 |
| Archit Gupta |
As a result, Zoghbi filed a complaint with the Canadian Human Rights Commission (CHRC), which did not consider his complaint on the basis of it being “trivial” and that it lacked jurisdiction to hear the matter. Zoghbi appealed the matter to the Federal Court, wherein the court sent the matter back to the CHRC with instructions. Zoghbi then proceeded to appeal this matter to the Federal Court of Appeal as he was disappointed by the fact that most of his complaint was taken off the table.
This case sheds light on the complex interaction between aviation law and human rights protections in Canada.
Md Moniruzzaman: ISTOCKPHOTO.COM
1. The jurisdiction of the Canadian Human Rights Commission in relation to interpreting aviation law
The CHRC plays a pivotal role in addressing complaints of discrimination in Canada. Its mandate includes investigating and addressing violations of human rights, such as those related to race, gender, disability and other protected grounds. The CHRC’s jurisdiction over air travel cases is particularly relevant due to the high stakes involved in ensuring that the protected rights of passengers are enforced during international flights.
In Zoghbi v. Air Canada, a critical issue was whether the CHRC had jurisdiction to determine questions of law beyond its enabling statute. The court held, among other things, that the function of the CHRC is to act as a screening body which “winnows[s]” out complaints that cannot possibly succeed on the facts or the law. It found that the CHRC, when conducting screening functions, has a large amount of latitude including the ability to measure a complaint against applicable law to see if it would be successful. This included the commission determining whether remedies were legally available for the breach of Zoghbi’s human rights in light of the Montreal Convention and Carriage by Air Act (by way of the Montreal Convention’s incorporation into Canadian domestic laws).
In Zoghbi v. Air Canada, a critical issue was whether the CHRC had jurisdiction to determine questions of law beyond its enabling statute. The court held, among other things, that the function of the CHRC is to act as a screening body which “winnows[s]” out complaints that cannot possibly succeed on the facts or the law. It found that the CHRC, when conducting screening functions, has a large amount of latitude including the ability to measure a complaint against applicable law to see if it would be successful. This included the commission determining whether remedies were legally available for the breach of Zoghbi’s human rights in light of the Montreal Convention and Carriage by Air Act (by way of the Montreal Convention’s incorporation into Canadian domestic laws).
2. Carriage by Air Act and the Montreal Convention: Barriers to human rights claims
The Montreal Convention, implemented in Canada through the Carriage by Air Act (CAA), establishes rules on when and to what extent an airline is liable for incidents during international air travel. Generally, the Montreal Convention bars monetary damages for incidents during international air travel, including, as witnessed in this case, embarkation. Additionally, the Montreal Convention stipulates that “punitive, exemplary, or any other non-compensatory damages shall not be recoverable.” These legal frameworks prioritize regulating liability and damages over addressing broader human rights concerns (barring human rights remedies such as compensation for pain and suffering, special damages, or other compensatory remedies found at s. 53 of the CHRA).
In Zoghbi v. Air Canada, the court and commission were tasked with interpreting the Montreal Convention and the CAA to determine whether they effectively barred one’s human rights claim. Both the CHRC and the Court confirmed it does.
3. Whether the Canadian Human Rights Act prevails over the Carriage by Air Act
At the heart of this case was the question of whether the CHRA supersedes the CAA. Zoghbi argued that human rights legislation, designed to protect individuals from discrimination, should take precedence over the CAA when issues of discrimination and rights are at stake. In contrast, Air Canada maintained that the CAA, grounded in international aviation law, should govern disputes in the context of international travel, thereby limiting the CHRA’s application. The court’s decision in this regard is significant because it touches on the broader issue of whether human rights legislation can supersede specialized legal frameworks, such as those governing air travel.
In Zoghbi v. Air Canada, the court analyzed whether the CHRA’s protections against discrimination could stand in conflict with international conventions like the Montreal Convention, ultimately ruling that it cannot. The court found that the CAA and Montreal Convention are clear and unambiguous and that there is no evidence these legal frameworks allow for damages claims arising from domestic human rights statutes.
4. Whether the Carriage by Air Act infringes on equality rights
The final consideration in the case was whether the CAA infringes upon equality rights guaranteed under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Equality rights are a fundamental component of Canadian constitutional law, ensuring that individuals are treated fairly and without discrimination. The complainant in Zoghbi v. Air Canada raised the argument that the CAA’s limitations on human rights claims effectively violated their right to equality, as enshrined in the Charter.
