Practice cases of interest are: Leo Ocean SA v Westshore Terminals Limited Partnership §36, where the Federal Court of Appeal held that there was sufficient evidence to determine if the claim was one of pure economic loss and referred the matter back to the trial division for a decision; Roots v HMCS Annapolis §41, where an action was dismissed for delay and for failure to comply with court orders; LF Centennial Pte Ltd v TRLU7228664 et al (Containers) §37, where it was held that an in rem plaintiff has no right to commence proceedings and arrest in Federal Court when there are ongoing insolvency proceedings in a provincial superior court and an outstanding order under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act staying all proceedings; Fingad Shipping Ltd v Ningbo Arts & Crafts Imp. & Exp. Co. Ltd §31, where the court applied issue estoppel and struck an in rem action on the grounds that a French court had previously determined that the owner at the time of the commencement of the action was not the same as at the time the cause of action arose; and Allchem Industries Industrial v CMA CGM Florida (Vessel) §21, where the court held that service of a statement of claim on a freight forwarder, who sometimes acted as agent for the defendant and who was identified as an agent on the defendant’s website, was valid service.

Notable cases include: West Kelowna (District) v Newcombe, §47, where the British Columbia Court of Appeal affirmed the decision of the trial judge that anchoring/mooring was a core element of federal jurisdiction over navigation and shipping and that a municipal bylaw prohibiting mooring was constitutionally inapplicable, pursuant to the doctrine of interjurisdictional immunity, to the extent that it prohibited temporary moorage; Aquavita International SA v M/V Pantelis (Ship) §22, where the Federal Court held that it had jurisdiction over a claim by a sub-charterer for excessive bunkers on board the ship when redelivered at the conclusion of the sub-charter; and Demers v Marine Atlantic Inc §29, where a Quebec Small Claims Court surprisingly held that the Federal Court had no jurisdiction over a claim involving an interprovincial passenger ferry ticket.