Federal Court Has Jurisdiction over Seafarer's Unjust Dismissal Claim - 3 Year Limitation Applies
Most provinces in Canada have 2 year limitation periods. Meanwhile section 140 of the Marine Liability Act provides that:
140 Except as otherwise provided in this Act or in any other Act of Parliament, no proceedings under Canadian maritime law in relation to any matter coming within the class of navigation and shipping may be commenced later than three years after the day on which the cause of action arises.
Accordingly, there are instances where, depending on whether the claim is one of "Canadian maritime law" or not, it may be out of time . This was exactly the case in Konteft v. Lower Lakes Towing Ltd., 2024 FC 96.
In summary:
- Mr. Konteft, a marine engineer, was fired by Lower Lakes Towing on April 30, 2020.
- He filed a claim in the Federal Court for unjust dismissal after the 2-year Ontario limitation period but before the 3-year limitation period set out at section 140 of the Marine Liability Act, cited above.
- Lower Lakes Towing brought a motion alleging that the Federal Court had no jurisdiction, and arguing that the 3-year limitation did not apply.
Justice Heneghan rejected Lower Lake's motion, stating that:
[21] I also refer to the decision of this Court in Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce v. Le Chêne No. 1 (The) (F.C.), [2004] 1 F.C. 120.
[22] In my opinion, there is no conflict between Matthews, supra and the decision in Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce, supra. The Defendant cites Matthews for the principle that damages in lieu of notice are distinct from the wages the Plaintiff earned on the ship.
[23] However, even accepting that the Plaintiff’s claim for damages is not for wages, money or property arising out of his employment as contemplated in paragraph 22(2)(o) of the Federal Courts Act, supra, Matthews does not address the question of whether these damages are included in “other remuneration or benefits”. In Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce, supra, this question is answered in the affirmative.
[24] In my opinion, the Plaintiff’s claim meets the three essential requirements set out in the International Terminal Operators Ltd., supra decision, to ground jurisdiction in the Federal Court. Therefore, I am satisfied that this Court has jurisdiction over the Plaintiff’s claim for damages...
[29]...Given my finding that this Court has jurisdiction over the Plaintiff’s claim, I am satisfied that the Plaintiff commenced his action within the applicable limitation period.