The "Lantau Peak" Lawsuit, 2004
Click here to view the complete document
Transport Canada Inspectors, Warna and Hall and their supervisors were negligent in the conduct of their duties with respect to the inspection and detention of the ship.
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
CAMPBELL J.
[1] On April 5, 1997, the bulk carrier Lantau Peak steamed into Vancouver harbour for two purposes: first to repair hull frames found to be detached during the voyage from Japan, and second, once those repairs were completed, to load coal for a return voyage to Japan. The captain knew that the ship would undergo a safety inspection upon arrival in Vancouver, but he could not have anticipated the impact that this routine procedure would have.
[2] Immediately after being berthed along side for repairs, the Lantau Peak was inspected by Canadian government steamship inspectors Mssrs. Warna and Hall and was ordered detained as a measure of Port State Control for safety at sea. The ship remained in detention until August 13, 1997, at which time it sailed in ballast to China for extensive hull repairs required by the terms of its release from detention.
[3] The single most important feature of the present action is the fact that the detention was imposed primarily on the basis that the ship's hull frames were wasted by corrosion beyond what was considered an acceptable limit; the limit imposed was 17% of the original thickness on construction. At the time of the detention, Inspectors Warna and Hall gave notice that the detention would remain in effect until the hull frames were repaired to this standard. The owners of the Lantau Peak objected, but in the end result, repaired under protest to a lesser standard imposed, which they still felt was unreasonable.
[4] The Plaintiffs claim damages for negligence arising from the detention and delay in releasing the ship. The Defendants defend primarily on the basis that Inspectors Warna and Hall were acting under a statutory authority conveyed by the Canada Shipping Act, and, thus, no claim for negligence lies.
[5] The"statutory authority" defence is advanced as a block to any finding of negligence respecting the conduct of Canadian steamship inspectors conducting Port State Control safety inspections of ships in Canadian waters. If this block does not exist in law, there is no impediment to a determination of liability under maritime tort law.
[6] For the reasons which follow, I find that the "statutory authority" block does not exist since the detention of the Lantau Peak was not under the authority of the Canada Shipping Act, the Defendants are liable in tort, and Inspectors Warna and Hall and their supervisors were negligent in the conduct of their duties with respect to the inspection and detention of the ship.
Transport Canada official questions Brian Kenefick's qualifications
Click here to view the whole document
BETWEEN:
REWATI RAMAN UPADHYAYA
Applicant
- and -
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA
Respondent
[1] The applicant seeks an order setting aside the May 14, 1999 decision of Frederick L. Ringham, Chairperson of the Public Service Commission Appeal Board (the "Appeal Board"), whereby he denied the applicant's appeal, made pursuant to s. 21 of the Public Service Employment Act (the "Act").
[2] The applicant's appeal was in respect of the appointment of Brian Kenefick to the position of Manager, Inspection Services, with the Marine Safety Branch of Transport Canada. Mr. Ringham, in denying the appeal, concluded that the selection board's interpretation of the words "experience as a marine surveyor" was reasonable and that, consequently, he could not find any ground justifying interference.
ÓCopyright 2006 Captain E. G. da Costa Duarte, all rights reserved.