Date: 19981120
Docket: T- 387-98
MONTREAL, QUEBEC, NOVEMBER 20, 1998
Before: RICHARD MORNEAU, PROTHONOTARY
ACTION IN PERSONAM AGAINST ABTA SHIPPING
COMPANY LIMITED AND TRADE FORTUNE INC. S.A.
Between:
REMARLO EVANGELISTA NAPA
CYRUS J. FERRAREN
PETER JULIAN EYMARD D. SORIANA
ALMA MOTILLA NOCES
MILAGROS JAVINES SANORJO
EDWINA VIRAY ORBE
ANNA LIZA AGUDOS CALINGA-ON
and
CONCHITA B. ORTEGA
Plaintiffs
AND
ABTA SHIPPING COMPANY LIMITED
and
TRADE FORTUNE INC. S.A.
Defendants
ORDER
The plaintiffs Napa, Ferraren, Soriana and Markovic will list their spouses and their dependants separately as plaintiffs in their statements of claim within a reasonable time.
Within the same time period the plaintiffs Noces, Sanorjo, Orbe, Calinga-On and Ortega will comply with the requirements of s. 650(1) and (2) of the Canada Shipping Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. S-9.
The aforesaid amendments shall be made by the service and filing of an amended or re-amended statement of claim, as the case may be.
The defendants have forty-five days from the date of this order to serve and file their defence. They will also have a period of ten days from the service of the plaintiffs" amended (or re-amended) statements of claim to serve and file an amended defence. They may further file a motion to compel the plaintiffs to amend their statements of claim if the latter delay in doing so.
This proceeding and file T-1344-98 shall be heard together pursuant to Rule 105(a) of the Federal Court Rules (1998).
The plaintiffs in the instant case and in file T-1344-98 are awarded their costs on this motion in accordance with column V of Tariff B.
This order and the reasons therefor are applicable mutatis mutandis in file T-1344-98.
| Richard Morneau |
Prothonotary
Certified true translation
Bernard Olivier
Date: 19981120
Docket: T- 387-98
MONTREAL, QUEBEC, NOVEMBER 20, 1998
Before: RICHARD MORNEAU, PROTHONOTARY
ACTION IN PERSONAM AGAINST ABTA SHIPPING
COMPANY LIMITED AND TRADE FORTUNE INC. S.A.
Between:
REMARLO EVANGELISTA NAPA
CYRUS J. FERRAREN
PETER JULIAN EYMARD D. SORIANA
ALMA MOTILLA NOCES
MILAGROS JAVINES SANORJO
EDWINA VIRAY ORBE
ANNA LIZA AGUDOS CALINGA-ON
and
CONCHITA B. ORTEGA
Plaintiffs
AND
ABTA SHIPPING COMPANY LIMITED
and
TRADE FORTUNE INC. S.A.
Defendants
REASONS FOR ORDER
RICHARD MORNEAU, PROTHONOTARY:
Introduction
[1] The case at bar concerns a motion by the defendants pursuant to Rule 208 of the Federal Court Rules (1998) ("the Rules") and s. 50 of the Federal Court Act, R.C.S. 1985, c. F-7 for this Court to stay the action brought by the plaintiffs in this Court1 on the ground that the latter is not the proper forum for hearing the matter, unlike Cyprus which in the submission of the defendants must be regarded as the most appropriate forum for this purpose.2
Facts
[2] It appeared from the plaintiffs" allegations that on January 16, 1998 the vessel FLARE was proceeding to Montréal in order to take on a cargo of grain. When it was in Canadian waters, that is, in the Gulf of St. Lawrence off the shores of Newfoundland, the M.V. FLARE broke in two and subsequently sank.
[3] According to the plaintiffs, the weather conditions and the sea were normal at the time of the shipwreck.
[4] The crew of the FLARE consisted of twenty-five crew members, most of whom were Philippine sailors. A few members were of Greek origin and at least one sailor was a Yugoslav national.
[5] Of the twenty-five crew members, only four were rescued and survived the said shipwreck.
