October 4 th 2024: International Air Transport Association v. Canada (Transportation Agency)
Taken from the SCC press release:
The Montreal Convention is an international agreement that Canada signed in 2001 and that has been implemented into Canadian law. It sets out certain conditions and limits on what airlines can be required to pay passengers to compensate for international flight disruptions. Article 29 of the Montreal Convention says that any “action for damages” within the scope of the agreement is subject to those conditions and limits. This is called the “exclusivity principle”, because it prevents a person from bringing an “action for damages” not subject to the conditions and limits even if there is another basis in law to do so.
Writing for a unanimous Court, Justice Rowe explained that the Montreal Convention is exclusive within the scope of the matters that it addresses but does not deal comprehensively with all aspects of international carriage by air. Under Article 29, there must be an “action” that leads to “damages” for the exclusivity principle to apply. However, the Regulations do not provide for an “action for damages” because they do not provide for individualized compensation. Rather, they create a consumer protection scheme that operates in parallel with the Montreal Convention, without trenching on its liability limitation provisions. Thus, they do not fall within the scope of the Montreal Convention’s exclusivity principle.
Since the Regulations do not give rise to liability that is pre-empted by Article 29, they do not conflict with the Montreal Convention and there is no basis to conclude that they are outside the jurisdiction of the Agency.
Comentarios