Travelers Charter | The Supreme Court rejects the airline lobby

It is a decision that represents a victory for consumer advocates. In a unanimous judgment, the Supreme Court of Canada rejects the air lobby, which tried to invalidate provisions of the travelers charter which govern international flights. Let’s see what this means for you.

Defined framework

Were you refused boarding when boarding the plane due to the flight being overbooked? Your compensation could reach $2,400. In the event of cancellation, you could receive compensation of up to $1,000. For lost or damaged baggage, the payment could reach $2,300. These amounts concern international connections. By rejecting the appeal of a group of airlines, the highest court confirms the validity of the Air Passenger Protection Regulations (RPPA). “The compensation is standardized,” underlines lawyer Sylvie De Bellefeuille, of Option consommateurs. It’s reassuring, we have just validated the Regulations. This is a win for consumers. »

Common front

The International Air Transport Association (IATA), the lobby that represents more than 300 airlines around the world, and nearly 20 carriers, including Air Canada, Delta Air Lines and Air France, were trying to overturn the RPPA measures that affected international flights. The reason? The regulation exceeded the authority of the Canadian Transportation Agency (CTA) – responsible for its application – in addition to violating the international rules of the Montreal Convention. This multilateral treaty ratified by 120 countries also allows travelers to claim compensation in the event of flight disruption or when their luggage is lost. The Supreme Court rejected the plaintiffs’ argument. The RPPA can coexist with the Montreal Convention, rules the highest court in the country.

The difference

The Travelers Charter and the Montreal Convention have the same objective, namely to protect travelers, but these two tools work differently. In the case of the international treaty, there is no standardization. It all depends on the mechanism of an action for damages. “What does that mean?” Take legal action, calculate my losses and prove it, explains M^e From Bellefeuille. These are individual elements for each person. » With the Montreal Convention, the traveler must therefore claim the amount he deems justified, which can be contested by an airline. “The RPPA does not provide for an action for damages,” underlines the Supreme Court. Rather, it creates a consumer protection regime. »

Predictable reactions

Unsurprisingly, defenders of travelers’ rights, such as Option consommateurs, welcome the decision of the country’s highest court, which puts an end to disputes over compensation provided for international flights. “This decision confirms the right of Canadian passengers to be treated fairly,” says Gabor Lukacs, founder of Voyageurs Rights. On the IATA side, we can only wave the white flag in this matter. “The Association is disappointed by the decision taken by the Supreme Court of Canada,” she said in a statement. A coalition of industry representatives had filed a lawsuit seeking to enforce the liability provisions of the Montreal Convention, a treaty to which Canada is a party. »

Work to do

The Supreme Court’s decision, however, does not resolve a fundamental problem in the airline industry: the inability of the OTC, responsible for enforcing the RPPA, to process the 78,000 pending complaints. Hoping to reverse the trend, the agency recently proposed charging an airline nearly $800 for each complaint received. This could cost 18 million annually to carriers, who are already stepping up to the plate. Consultations are planned on this issue until October 21.

Visit the Air Passenger Protection Regulations (APPR) website