Federal Court Decisions

Date: 20020501

Docket:T-217-02

Neutral citation: 2002 FCT 503

BETWEEN:

                                                          BROOKS AVIATION, INC.

                                                                                                                                                          Plaintiff

                                                                              - and -

THE WRECKED AND ABANDONED BOEING SB-17G

AIRCRAFT, SERIAL NO. 44-83790, ITS APPAREL

AND CARGO and the OWNERS, CHARTERERS AND

ALL OTHERS INTERESTED IN THE WRECKED AND

ABANDONED BOEING SB-17G AIRCRAFT, ITS

APPAREL AND CARGO

                                                                                                                                                      Defendant

                                                            REASONS FOR ORDER

MacKAY J.

[1]                 These are reasons for an Order issued in St. John's, Newfoundland and Labrador, on April 26, 2002, following a hearing of the plaintiff's motion, brought ex parte but after service upon the Attorney General for Canada, who was represented at the hearing, and upon Her Majesty in Right of Newfoundland and Labrador.

[2]                 The motion sought, and the Order granted, permit dispensing with service of the statement of claim herein and the warrant of arrest, both filed February 11, 2002, upon the res, the wrecked and abandoned Boeing SB-17G Aircraft, Serial No. 44-83790, its apparel and cargo. The Order also directs that the arrest of the res is deemed to be effective.

[3]                 The circumstances are unusual. The wreck in question, the res, is a B-17 aircraft, said to have been owned and operated by the United States Air Force, when it crash-landed on the frozen surface of Lake Dyke in Labrador in December, 1947. At spring thaw in 1948 the aircraft sank and it remains submerged. Fifty years later in July 1998 the plaintiff found the wreck, and now asserts a maritime lien and salvage rights over the wreck.

[4]                 In February 2002, the plaintiff's statement of claim, the affidavit to lead warrant and the warrant for arrest of the aircraft were served on the Receiver of Wrecks, pursuant to Part VI of the Canada Shipping Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. S-9, as amended. Copies of those documents were also provided to the Minister of Justice, and to the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation, of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. In addition, a story about the discovery of the wrecked aircraft has been featured in a magazine and in a widely broadcast television program.

[5]                 The plaintiff's statement of claim acknowledges the regime pertaining to wrecks under Part VI of the Canada Shipping Act, which provides that any person taking possession of a wreck including wrecked aircraft, its parts or cargo, shall deliver it to the Receiver of Wrecks. The receiver is then responsible for advising the owner, if known, or for publishing a description of the wreck if the owner is not known.

[6]                 The claim in this case, basically one of a salvor to a wrecked aircraft, falls within the jurisdiction of this Court pursuant to paragraph 22(2)(j) of the Federal Court Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. F-7 as amended (the Act), which provides:

22. ... (2) Without limiting the generality of subsection (1), it is hereby declared for greater certainty that the Trial Division has jurisdiction with respect to any one or more of the following: ... (j) any claim for salvage including, without restricting the generality of the foregoing, claims for salvage of life, cargo, equipment or other property of, from or by an aircraft to the same extent and in the same manner as if the aircraft were a ship;		22. ... (2) Il demeure entendu que, sans préjudice de la portée générale du paragraphe (1), la Section de première instance a compétence dans les cas suivants_: ... j) une demande d'indemnisation pour sauvetage, notamment pour le sauvetage des personnes, de la cargaison, de l'équipement ou des autres biens d'un aéronef, ou au moyen d'un aéronef, assimilé en l'occurrence à un navire;

The Act also provides by s-s. 43(2), in part, that

...the jurisdiction conferred on the Court by section 22 may be exercised in rem against the ship, aircraft or other property that is the subject of the action, or against any proceeds of sale thereof that have been paid into court.		...la Cour peut, aux termes de l'article 22, avoir compétence en matière réelle dans toute action portant sur un navire, un aéronef ou d'autres biens, ou sur le produit de leur vente consigné au tribunal.

[7]                 Under the Federal Court Rules, 1998, service of documents in an ordinary action in rem is provided for by Rule 479(1) as follows:

479. (1) Subject to subsection (2), the statement of claim in an action in rem shall be served (a) in respect of a ship or cargo or other property on board a ship, by attaching a certified copy of the statement of claim to some conspicuous part of the ship; (b) in respect of cargo or other property that is not on board a ship, by attaching a certified copy of the statement of claim to the cargo or property; ...		479. (1) Sous réserve du paragraphe (2), dans une action réelle, la déclaration est signifiée : (a) si l'action vise un navire, une cargaison ou d'autres biens qui se trouvent à bord d'un navire, par apposition d'une copie certifiée conforme de la déclaration sur toute partie bien en évidence du navire; (b) si l'action vise une cargaison ou d'autres biens qui ne sont pas à bord d'un navire, par apposition d'une copie certifiée conforme de la déclaration sur la cargaison ou les biens; ...

Rule 482(1) provides that when service is effective pursuant to Rule 479, the property subject to the warrant is deemed to be arrested.

[8]                 The plaintiff also notes that Rule 136(1) permits the Court to order substitutional service or to dispense with service where service of a document, required to be served personally, cannot practicably be effected. It has been held that a ship is not a person or a corporation to which the earlier version of the Court's Rules dealing with personal or substituted service would apply. (See "Mesis" (The) v. Louis Wolfe & Sons (Vancouver) Ltd., [1977] 1 F.C. 429 (F.C.A.) and Mona Lisa Inc. v. "Carola Reith" (The), [1979] 2 F.C. 633 (T.D.).)

[9]                 I am satisfied that by publication of information about the discovery of the wreck, by notice of the originating statement of claim and of the warrant of arrest provided to federal and provincial authorities, and by the plaintiff's acknowledgement that Part VI of the Canada Shipping Act is applicable if and when the wrecked aircraft is recovered, notice of the discovery and of the salvor's claim to the wrecked aircraft has been, or will be, given to all who are likely to be interested. No possibility exists at this stage to affix the Court documents to "some conspicuous part" of the aircraft within the meaning and the purposes of such notice in Rule 479(1). Even if substituted service, by analogy to Rule 136(1) were considered in this case, no useful purpose would be met, since reasonable efforts have been, or will be, taken to notify those likely to have an interest in the res.

[10]            In my opinion, the special circumstances of this case warrant dispensing with service of the Court's documents. Thus an Order issued so providing. Further, the Order provides that the arrest of the wrecked aircraft in question is deemed effective as of the date of the Order, April 26, 2002.

                                                                                                                              (signed) W. Andrew MacKay

                                                                                                        _____________________________

                                                                                                                                                           JUDGE

OTTAWA, Ontario

May 01, 2002.