aspect is seen as an invitation for such action to take place.
550:
It encompasses a number of non-exhaustive factors, which may receive different weight depending on the facts of a given case, including:
1341:
130:
scenario: a non‑statutory body of federal law and a provincial law, both validly directed at the same fact situation, overlap. Neither
1351:
1304:
1318:
147:; it is therefore ultimately the law governing this dispute. Since art. 1733 is a legislative enactment, Canadian non‑statutory
804:
645:
the contractual issues raised by D's claim do not engage the core of the federal competence over navigation and shipping; and
1361:
621:
131:
1371:
265:
1262:
600:
As outlined above, the federal power over navigation and shipping can also apply to the sale of marine engine parts.
675:
an Act of the Parliament of Canada, as it functions as part of the non-statutory portion of Canadian maritime law.
101:
286:
746:
1366:
472:
legislation. The question is not whether there is federal maritime law on the issue, but what that law decrees.
441:
The majority began its analysis by first considering the scope of Canadian maritime law, observing that it is:
369:
734:
519:
The court considers the law's purpose and its effect with a view to identifying the true subject matter — the
1071:
1054:
1356:
305:
291:
269:
179:
105:
93:
86:
34:
1024:
989:
597:
Regulating the sale of goods constitutes an exercise of the provincial power over property and civil rights
778:
409:(under which limitation clauses are allowed in sale contracts), W's warranty expiry was held to be valid.
405:
400:
274:
243:
164:
841:
742:
353:
345:
191:
148:
945:
317:
stated that the contract would be governed pursuant to the laws in force at the office of W, which was
313:, abbreviated "W"). The contract included a limited warranty and limited W's liability to €50,000. The
28:
1259:"The Little Engine that Couldn't: SCC Rules on Limitation of Liability for Sale of Ship Engine Parts"
1105:
809:
693:
656:
392:
383:
374:
341:
337:
330:
314:
261:
236:
143:
135:
613:
can govern this sale of marine engine parts unless an issue of applicability or operability arises.
300:
723:
520:
464:
187:
926:
554:
the spatial relationship between the non-maritime and maritime elements of the matter at issue;
476:
In essence, Canadian maritime law is limited only by the constitutional division of powers. In
183:
357:
175:
642:
The doctrine must be limited to situations already covered by precedents. In this case:
630:
the impugned provision must trench on the core of an exclusive head of power under the
310:
199:
171:
821:
and therefore not within the scope of admiralty law as constituted within Canadian law
1335:
589:
349:
127:
61:
1295:
Pollack, George J.; Lubetsky, Michael H.; Lemieux, Joseph-Anaël (December 4, 2019).
689:
637:
the effect of this overlap must impair the exercise of the core of the head of power
388:
379:
378:
therefore applied, and ruled that the contract's limitation clauses were void under
139:
195:
303:, and hereafter abbreviated "D" for brevity) purchased engine parts for its ship
539:
722:
The minority held that jurisdiction was ultimately based on an analysis of its
322:
531:
Classifying the matter according to the different heads of legislative power
96:, CarswellQue 11288; QJ 12923 (23 November 2015). Leave to appeal granted,
1278:"Provincial rather than maritime law applies to marine engine contract: SCC"
272:
concerning the interplay of federal and provincial jurisdictions under the
318:
671:
356:, while D submitted that such limitation clauses are not enforceable in
214:
Gascon, Côté and Rowe JJ, joined by Moldaver, Karakatsanis and Martin JJ
563:
the context surrounding the relationship of the parties to the dispute;
537:
Where it does, the legislation will be upheld on the basis that it is
326:
89:, CarswellQue 8576; JQ no 13424 (29 September 2017); setting aside
777:
could conceivably prohibit relying on such a clause, as a matter of
585:
Is there a provincial law that is valid, applicable and operative?
285:
606:
The two sets of contract rules and principles are thus valid.
