Big Suits | 35
Spalding, Jade A.
Cox & Palmer
(506) 453-9657
jspalding@
coxandpalmer.com
Mr. Spalding's practice
focuses on defending
claims under automobile,
homeowner, disability,
commercial general
liability and professional
liability policies. He also
has extensive experience
acting as coverage
counsel for insurers in
New Brunswick.
Staley, Robert W.
Bennett Jones LLP
(416) 777-4857
staleyr@
bennettjones.com
Mr. Staley's practice
focuses on complex
commercial and
securities litigation
and class actions. Peer
reviews recognize him
for his "skilled handling
of complex cases," his
"excellent courtroom
presence" and as "a
masterful strategic
thinker."
Stratton, Bruce W.
Dimock Stratton LLP
(416) 971-7202
bstratton@dimock.com
Mr. Stratton is an IP
lawyer, patent and
trade-mark agent with
a technical background
in computer science. He
has extensive trial and
appellate experience in
patent, trade-mark and
copyright litigation, with
a focus on computer-
related patents.
Stainsby, Jonathan
Aitken Klee LLP
(647) 317-6868
jstainsby@aitkenklee.com
Mr. Stainsby, a founding
partner of Aitken Klee's
Toronto offi ce, acts in
complex patent, trade-
mark, copyright and
commercial matters in a
variety of industries and
technical fi elds before all
levels of the courts, up to
the Supreme Court
of Canada.
Steep, R. Paul
McCarthy Tétrault LLP
(416) 601-7998
psteep@mccarthy.ca
Mr. Steep's litigation
practice focuses on
commercial, securities
and class-actions
matters. He has an
active practice in D&O
liability, shareholder and
contractual disputes.
He also appears before
professional disciplinary
tribunals.
Sullivan, James M.
Blake, Cassels &
Graydon LLP
(604) 631-3358
james.sullivan@
blakes.com
Mr. Sullivan focuses on
major civil claims in areas
of complex commercial
litigation and class
actions. He appears in
courts across Canada
including numerous
appearances in the SCC.
He is Benchmark Canada's
2013 Class Action
Litigator of the Year.
LEXPERT®Ranked Lawyers
e appeal was therefore dismissed with costs against
the plaintiff .
Gordon Selig acted for the appellant, ambiah.
Daniel Leduc of Norton Rose Fulbright Canada LLP
acted for the respondent, Maritime Employers Association.
PERACOMO INC. V. TELUS COMMUNICATIONS CO.
DECISION DATE: APRIL 23, 2014
In Peracomo, the Supreme Court of Canada addressed, for
the fi rst time, the scope of the rules found in two statutes
related to marine accidents.
e case started when Réal Vallée, a crab fi sherman, used
an electric saw to sever a fi ber-optic cable owned by Telus
that lay on the bed of the St. Lawrence River. e cable had
been snagged when he raised his anchor. Mr. Vallée knew
he was cutting a cable; however, having seen a handwritten
note on some sort of map on a museum wall the year before,
he formed the belief that it was not a live cable. is belief
was wrong. e companies that owned or used the cable
sustained losses of nearly one million dollars. Mr. Vallée, his
company and the vessel were sued successfully for the dam-
age in the Federal Court, and their appeal to the Federal
Court of Appeal was dismissed, hence their appeal before
the Supreme Court.
Two issues were raised by this case. First, the limitation of
liability cap imposed by the UN Convention on Limitation
of Liability for Maritime Claims, 1976 (the Convention),
integrated into Canadian law by virtue of the Marine Li-
ability Act. Section 29 of that Act limits liability for property
damage caused by the operation of ships in the same class as
Mr. Vallée's at $500,000. However, this limit does not apply
if the loss "resulted from [the defendant's] personal act or
omission, committed with the intent to cause such loss, or
recklessly and with knowledge that such loss would probably
result" [emphasis added].
e lower Courts held that the Convention's limit did not
apply because Mr. Vallée had intended to cut the cable, even
though he had not meant to cause the specifi c loss (i.e., cut-
ting a live cable) that resulted from his conduct.
e Supreme Court reversed the lower court rulings on
this issue. e Court noted that the Convention was in sub-
stance a commercial "trade-off ": claimants benefi ted from
an increase in the amount of the limitation of liability cap,
while ship-owners benefi ted from "a virtually unbreakable
right to limit liability." In order to give eff ect to the purpose
of the Convention, the Court concluded that the phrase
"such loss" referred to the specifi c damage that in fact arose.
Consequently, in order to break the cap, the claimant must
prove that the defendant "intended to cause the loss that
actually resulted or that he acted recklessly and with knowl-
edge that the loss would probably occur." Since Mr. Vallée
had meant to cut an abandoned cable, the Court held that he
had not intended to cause the specifi c loss (i.e., damage to a
live cable that would have to be repaired) that resulted from
his deliberate conduct. Mr. Vallée therefore benefi ted from
the liability limit.
e second issue was related to insurance coverage. e
respondent Royal & Sun Alliance Insurance Company of
Canada had issued a policy that covered liability "in conse-
quence of … damage to any fi xed or movable object" and aris-
ing from "an accident or occurrence." However, under subs.
53(1) of the Marine Insurance Act, "an insurer is not liable for
any loss attributable to the wilful misconduct of the insured."
e lower Courts had concluded that Mr. Vallée's conduct
