Congratulations on your appointment as the Legal and Regulatory Compliance Officer for Intercorp Ltd, a provincially regulated corporation with head offices in Toronto, Ontario. As you settle into your new office, your assistant tells you that there are is a problematic file on your desk that you might want to look through sooner rather than later. Your CEO has asked you for a memo outlining any legal issues this file contains, together with your recommendations for how to proceed.

You discover that Intercorp has some issues with special metal tubing that it had shipped by air carrier from England to their Ontario warehouse. It has been reported that there was significant turbulence during the transport of the goods in the air. Intercorp had ordered ten (10) tubes at $50,000 per tube, packed in 5 containers - 2 tubes to a container. Each tube weighed 10,000 kg. They arrived 30 days ago at the air cargo terminal; from there they were loaded onto a rail car. Unfortunately, due to a protest, the tubes only arrived 10 days ago and the CN railyard. There is a note in the file that your predecessor noted about concern over the rail tariffs and charges. The goods were then picked up by Intercorp's truck driver, who was exhausted after having worked a 14 hour shift and did not pack the truck with the proper padding.The tubes were delivered to the Ontario warehouse 3 days ago.

While driving across Ontario, the driver, Linda was charged under section 84.1 of the Ontario Highway Traffic Act because a set of dual wheels flew off the truck while in transit. The files include quite a bit of information relative to training, testing and maintenance of truck wheels. Linda was quite upset and wondered whether she would be personally responsible for this infraction. In addition, she had previously tried to raise concerns about the unsafe conditions of her truck and had been told by her manager that she should be lucky to have a job and she could quit anytime if she didn't like the conditions of work. This manager had made derogatory comments to her taking a job that rightfully belonged to a male driver, who could take the long hours and physical rigours of the job. He had denied her requests to avoid long haul trips so that she would balance her child-care obligations and he'd also made some sexual jokes around her. Linda decided that this trip was too much for her and decided to quit. She has been doing research online and wants to pursue making a claim to the Ontario Ministry of Labour or the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal and/or both and is unsure of what course of action to take.

When the tubes finally arrived at the distribution centre, the tubes were damaged. Intercorp's engineer has concluded that the coils are now good only for scrap. You review the bill of lading that is on file. You see that the bill of lading:

1. Is a clean bill of lading (ie) there are no notations of damage when the goods were handed over throughout the supply chain of carriers.
2. Does not include a declaration of value or the number of packages being transported.
3. States that all disputes should be resolved by the UK courts in the United Kingdom even though the contract and the port of entry is Canada.

A legal memo addressing Whether Linda was negligent in loading the tubes into the truck and whether there is carrier liability