If the Supreme Court of Canada did not render an opinion during the past year, the judgments by the appeal courts and courts of first instance in Canada have been of considerable interest and value. In particular, substantive, rather than procedural, matters have been emphasized.

This important (2–1) judgment decides a very difficult question of agency under Quebec civil law. Is an agent personally responsible for his acts, albeit done for the sole benefit of a principal, when the name of the principal has not been disclosed but the existence of an unnamed principal has been disclosed? The answer is “yes” and, in consequence, an agent was held personally responsible for stevedoring and other charges entered into for a ship operator, whose name was not disclosed, although the role as agent had been disclosed. The detailed decision, based on what I had always thought was the clear wording of Art. 1715 of the Quebec Civil Code, also notes obiter that the agent is not so responsible when the same circumstances apply under the common law or under the civil code of France, which has no equivalent of the Quebec Art. 1715.

Five interesting points of law are raised in this decision. First, even though no bill of lading was issued, the Hague Rules applied because a bill of lading was intended: Anticosti Shipping Co. v. St-Amand 3 was relied on. Nevertheless, the carrier could not benefit from the shipowner’s limitation of liability under s. 647(2) of the Canada Shipping Act4 (equivalent to the provisions of the 1957 Limitation of Liability Convention) because of its fault and privity in failing to select a person with experience to do the task which was the carrier’s obligation to carry out. The court reaffirmed that one may join an action in contract and delict even in Quebec, relying