Summary

Keywords

None.

Summary

Case summaries are prepared by the Office of the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada (Law Branch). Please note that summaries are not provided to the Judges of the Court. They are placed on the Court file and website for information purposes only.

Constitutional law - Division of powers - Navigation and shipping - Paramountcy - Interjurisdictional immunity - Action in negligence by estates and families of two men who drowned after fishing vessel designed, built and inspected by defendants capsizes - Whether s. 6 of the Marine Liability Act, S.C. 2001, c. 6, authorizes a federal right of action for dependants of workers injured or killed in the course of marine employment against their employer, a fellow worker, or other workers or employers governed by the same provincial workers compensation scheme - Whether s. 44 of the Workplace Health, Safety and Compensation Act, RSNL1990, c. W-11, is constitutionally inoperative in respect of federal maritime negligence claims made pursuant to s. 6 of the Marine Liability Act by reason of the doctrine of federal paramountcy - Whether s. 44 of the Workplace Health, Safety and Compensation Act is constitutionally inapplicable to federal maritime negligence claims made pursuant to s. 6 of the Maritime Liability Act, by reason of the doctrine of interjurisdictional immunity.

Joseph and David Ryan drowned at sea after the fishing vessel they crewed capsized. Proceeding under the Marine Liability Act, S.C. 2001, c. 6, (“the MLA”), their estates and families commenced an action against a number of defendants claiming negligence in the design, construction and inspection of the vessel. The appellants, defendants to the action, applied to the Workplace Health, Safety and Compensation Commission for a determination that the action was statute-barred by s. 44 of the Workplace Health, Safety and Compensation Act, RSNL1990, c. W-11 (“WHSCA”). An internal review specialist with the Commission held that the action was statute-barred. That decision was set aside on judicial review. A majority of the Court of Appeal upheld the reviewing judge’s decision.

Lower Court Rulings