Originally Posted by
RCyyz
But there's the rub. What has AC done wrong?
I think most of us will agree that cancelling a ticket is not cool. Cancelling a ticket and not telling the pax is worse. And cancelling a return portion of a ticket (and not telling the pax) is morally unconscionable.
But it's not illegal.
Furthermore, it's in the fine print. AC is doing what they are entitled to do and you agree to it when you buy the ticket.
I would hope there's a legal argument in here. I'm quite certain there's a moral argument to be made. But I'm not sure there's any legal recourse so what can your MP actually do, other than try to force a Canadian corporation to rewrite their contracts (the Terms of Carriage)?
You are completely wrong. There is a legal argument and it is clearly stipulated in art. 2126 C.C.Q.
Original version in French:
Originally Posted by art. 2126 C.C.Q.
L’entrepreneur ou le prestataire de services ne peut résilier unilatéralement le contrat que pour un motif sérieux et, même alors, il ne peut le faire à contretemps; autrement, il est tenu de réparer le préjudice causé au client par cette résiliation.
Il est tenu, lorsqu’il résilie le contrat, de faire tout ce qui est immédiatement nécessaire pour prévenir une perte.
English translation:
The contractor or the provider of services may not resiliate the contract unilaterally except for a serious reason, and never at an inopportune moment; otherwise, he is bound to make reparation for injury caused to the client as a result of the resiliation.
Where the contractor or the provider of services resiliates the contract, he is bound to do all that is immediately necessary to prevent any loss.
AC's behavior is in breach of Section 2126 of C.C.Q. which it legally bound to as an airline headquartered in Québec, notwithstanding what its ToC says. The law supersedes AC's ToC.
To meet the standard of "serious reason" under the law in the scenarios of this thread, AC would need to show the airline cannot be reasonably expect to be paid if it were to transport the pax as agreed on the original contract. Expecting to miss only a small portion of the total payment or due to partial payment, is not considered a serious reason as established under
Covexco Construction inc. c. Stasiak
Further to that, the Supreme Court of Canada has already ruled that provincial consumer protection law can work in conjunction and complement with a federally regulated industry such as the banks. Given that airlines are also federally regulated, like the banks, the SCC precedent would support that AC cannot escape the their legal responsibility as set by relevant provincial laws by claiming being federally regulated. The banks tried that argument and failed.
It's a nice try really but the legal argument against AC is as solid as it can be. Other provinces will have similar provisions or variations of thereof. It is not surprising why AC insists that such cases must be judged in Calgary, AB. But as long as your provincial law prohibits unilateral cancellation of contracts and permits you to file your case at your home province, the ToC of AC is of no effect.
I also find it puzzling that you don't seem to understand the job of MPs. They write laws. They don't need to force a corporation to rewrite their contract, they can simply impose by rewriting the federal law to prohibit such contract. What do you suppose happened last year in the Air Miles fiasco? Ontario provincial MPPs rewrote their law essentially to force Air Miles to give up the point expiration policy. MPs in Ottawa can most definitely rewrite theirs to explicitly void such language in the current ToC of AC.