Canada: Transportation Case Law Updates

First presented at an MB Transportation Seminar

This paper contains an update to three areas of transportation law with three recent cases from the Ontario Superior Court of Justice and the Ontario Court of Appeal across three diverse issues that can impact a wide array of parties.

The first case is Baroch v. Canada Cartage1 which dealt with a class action dispute relating to unpaid overtime. The second case is A&A Trading Ltd. v. Dil's Trucking Inc.2 which dealt with issues relating to bills of lading, undeclared values and contracts of carriage. The third case is Fernandes v. Araujo3, which provides an update into the Ontario Court of Appeal's ongoing development of vicarious liability and motor vehicles in Ontario.

Baroch v. Canada Cartage

January 31, 2015 saw the release of a class action certification involving the transportation industry. Continuing the trend of class actions seeking unpaid overtime,4 the Ontario Superior Court of Justice certified a $100 million class action lawsuit for unpaid overtime against the defendant, Canada Cartage.

As a national trucking company, Canada Cartage is subject to the federal Canada Labour Code, and including the Motor Vehicle Operators Hours of Work Regulations.5 Those regulations specify how many hours certain groups of employees must work before being entitled to overtime pay:

  • For non-drivers: over 40 hours
  • For city drivers: over 45 hours
  • For highway drivers: over 60 hours

The statement of claim alleges Canada Cartage only paid overtime if the 60 hour threshold was exceeded, regardless of the type of employee, and that this policy was contrary to the regulations.

Class certification decisions often turn on whether the claims of the proposed class raise sufficiently "common issues" to allow the action to proceed as a class action, pursuant to the Class Proceedings Act 6. Some past "overtime" class action attempts have failed to be certified when courts found that the claims would require specific assessments of individual entitlements to overtime (see McCracken v. CNR7 and Brown v. CIBC8).

However, in Baroch, class plaintiff counsel avoided past pitfalls presented by the commonality requirement by defining the class to include only those who were entitled to receive overtime compensation. Determining who was entitled was not the triable issue. Rather, the pleadings focused on the "systemic policies or practices that allegedly amount to breaches of the employment agreements".9

Keep in mind that none of the claim's allegations against Canada Cartage have been proven. The certification decision means only that the claim may continue as a class action. Canada Cartage is defending this class action and the certification decision will be appealed.

For the time being, the certification represents a stark warning to corporations about overtime pay policies, and a particular caution to those operating pursuant to the Motor Vehicle Operators Hours of Work Regulations.

A&A Trading Ltd. v. Dil's Trucking Inc.

The decision of Justice Bielby in A&A Trading Ltd. clarified the law in Ontario as it relates to undeclared value, bills of lading and contracts of carriage.

Here, the plaintiff was an importer and exporter who had contracted with the defendant for the consignment of goods. Unfortunately, in the process of the consignment, the goods were stolen while in transit and in the defendant's possession.

The plaintiff indicated that, prior to the shipment; they contacted the defendant in order to obtain a quote for a consignment of goods from Toronto to Calgary. The defendant was informed by the plaintiff, at this time, the approximate value of the goods that would be shipped. The plaintiff also made inquiries of the defendant regarding whether they held sufficient insurance, which the defendant confirmed that they did. Based on these communications, the plaintiff hired the defendant to ship the goods.

The plaintiff completed his own standard bill of lading and, instead of declaring the value of the goods to be shipped, attached a copy of an invoice and packing slip which reflected the value of the goods to be consigned. The plaintiff provided the defendant with the bill of lading and the attached invoice and packing slip. The defendant completed its own bill of lading and provided a reference on it to the invoice and the packing slip that was provided to them by the plaintiff.

Determining whether or not the actual value was declared "on the face of the contract of carriage" was important in this case due to the fact that if the actual value was not declared, the plaintiff's claim would be limited to $100,000. Due to the fact the value of the goods stolen was $263,000 this would represent a significant loss that the plaintiff would have to accept.

The issues then that the court had to determine were as follows:

  1. What constituted the contract of carriage; and,

  2. Whether the plaintiff declared the value of the consignment on the face of the contract of carriage.

In determining what constituted the contract of carriage, the oral representations provided by the plaintiff to the defendant were examined. In doing so, reference was made to the decision of Fleet Express Lines Ltd. v. Continental Can Co.10 where it was held that the real contract in that situation was the oral contract. The bills of lading represented nothing more than "receipts that contained information identifying the parties and the goods."11

In this case, the plaintiff argued that the oral representations provided by the defendant influenced the hiring of the defendant and, therefore, formed part of the contract of carriage. The plaintiff further argued that the defendant's specific reference to the invoice outlining the value of the consignment on their bill of lading meant it formed part of the contract of carriage.

The court agreed with the plaintiff's arguments and found that the oral representations, the documents appended to the bill of lading completed by the plaintiff and the defendant's version of the bill of lading which referenced the appended documents were to be incorporated into the contract of carriage. In coming to this decision, the court also looked to the evidence offered by the defendant in that they always included a reference in their bill of lading to documentation provided to them by customers.

