The plaintiff claimed CAD 7,000 to compensate her for injuries suffered during a fall on a ship belonging to the defendant. The defendant invoked the two-year limitation period pursuant to the Marine Liability Act (SC 2001, c 6) (the MLA).

The two issues before the Court were whether: (1) the plaintiff's claim had prescribed pursuant to art 16 of the Athens Convention 1974 made applicable in respect of liability for carriage of people on water by the MLA; and (2) the defendant was responsible for the plaintiff's injuries resulting from the fall caused by the threshold at the entrance door of the passenger room on its ship.

Held: Judgment for the plaintiff.

According to the Constitution Act 1867, navigation and ships are under exclusive federal jurisdiction. Canadian maritime law ensures consistency of treatment throughout the territory regarding problems arising from navigation and carriage of people on ships.

Since 26 September 2009, s 140 of the MLA entered into force and reads as follows: 'Except as otherwise provided in this Act or in any other Act of Parliament, no proceedings under Canadian maritime law in relation to any matter coming within the class of navigation and shipping may be commenced later than three years after the day on which the cause of action arises.' This section constitutes a derogation from the wording of art 16 of the Athens Convention 1974. The interpretation of art 16 of the Convention does not lead the Court to consider it as a contrary provision in the same way as the sections emanating from the law itself. Section 140 MLA therefore sets aside the duration of two years as stated.

In 1994, art 2930 of the Civil Code of Quebec (CCQ) was adopted and reads as follows: 'Notwithstanding any provision to the contrary, where the action is based on the obligation to repair bodily injury caused to another, the requirement to give notice prior to the bringing of an action, or to institute such action in less than three years time, can defeat the period of limitation provided for in this Code.' This article, as noted by the Supreme Court of Canada in Doré v Ville de Verdun [1997] RCS 862, is founded on the fundamental principle stated by the CCQ to protect the physical integrity of people. According to some authors, it is necessary to harmonise the provincial and federal law on maritime prescription.

In Quebec, parties would not worry about extending the limitation period provided for in art 16 of the Athens Convention 1974 as they would consider that article 2930 of the CCQ provided for a longer prescription period. There is therefore an ambiguity that must be resolved in favour of the person who is deprived of his or her remedy. In view of the adoption of s 140 of the MLA and the existence of arts 2925 and 2930 CCQ, Walsh's claim was brought within the three years after the cause of action arose and is not prescribed.

Article 1457 of the CCQ is generally used as a basis for the analysis of a claim for damages. There is nothing to indicate to the Court that Canadian maritime law dictates different principles. Thus, Walsh must prove the fault of the defendant according to the customs and the circumstances, including that it occurred in the course of a maritime activity involving transportation of people to a tourist attraction. Article 3 of the Athens Convention 1974 provides a principle similar to that of art 1457 CCQ.

Having considered the evidence, the Court found the defendant 80% at fault and the plaintiff 20% at fault for her fall, and ordered accordingly.