 |
| Marcel Strigberger |
Which gets me to Bailey v. Air Canada.
In October 2023 Christopher Bailey and his wife decided to fly from Victoria B.C. To St. John’s Nfld. They had to change planes in Montreal. When it was time to fly back home Air Canada told Christopher Bailey that his flight was canceled as he no showed for the Montreal-St. John’s flight. His wife’s flight was no problem. Bailey’s attempts to reason with Air Canada were futile and he had to dish out $1,070 to fly back to Victoria.
Once home, he communicated with A.C. to get his $1,070 back, sending them copies of his boarding pass, luggage tags and even a receipt for an in-flight purchase of a Molson Canadian.
Air Canada was not convinced. They sent him an email saying, “The root cause of the flight disruption was outside of carrier control and therefore you are not eligible for compensation.”
He responded that he was not seeking compensation, just a refund. The airline stood firm and Bailey sued in the Provincial Court of B.C for his $1,070 and $8,500 general damages.
The airline disputed Bailey’s claim that he sat in seat 34A arguing there was no such seat on the aircraft. Accordingly his name was not on the passenger manifest.
Justice Pratchett found that Bailey’s evidence was overwhelming, and he awarded him $2,000 in general damages. I wonder what possible defence Air Canada could have raised in its pleadings:
1. The plaintiff if he boarded the aircraft, which is adamantly denied, did so as a stowaway.
2. If he ordered a Molson’s Canadian, he was in breach of his contract with the defendant and not entitled to any relief in that he failed to also order a can of Pringles.
3. The plaintiff misrepresented to the defendant that he was married. If and when he boarded at the gate, he never produced a marriage certificate.
4. The aircraft does not have a seat numbered 34A. The plaintiff knew or ought to have known that in the airline industry 34A is a bad luck number, especially on a Tuesday.
5. The plaintiff for the return flight was offered accommodation in one of the overhead bins which he refused.
6. The plaintiff was on the defendant’s no-fly list as he was a sorcerer. When he landed in Montreal, he rightly predicted the Montreal Canadians would not win the Stanley Cup this year.
7. In the alternative the defendant pleads that the plaintiff does not exist. A review of Aristotle’s Metaphysics does not disclose the existence of a Christopher Bailey.
2. If he ordered a Molson’s Canadian, he was in breach of his contract with the defendant and not entitled to any relief in that he failed to also order a can of Pringles.
3. The plaintiff misrepresented to the defendant that he was married. If and when he boarded at the gate, he never produced a marriage certificate.
4. The aircraft does not have a seat numbered 34A. The plaintiff knew or ought to have known that in the airline industry 34A is a bad luck number, especially on a Tuesday.
5. The plaintiff for the return flight was offered accommodation in one of the overhead bins which he refused.
6. The plaintiff was on the defendant’s no-fly list as he was a sorcerer. When he landed in Montreal, he rightly predicted the Montreal Canadians would not win the Stanley Cup this year.
7. In the alternative the defendant pleads that the plaintiff does not exist. A review of Aristotle’s Metaphysics does not disclose the existence of a Christopher Bailey.
I know these pleadings may be a bit off the wall but then again what can you say about Air Canada’s scorched earth position given the evidence? Incidentally they did refund Bailey his $1,070 but only after he commenced the action.
It should be noted that Christopher Bailey’s case is not unique. Go Public has revealed the horror stories of a number of Air Canada passengers whose flights were canceled for no showing when they actually did show. Even sending the airline selfies on the plane, hotel receipts and pictures of themselves in front of an iconic landmark like Big Ben did not persuade the airline to promptly make the bad good. I imagine there is some robot in the works which reviews the complaints and responds something like, “Claim denied. That’s not Big Ben; it’s Little Ben.”
Some experts say there is a systemic problem with their computers not talking to each other. I would say the problem is people not talking to each other. Or rather not willing to listen and think. Can anyone argue with Einstein?
Until matter changes, we shall continue to experience similar Kafkaesque situations. What’s else can happen? Next time I fly I will refuse to be assigned seat 11C. Not sure why but I have a gut feeling this seat on Air Canada will be deemed fictional. It certainly adds a new dimension to the phrase, “your number is up”.
Marcel Strigberger retired from his Greater Toronto Area litigation practice and continues the more serious business of humorous author and speaker. His book, Boomers, Zoomers, and Other Oomers: A Boomer-biased Irreverent Perspective on Aging, is available on Amazon (e-book) and in paper version. His new(!) book First, Let’s Kill the Lawyer Jokes: An Attorney’s Irreverent Serious Look at the Legal Universe, is available on Amazon, Apple and other book places. Visit www.marcelshumour.com. Follow him on X: @MarcelsHumour.
The opinions expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the author’s firm, its clients, Law360 Canada, LexisNexis Canada or any of its or their respective affiliates. This article is for general information purposes and is not intended to be and should not be taken as legal advice.
Interested in writing for us? To learn more about how you can add your voice to Law360 Canada, contact Analysis Editor Peter Carter at peter.carter@lexisnexis.ca or call 647-776-6740.