1. Letnik v. Toronto (Municipality of) 1

A permanently moored floating restaurant was struck and damaged by a paddle steamer. Two weeks later, the restaurant sank. The trial court held that the restaurant owner could recover for the apparent and manifest damage arising from the collision but not for the damage caused by the sinking, as no causal link had been proven. In addition, it was held that the paddle steamer could not limit its liability pursuant to the Canada Shipping Act,2 there being actual “fault and privity” of the owner. In effect, the owner had negligently failed to instal bow thrusters, a quick release anchor system, a properly located voice-communication system and a U-shaped finger dock and had failed to have an oiler in the engine room at the time of the accident. On appeal, the right to limit liability was again dismissed but the damages arising from the sinking were allowed, it being held that the trial judge erred in failing to apply a reverse onus on the paddle steamer, which thus obliged the latter to disprove a causal link.

2. Crown Forest Industries v. Valley Towing 3

A barge and its cargo, while being towed, were damaged in a collision with a bridge when another tow drifted to the wrong side of the channel, in breach of clearance requirements, and forced the barge into the bridge. The Federal Court of Canada held that the first tugboat owner was 25% at fault and that he could not limit his liability under the Canada Shipping Act, s. 647,4 because of his fault and privity in having failed properly to maintain the tow winch. The other tug was 75% at fault.

3. Continental Bank of Canada v. Reidel International 5

A bridge was damaged when it was struck by the boom of a crane, the height of which was erroneously estimated by tugboat owners who had contracted to tow the