Law360 Canada (October 4, 2024, 1:32 PM EDT) -- Appeal by Appellants from a judgment of the Federal Court of Appeal, which dismissed a challenge to the validity of regulations adopted by the Canadian Transportation Agency (Agency) except for provisions relating to the temporary loss of baggage. Following the amendment of the Canada Transportation Act (CTA), the Agency adopted the Air Passenger Protection Regulations (Regulations), which imposed certain obligations on air carriers. The Regulations included provisions that dealt with standardized amounts of compensation for international flight delays, cancellations, denial of boarding and damage or loss of baggage. The appellants challenged those provisions before the Federal Court of Appeal, while the Attorney General sought an order striking out portions of expert affidavits filed by the appellants. The Federal Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal except with respect to s. 23(2) of the Regulations, which the Court found ultra vires the CTA. It also struck the offending paragraphs of the expert affidavits. The Appellants argued that the Regulations contravened the Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules for International Carriage by Air’s (Montreal Convention) exclusivity principle and that they exceeded the Agency’s authority under the CTA. They also sought to overturn the decision regarding the admissibility of expert affidavits on questions of international law. The Respondents argued that the Regulations were not ultra vires the CTA.
Held: Appeal dismissed. Pursuant to the text of Article 29 of the Montreal Convention, there had to be an “action” that led to “damages” for the exclusivity principle to apply. The Regulations did not provide for an “action for damages” because they did not provide for individualized compensation. Rather, they created a consumer protection scheme that operated in parallel with the Montreal Convention, without trenching on its liability limitation provisions. Because the Regulations were not in conflict with the Montreal Convention, there was no basis to conclude that the provisions exceed the jurisdiction of the Agency as conferred by the CTA. The two forms of passenger compensation envisaged by the Regulations and the Montreal Convention were capable of standing together. As for the treatment of expert evidence on questions of international law, where the evidence satisfied the test from R. v. Mohan, its admissibility was within the court’s discretion.
International Air Transport Assn. v. Canadian (Transportation Agency), [2024] S.C.J. No. 30, Supreme Court of Canada, R. Wagner C.J., A. Karakatsanis, S. Côté, M. Rowe, S.L. Martin, N. Kasirer, M. Jamal, M. O’Bonsawin and M. Moreau JJ., October 4th, 2024. Digest No. Law360CDA-September302024006