The plaintiffs, parents of a 17-month infant, each claimed the sum of CAD 15,000 for damages for stress, inconvenience and anxiety resulting from the illness of their infant while on board a cruise ship operated by Norwegian Cruise Line (Norwegian). The plaintiffs blamed Norwegian for not having medical equipment to administer intravenous fluids to their infant to treat the viral gastritis that dehydrated him. They had to disembark from the ship in Nassau for the infant to be treated in a private clinic. They further alleged that the second defendant, Vasco Exploramonde (Vasco), the travel agent who sold them the cruise package, failed to comply with its obligation to provide them with a product in accordance with the promised benefits.

Norwegian raised, as a preliminary argument, the court's lack of jurisdiction to hear the case and sought dismissal of the action against it. Vasco also sought dismissal of the action against it. Vasco argued that it acted only as an intermediary and was not responsible for the services obtained aboard the cruise ship. Vasco said that it fulfilled its obligation of booking the trip with Norwegian.

Held: The court does not have jurisdiction to hear the plaintiffs' claims.

Article 17 of the Athens Convention 1974 applies by virtue of s 37 of the Marine Liability Act, SC 2001, c 6. Norwegian is not subject to Quebec or Canadian jurisdiction since it has no place of business in Quebec or Canada (see arts 17.1.a, 17.1.c and 17.1.d of the Athens Convention 1974).

As was decided in Princess Cruises v Nicolazzo 2009 CanLII 28217 (SCDC ON), 97 OR 3d 630, when the travel agent's place of business is in Canada, but neither the place of departure nor the place of destination of the travel is located in Canada, 'the action cannot be brought into Canada if art. 17 of the Convention requires it to be brought elsewhere'. Beaumont v Norwegian Cruise Line Holdings Ltd 2018 QCCQ 6477 (CanLII) (CMI241) involved facts very similar to the present case. The plaintiffs were residents of Quebec who brought an action in the Court of Quebec against Norwegian after a cruise on a Norwegian ship where neither the port of embarkation nor the port of disembarkation was in Quebec. It was decided by the Court of Quebec that the constitutional obligation to apply Canadian maritime law in a uniform manner across Canada precluded the application of the provisions of Quebec's Consumer Protection Act and the Civil Code of Quebec. On an application of art 17 of the Athens Convention 1974, the plaintiffs' action was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

In addition to the principles set forth by the Athens Convention 1974, cl 14 of the passenger contract provides for the exclusive jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida.

The only connection between the dispute and the Province of Quebec is that the plaintiffs were residing in St Catherine when they bought their cruise tickets, and are now residing in St Lazare, which is insufficient to establish jurisdiction. In light of the foregoing, the actions against Norwegian and Vasco should be dismissed.