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

Law Times reports that there is the highest number of lawyer candidates in the upcoming Law Society of Ontario Bencher election since 1995, but turn-out is declining. Do you think voting should be mandatory for all lawyers and paralegals in this election?