With respect to whether or not the value of the goods was declared on the face of the contract of carriage, the plaintiff argued that the defendant knew of the value of the consignment through the oral communications and the inclusion of the invoice. The plaintiff argued that these two elements satisfied the legislative intent behind the requirement of the shipper to declare the value of goods on the face of the contract of carriage, which was to provide notice to the carrier of the value of the goods that were being shipped to allow them to assess the risk.12

The defendant argued that the onus was solely on the plaintiff to declare the value of the consignment. They argued that to arrive at an alternative conclusion would undermine the predictability that the legislation intended to exist in transactions between shippers and carriers.13

The court held that, on the face of the contract of carriage, reference was made to the invoice supplied to the defendant by the plaintiff reflecting the value of the goods being shipped. When the plaintiff signed the bills of lading prepared by themselves and the defendant, the plaintiff was thereby adopting the contents of the contract of carriage and the declarations contained therein. Given that the invoice was already found to form part of the contract of carriage, the value of the goods was properly set out on the face of the contract.

Therefore, the plaintiff was entitled to recover the true value of the goods in the amount of $263,500.

Fernandes v. Araujo

The Ontario Court of Appeal waded into the issue of vicarious liability and the use of motor vehicles once more in the case of Fernandes v. Araujo. Here, the Court was tasked with accepting its past decision in Finlayson v. GMAC Leaseco Ltd.14 or its decision in Newman and Newman v. Terdik.15

In Finlayson, it was held that the vicarious liability of an owner rests on possession rather than operation of the vehicle. Therefore, if the owner of a vehicle consented to the possession of the vehicle, that owner would be held to be vicariously liable even if the vehicle was operated in a way prohibited by the owner. Conversely, in Newman, vicarious liability rested on operation rather than possession of the vehicle. The Court in Fernandes held that the principles in Newman were overruled and would proceed on the principles espoused in Finlayson.

In this case, the plaintiff sustained serious injuries as a passenger on an ATV that was driven by the defendant, Araujo. The ATV was owned by an additional defendant, Carlos Almeida. Mr. Almeida was using the ATV to transport tools but later returned it to the garage and told Ms. Araujo and the plaintiff to try it out. Mr. Almeida also allegedly informed Ms. Araujo to not leave the farm property.

Ms. Araujo defied Mr. Almeida's wishes and left the farm property during which she and the plaintiff were involved in a single-vehicle rollover accident.

At the first instance hearing of this matter, it was held that Mr. Almeida never expressly prohibited the defendant from taking the ATV off the farm property. For this reason, Ms. Araujo was found to be in possession of the vehicle with Mr. Almeida's consent at the time of the accident. The key issue on this appeal was then whether or not the parties consented to leaving the farm property.

Citing the principles in Myers-Gordon (Litigation Guardian of) v. Martin16 the defendants argued that consent turns on the subjective belief of the party in possession of the vehicle. Ms. Araujo testified during her discovery that Mr. Almeida did not provide her with permission to leave the farm property. Based on this admission, the defendants argued that Ms. Araujo knew she did not have consent to be in possession of the ATV beyond the property limits.

The Court held that they could not accept these arguments. First, the Court found that if they were to accept this argument, the factual findings of the motion judge would be challenged. This was due to the fact that the motion judge refused to make an inference that Ms. Araujo knew she was forbidden to travel on the highway.17

Furthermore, if consent were to be based on the subjective belief of the party in possession of the vehicle, this would be inconsistent with the language and purpose of section 192(2) of the Highway Traffic Act.18 To base consent on the subjective belief of the party in possession of the vehicle would allow anyone with actual possession of the vehicle to fix the owner with liability even where the owner had not actually consented to that person having possession of the vehicle.19 Rather, the Court held that the purpose of this section is to critique the actions of the owner who is charged as opposed to the party in possession of the owner's vehicle.

The Court admitted there may indeed be a subjective component of the test for consent, but the nature of the test for consent is not subjective in nature. Careful consideration must be given to the entirety of the evidence. In matters where vicarious liability in the context of motor vehicle accidents arises, efforts must be made to examine whether the parties involved subjectively believed that consent had been granted to be in possession of the vehicle.20


1. 2015 ONSC 40 (Ont. S.C.J.) [Baroch].

2. 2015 ONSC 1887 (Ont. S.C.J.)[A&A].

3. 2015 ONCA 571 (Ont. C.A.) [Fernandes].

4. See e.g. McCracken v. CNR, 2012 ONCA 445; Brown v. CIBC, 2014 ONCA 677; Fresco v. CIBC, 2012 ONCA 444; and Fulawka v. Bank of Nova Scotia, 2012 ONCA 443.

5. CRC, c. 990.

6. RSC 1985, c. L-2.

7. McCracken, supra note 4.

8. Brown, supra note 4.

9. Baroch, supra note 1 at para 12.

10. [1969] 2 OR 97.

11. A&A, supra note 2 at para 28.

12. Ibid at para 49. See also Anticosti Shipping Co. v. St. Amand [1959] SCR 372 at para 8, Sept Iles Express Inc. v. Tremblay [1964] Ex CR 213 at para 13.

13. A&A, supra note 2 at para 53.

14. 2007 ONCA 557 (Ont. C.A.).

15. [1953] OR 1 (CA) (Ont. C.A.).

16. 2013 ONSC 5441 (Ont. S.C.J.).

17. Fernandes, supra note 3 at para 24.

18. RSO 1990, c H.8.

19. Fernandes, supra note 3 at para 25.

20. Ibid at para 28.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

In association with
Related Topics
Related Articles
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
Email Address
Company Name
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Registration (you must scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of

To Use you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.


The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.


Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions