tcook052

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/new-br...cket-1.4007759

A Fredericton woman is angry Air Canada told her her ticket had been revoked just minutes before she tried to board a flight to Toronto — and then kept her waiting for an explanation and refund for another two weeks.

Wpgjetse

What would cbc write about if Air Canada and Trump were not around? I'm guessing CBC reports get their breaking news from coffee shop talk.

Fizzer

It does seem to be unreasonable on AC's part though. If AC didn't make so many customer service blunders then maybe they wouldn't get the bad press. Just saying.

ridefar

Put yourself in her shoes. How many of us would be happy if AC revoked our ticket after checkin and taking our baggage and was unable to provide an explanation as to why? How many of us would lose their mind if they were stonewalled by AC in a similar situation? If AC thought the credit card was fraudulent, would AC have accepted the same cc # for a second ticket purchased same day? (Probably.)

Having said all that, if the woman received reasonable compensation (lets say AC refunded both the original and her second ticket) and was given a sincere apology, I don't really see how it is news worthy of CBC.

What is significant to me is not the screw up. Everybody screws up sometime. It is how you recover from that that matters; AC certainly didn't do a very good job there.

smallmj

So it sounds like they are refunding the price of her original (likely cheaper) ticket, but she must still pay the full last minute price. hmm

Stranger

That would seem to imply there is something else going on here and that we did not hear the entire story. Surely otherwise they would at the very least refund the second ticket, and a complaint to the credit card would likely result in that charge being cancelled anyway.

Guava

Unreasonable? Try illegal instead. Air Canada is headquartered in Montreal, QC, which means despite being a federally regulated industry, the airline must comply with Quebec's consumer protection laws. It is unlawful to charge the customer a higher price for a contract already paid at a lower price except under extremely limited circumstances specifically prescribed by law, which doesn't apply in this case.

That can't be done. Under the same law cited above, refunding a contract in full DOES NOT absolve the legal responsibility created by the original contract. This may come across as shocking in common law provinces but in Quebec, by merely refunding a contract in full, either claimed as a mistake or whatever reasons or lack of reasons, the contractual obligation created at the time when the payment was accepted, will not be absolved. Air Canada cancelling a ticket, then ask the customer to pay for a higher priced ticket on the same or later flight is completely illegal.

But it does sound like the customer in question was able to resolve the situation to her satisfaction so let's just accept this was a mistake and move on, unless the same situation keeps happening over and over again.

Stranger

Same thing in common law. Not a Quebec vs. common law issue.

Guava

No, in this scenario, the credit card company would not cancel the charge. There is no reason for them to. The charge was neither mistaken or fraudulent, it was to purchase a replacement air ticket. There are very specific grounds in which CC would act, this is not one of those situations for a charge back.

Guava

No, under common law, a contract responsibility can be considered cancelled if a full refund is received. You are welcome to prove otherwise, I am all ears.

Stranger

Only if that was acceptable to the other party. Not unilaterally.

Guava

Minus the fact the law doesn't presume in favor of the consumer under common law, which means, the consumer can still sue, yes, but with very long odds. That's a very big difference which you omit in your statement vs. Quebec law.

Stranger

Not very long odds. Between consumers and large corporations, the system tends to look favorably to consumers.

Anyway, we are talking contract law, not consumer protection.

Guava

There is nothing for them to look favorably upon if it is not prescribed by law. A judge may very well sympathize but sympathy is all they can offer. It is very much a case of consumer protection in this case, for Ms. Boer, I don't see how you can separate the two. Quebec law la Loi sur la protection du consmmateur specifically legislate on what companies can or cannot do when providing goods/services to consumers. Air Canada would be seriously infringing on several sections of this Act. And even if Air Canada has a very legitimate reason to cancel Ms. Boer's contract, the law also specifically prohibits such cancellation at a very inconvenient time, e.g. a cancellation that would cause her to be stranded at the airport would qualify. There are many specificities in this law not found under common law. A judge in Ontario who sympathizes with Ms. Boer's case would be limited in what he/she can do because the Ontario law has limited recourse for the consumer in this scenario, other than making sure she gets her refunds. And the fact she was stranded at the airport? Tough luck.

ABG

The Quebec Consumer Protection Agency has already stated countless times that it won't "go to bat" for non Quebec residents unless they transacted with a Quebec Licensed travel supplier.