For the first time in four years, the jurisdiction of the Federal Court of Canada was not the major problem litigated in the court, on its Admiralty side, leaving it free to carry out its main role which is resolving maritime law disputes. It will be remembered1 that the Supreme Court of Canada decisions in McNamara Construction Western Ltd. v. The Queen 2 and Quebec North Shore Paper Co. v. C.P. Ltd.3 had left much of the jurisdiction of the Federal Court in doubt.

The principal dictum of this latter decision was that for the Federal Court to have jurisdiction there had to be

“applicable and existing federal law whether under statute or regulation or common law”,4

in order to comply with the term “Laws of Canada” in s. 101 of the British North America Act.5 Unfortunately the court’s restricted construction of “Laws of Canada” excluded all provincial and many other laws from the Federal Court’s jurisdiction.6

Later decisions of the Supreme Court of Canada being Tropwood A.G. v. Sivaco Wire & Nail Co.,7 Aris S.S. Co. v. Associated Metals & Minerals 8 and Antares Shipping v. The Capricorn 9 reduced the severity of the Quebec North Shore decision but the legal gymnastics required to do so resulted in some peculiar definitions and examples of Federal law. Canadian maritime law as defined in ss. 2 and 42 of the Federal Court Act10 was thus held to refer not only to existing Federal law but to such ancient statutes as the Admiralty Act 1891,11 which had been repealed.12 Section 22(2) of the Federal Court Act which lists the subjects over which the court has jurisdiction was even declared to be substantive