insured”,
25 abandonment, on the other hand, is an action that materializes through
the issuance of a notice from the insured to the insurer.
26 Similar to the philosophy of
abandonment ingrained in property law, the notice of abandonment in marine
insurance can be seen as a unilateral transfer whereby the notice from the assured
serves as a proof of parting with the title of the res. Needless to say, the intent to
transfer and actual transfer is an essential characteristics of the doctrine of abandonment. But there are instances where the owner of a vessel may relinquish the right of
ownership without any regard to future possession—that can also be marked as a
form of abandonment. Although an aberration from the original concept, those
instances where there is voluntary relinquishment by the owner, no unilateral
transfer of property, no declaration of unilateral transfer, no explicit intention
whether in oral or writing of relinquishment, no intention of vesting ownership in
any other person or institution—there only remains the lapse of time that is indefinite
in nature. The vessel as such is detached from all legal rights and obligations and the
true identity of the vessel is lost somewhere on that continuum. Only then is the
anatomy of abandonment of relevance and the various doctrines, principles and rules
relative to the doctrine of abandonment need to be critically examined.
2.1 Ownership
Over the years, the word “property” has been defined in a myriad of ways.
27 Whether
the historical view on property is an accurate or inaccurate, questioned or
unquestioned view of how the word “property” is viewed today—in contemporary
times, property, in its principal form, signifies ownership. With this view in mind, it
is safe to assert that ownership, which connects a property to an owner, is an
important component of the doctrine of abandonment. Property and ownership are
the two terms that have captivated theorists and philosophers for centuries whereby
the definition of “ownership” with regard to property has been the subject of much
25 Chubb Insurance Co. of Canada v Cast line Ltd., [2001] R.R.A. 765; Manning v Boston
Insurance (1962), 34 D.L.R. (2d) 140 (P.E.I. S.C); Rose v Boroisko Brothers Ltd. (1983),
41 O.R. (2d) 606, 147 D.L.R. (3d) 191 (C.A.).
26 Gold et al. (2003), p. 327 § 1.
27 Diamond (2011), pp. 44–45. Michael Diamond states that “[t]here was a wide range of views
concerning the meaning and purpose of property during the classical Greek era. Plato, for example,
believed that property was bias of jealousy and conflict. Since he wanted the state governed for the
common good, he rejected the concept of private property for rules . . . Aristotle disagrees with
Plato’s view of commonly owned property and strongly favors private ownership. He believes that
private ownership is necessary if anyone is to care for the property”. Michael Diamond also delves
into the work of great religious thinkers of medieval and renaissance Europe, both Thomas Aquinas
and Thomas More who were strict supporters of individual ownership of property. See also
Blackstone (1959). The famous pronouncement of Blackstone on property states that “[p]roperty
is that sole and despotic which one man claims and exercises over the external things of the world,
in total exclusion of the right of any other individual in the universe”.
An Exposé of Canadian “Abandoned Vessels &. . .
347
25 abandonment, on the other hand, is an action that materializes through
the issuance of a notice from the insured to the insurer.
26 Similar to the philosophy of
abandonment ingrained in property law, the notice of abandonment in marine
insurance can be seen as a unilateral transfer whereby the notice from the assured
serves as a proof of parting with the title of the res. Needless to say, the intent to
transfer and actual transfer is an essential characteristics of the doctrine of abandonment. But there are instances where the owner of a vessel may relinquish the right of
ownership without any regard to future possession—that can also be marked as a
form of abandonment. Although an aberration from the original concept, those
instances where there is voluntary relinquishment by the owner, no unilateral
transfer of property, no declaration of unilateral transfer, no explicit intention
whether in oral or writing of relinquishment, no intention of vesting ownership in
any other person or institution—there only remains the lapse of time that is indefinite
in nature. The vessel as such is detached from all legal rights and obligations and the
true identity of the vessel is lost somewhere on that continuum. Only then is the
anatomy of abandonment of relevance and the various doctrines, principles and rules
relative to the doctrine of abandonment need to be critically examined.
2.1 Ownership
Over the years, the word “property” has been defined in a myriad of ways.
27 Whether
the historical view on property is an accurate or inaccurate, questioned or
unquestioned view of how the word “property” is viewed today—in contemporary
times, property, in its principal form, signifies ownership. With this view in mind, it
is safe to assert that ownership, which connects a property to an owner, is an
important component of the doctrine of abandonment. Property and ownership are
the two terms that have captivated theorists and philosophers for centuries whereby
the definition of “ownership” with regard to property has been the subject of much
25 Chubb Insurance Co. of Canada v Cast line Ltd., [2001] R.R.A. 765; Manning v Boston
Insurance (1962), 34 D.L.R. (2d) 140 (P.E.I. S.C); Rose v Boroisko Brothers Ltd. (1983),
41 O.R. (2d) 606, 147 D.L.R. (3d) 191 (C.A.).
26 Gold et al. (2003), p. 327 § 1.
27 Diamond (2011), pp. 44–45. Michael Diamond states that “[t]here was a wide range of views
concerning the meaning and purpose of property during the classical Greek era. Plato, for example,
believed that property was bias of jealousy and conflict. Since he wanted the state governed for the
common good, he rejected the concept of private property for rules . . . Aristotle disagrees with
Plato’s view of commonly owned property and strongly favors private ownership. He believes that
private ownership is necessary if anyone is to care for the property”. Michael Diamond also delves
into the work of great religious thinkers of medieval and renaissance Europe, both Thomas Aquinas
and Thomas More who were strict supporters of individual ownership of property. See also
Blackstone (1959). The famous pronouncement of Blackstone on property states that “[p]roperty
is that sole and despotic which one man claims and exercises over the external things of the world,
in total exclusion of the right of any other individual in the universe”.
An Exposé of Canadian “Abandoned Vessels &. . .
347