[6] Three of these, Filipinos, are among the plaintiffs in the case at bar. The fourth, Petar Markovic, a Yugoslav, is the plaintiff in case T-1344-98.3
Analysis
Forum non conveniens: general rule applicable and burden of proof
[7] It appears that the following statement reflects the general rule applicable to the theory of forum non conveniens:
| Unless the balance is strongly in favour of the defendant, the plaintiff's choice of forum will rarely be disturbed, especially if that forum is the natural forum, that is, the one with which the action has the most real and substantial connection.4 |
[8] The Supreme Court gave its understanding of this theory in similar language in 1993:5
| . . . I agree . . . that the existence of a more appropriate forum must be clearly established to displace the forum selected by the plaintiff. This was the position adopted by McLachlin J.A. (as she then was) in Avenue Properties Ltd. v. First City Dev. Corp. (1986), 7 B.C.L.R. (2d) 45. |
(Emphasis in original)
[9] If at the end of the day this evidence is not clearly shown or if more than one forum or jurisdiction may be seen as appropriate, the forum initially selected by the plaintiff will prevail. This is what emerges from the comments of the Supreme Court in Antares Shipping Corporation v. The Ship "Capricorn" et al., [1977] 2 S.C.R. 422, at 448, 449 and 454:
| . . . the overriding consideration which must guide the Court in exercising its discretion ... must, however, be the existence of some other forum more convenient and appropriate for the pursuit of the action and for securing the ends of justice. . . . this cause of action has some relationship with at least three jurisdictions outside of Canada. . . . The issue here is whether any one of them is more convenient or suitable than the Federal Court of Canada. . . . there is no factual basis for concluding that any one of the foreign jurisdictions to which reference has been made would provide a forum in which the facts could be assembled and the issue tried without causing inconvenience to one or more of the parties. |
[10] The same position may be deduced from the following observations of the Federal Court of Appeal in Yasuda Fire & Marine Insurance Co. Ltd. v. The Ship Nosira Lin and its Owners (Nosira Shipping Ltd.), [1984] 1 F.C. 895, at 902:
| The question to be answered, therefore, is whether the respondent has shown that justice would be done between the parties in Japan at substantially less inconvenience and expense than in Canada. No evidence has been adduced to show the inconvenience and expense of proceeding in Canada rather than Japan. In these circumstances, while I am inclined to think that there would be some advantage in proceeding in Japan, I am unable to say that this advantage would certainly exist or, if it exists, that it would be substantial. |
[11] Additionally, in my opinion it is clear that in the case at bar it is for the defendants to submit such clear evidence in favour of Cyprus. Certainly no reference can be made in this Court to service ex juris made as a basis for arguing that it is the plaintiffs who have the burden of showing that Canada is clearly the appropriate forum. Service outside of Canada may now be done in this Court without leave (on this point in general see Amchem, supra, at 921).
| Factors to be considered |
[12] Although the writer Castel6 mentions a series of factors which the courts may have considered over the years, the defendants put forward various factors which support those mentioned in the literature, to establish that Cyprus should be seen as the most appropriate forum. In order to assess the strength of the defendants" position, therefore, it is reasonable to look first at these factors. They may be grouped under four headings, namely:
| 1. the plaintiffs" employment contracts included a clause by which Cyprus was designated as the forum for settling any disputes; |
| 2. the FLARE was flying the Cypriot flag and the documents pertaining to it had been issued by authority of the government of that country; |
| 3. the defendants carried on their business in Cyprus; |
| 4. the fault alleged against the defendants originated in Cyprus. |
[13] Each of these factors must be looked at in turn.
| 1. the plaintiffs" employment contracts included a clause by which Cyprus was designated as the forum for trying the action at bar |
[14] After a review of the contractual documents collated by the defendants, I find it very hard to accept the conclusion that Cyprus was designated by the plaintiffs as the forum for trying the dispute which has arisen in this Court.
[15] To begin with, the defendants referred to a special agreement by which the registered owner of the FLARE, namely the defendant Abta Shipping Company Ltd. ("Abta"), and the Federation of Transport, Petroleum and Agricultural Workers of Cyprus, also known as "FTPAW", agreed that the working conditions of sailors on board the FLARE would be governed by a "Cyprus Collective Agreement".
[16] However, it can be seen in clause 1(b) of this special agreement that Abta had a duty to incorporate the terms of this collective agreement in each individual contract of employment.
[17] When we look at any one of the individual contracts of employment of the Filipino sailors on board the FLARE, we see first (for example, p. 127 of the defendants" factum) that clause 2 refers to a general contractual agreement which does not appear to be the aforementioned collective agreement. It may indirectly be concluded from pp. 121 et seq. of the defendants" factum that this contractual agreement is of Philippine, not Cypriot origin.
