In an ironic twist of bureaucratic decisions, the Canadian federal government finds itself entangled in a peculiar situation, allocating $520,000 to a Nova Scotia shipyard for storing a Coast Guard ship it deems ‘dead.’ This shipyard owner, however, stands accused of negligence by the very government that now entrusts it with the vessel’s custody.
The saga unfolds in the aftermath of a chilling November morning in 2018 at Canadian Maritime Engineering’s Sambro, N.S., shipyard. The CCGS Corporal McLaren, a five-year-old Canadian Coast Guard ship undergoing refit, lay partially capsized and submerged in Sambro Harbour. The support cables, crucial for its stability, dangled loosely, a result of suspected vandalism by trespassers who breached the unfenced site.
Halifax police, swift in their investigations, attributed the damage to vandals who cut the support cables, leaving the ship with a staggering $14 million in damages. The federal government promptly filed a statement of claim in 2021 against Canadian Maritime Engineering (CME), asserting that negligence on their part led to the vessel’s vulnerability.
The government’s claim contends that CME “failed to secure the vessel” from potential harm, theft, or unauthorized entry. Moreover, the accusation highlights CME’s alleged failure to maintain continuous security, a lapse that allowed the vandals to execute their destructive act unchecked.
Amidst legal volleying, CME staunchly denied any responsibility, asserting that it acted “reasonably” and exercised “appropriate care” for the ship. The shipyard argued that the vandalism inflicted “significant” damage on their equipment, causing substantial economic losses.
A year after the incident, Public Service and Procurement Canada (PSPC) terminated the repair contract with CME, relocating the CCGS Corporal McLaren to the Bedford Institute of Oceanography (BIO) in Dartmouth, N.S. However, come 2022, the BIO found itself constrained by space requirements and impending upgrades, prompting PSPC to seek external assistance for drydocking and storing the ailing vessel.
This decision sparked criticism, with industry experts questioning the logic of awarding such a contract to a shipyard embroiled in a negligence lawsuit. Alan Williams, former Assistant Deputy Minister for Materiel at the Department of National Defence, expressed bewilderment at the oversight. He emphasized the importance of scrutinizing a shipyard’s history of incidents, suggesting that those with a track record of vandalism should be disqualified.
The persistent question remains: How can we effectively address negligence and ensure justice prevails within the convoluted landscape of bureaucratic contracts and legal disputes, as illuminated by the intricate tale of the CCGS Corporal McLaren? In contemplating an answer, it’s crucial to consider the principles of Tort law in Canada, which provide a framework for addressing civil wrongs, including acts of negligence.
Tort law, at its core, seeks to remedy harms caused by one party’s negligence to another. In the case of the CCGS Corporal McLaren, the federal government’s pursuit of legal action against Canadian Maritime Engineering (CME) aligns with the tenets of Tort law. The government’s claim asserts that CME’s alleged failure to secure the vessel from harm and maintain proper security constitutes negligence, leading to significant damages.
A key element of Tort law is the duty of care, which holds individuals or entities responsible for ensuring that their actions do not cause foreseeable harm to others. In the context of the shipyard incident, the government argues that CME breached its duty of care by failing to prevent the vandalism that resulted in extensive damage to the Coast Guard ship. This breach forms the foundation of the government’s claim for compensation.
The concept of causation, another fundamental aspect of Tort law, is evident in the government’s argument. The claim contends that the damage suffered by the CCGS Corporal McLaren was a direct result of CME’s negligence. Establishing a causal link between the alleged negligence and the harm suffered is essential in Tort cases, ensuring that the responsible party is held accountable for the consequences of their actions.
As the government seeks justice through legal means, the Tort law principles underscore the importance of accountability and redress for the victim of negligence. The legal dispute unfolds as a manifestation of these principles, reflecting the broader aim of Tort law to provide a remedy for those who have suffered harm due to the negligence of others.
In navigating negligence within the bureaucratic maze, the application of Tort law principles offers a structured approach to address wrongdoing and seek compensation for damages. The ongoing legal proceedings exemplify the Canadian legal system’s commitment to upholding these principles, emphasizing the duty of care and causation as essential elements in resolving disputes arising from acts of negligence.
