[2013] 1 F.C.R. D-3
Maritime Law
Liens and Mortgages
Action in rem against defendant ship for unpaid welding services pursuant to Marine Liability Act, S.C. 2001, c. 6, s. 139—Defendant ship built in Canada for benefit of foreign corporation—Builder entering into subcontract with plaintiff to provide skilled welding services thereon—Builder becoming insolvent in course of ship’s construction—Enactment of Act, s. 139 in 2010 creating maritime lien to necessaries men in certain circumstances where none existed before—Whether plaintiff enjoying maritime lien in accordance with Act, s. 139—Federal Courts Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. F-7, s. 22(2)(n) confirming Federal Court’s jurisdiction regarding claims arising out of contract relating to construction, repair or equipping of ship—Word “construction” missing from Act, s. 139—Resolution of case lying in insertion of word “construction” in Federal Courts Act, s. 22(2)(n), exclusion thereof in Act, s. 139(2)(b)—Principle of “presumption of coherence” applicable herein—Argument Parliament parsimonious in omission of word “construction” rejected given presumption that legislator including in statute elements meant to include—When provision specifically mentioning one or more items but silent on other comparable items, silence presumed deliberate, reflecting intention to exclude items not mentioned—Moreover, wording of Federal Courts Act, s. 22(2)(m) identical to that of Act, s. 139(2)(a)—Failure to mention words “building” or “construction” in Act, s. 139(2)(b) not constituting slip; Parliament could not have intended to grant maritime lien to individuals constructing ship such as plaintiff—Therefore, Act, s. 139 not applying to individuals having rendered services in respect to construction of ship—Action dismissed.
Comfact Corporation v. Hull 717 (Ship) (T-2112-11, 2012 FC 1161, Harrington J., judgment dated October 1, 2012, 15 pp.)