In a case brought by airline associations against the Canadian Transportation Agency and the Attorney General of Canada, the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) confirmed that passengers can access compensation under both the Regulations and the Montreal Convention, an international treaty governing air travel compensation. The International Air Transport Association (IATA) and several airlines had argued that the remedies standardized in the Air Passenger Protection Regulations do not fall within the scope of individualized damages under the Montreal Convention, but the SCC rejected this, confirming that both systems can coexist.
This ruling, hailed as a significant win for Canadian air travelers, was supported by a coalition of consumer advocacy groups, including the Council of Canadians with Disabilities, the National Pensioners Federation, and the Public Interest Advocacy Centre (PIAC). The coalition argued successfully that the standardized remedies provided by the Air Passenger Protection Regulations, such as fixed compensation for flight delays or cancellations, do not conflict with the Montreal Convention’s individualized compensation for specific losses, such as damaged luggage or extra expenses incurred.
At the heart of this victory was the expertise of the Public Interest Law Centre (Legal Aid Manitoba), represented by Katrine Dilay, the lead council, working alongside with Prof. Marina Pavlović, a Faculty member at the Centre for Law, Technology and Society and an Associate Professor of Law at the University of Ottawa, and Chris Klassen. They played a pivotal role in the case and their advocacy ensured that passengers have both avenues of compensation accessible to them.
The intervention is the latest in Prof. Pavlović’s thought leadership in favour of consumer protection in the digital context, after her groundbreaking with CIPPIC in Douez v. Facebook and Uber v. Heller.
Congratulations to all of the contributors to this important ruling!