For the third successive year, the jurisdiction of the Federal Court of Canada was the major problem litigated in the courts or at least to be found in the various court reports of 1980. The attention to jurisdiction, however, is lessening, no doubt because of the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision in Tropwood A.G. v. Sivaco Wire & Nail Co.1 which clarified if not reversed in part the Supreme Court’s own earlier decisions in Quebec North Shore Paper Co. v. C.P. Ltd.2 and McNamara Construction Western Ltd. v. The Queen.3 In those two latter judgments the jurisdiction of the Federal Court of Canada was strictly construed, the court taking the questionable position that “Laws of Canada” in s. 101 of the British North America Act4 referred only to the laws of the Parliament of Canada.5 In fact for the court to have jurisdiction there had to be “applicable and existing federal law whether under statute or regulation or common law”6 (emphasis added) and not merely that the claim fell within the federal legislative power in relation to navigation and shipping.

In Tropwood A.G. v. Sivaco Wire & Nail Co.7 the Supreme Court went the other way and found that s. 42 of the Federal Court Act8 in defining Canadian maritime law referred not merely to existing federal law but even to “the Admiralty Act of 1891, although it was repealed”.9 Thus the terms “applicable” “existing” and “federal law” of the Quebec North Shore 10 dictum were widely enlarged if not discarded. The judgments on jurisdiction in 1980 reflected this largesse d’esprit.

(1) Aris S.S. Co. v. Associated Metals & Minerals [1980] 2 S.C.R. 322, (1980)110 D.L.R. 3d 1, 1980 AMC 2288 (Sup. Ct. of Canada).

The Supreme Court confirmed the finding in Tropwood 11 that the Federal Court of Canada had jurisdiction over a claim for the carriage of goods into Canada under the general federal power in relation to navigation and shipping, despite the fact that the