[18] It it thus far from clear from these references that Cyprus has become the designated forum of a dispute such as the one at bar.
[19] Referring to another individual contract of employment (for example, p. 131 of the defendants" factum) it can be seen that a stamp was affixed indicating essentially that this individual contract of employment was in effect pursuant to a bilateral agreement between the Government of the Philippines and that of Cyprus.
[20] Even if one wished to give this notation all the force suggested by the defendants, it does not in any way establish that Cyprus was the designated forum. Further, we do not know by whom or when this notation was put on the contract. The bilateral contract to which it refers was not entered in evidence. Finally, only certain individual contracts, and not all, bear this notation.
[21] Similarly, the defendants referred to a specific clause in a contract of Petar Markovic (case T-1344-98) as a basis for arguing that the applicable law is the law of Cyprus. That clause is clause 4 of the contracts and it reads as follows:
4. FOR ANY PROBLEM: ACCORDING LAWS OF SHIPS FLAG.
[22] I agree with counsel for this plaintiff that on account of the, to say the least, vague wording of this clause, its meaning is far from certain.
[23] What could "For any problem" be likely to mean? Does this refer to the kind of purely technical problem that a sailor may encounter in the course of performing the contract? That is what is suggested by the clauses before and after clause 4.
[24] In my view, this clause does not unquestionably establish that Cyprus law is the one which should be applied in response to the action brought.
[25] Even if for the sake of argument the discussion is limited to whether the contractual relationships between the sailors and the defendants should be governed by the law of Cyprus or of the Philippines, and not by that of Canada, the situation does not seem to favour the law of Cyprus. On the contrary, the individual contracts tend to suggest the law of the Philippines. Consequently, if it is Philippine law which must prevail, it would appear that the Federal Court of Canada is as competent to apply Philippine law as the courts of Cyprus would be.
| 2. the FLARE was flying the Cypriot flag and the documents pertaining to it had been issued by authority of the government of that country |
[26] The defendants entered documents in evidence indicating that the FLARE was registered in Cyprus and that it was flying the flag of that country. Documentary evidence also tended to show that the registered owner of the vessel, Abta, had its principal place of business in Cyprus and that the same was true for the registered owner-manager of the ship, A. Phellas Management (Shipping) Ltd.
[27] However, the plaintiffs entered affidavit evidence casting some doubt on this information connecting the FLARE with Cyprus.
[28] By that evidence the plaintiffs maintained that the Greek flag being flown by the ship was only a convenience and that this flag was sought primarily to facilitate working relations involving the ship around the world.
[29] The plaintiffs also sought to show that the true owners of the ship were in fact two Greek nationals, whose business was conducted in Greece and not Cyprus. The true manager of the ship was alleged to be the other defendant at bar, Trade Fortune Inc. S.A., whose business is also conducted in Greece and the directors of which were the Greek nationals identified as the true owners of the ship. The plaintiffs further filed a document suggesting that even the Greek coast guard saw the FLARE as a Greek ship.
[30] In response to this evidence by the plaintiffs the defendants did not seek to rebut the allegation by filing one or more affidavits establishing a correlation between the paper situation of the FLARE and the reality. Instead, the defendants relied on the documentary evidence initially presented.
[31] I feel that in view of the contradictory evidence submitted by the plaintiffs, this evidence by the defendants can only have relative value.
[32] The defendants further relied on the fact that the documentation on the condition and maintenance of the FLARE had been issued under authority of the Government of Cyprus. That is a fact. However, it appeared from the plaintiffs" evidence that nearly all these documents were not issued directly from Cyprus but from places as varied as London, England, South Korea, Cuba and Greece. In my opinion, this variety of locations tends to show that the law applicable to the condition of maintenance of the FLARE is more likely to be international law and custom than simply the law of Cyprus.
3. the defendants carried on their business in Cyprus
[33] For the reasons stated in point 2 above, this allegation by the defendants can only be given relative weight.
| 4. the fault alleged against the defendants originated in Cyprus and so it is that law that should be applied |
[34] This allegation was initially based on the premise that Cyprus really was the defendants" principal place of business. As we have seen above, this premise has been seriously called in question.
[35] Furthermore, regardless of the situs of this place of business, it appeared from the fault alleged against the defendants by the plaintiffs that such a fault could hardly be seen as occurring only at that place of business. I think it is more reasonable to conclude, as counsel for the plaintiff Markovic suggested in case T-1344-98, that such fault, if one were to conclude that it actually occurred, was committed over a number of years and at places where the FLARE was refitted or repaired. Here again, international law might be required.
[36] Those are the principal factors mentioned by the defendants. Other factors mentioned by either side also merit review.
| 5. The fact that the parties and the principal witnesses reside outside Canada and that only the wreck of the ship connects the matter with Canada |
[37] These arguments were raised by the defendants. In response to the first of these arguments, I adopt the comments submitted by counsel for the plaintiffs:
| The Plaintiffs, the Defendants and some of the key witnesses to the incident may reside outside of Canada but they also reside outside of Cyprus. However, some potential key witnesses to the incident do reside in Canada, inter alia: |
" Canadian ECAREG personnel
" Canadian marine pilots
" Canadian Port State Control officials
" Canadian Search and Rescue personnel
" Canadian Coast Guard personnel
" Transport Canada Officials
" Canadian Transportation Safety Board investigators
" Weather expert
" Metallurgical expert
" Medical expert
[38] In the same way, the defendants argued that ultimately the only connection of this case with Canada is the fact that the ship went down in Canadian waters. However, the list of agencies given above illustrates the fact that in the hours following the wreck of the FLARE a rescue operation was apparently mounted from Canada. Consequently, it is possible to argue that a large number of individuals involved in this way might be called to testify in order to clarify the facts relating to the wreck and to assess the trauma suffered at the time by affected members of the crew.
6. multiplicity of actions abroad
[39] The defendants argued that they would have to face a multiplicity of actions abroad in respect of the said wreck and that the allowing of actions in Canada would thus cause them serious hardship.
[40] In reply to this allegation the plaintiffs maintained that the sole purpose of the action brought in the United Kingdom was to obtain a Mareva injunction to freeze the proceeds of the insurance paid to Abta following the wreck in that country.
[41] As to the two actions still pending in Greece, the plaintiffs argued with some logic that other actions brought in that country were settled and that either or both of the two remaining actions might well be dealt with in the same way. It is thus not possible to speak of a multiplicity of actions abroad. What is more, as counsel noted it should be borne in mind that these remaining actions take place in Greece, not Cyprus. In that sense, Cyprus cannot be seen as a focal point.
| 7. Cyprus would not occasion any legal gains for the defendants or losses for the plaintiffs |
[42] This allegation was made by the defendants. However, it was vigorously disputed by the plaintiffs, who argued forcefully and in detail that Cyprus does not have documentary disclosure rules as liberal as those of this Court and that in their situation the plaintiffs were relying heavily on the latter.
[43] The plaintiffs further emphasized that in Cyprus the defendants might rely on a liability limit the ceiling of which was ten times lower than that applicable in Canada.
| [44] On this aspect of legal advantage, the plaintiffs" arguments as to the advantage of remaining in Canada must prevail. |
Conclusion on proper forum
[45] For the reasons given above, I have come to the conclusion that the defendants have not discharged their burden of proof of persuading this Court that in the circumstances Cyprus should be seen as the most appropriate forum for hearing the plaintiffs" action.
Other aspects of motion
[46] As an alternative to a favourable finding on the proper forum, the defendants sought various other measures which, in view of our finding on the proper forum, require consideration.
[47] First, the defendants asked that the description of the plaintiffs be amended to comply with the provisions of Part XIV of the Canada Shipping Act, supra.
[48] For case T-387-98, counsel for the plaintiffs adopted the views of his colleagues representing the defendants, and agreed that in respect of the plaintiffs who survived the wreck, namely the plaintiffs Napa, Ferraren and Soriana, that their spouses and dependants would be listed by name as plaintiffs in the action.
