This has been held by the
Supreme Court of Canada, most recently in
Ordon Estate v. Grail, to cover a very broad field: {{quote| 71...These cases establish a number of basic principles and themes regarding the sources and content of Canadian maritime law, the role of provincial law in relation thereto, and the scope for gradual change and development in maritime law. These general principles and themes, insofar as they are relevant to the instant appeals, may be summarized as follows: • "Canadian maritime law" as defined in s. 2 of the
Federal Court Act is a comprehensive body of federal law dealing with all claims in respect of maritime and admiralty matters. The scope of Canadian maritime law is not limited by the scope of English admiralty law at the time of its adoption into Canadian law in 1934. Rather, the word "maritime" is to be interpreted within the modern context of commerce and shipping, and the ambit of Canadian maritime law should be considered limited only by the constitutional division of powers in the
Constitution Act, 1867. The test for determining whether a subject matter under consideration is within maritime law requires a finding that the subject matter is so integrally connected to maritime matters as to be legitimate Canadian maritime law within federal competence... • Canadian maritime law is uniform throughout Canada, and it is not the law of any province of Canada. All of its principles constitute federal law and not an incidental application of provincial law... • The substantive content of Canadian maritime law is to be determined by reference to its heritage. It includes, but is not limited to, the body of law administered in England by the High Court on its Admiralty side in 1934, as that body of law has been amended by the Canadian Parliament and as it has developed by judicial precedent to date... • English admiralty law as incorporated into Canadian law in 1934 was an amalgam of principles deriving in large part from both the common law and the civilian tradition. It was composed of both the specialized rules and principles of admiralty, and the rules and principles adopted from the common law and applied in admiralty cases. Although most of Canadian maritime law with respect to issues of tort, contract, agency and bailment is founded upon the English common law, there are issues specific to maritime law where reference may fruitfully be made to the experience of other countries and specifically, because of the genesis of admiralty jurisdiction, to civilian experience... • The nature of navigation and shipping activities as they are practised in Canada makes a uniform maritime law a practical necessity. Much of maritime law is the product of international conventions, and the legal rights and obligations of those engaged in navigation and shipping should not arbitrarily change according to jurisdiction. The need for legal uniformity is particularly pressing in the area of tortious liability for collisions and other accidents that occur in the course of navigation... • In those instances where Parliament has not passed legislation dealing with a maritime matter, the inherited non-statutory principles embodied in Canadian maritime law as developed by Canadian courts remain applicable, and resort should be had to these principles before considering whether to apply provincial law to resolve an issue in a maritime action... • Canadian maritime law is not static or frozen. The general principles established by this Court with respect to judicial reform of the law apply to the reform of Canadian maritime law, allowing development in the law where the appropriate criteria are met... This has had the effect of displacing many provincial statutes that were previously being used in maritime liability cases, and the implications are still being worked out. In the 2006 case of
Isen v Simms, the Court endorsed a summary given by Décary JA on what does not fall within federal jurisdiction: The scope of maritime law has been refined by the SCC in subsequent jurisprudence: :* In 2012, in
Tessier Ltée v. Quebec, it was declared that federal jurisdiction over shipping is not absolute, and must be construed in conjunction with the power to regulate
works and undertakings, where the provinces are entitled to regulate transportation within their boundaries, while the federal government has jurisdiction over transportation that transcends provincial boundaries and connects the provinces with each other or with other countries. :* In 2013, in
Marine Services International Ltd. v. Ryan Estate,
Ordon's effect was restricted insofar as provincial jurisdiction may be affected by
paramountcy and
interjurisdictional immunity, as it was decided prior to the SCC's subsequent decisions on those fields in
Canadian Western Bank and
COPA. ==References==