Transportation
Appeal, cross-appeal from Federal Court decision (2006 FC 217) allowing in part respondent’s action against appellant (CPR), ordering damages on ground CPR could not limit liability on loss since no written agreement between CPR, respondent—Respondent, owner of cargo damaged during rail transit within Canada—Canada Transportation Act, S.C. 1996, c. 10, s. 137 allowing railway company to limit liability in respect of shipper’s claim by means of written agreement signed by shipper—S. 6 defining “shipper” as person who sends or receives goods by means of carrier or intends to do so—Canadian National Railway Company v. Sumitomo Marine and Fire Insurance Company Ltd., [2007] J.Q. 7207, wherein Quebec Court of Appeal concluding “shipper” in s. 137 person who directly contracted with railway company applied—Orient Overseas Containers Ltd. (OOCL) contracting directly with CPR—Therefore OOCL shipper—CPP entitled to limit liability to that found in OOCL’s bill of lading because confidential rate contract between OOCL, CPR incorporating Tariff limiting liability to lesser of 3 amounts, including “liability of steamship company pursuant to ocean bill of lading”—Because confidential rate contract establishing maximum liability, not inconsistent with Tariff—Even if appellant unable to rely on Tariff, could rely on limitation provisions in bills of lading given Himalaya clauses found therein—Appeal allowed, cross-appeal dismissed.
Canadian Pacific Railway Co. v. Boutique Jacob Inc. (A-116-06, 2008 FCA 85, Nadon J.A., judgment dated March 6, 2008, 26 pp.)