The court refused to examine whether the strict liability framework of the CAA unjustly excluded rights provided by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, particularly those based on equality rights. The court remitted this matter back to the commission, instructing it to further consider Zoghbi’s complaint that the adoption of the Montreal Convention and the CAA violates his equality rights under section 15 of the Charter.
Conclusion
The decision in Zoghbi v. Air Canada carries significant implications for the relationship between international aviation regulations and domestic human rights protections. The case illustrates the challenges of reconciling Canada’s international obligations under the Montreal Convention with its commitment to upholding human rights, particularly in sectors heavily regulated by specialized laws. Moving forward, this ruling may prompt further discussions on how best to balance the competing demands of international travel regulations and the protection of human rights for passengers. For airlines, passengers and the Canadian Human Rights Commission, the outcome of this case serves as a critical point of reference for future disputes at the intersection of aviation law and human rights protections.
Archit Gupta is an employment lawyer and an associate at Monkhouse Law. He can be reached at archit.gupta@monkhouselaw.com.
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.
The Montreal Convention, implemented in Canada through the Carriage by Air Act (CAA), establishes rules on when and to what extent an airline is liable for incidents during international air travel. Generally, the Montreal Convention bars monetary damages for incidents during international air travel, including, as witnessed in this case, embarkation. Additionally, the Montreal Convention stipulates that “punitive, exemplary, or any other non-compensatory damages shall not be recoverable.” These legal frameworks prioritize regulating liability and damages over addressing broader human rights concerns (barring human rights remedies such as compensation for pain and suffering, special damages, or other compensatory remedies found at s. 53 of the CHRA).
In Zoghbi v. Air Canada, the court and commission were tasked with interpreting the Montreal Convention and the CAA to determine whether they effectively barred one’s human rights claim. Both the CHRC and the Court confirmed it does.
3. Whether the Canadian Human Rights Act prevails over the Carriage by Air Act
At the heart of this case was the question of whether the CHRA supersedes the CAA. Zoghbi argued that human rights legislation, designed to protect individuals from discrimination, should take precedence over the CAA when issues of discrimination and rights are at stake. In contrast, Air Canada maintained that the CAA, grounded in international aviation law, should govern disputes in the context of international travel, thereby limiting the CHRA’s application. The court’s decision in this regard is significant because it touches on the broader issue of whether human rights legislation can supersede specialized legal frameworks, such as those governing air travel.
In Zoghbi v. Air Canada, the court analyzed whether the CHRA’s protections against discrimination could stand in conflict with international conventions like the Montreal Convention, ultimately ruling that it cannot. The court found that the CAA and Montreal Convention are clear and unambiguous and that there is no evidence these legal frameworks allow for damages claims arising from domestic human rights statutes.
4. Whether the Carriage by Air Act infringes on equality rights
The final consideration in the case was whether the CAA infringes upon equality rights guaranteed under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Equality rights are a fundamental component of Canadian constitutional law, ensuring that individuals are treated fairly and without discrimination. The complainant in Zoghbi v. Air Canada raised the argument that the CAA’s limitations on human rights claims effectively violated their right to equality, as enshrined in the Charter.
The court refused to examine whether the strict liability framework of the CAA unjustly excluded rights provided by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, particularly those based on equality rights. The court remitted this matter back to the commission, instructing it to further consider Zoghbi’s complaint that the adoption of the Montreal Convention and the CAA violates his equality rights under section 15 of the Charter.
Conclusion
The decision in Zoghbi v. Air Canada carries significant implications for the relationship between international aviation regulations and domestic human rights protections. The case illustrates the challenges of reconciling Canada’s international obligations under the Montreal Convention with its commitment to upholding human rights, particularly in sectors heavily regulated by specialized laws. Moving forward, this ruling may prompt further discussions on how best to balance the competing demands of international travel regulations and the protection of human rights for passengers. For airlines, passengers and the Canadian Human Rights Commission, the outcome of this case serves as a critical point of reference for future disputes at the intersection of aviation law and human rights protections.
Archit Gupta is an employment lawyer and an associate at Monkhouse Law. He can be reached at archit.gupta@monkhouselaw.com.
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.