[49] He also agreed that for the plaintiffs who were the spouses of the deceased sailors, namely the plaintiffs Noces, Sanorjo, Orbe, Calinga-On and Ortega, that they would comply with the requirements of s. 650(1) and (2) of the Canada Shipping Act, supra. Section 650 reads as follows:
| 650. (1) A plaintiff in an action shall, in his statement of claim, set forth the persons for whom and on whose behalf the action is brought. |
| (2) There shall be filed with the statement of claim an affidavit by the plaintiff in which he shall state that to the best of his knowledge, information and belief the persons on whose behalf the action is brought as set forth in the statement of claim are the only persons entitled or who claim to be entitled to the benefit thereof. |
[50] The parties agreed in this Court that counsel for the plaintiffs would make the aforementioned amendments to the statement of claim within a reasonable time, subject to the defendants" right to file an amended defence when that amended statement is filed, and also subject to their right to file a motion to compel the plaintiffs to act if the latter delay in doing so.
[51] So far as case T-1344-98 is concerned, the plaintiff is one of the survivors of the shipwreck and is suing in his own name and the names of his wife and two sons of legal age. His counsel referred to rule 114 and argued that the plaintiff was free to bring the action himself in his own name and in the names of his dependants. The relevant part of rule 114 reads as follows:
| 114.(1) Where two or more persons have the same interest in a proceeding, the proceeding may be brought by or against any one or more of them as representing some or all of them. |
[52] Although in theory it is difficult to deny the plaintiff the right to rely on Rule 114, it seems to the Court that in the circumstances the action in this matter should list the plaintiff's wife and sons of legal age as separate parties. Such an amendment is easily made. Moreover, it does not necessarily imply higher security for costs in the event of a claim to this effect by the defendants.
[53] Moreover, such an amendment will necessarily allow the defendants an opportunity to question each of the plaintiffs regarding his or her respective damage. In the context of the action at bar, if it should be successful, this aspect of the respective damage could be a significant factor.
[54] Finally, such an amendment will create a reasonable parallel with case T-387-98, which the Court was asked to hear together with T-1344-98.
[55] This last point brings us to another alternative motion by the defendants, namely that the two aforesaid cases be heard together pursuant to Rule 105(a). As this measure has received the approval of the plaintiffs in both cases, an order will be made accordingly.
[56] Additionally, as agreed in Court, the defendants will have 45 days from the date of the order accompanying these reasons to serve and file their defence.
Costs
[57] Under this heading it should be noted that it is the part of the defendants" motion dealing with the proper forum which has unquestionably used up most of the time and energy of counsel for the plaintiffs, both in preparing their defence to the motion and at the hearing of it.
[58] In this connection the plaintiffs in each of the two cases at bar argued forcefully that solicitor-client costs should be awarded to them in each case.
[59] In their submission, this motion by the defendants was entirely frivolous and unnecessary and it required them to spend considerable time on preparation and a significant amount on research. Although there may be some contradiction between characterising a motion as frivolous and the fact that a lot of time had to be spent opposing it, I nevertheless consider that in the case at bar the usual award of costs, in accordance with column III of Tariff B, would not be realistic.
[60] However, it should be noted that a solicitor-client award of costs is exceptional and usually only occurs in a situation such as that described in Belgo Nineira Comercial Exportadora S.A. v. Hadley Shipping Co. (1997), 131 F.T.R. 36, at 40:
| [12] Solicitor-client costs "... are exceptional and generally to be awarded only on the ground of misconduct connected with the litigation.": Amway Corp. v. R., [1986] 2 C.T.C. 339, at 340 (F.C.A.). Indeed, "solicitor-client costs are generally awarded only where there has been reprehensible, scandalous or outrageous conduct on the part of one of the parties.": Young v. Young et al., [1993] 4 S.C.R. 3; 160 N.R. 1; 34 B.C.A.C. 161; 56 W.A.C. 161, at 41. |
[61] In the Court's opinion the defendants here did not engage in conduct in the motion at bar like that castigated in Belgo.
[62] Taking into account all the factors listed in Rule 400(3), and in particular the factors mentioned in Rule 400(3)(a), (c) and (g), it seems fair and reasonable to award the plaintiffs in each of the two cases concerned here their costs at the maximum of column V at Tariff B.
