Federal Court


Parliament could not have intended to grant maritime lien to those engaged in construction of ship

Plaintiff brought in rem only action against defendant ship. Ship was recorded in Canadian Registry of Ships as ship being built in Canada for benefit of Norwegian company. Builder, entered into subcontract with plaintiff to provide skilled welding services. Builder then went under protection of Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (Can.), while it was in course of building ship. Action dismissed. Section 139 of Marine Liability Act (Can.) (MLA), created maritime lien where none existed before. If plaintiff held maritime lien, it would rank ahead of mortgagee. Section 139 of MLA did not apply to those who had rendered services in respect to construction of ship. Failure to mention “building” or “construction” in s. 139(2)(a) of MLA was not slip. Parliament could not have intended to grant maritime lien to those who were engaged in construction of ship, such as plaintiff here.

Comfact Corp. v. “Hull 717” (The) (Oct. 1, 2012, F.C., Harrington J., File No. T-2112-11) 220 A.C.W.S (3d) 456.

cover image


Subscribers get early and easy access to Law Times.

Law Times Poll

An Ontario judge is once again calling on the provincial government to fix long waits at assessment offices. Do you think the province needs to step up its efforts to address these delays?