A Nova Scotia man has won a $1,050 judgment against Air Canada after he was bumped off a flight and sued the country's largest passenger airline after it refused to compensate him.

Lachance, of Waverley, was heading from Halifax to Whitehorse to teach computer classes to corporate clients. He had booked his flights a couple of weeks in advance and Air Canada routed him through Toronto and Vancouver.

In Vancouver — the last leg of his trip — ​Lachance boarded the plane to Whitehorse with a valid boarding pass. But before the plane took off, he was told to get off the flight because the airline had sold the same seat to another passenger.

88 For the above reasons and on the above facts, I was satisfied that

1. what happened in Vancouver was a “denied boarding” within the meaning of Rule245AC;
   
2. it was not a “mis-connection” within the meaning of Rule 240AC because Air Canada was in fact able to deliver Mr Lachance to Toronto “in time to connect with” AC 153, and then again in time to connect with AC 289; and
   
3. Air Canada was not entitled on the facts to cancel Mr Lachance’s confirmed reservation on AC 289 pursuant to Rule 135 because
   
   1. he had in fact checked in, and
      
   2. he had in fact presented himself at the Vancouver gate at least 20 minutes prior to the scheduled departure time.

85 Air Canada’s “floodgate” argument is simply an attempt to bolster what it says is the correct interpretation of Rule 245AC. Air Canada’s interpretation would result in it being able to cause a “previously confirmed space” to cease to be “previously confirmed” simply by unilaterally offloading the passenger and cancelling his or her confirmation “in order to operate at full capacity” (to use the words of its customer service agent). As I have already noted, that interpretation ignores the word “previously.” A “confirmed space” can cease to be “confirmed” once it is changed. But a “previously confirmed” space does not cease to have been “previously confirmed” once it is changed. The other point of course is that if Air Canada’s interpretation were accepted then it is difficult to see when Air Canada would ever have to pay compensatory damages for denying boarding to a passenger whose seat had been “previously confirmed.”

86 Air Canada’s argument also ignores what I take to be the underlying rationale for Rule 245AC. The Rule is based on the recognition that both parties to the contract of carriage–Air Canada and the passenger–have an interest in the commitments that have been made by each to the other once a ticket is confirmed. The passenger commits to showing up on time. Air Canada commits not to delay a passenger in his or her trip (subject of course to factors beyond its control). Rule 245AC recognizes that if Air Canada decides to over book “in order to operate at full capacity” then it may do so. But in that event it must also compensate a “previously confirmed” passenger for any resulting delay caused by that over booking. That quid pro quo strikes me as only fair and reasonable. A passenger’s time has value. He or she has organized that time around the previous commitment made by Air Canada with respect to departure times. If Air Canada decides to change that commitment solely for reasons of maximizing its own profits, why should it not compensate the passenger for the impact of that decision on the passenger’s time?

90 Mr Lachance also seeks general damages for Air Canada’s breach of Rule 245AC in the amount of $100.00, the limit of such damages that can be awarded in this court. In my opinion such an award is appropriate. Air Canada failed to comply with an obligation that its customer service agent initially acknowledged existed, and instead acted as if some other form of compensation was appropriate for what had happened. It ignored, in other words, its own Tariff.

91 To add insult to injury it took the position that Mr Lachance was “mistaken” as to what flight he was on when he left Toronto for Vancouver. I think too I can take judicial notice of the fact that Air Canada presents itself to the public as a professional carrier which can be relied upon to provide positive travel experiences to its customers; to treat them with respect; and to honour their booked and confirmed itineraries to the extent possible. Air Canada recognized when it entered into its contract of carriage with Mr Lachance that a long and unexpected delay spent in an airport is neither a pleasant nor a happy experience, and that such a delay would cause some distress to him. (Indeed, this understanding is reflected in the fact that the compensatory damages payable under Rule 245AC increase with the length of the delay.) This then is an appropriate case for damages: see, for e.g., Fidler v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Canada 2006 SCC 30 (CanLII), 2006 SCC 30. All of this supports an award of $100.00 for general damages for Air Canada’s breach of its Tariff.