[63] An order will be made in accordance with these reasons. The latter, and the order accompanying them, are applicable mutatis mutandis to case T-1344-98.
| Richard Morneau |
Prothonotary
MONTREAL, QUEBEC
November 20, 1998
Certified true translation
Bernard Olivier
| Federal Court of Canada Trial Division Date: 19981120 Docket: T-387-98 ACTION IN PERSONAM AGAINST ABTA SHIPPING COMPANY LIMITED AND TRADE FORTUNE INC. S.A. Between: REMARLO EVANGELISTA NAPA CYRUS J. FERRAREN PETER JULIAN EYMARD D. SORIANA ALMA MOTILLA NOCES MILAGROS JAVINES SANORJO EDWINE VIRAY ORBE ANNA LIZA AGUDOS CALINGA-ON and CONCHITA B. ORTEGA Plaintiffs AND ABTA SHIPPING COMPANY LIMITED and TRADE FORTUNE INC. S.A. Defendants REASONS FOR ORDER |
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
| COURT FILE NO: T-1344-98 |
| STYLE OF CAUSE: ACTION IN REM AND IN PERSONAM |
Between:
| PETAR MARKOVIC ON HIS OWN BEHALF AND ON BEHALF OF HIS SPOUSE AND ON BEHALF OF HIS DEPENDANTS |
Plaintiff
AND
| ABTA SHIPPING COMPANY LIMITED and TRADE FORTUNE INC. SA and THE OWNERS AND ALL OTHERS INTERESTED IN THE "FLARE" AND THE M.V. "FLARE" AND/OR THE PROCEEDS OF ANY CLAIM UPON POLICIES OF INSURANCE |
Defendants
| PLACE OF HEARING: Montréal, Quebec |
| DATE OF HEARING: October 28, 19989 |
REASONS FOR ORDER BY: RICHARD MORNEAU, PROTHONOTARY
| DATE OF REASONS FOR ORDER: November 20, 1998 |
APPEARANCES:
| J. Kenrick Sproule for the plaintiff |
| Danièle Dion for the defendants |
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
| Sproule, Castonguay, Pollack for the plaintiff |
J. Kenrick Sproule
Montréal, Quebec
| Brisset Bishop for the defendants |
Danièle Dion
Montréal, Quebec
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
| COURT FILE NO: T-387-98 |
| STYLE OF CAUSE: ACTION IN PERSONAM AGAINST ABTA SHIPPING |
| COMPANY LIMITED AND TRADE FORTUNE INC. |
| S.A. |
Between:
| REMARLO EVANGELISTA NAPA, CYRUS J. FERRAREN, PETER JULIAN EYMARD D. SORIANA, ALMA MOTILLA NOCES, MILAGROS JAVINES SANORJO, EDWINA VIRAY ORBE, ANNA LIZA AGUDOS CALINGA-ON and CONCHITA B. ORTEGA |
Plaintiff
AND
| ABTA SHIPPING COMPANY LIMITED |
and
| TRADE FORTUNE INC. SA |
Defendants
| PLACE OF HEARING: Montréal, Quebec |
| DATE OF HEARING: October 28, 19989 |
REASONS FOR ORDER BY: RICHARD MORNEAU, PROTHONOTARY
| DATE OF REASONS FOR ORDER: November 20, 1998 |
APPEARANCES:
| Laurent Fortier for the plaintiff |
| Danièle Dion for the defendants |
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
| Stikeman, Elliott for the plaintiff |
Laurent Fortier
Montréal, Quebec
| Brisset Bishop for the defendants |
Danièle Dion
Montréal, Quebec
__________________1 The same motion was made by the defendants in file T-1344-98. That is a case involving essentially the same facts as the case at bar, T-387-98. The hearing accordingly served for both files and the instant reasons and order to be made will apply to both files.
2 Although the defendants were asking simply to have the plaintiffs" action struck out on this basis of forum non conveniens , counsel for the latter did not repeat this submission at the hearing of the motion on this application to strike. Accordingly, only the possibility of staying the proceeding is considered here.
3 In the event that the defendants" motion to stay is dismissed, the parties were in agreement that the case at bar and case T-1344-98 should be heard together pursuant to Rule 105. Additionally, except as regards case T-1344-98, counsel for the plaintiffs accepted the defendants" requests and agreed that in the event of a continuance they would complete the description of the plaintiffs in respect of the said parties who are not themselves surviving crew members and supply the affidavits required by the Canada Shipping Act , R.S.C. 1985, c. S-9. We will return to these more procedural aspects at the end of the reasons.
4 J.G. Castel, Canadian Conflicts of Law , 4th ed., p. 257.
5 Amchem Products Inc. v. British-Columbia (Workers' Compensation Board), [1993] 1 S.C.R. 897, at 921.