1051:
Bow Valley Husky (Bermuda) Ltd v Saint John Shipbuilding Ltd
802:
reflecting the current concept of federalism as outlined in
98:
Transport Desgagnés Inc, et al v Wärtsilä Canada Inc, et al
566:
the practical importance or necessity of legal uniformity;
948: at par. 43, FCJ No 1267 (QL) (26 October 2015)
572:
the historical connection with English maritime law; and
627:
Two conditions must be met for the doctrine to apply:
340:
in October 2009, while the vessel was on route on the
299:
In October 2006, Desgagnés Transport (a subsidiary of
1074: at par. 73, 3 SCR 1210 (18 December 1997)
1057: at par. 89, 3 SCR 1210 (18 December 1997)
226:
218:
210:
205:
155:
120:
112:
78:
70:
60:
49:
42:
21:
1257:Kazaz, Charles; Breneman, Ian (December 4, 2019).
1027: at p. 696, 2 SCR 683 (28 September 1989)
396:. D was awarded around $ 5.66 million in damages.
325:was mounted onto a new bedplate at W's factory in
1108: at par. 86, 3 SCR 189 (9 November 2018)
560:the temporal relationship between those elements;
1301:: Canadian Maritime Law Enters Uncharted Waters"
986:ITO-Int'l Terminal Operators v Miida Electronics
126:The sale of marine engine parts gives rise to a
84:Wärtsilä Canada inc. c. Transport Desgagnés inc.
1319:"Desgagnés Transport Inc v Wärtsilä Canada Inc"
1101:Reference re Pan‑Canadian Securities Regulation
1082:
1080:
708:
482:
469:
456:
443:
417:
91:Transport Desgagnés inc. c. Wärtsilä Canada Inc
749:power within provincial jurisdiction applied.
329:in November 2006 and delivered to the ship at
1252:
1250:
1248:
992: at p. 776, 1 SCR 752 (26 June 1986)
257:Desgagnés Transport Inc v Wärtsilä Canada Inc
22:Desgagnés Transport Inc v Wärtsilä Canada Inc
8:
1094:
1092:
348:. D claimed that the incident arose from a
309:from Wärtsilä Canada (the Canadian unit of
1324:. Montreal: Brisset Bishop. December 2019.
733:in the English courts was applied by the
222:Wagner CJ and Brown J, joined by Abella J
762:to be parsing this decision for years".
501:
360:insofar as they concern latent defects.
1276:Raymer, Elizabeth (November 28, 2019).
834:
795:
739:Probate, Divorce and Admiralty Division
454:". It is also a distinct body of law:
399:By 2-1, the appeal was allowed at the
18:
1299:Desgagnés Transport v Wärtsilä Canada
1021:QNS Paper Co v Chartwell Shipping Ltd
7:
931:, R.S.C., 1985, c. F-7, s. 22(m)-(n)
1305:Davies Ward Phillips & Vineberg
842:SCC Case Information - Docket 37873
516:Characterizing the matter at issue
494:Application to the matter at issue
321:. In that regard, a reconditioned
14:
942:National Bank of Canada v. Rogers
27:
805:Canadian Western Bank v Alberta
437:Scope of Canadian maritime law
413:At the Supreme Court of Canada
1:
1347:Canadian federalism case law
1263:Blake, Cassels & Graydon
812:, 2 SCR 3 (31 May 2007)
622:interjurisdictional immunity
467:(as she then was) declared:
132:interjurisdictional immunity
16:Supreme Court of Canada case
940:QCCA, par. 117-118, noting
336:The crankshaft sustained a
266:Canadian constitutional law
1388:
1342:Canadian contract case law
925:QCCA, par. 89, citing the
686:
653:
618:
583:
529:
523:— of the law in question.
514:
45:Judgment: 28 November 2019
1352:2019 in Canadian case law
747:property and civil rights
687:
682:
480:, the Court stated that:
231:
160:
151:does not prevail over it.
138:ousts the application of
125:
43:Hearing: 24 January 2019
26:
370:Superior Court of Quebec
844:Supreme Court of Canada
450:under s. 91(10) of the
270:Supreme Court of Canada
180:Andromache Karakatsanis
35:Supreme Court of Canada
731:Sale of Goods Act 1893
719:
667:Sale of Goods Act 1893
543:, and therefore valid.
