Clarification of the Fund’s role: shipowner liability vs. access to compensation

The Marine Liability Act (the MLA) makes shipowners legally responsible for oil pollution incidents, whether they are at fault or not. Some parts of the MLA shield shipowners from liability, but nothing in the MLA gives the owner of a polluting ship a right to recover its response costs from the Fund.

The shipowner in this case argued that the incident was caused by sabotage. If proven in court, this would provide the shipowner with a defence to claims against it for oil pollution damages. The owner also argued that, because of its alleged defence to liability, it was entitled to compensation from the Fund for its own response costs. The Court rejected this argument. In doing this, the Court agreed with the Administrator’s finding that a polluting shipowner cannot suffer the kinds of damages that the Fund can compensate under the direct claims process.

In addition, the Court agreed with the Administrator’s finding that the direct and indirect claims mechanisms in the MLA work independently one from the other.

In addition to its findings on the direct claims mechanism, the Court considered that polluting shipowners probably cannot recover from the Fund under the indirect mechanism either.

What’s next?

The owner of the West Island 395 has appealed the decision of the Federal Court to the Federal Court of Appeal.