A-166-75
Canadian General Electric Company Limited
(Appellant) (Third Party)
v.
The Queen (Respondent) (Plaintiff)
and
Canadian Vickers Limited (Respondent) (Defend-
ant)
Court of Appeal, Jackett C.J., Pratte J. and
Lalande D.J.—Montreal, June 19 and 20, 1979.
Practice — Appeal from decision refusing application to
strike out — Appellant argued unsuccessfully that Court is
without jurisdiction because contract for supply and installa
tion of generators on icebreaker is not contract relating to
constructing and equipping of ship within meaning of s.
22(2)(n) of the Federal Court Act — Also, appellant's argu
ment, that Parliament is without jurisdiction under s. 91(10) of
The British North America Act, 1867 to legislate concerning
shipbuilding contracts, not persuasive — Appeal dismissed —
Federal Court Act, R.S.C. 1970 (2nd Supp.), c. 10, s. 22 —
The British North America Act, 1867, 30 & 31 Vict., c. 3
(U.K.) IR.S.C. 1970, Appendix II], s. 91(10).
APPEAL.
COUNSEL:
B. Lacombe for appellant (third party).
Joseph R. Nuss, Q.C. and Paul Coderre, Q.C.
for respondent (plaintiff) the Queen.
G. B. Maughan for respondent (defendant)
Canadian Vickers Limited.
SOLICITORS:
Martineau, Walker, Allison, Beaulieu, Mac-
Kell & Clermont, Montreal, for appellant
(third party).
Ahern, Nuss & Drymer, Montreal, for
respondent (plaintiff) the Queen.
Deputy Attorney General of Canada for
respondent (plaintiff) the Queen.
Ogilvy, Montgomery, Renault, Clarke, Kirk-
patrick, Hannon & Howard, Montreal, for
respondent (defendant) Canadian Vickers
Limited.
The following is the English version of the
reasons for judgment of the Court delivered orally
by
PRATTE J.: Appellant is appealing from a deci
sion of the Trial Division which refused to order
the striking out of the notice which respondent
Canadian Vickers Limited caused to be served on
it pursuant to Rule 1726.
Counsel for the appellant maintained that the
action in warranty which Canadian Vickers Lim
ited seeks to bring against his client is not within
the jurisdiction of the Court, because the contract
under which appellant undertook to supply and
instal generators on the icebreaker Louis St-Lau-
rent is not "a contract relating to the construction
... or equipping of a ship" within the meaning of
section 22(2)(n) of the Federal Court Act, R.S.C.
1970 (2nd Supp.), c. 10. We indicated at the
hearing why we regard this argument as
inadmissible.
Counsel for the appellant further maintained
that the action is not within the jurisdiction of the
Court because the federal Parliament does not
have the power, under section 91(10) of The Brit-
ish North America Act, 1867 to legislate concern
ing shipbuilding contracts. In this regard I need
only say that none of the arguments presented to
the Court persuaded it that such a narrow inter
pretation should be given to the words "navigation
and shipping" in subsection (10) of section 91.
The other arguments raised by Mr. Lacombe
have been considered and dismissed in appeal No.
A-471-77.
The appeal will accordingly be dismissed with
costs.
You are being directed to the most recent version of the statute which may not be the version considered at the time of the judgment.