491:
487:Constitution Act, 1867
474:
460:
452:Constitution Act, 1867
447:
424:
406:Sale of Goods Act 1893
401:Quebec Court of Appeal
296:
275:Constitution Act, 1867
244:Constitution Act, 1867
1098:SCC, par. 30, citing
1066:SCC, par. 27, citing
1049:SCC, par. 16, citing
1036:SCC, par. 15, citing
1019:SCC, par. 15, citing
984:SCC, par. 14, citing
743:High Court of Justice
735:King's Bench Division
704:The concurrent ruling
688:In the present case,
354:Canadian maritime law
295:docked for refueling.
289:
104: (19 July 2018),
1068:Ordon Estate v Grail
785:Notes and references
775:Civil Code of Quebec
737:, as opposed to the
575:relevant precedents.
375:Civil Code of Quebec
342:Saint Lawrence River
338:catastrophic failure
315:choice of law clause
306:MV Camilla Desgagnés
292:MV Camilla Desgagnés
237:Civil Code of Quebec
592:doctrine may apply
588:Assess whether the
432:The majority ruling
136:federal paramountcy
1372:Admiralty case law
1126:SCC, par. 49 (see
957:QCCA, par. 139-143
928:Federal Courts Act
729:It noted that the
724:pith and substance
521:pith and substance
333:in February 2007.
297:
1215:SCC, par. 142-146
907:QCCS, par. 99-104
701:
700:
253:
252:
102:2018 CanLII 65739
1379:
1362:Groupe Desgagnés
1326:
1325:
1323:
1315:
1309:
1308:
1292:
1286:
1285:
1273:
1267:
1266:
1254:
1243:
1240:
1234:
1231:
1225:
1222:
1216:
1213:
1207:
1204:
1198:
1195:
1189:
1186:
1180:
1177:
1171:
1170:SCC, par. 92, 94
1168:
1162:
1159:
1153:
1150:
1144:
1141:
1135:
1124:
1118:
1115:
1109:
1096:
1087:
1084:
1075:
1064:
1058:
1047:
1041:
1034:
1028:
1017:
1011:
1008:
1002:
999:
993:
982:
976:
973:
967:
964:
958:
955:
949:
938:
932:
923:
917:
914:
908:
905:
899:
898:QCCS, par. 26-32
896:
890:
887:
881:
880:QCCS, par. 12-15
878:
872:
871:QCCS, par. 10-11
869:
863:
860:
854:
851:
845:
839:
822:
819:
813:
800:
659:come into play?
632:Constitution Act
624:doctrine apply?
502:
364:The courts below
358:Quebec civil law
301:Groupe Desgagnés
176:Michael Moldaver
169:Puisne Justices:
156:Court membership
31:
19:
1387:
1386:
1382:
1381:
1380:
1378:
1377:
1376:
1367:Quebec case law
1332:
1331:
1330:
1329:
1321:
1317:
1316:
1312:
1294:
1293:
1289:
1282:Canadian Lawyer
1275:
1274:
1270:
1256:
1255:
1246:
1241:
1237:
1232:
1228:
1223:
1219:
1214:
1210:
1205:
1201:
1196:
1192:
1187:
1183:
1178:
1174:
1169:
1165:
1160:
1156:
1151:
1147:
1142:
1138:
1125:
1121:
1116:
1112:
1097:
1090:
1085:
1078:
1072:1997 CanLII 307
1065:
1061:
1055:1997 CanLII 307
1048:
1044:
1035:
1031:
1018:
1014:
1009:
1005:
1000:
996:
983:
979:
974:
970:
965:
961:
956:
952:
939:
935:
924:
920:
915:
911:
906:
902:
897:
893:
888:
884:
879:
875:
870:
866:
861:
857:
852:
848:
840:
836:
831:
826:
825:
820:
816:
801:
797:
792:
787:
759:
720:
718:
706:
609:Therefore, the
496:
439:
434:
425:
423:
415:
366:
284:
249:
167:
44:
38:
17:
12:
11:
5:
1385:
1383:
1375:
1374:
1369:
1364:
1359:
1354:
1349:
1344:
1334:
1333:
1328:
1327:
1310:
1287:
1268:
1244:
1235:
1226:
1217:
1208:
1199:
1190:
1181:
1172:
1163:
1154:
1145:
1136:
1119:
1110:
1088:
1076:
1059:
1042:
1029:
1025:1989 CanLII 35
1012:
1003:
994:
990:1986 CanLII 91
977:
968:
966:QCCA, par. 144
959:
950:
933:
918:
916:QCCS, par. 105
909:
900:
891:
882:
873:
864:
855:
853:QCCS, par. 3-4
846:
833:
832:
830:
827:
824:
823:
814:
794:
793:
791:
788:
786:
783:
758:
755:
716:
707:
705:
702:
699:
698:
685:
684:
680:
679:
663:
660:
652:
651:
650:
649:
646:
640:
639:
638:
635:
625:
617:
616:
615:
614:
607:
604:
601:
598:
593:
586:
582:
581:
578:
577:
576:
573:
570:
567:
564:
561:
558:
555:
546:
545:
544:
535:
528:
527:
524:
517:
513:
512:
509:
506:
495:
492:
438:
435:
433:
430:
421:
416:
414:
411:
365:
362:
283:
280:
268:ruling by the
251:
250:
248:
247:
240:
232:
229:
228:
224:
223:
220:
216:
215:
212:
208:
207:
203:
202:
200:Sheilah Martin
184:Clément Gascon
172:Rosalie Abella
165:Richard Wagner
162:Chief Justice:
158:
157:
153:
152:
123:
122:
118:
117:
116:Appeal allowed
114:
110:
109:
94:2015 QCCS 5514
87:2017 QCCA 1471
80:
76:
75:
72:
68:
67:
64:
58:
57:
51:
50:Full case name
47:
46:
40:
39:
32:
24:
23:
15:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1384:
1373:
1370:
1368:
1365:
1363:
1360:
1358:
1355:
1353:
1350:
1348:
1345:
1343:
1340:
1339:
1337:
1320:
1314:
1311:
1306:
1302:
1300:
1291:
1288:
1283:
1279:
1272:
1269:
1264:
1260:
1253:
1251:
1249:
1245:
1242:SCC, par. 190
1239:
1236:
1233:SCC, par. 186
1230:
1227:
1224:SCC, par. 183
1221:
1218:
1212:
1209:
1206:SCC, par. 131
1203:
1200:
1197:SCC, par. 130
1194:
1191:
1188:SCC, par. 106
1185:
1182:
1179:SCC, par. 103
1176:
1173:
1167:
1164:
1158:
1155:
1149:
1146:
1140:
1137:
1133:
1129:
1123:
1120:
1114:
1111:
1107:
1103:
1102:
1095:
1093:
1089:
1083:
1081:
1077:
1073:
1069:
1063:
1060:
1056:
1052:
1046:
1043:
1039:
1033:
1030:
1026:
1022:
1016:
1013:
1007:
1004:
998:
995:
991:
987:
981:
978:
975:SCC, par. 107
972:
969:
963:
960:
954:
951:
947:
943:
937:
934:
930:
929:
922:
919:
913:
910:
904:
901:
895:
892:
889:QCCS, par. 24
886:
883:
877:
874:
868:
865:
859:
856:
850:
847:
843:
838:
835:
828:
818:
815:
811:
807:
806:
799:
796:
789:
784:
782:
780:
776:
770:
767:
763:
756:
754:
750:
748:
744:
740:
736:
732:
727:
725:
717:SCC, par. 148
715:
713:
703:
696:
695:
691:
681:
678:
674:
673:
668:
664:
661:
658:
655:Does federal
654:
647:
644:
643:
641:
636:
633:
629:
628:
626:
623:
619:
612:
608:
605:
602:
599:
596:
595:
594:
591:
590:double aspect
587:
584:
579:
574:
571:
568:
565:
562:
559:
556:
553:
552:
551:
547:
542:
541:
536:
533:
532:
530:
525:
522:
518:
515:
510:
507:
504:
503:
500:
493:
490:
488:
481:
479:
473:
468:
466:
459:
455:
453:
446:
442:
436:
431:
429:
420:
412:
410:
408:
407:
402:
397:
395:
394:
390:
386:
385:
381:
377:
376:
371:
363:
361:
359:
355:
351:
350:latent defect
347:
346:Les Escoumins
343:
339:
334:
332:
328:
324:
320:
316:
312:
308:
307:
302:
294:
293:
288:
281:
279:
277:
276:
271:
267:
263:
259:
258:
246:
245:
241:
239:
238:
234:
233:
230:
225:
221:
217:
213:
209:
206:Reasons given
204:
201:
197:
193:
192:Russell Brown
189:
185:
181:
177:
173:
170:
166:
163:
159:
154:
150:
146:
145:
141:
137:
133:
129:
128:double aspect
124:
119:
115:
111:
107:
106:Supreme Court
103:
99:
95:
92:
88:
85:
81:
79:Prior history
77:
73:
69:
65:
63:
59:
56:
52:
48:
41:
37:
36:
30:
25:
20:
1313:
1298:
1290:
1281:
1271:
1238:
1229:
1220:
1211:
1202:
1193:
1184:
1175:
1166:
1161:SCC, par. 85
1157:
1152:SCC, par. 80
1148:
1143:SCC, par. 56
1139:
1132:Ordon Estate
1131:
1127:
1122:
1117:SCC, par. 36
1113:
1099:
1086:SCC, par. 81
1067:
1062:
1050:
1045:
1037:
1032:
1020:
1015:
1010:SCC, par. 13
1006:
997:
985:
980:
971:
962:
953:
946:2015 FC 1207
941:
936:
927:
921:
912:
903:
894:
885:
876:
867:
862:QCCS, Par. 5
858:
849:
837:
817:
803:
798:
779:public order
774:
771:
765:
764:
760:
751:
730:
728:
721:
714:writ large.
711:
709:
692:
676:
670:
666:
631:
610:
549:
538:
511:Disposition
497:
486:
483:
478:Ordon Estate
477:
475:
470:
461:
457:
451:
448:
444:
440:
426:
418:
404:
398:
391:
382:
373:
367:
335:
304:
298:
290:
273:
256:
255:
254:
242:
235:
227:Laws applied
196:Malcolm Rowe
188:Suzanne Côté
168:
161:
149:maritime law
142:
97:
90:
83:
82:APPEAL from
53:
33:
1261:. Toronto:
1134:at par. 73)
1130:at p. 774;
1106:2018 SCC 48
1001:SCC, par. 9
810:2007 SCC 22
683:Conclusion
657:paramountcy
540:intra vires
465:McLachlin J
422:SCC, par. 6
264:is a major
262:2019 SCC 58
219:Concurrence
66:2019 SCC 58
1336:Categories
829:References
323:crankshaft
282:Background
71:Docket No.
766:Desgagnés
690:Art. 1733
620:Does the
389:Art. 1733
380:Art. 1729
140:Art. 1733
108:(Canada).
62:Citations
1357:Wärtsilä
1040:, p. 725
712:maritime
319:Montreal
311:Wärtsilä
211:Majority
1104:,
1070:,
1053:,
1023:,
988:,
944:,
808:,
741:of the
669:is not
508:Process
368:At the
331:Halifax
260:,
121:Holding
100:,
757:Impact
672:per se
634:, 1867
327:Zwolle
113:Ruling
74:37873
1322:(PDF)
790:Notes
505:Stage
344:near
773:the
665:The
387:and
134:nor
1128:ITO
1038:QNS
694:CCQ
611:CCQ
393:CCQ
384:CCQ
144:CCQ
1338::
1303:.
1280:.
1247:^
1091:^
1079:^
781:.
278:.
198:,
194:,
190:,
186:,
182:,
178:,
174:,
55:BV
1307:.
1297:"
1284:.
1265:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
