Marine Services International Ltd v Ryan Estate | |
---|---|
![]() | |
Hearing: 15 January 2013 Judgment: 2 August 2013 | |
Full case name | Marine Services International Limited and David Porter v Estate of Joseph Ryan, by its Administratrix, Yvonne Ryan, Yvonne Ryan, in her own right, Stephen Ryan, a Minor, by his Guardian ad litem, Yvonne Ryan, Jennifer Ryan, a Minor, by her Guardian ad litem, Yvonne Ryan, Estate of David Ryan, by its Administratrix, Marilyn Ryan, Marilyn Ryan, in her own right, David Michael Ryan, a Minor, by his Guardian ad litem, Marilyn Ryan, J and Y Fisheries Inc. and D and M Fisheries Inc., bodies corporate, trading and operating as Ryan's Fisheries Partnership, Universal Marine Limited and Attorney General of Canada |
Citations | 2013 SCC 44 |
Docket No. | 34429 [1] |
Prior history | APPEAL from Newfoundland (Workplace Health, Safety and Compensation Commission) v. Ryan Estate, 2011 NLCA 42 (15 June 2011), affirming Ryan Estate v. Universal Marine, 2009 NLTD 120 (28 July 2009). |
Ruling | Appeal allowed. |
Holding | |
Interjurisdictional immunity and federal paramountcy do not apply, as the federal and provincial Acts can operate side by side without conflict. | |
Court membership | |
Chief Justice | Beverley McLachlin |
Puisne Justices | Louis LeBel, Morris Fish, Rosalie Abella, Marshall Rothstein, Thomas Cromwell, Michael Moldaver, Andromache Karakatsanis, Richard Wagner |
Reasons given | |
Unanimous reasons by | LeBel and Karakatsanis JJ |
Marine Services International Ltd v Ryan Estate, 2013 SCC 44 is a leading case of the Supreme Court of Canada concerning the coexistence of Canadian maritime law with provincial jurisdiction over property and civil rights, and it marks a further restriction upon the doctrine of interjurisdictional immunity in Canadian constitutional jurisprudence.
The sea took the lives of two fishermen off the coast of Newfoundland and Labrador.
--SCC, par. 1
In September 2004, the Newfoundland fishing vessel Ryan's Commander departed Bay de Verde for a trip to its home port of St. Brendan's, but it never arrived. In heavy seas off Cape Bonavista the vessel capsized, forcing the crew of five to abandon ship. Despite the efforts of search and rescue technicians, brothers Joe and David Ryan did not survive. Their widows and dependants (the "Ryan Estates") applied for and received compensation under the provincial Workplace Health, Safety and Compensation Act. [2]
Proceeding under the federal Marine Liability Act, [3] the Ryan Estates also commenced an action in 2006 against Universal Marine Limited, Marine Services International Limited and its employee David Porter, alleging negligence in the design and construction of the Ryan's Commander, which had been commissioned by the Ryan brothers in 2003. The action was also brought against the Attorney General of Canada, alleging negligence in the inspection of the vessel by Transport Canada.
Marine Services and Porter applied to the Workplace Health, Safety and Compensation Commission for a determination of whether the Ryan Estates' action was statute-barred under s. 44 of the provincial Act. The Commission declared that it was, holding:
The Ryan Estates applied to the Trial Division of the Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador for judicial review of the decision in the nature of certiorari to quash the decision
At trial, Hall J overturned the commission's decision, ruling: [4]
The Court of Appeal, in a 2-1 ruling, dismissed the appeal. The majority held that: [5]
In dissent, Welsh JA stated that neither doctrine applied, as the provincial Act did not trench on the core of the federal power over navigation and shipping (being a workers' compensation scheme which does not engage issues of negligence), and the fact that s. 44 restricts the scope of the right granted under s. 6(2) of the MLA was not sufficient to establish the frustration of a federal purpose. [7]
Leave to appeal was sought from the Supreme Court of Canada, which was granted in April 2012. [8]
In a unanimous decision, the Court of Appeal's decision was overturned. In their joint ruling, LeBel and Karakatsanis JJ focused on two key issues:
The parties did not dispute the commission's findings that under the provincial Act: (a) the Ryan brothers were injured in the course of employment; (b) Marine Services was an "employer"; and (c) Porter was a "worker". The dispute was whether the injury that led to the Ryan brothers' death "occurred otherwise than in the conduct of the operations usual in or incidental to the industry carried on by the employer" as stated in s. 44(2). [9]
The commission had exclusive jurisdiction under s. 19 to determine matters under the Act, and the standard of reasonableness under Dunsmuir v. New Brunswick holds that the commission's findings were entitled to deference. [10]
Under Canadian Western Bank v. Alberta, an analysis is required to assess whether interjurisdictional immunity or federal paramountcy apply:
The Court declared:
[76] In our view, the WHSCA and the MLA can operate side by side without conflict. Indeed, s. 6(2) of the MLA provides that a dependant may bring a claim "under circumstances that would have entitled the person, if not deceased, to recover damages". We agree with Welsh JA at the Court of Appeal that this language suggests that there are situations where a dependant is not allowed to bring an action pursuant to s. 6(2) of the MLA. Such a situation occurs where a statutory provision — such as s. 44 of the WHSCA — prohibits litigation because compensation has already been awarded under a workers' compensation scheme.
Interjurisdictional immunity and federal paramountcy do not apply in this case.
