Nope. read the basis of the award.
This was a rather brutal case as the commissioners found the conduct of some of the airline personnel cruel and deficient.
The implicated crew were found to have bullied/humiliated etc. a minor. Compounding the issue was that the family was abandoned at the airport with no luggage, and no assistance. I think part of the issue was how Air Canada handled this matter after the family was tossed. Perhaps the decision is contrary to the Montreal Convention. However, the Commission addressed that when it stated that the airline's deficient acts of service were a violation of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Sorry to say, but that's a rather smart way around the Montreal Convention. An agreement to limit civil liability cannot put aside an international agreement on basic human rights.
Besides, the Air Canada defense did not rely on the Montreal Convention
Bingo. You are one of the few who get's it. That's what the commissioners saw, and that's what I believe happened. Nonsuprisingly,
it seems that none of the forum super elites understood that salient point.
Apparently counsel was present and the legal defense was part of the reason why the commission decided against Air Canada. Counsel argued that because Jet Airways received the airfare, there was no contract of carriage between the plaintiffs and Air Canada. That argument was rightfully dismissed. Laughable too. (I suspect some articling student was used.
)
BTW, I don't know where the $75,000 comes from. Jet Airways and Air Canada were found jointly and severally liable for 3,500,000 rupees which is about $65,000 or $32,000 each. It's Jet Airways that should be complaining since it is being held vicariously liable for the actions of Air Canada.