Originally, the notion of in rem jurisdiction arose in situations in which property was identified but the owner was unknown.
This kind of process has been used to seize large sums of cash from persons who are presumed to have obtained the money unlawfully because of the large amount, often in situations where the person could prove they were in lawful possession of it, but were forced to spend more on legal fees to do so than the amount of money forfeited.
The Canadian Parliament has exclusive authority to legislate for navigation and shipping under section 91(10) of the Constitution Act, 1867.
[6] The jurisdiction of the Federal Court in admiralty matters applies to all ships and aircraft, regardless if the owners are Canadian, and to claims arising on any naturally or artificially navigable waters, and in the case of salvage, cargo and wrecks found on the shores.
[6] Under the Act, the jurisdiction of the Federal Court under section 22 may be exercised in personam as well, except in cases of collisions between ships.
When the owner enters an appearance the action in rem becomes one in personam and the defendant's liability is not limited to the value of the res or the amount of the bail or security he or she has given.
[8] The important remedies available from the Federal Court to secure assets pending the resolution of a dispute and to operate in rem may be significant in weighing the suitability of alternative fora in a motion for a stay based on forum non conveniens.