--SCC, par. 85
The case has attracted extensive comment in the Canadian legal profession:
Marine Services International Ltd v Ryan Estate | |
---|---|
![]() | |
Hearing: 15 January 2013 Judgment: 2 August 2013 | |
Full case name | Marine Services International Limited and David Porter v Estate of Joseph Ryan, by its Administratrix, Yvonne Ryan, Yvonne Ryan, in her own right, Stephen Ryan, a Minor, by his Guardian ad litem, Yvonne Ryan, Jennifer Ryan, a Minor, by her Guardian ad litem, Yvonne Ryan, Estate of David Ryan, by its Administratrix, Marilyn Ryan, Marilyn Ryan, in her own right, David Michael Ryan, a Minor, by his Guardian ad litem, Marilyn Ryan, J and Y Fisheries Inc. and D and M Fisheries Inc., bodies corporate, trading and operating as Ryan's Fisheries Partnership, Universal Marine Limited and Attorney General of Canada |
Citations | 2013 SCC 44 |
Docket No. | 34429 [1] |
Prior history | APPEAL from Newfoundland (Workplace Health, Safety and Compensation Commission) v. Ryan Estate, 2011 NLCA 42 (15 June 2011), affirming Ryan Estate v. Universal Marine, 2009 NLTD 120 (28 July 2009). |
Ruling | Appeal allowed. |
Holding | |
Interjurisdictional immunity and federal paramountcy do not apply, as the federal and provincial Acts can operate side by side without conflict. | |
Court membership | |
Chief Justice | Beverley McLachlin |
Puisne Justices | Louis LeBel, Morris Fish, Rosalie Abella, Marshall Rothstein, Thomas Cromwell, Michael Moldaver, Andromache Karakatsanis, Richard Wagner |
Reasons given | |
Unanimous reasons by | LeBel and Karakatsanis JJ |
Marine Services International Ltd v Ryan Estate, 2013 SCC 44 is a leading case of the Supreme Court of Canada concerning the coexistence of Canadian maritime law with provincial jurisdiction over property and civil rights, and it marks a further restriction upon the doctrine of interjurisdictional immunity in Canadian constitutional jurisprudence.
The sea took the lives of two fishermen off the coast of Newfoundland and Labrador.
--SCC, par. 1
In September 2004, the Newfoundland fishing vessel Ryan's Commander departed Bay de Verde for a trip to its home port of St. Brendan's, but it never arrived. In heavy seas off Cape Bonavista the vessel capsized, forcing the crew of five to abandon ship. Despite the efforts of search and rescue technicians, brothers Joe and David Ryan did not survive. Their widows and dependants (the "Ryan Estates") applied for and received compensation under the provincial Workplace Health, Safety and Compensation Act. [2]
Proceeding under the federal Marine Liability Act, [3] the Ryan Estates also commenced an action in 2006 against Universal Marine Limited, Marine Services International Limited and its employee David Porter, alleging negligence in the design and construction of the Ryan's Commander, which had been commissioned by the Ryan brothers in 2003. The action was also brought against the Attorney General of Canada, alleging negligence in the inspection of the vessel by Transport Canada.
Marine Services and Porter applied to the Workplace Health, Safety and Compensation Commission for a determination of whether the Ryan Estates' action was statute-barred under s. 44 of the provincial Act. The Commission declared that it was, holding:
The Ryan Estates applied to the Trial Division of the Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador for judicial review of the decision in the nature of certiorari to quash the decision
At trial, Hall J overturned the commission's decision, ruling: [4]
The Court of Appeal, in a 2-1 ruling, dismissed the appeal. The majority held that: [5]
In dissent, Welsh JA stated that neither doctrine applied, as the provincial Act did not trench on the core of the federal power over navigation and shipping (being a workers' compensation scheme which does not engage issues of negligence), and the fact that s. 44 restricts the scope of the right granted under s. 6(2) of the MLA was not sufficient to establish the frustration of a federal purpose. [7]
Leave to appeal was sought from the Supreme Court of Canada, which was granted in April 2012. [8]
In a unanimous decision, the Court of Appeal's decision was overturned. In their joint ruling, LeBel and Karakatsanis JJ focused on two key issues:
The parties did not dispute the commission's findings that under the provincial Act: (a) the Ryan brothers were injured in the course of employment; (b) Marine Services was an "employer"; and (c) Porter was a "worker". The dispute was whether the injury that led to the Ryan brothers' death "occurred otherwise than in the conduct of the operations usual in or incidental to the industry carried on by the employer" as stated in s. 44(2). [9]
The commission had exclusive jurisdiction under s. 19 to determine matters under the Act, and the standard of reasonableness under Dunsmuir v. New Brunswick holds that the commission's findings were entitled to deference. [10]
Under Canadian Western Bank v. Alberta, an analysis is required to assess whether interjurisdictional immunity or federal paramountcy apply:
The Court declared:
[76] In our view, the WHSCA and the MLA can operate side by side without conflict. Indeed, s. 6(2) of the MLA provides that a dependant may bring a claim "under circumstances that would have entitled the person, if not deceased, to recover damages". We agree with Welsh JA at the Court of Appeal that this language suggests that there are situations where a dependant is not allowed to bring an action pursuant to s. 6(2) of the MLA. Such a situation occurs where a statutory provision — such as s. 44 of the WHSCA — prohibits litigation because compensation has already been awarded under a workers' compensation scheme.
Interjurisdictional immunity and federal paramountcy do not apply in this case.
--SCC, par. 85
The case has attracted extensive comment in the Canadian legal profession: