24left

^^^^

24left

A couple of other thoughts on this subject:

1. I am 100% with this person's post on the CTV story:

"Francine Racette Oct. 28, 2014 11:21 AM
Abuse Abus du systčme légal par un couple de chialeux. Faut avoir rien ŕ faire pour perdre son temps avec une plainte frivole. Un 7Up c'est un 7Up dans toutes les langues. Et le Commissaire aux langues officielles qui s'en męle aux frais des payeurs de taxes. Honteux. Une décision de la Cour suprčme qui reflčte le gros bon sens."

2. On every single flight I take with AC, and especially the vast amount in the past year, I find that not only are all announcements in both official languages, but that I am impressed with the fact that on flights to TLV, announcements were also in Hebrew and Arabic, along with cabin crew who spoke these languages. Same with the flights to HND, with Japanese announcements and Japanese and other Asian language crew. Often I find the announcements include the fact that "on this flight, we also have crew who speak Spanish or German" etc.

I think it is great customer service that AC can do this (and I speak 4+ languages).

Personal anecdote: on the my recent set of 4 AC flights, I had an opportunity to speak French with one FA and German with another. We laughed briefly when we all realized how lucky we were that we could.

Perhaps those who think they a not served drinks in the right language should find another hobby.

rehoult

Actually, the SCC didn't even give them compensatory damages. It was a 100% loss for them today: all damages were disallowed due to the Montreal Convention and the supervision order that had been granted (that would have overseen AC's compliance with the law) was also struck. Only thing they won today was not having to pay AC's legal bill (and even that is only because AC didn't ask the Court for it).

PLeblond

Indeed, you are correct, however, I was referring more specifically to the $500k originally demanded that was reduced by previous courts to $12k.

Cases like this make me ashamed to be French Canadian, so I will refrain from commenting on the specifics as I fear my comments would get out of hand.

Just please remember that parasite, scroungers like this couple are the exception and most of us over here are really cool.

NordsFan

Careful reading of the decisions rendered at all levels in this matter show that the soft drink thing was not an element considered by anyone other than the excitable media and those who like to pretend that someone invoking their rights under the law is to be demonized.

The facts of the case haven't been in dispute for years.....AC admitted having breached its obligations under the ACPPA/OLA; none of the admitted breaches had any relation to the various brands of carbonated beverages served as part of AC's inflight service.

If the "7UP vs. Sprite" question was as important an issue as the media would like it to be, you would think that the Supreme Court justices might have mentioned that in this morning's decision.

They don't.....

This is what the decision summary says:

"In 2009, on three international flights operated by the airline and in an airport, the passengers did not receive services in the French language. They filed several complaints with the Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages against the airline, four of which were upheld. There is no dispute that the airline breached its obligations to supply services in French under s. 22 of the Official Languages Act (the “OLA ”) on the occasions giving rise to those four complaints. The passengers applied to the Federal Court under s. 77 of the OLA  for damages and for structural orders in relation to the airline’s breaches of their right to services in French. The airline defended against the claims for damages by relying on the limitation on damages liability set out in the Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules for International Carriage by Air (the “Montreal Convention”), which restricts the types and the amount of claims for damages that may be made against international air carriers. The Federal Court found that the passengers were entitled to both damages and a structural order, holding that although there was a conflict between the limitation on damages in the Montreal Convention and the power under the OLA to award damages, the latter prevailed. The Federal Court of Appeal set aside the award of damages for the three complaints about events that took place on board the flights as well as the structural order. It held that the Montreal Convention precluded the damages remedy and that a structural order was not appropriate."


One could have hoped that on an IBB dedicated to debating air travel, compensation, AC's political, legal and market position both pre- and post-privatization, the pertinence of an international treaty on damage claims, etc. that the case would generate some interesting exchanges.....

Instead we get simplistic nonsense.

24left

Thank you for your comment.
How unfortunate that I provided you with simplistic nonsense and did not meet your expectations related to "debating air travel, compensation, AC's political, legal and market position both pre- and post-privatization, the pertinence of an international treaty on damage claims"

NordsFan

I have zero expectations of anything on FT.

Based on the fact that Mme Racette's quote is based on the 7Up question, that part of your post was indeed fizzy nonsense.

Your bit at #2 about inflight announcements was interesting.

The last sentence of your post ("Perhaps those who think they a not served drinks in the right language should find another hobby.") saw you fall back into the trap of assuming that the plaintiffs' decision/motivation to litigate had something to do with soft drinks brands; it did not.

winnipegrev

"They weren’t just upset about the can of pop. The soft-drink incident was one of half a dozen times the couple said they were denied service in French over the course of two trips they took with Air Canada and its contract carrier, Jazz, in 2009."

Sounds to me like the famous Sprite was 1/6 of their original complaint. If the Thidodeau's don't want to get mocked they shouldn't have brought up the soft drink 'incident' in their filings. Since it was a part of their complaint, it is fair game for 24left and anyone else to laugh and point at.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/...article600774/

winnipegrev

Wait, this guy has sued TWICE over 7UP? Once in 2000 and again in 2009. How forgetful does someone have to be that AC/AC connectors carry Coke products. And frankly the asinine amount he sues for begs for him to be teased and ridiculed.

"In 2000, Thibodeau was refused service in French when he tried to order a 7Up from a unilingual English flight attendant on an Air Ontario flight from Montreal to Ottawa.

Thibodeau filed suit in Federal Court for $525,000 in damages. The court upheld his complaint, ordered the airline to make a formal apology and pay him $5,375.95. Thibodeau was later honoured by the French-language rights group, Imperatif Francais."

http://news.nationalpost.com/2013/05...7up-in-french/

24left

THANK YOU winnipegrev !!!!!!!!!

NordsFan

Hilarious.

If we keep quoting the G&M and the NP instead of reading the case documents, it's a given that the cute 7UP thing will come out on top.....a self-fulfilling fallacy.

24left

I DID NOT provide the links to the Globe or Post

mkjr

even if this person is a serial litigant, i would have thought it is fair game if the original problem is not fixed. i mean, if company A does not pay you OT and you sue them, why should you not be able to sue company A five years from now if they still don't pay OT??

winnipegrev

Is the Globe or NP wrong? What exactly are you suggesting by 'self-fulfilling fallacy'. I admitted the complaint had other angles but that he feels the need to not only bring up the soft drink but sue twice over 7UP opens him up to what I view as legitimate criticism. You don't have to agree

Where is the NP and Globe getting information on the soft drinks, anyway? I doubt Thibodeau would be silly enough to volunteer that information to them if he hadn't already put it in court filings. It is a great way to lose public sympathy over the other 5 perhaps more substantial complaints.

NordsFan

No, you didn't, nor did I imply that you had. But you sure were thankful that someone else posted them....