is a decision of the Supreme Court of Canada concerning the law of marine insurance, which also has international impact. Background In 1999, QuébecTel (subsequently acquired by Telus), in conjunction with Hydro-Québec, laid two fibre optic cables across the Saint Lawrence River: Sunoque I, from Point-au-Père to Baie-Comeau, and Sunoque II, from Le Bic to Forrestville. In June 2006, Réal Vallée, a local fisherman engaged in snow crab and whelk fishing aboard the catamaran Realice, had strung a series of cages on the river bottom, secured at both ends by small anchors attached to buoys. One of these anchors got snagged onto the cable. The anchor with the cable attached was hauled out of the water, and Vallée freed it by cutting the cable with an electric saw. Several days later, the same thing happened and he cut the cable again. He had done so, believing that the cable had been abandoned (according to a handwritten note on a map he had seen at a local museum). Remote monitoring controls operated by Telus indicated that the Sunoque I parted about off Baie-Comeau. Telus, Hydro-Québec, and Bell Canada (which had a right of use of the cable), shared the cost of repair in accordance with a pre-existing contract among them. When Vallée learned of the repairs that were being undertaken, he consulted a lawyer, notified his underwriters (who promptly denied coverage), and made a voluntary statement to the police. He was later charged with committing mischief by wilfully damaging property exceeding $5,000 in value, and was subsequently acquitted. Telus and Hydro-Québec commenced an action in the Federal Court of Canada: in personam against Peracomo Inc. (the owner of the Realice) and Vallée, and in rem against the ship. The defendants also instituted third party proceedings against their underwriters, Royal and Sun Alliance Insurance Company of Canada in order to regain their insurance cover. The courts below At the Federal Court: The defendants were found to have joint and several liability for the damage, with the plaintiffs being awarded damages and interest amounting to about $1.21 million. The defendants’ third party action was dismissed. Costs were awarded in favour of the plaintiffs and the third party against the defendants. Harrington J, in his ruling, found that: the appellants were liable in negligence for damaging the cable because Vallée had breached his common law duty of care and statutory duty to be aware