Duval v. Seapace (Ship)
2022 FC 575
Federal Court of Canada, April 21, 2022
Facts: The plaintiff, a stevedore, was injured while operating a crane aboard a foreign-flagged vessel unloading cargo in Quebec. Following the accident, he received compensation benefits, including a partial permanent disability pension, under Quebec's workers' compensation regime. Although he later returned to work at a comparable wage, he commenced proceedings against the vessel seeking additional damages, including compensation for an alleged loss of earning capacity and future income. Prior decisions of Quebec's workers' compensation bodies had concluded that the plaintiff was capable of returning to work and was no longer entitled to income replacement benefits. The defendant argued that those findings prevented the plaintiff from advancing claims based on future income loss and brought a motion for summary judgment relying on the doctrines of issue estoppel, res judicata, and abuse of process.
Decision: The motion for summary judgment was dismissed. However, the Court also dismissed the plaintiff's argument that the doctrines of res judicata, issue estoppel, and abuse of process were inapplicable because of the provisions of the Quebec Civil Code. The defendant remained entitled to rely on those common law doctrines as potential defences.
Held: The Court held that the action fell within Canadian maritime law as a maritime negligence claim. While provincial law may supplement maritime law in certain circumstances, the Court found that the doctrines of issue estoppel, res judicata, and abuse of process continue to apply and were not replaced by the Quebec Civil Code. The Court was not prepared to conclude on a summary judgment motion that the plaintiff's claims for loss of earning capacity and future income were bound to fail. The extent to which the workers' compensation decisions limited or precluded those claims required a more complete review of the evidence and was better determined at trial. As a result, both the plaintiff's damages claims, and the defendant's estoppel arguments were left for determination by the trial judge.