NADA ELROUMI v. 9147-1425 QUÉBEC INC., 2019 FCA 281

Date: 20191107 Docket: A-190-18 Citation: 2019 FCA 281 CORAM: BOIVIN J.A. DE MONTIGNY J.A. GLEASON J.A. BETWEEN: NADA ELROUMI AND 9147-1425 QUÉBEC INC. Appellants and SHENZHEN TOP CHINA IMP & EXP CO., LTD CHINA FOSHAN HAOJIA CRAFTS CO., LTD HAOJIA INDUSTRY CO LIMITED CHINA PACIFIC PROPERTY INSURANCE CO., LTD JET-SEA INTERNATIONAL SHIPPING INC. ENTREPOT CANCHI CMA CGM Respondents Heard at Montréal, Quebec, on November 7, 2019. Judgment delivered from the Bench at Montréal, Quebec, on November 7, 2019. REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT BY: GLEASON J.A.

Date: 20191107 Docket: A-190-18 Citation: 2019 FCA 281 CORAM: BOIVIN J.A. DE MONTIGNY J.A. GLEASON J.A. BETWEEN: NADA ELROUMI AND 9147-1425 QUÉBEC INC. Appellants and SHENZHEN TOP CHINA IMP & EXP CO., LTD CHINA FOSHAN HAOJIA CRAFTS CO., LTD HAOJIA INDUSTRY CO LIMITED CHINA PACIFIC PROPERTY INSURANCE CO., LTD JET-SEA INTERNATIONAL SHIPPING INC. ENTREPOT CANCHI CMA CGM Respondents

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Delivered from the Bench at Montréal, Quebec, on November 7, 2019). GLEASON J.A. [1] The Appellants appeal from the orders of the Federal Court in Elroumi v. Shenzhen Top China Imp & Exp Co., Ltd China, 2018 FC633 (per Gagné, J.) in which the Federal Court granted the motions of Entrepot Canchi and CMA CGM to strike out the Appellants’claim against Entrepot Canchi and Entrepot Canchi’s third-party claim against CMA CGM.

The Appellants also seek an order from thisCourt adding CMA CGM as a defendant in their action before the Federal Court even though they did not make a motion for joinderbefore the Federal Court. [2] For the Federal Court to possess jurisdiction over the claim against Entrepot Canchi, the claim must meet the test set out in ITO-Int'lTerminal Operators v. Miida Electronics, [1986] 1 S.C.R. 752, (S.C.C.) [ITO].

This tripartite test requires that (1) thesubject-matter of the claim concern a matter in respect of which there is a statutory grant of jurisdiction by the federal Parliament; (2)there be an existing body of federal law which is essential to the disposition of the claim and which nourishes the statutory grant ofjurisdiction; and (3) the law on which the claim is based be a "“law of Canada”" within the meaning of

section 101 of the ConstitutionAct, 1867. [3] The Federal Court found that the foregoing criteria were not met in the claim against Entrepot Canchi and therefore struck out theclaim against it and, consequently, also struck out the third-party claim against CMA CGM. [4] We see no error in these conclusions. [5] The only statutory basis advanced for the claim against Entrepot Canchi is s. 22(2)(

f) of the Federal Courts Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. F-7,which provides the Federal Court jurisdiction over Canadian maritime law claims "“arising out of an agreement relating to the carriage ofgoods on a ship under a through bill of lading, or in respect of which a through bill of lading is intended to be issued, for loss or damageto goods occurring at any time or place during transit”". [6] However, for a claim to fall within the jurisdiction of the Federal Court under paragraph 22(2)(

f) of the Federal Courts Act, it mustrelate to Canadian maritime law as defined in ITO to meet the second and third branches of the ITO test. A claim against a local roadtransporter or an operator of a warehouse distant from an ocean port is not a claim under Canadian maritime law. [7] Thus, as in Matsuura Machiner Corp. v. Hapag Lloyd AG, [1997] F.C.J. No. 360, (F.C.A.) and Marley Co. v.Cast North America

(1983) Inc., [1995] F.C.J. No. 489 (F.C.T.D.) (Q.L.), Entrepot Canchi’s operations are not integrally connected to amaritime contract over which the Federal Court has jurisdiction. Rather, as the Federal Court found, it acted as a land carrier subject toprovincial law.

It is accordingly plain and obvious that the Federal Court lacked jurisdiction over the claim against Entrepot Canchi. [8] Because the claim against Entrepot Canchi is outside the Federal Court’s jurisdiction, it necessarily follows that the third-party claimmust also be struck out as it depends for its existence on the claim against Entrepot Canchi. [9] As for the appellants’ request to add CMA CGM as a defendant and amend their Statement of Claim, this matter must be broughtbefore the Federal Court in the context of the ongoing proceeding.

It is not an issue for this Court to decide without the matter havingbeen ruled on by the Federal Court at first instance. [10] This appeal will accordingly be dismissed, with costs. "Mary J. L. Gleason" J.A.

FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD DOCKET: A-190-18 STYLE OF CAUSE: NADA ELROUMI AND 9147-1425 QUÉBEC INC. v.SHENZHEN TOP CHINA IMP & EXP CO., LTD CHINA,FOSHAN HAOJIA CRAFTS CO., LTD, HAOJIA INDUSTRYCO LIMITED, CHINA PACIFIC PROPERTY INSURANCECO., LTD., JET-SEA INTERNATIONAL SHIPPING INC.,ENTREPOT CANCHI, CMA CGM PLACE OF HEARING: Montréal, Quebec DATE OF HEARING: November 7, 2019

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT BY: BOIVIN J.A. DE M ONTIGNY J.A. GLEASON J.A. DELIVERED FROM THE BENCH BY: GLEASON J.A. APPEARANCES : Giovannina Diodati For The Appellants Samuel Robichon For The Respondent CMA CGM Alessandra Ionata For The Respondent ENTREPOT CANCHI Nicolas Dubois For The Respondent JET-SEA INTERNATIONAL SHIPPING INC. SOLICITORS OF RECORD : Giovannina Diodati Barrister and Solicitor Montréal, Quebec For The Appellants Borden Ladner Gervais s.e.n.c.r.l., s.r.l.

Montréal, Quebec For The Respondent CMA CGM Gasco Goodhue St-Germain s.e.n.c.r.l./LLP Montréal, Quebec For The Respondent ENTREPOT CANCHI Faguy & Co., Barristers & Solicitors Inc. Montréal, Quebec For The Respondent JET-SEA INTERNATIONAL SHIPPING INC.