Originally Posted by
billdokes
Why would you make that assumption/assertion? I find most times when a Company or an Institution (ie: gov't) uses the 'we can't/won't discuss this because it is before the courts' it's because they DON'T WANT to discuss it, and want to keep the matter out of the public eye as much as possible.
In this case, it might be in his best interest to make this as public as possible for a variety of reasons.
Personally, I'm hoping this goes all the way to trial as it will force Air Canada to disclose a lot of things they probably don't want to around their business and pricing practices, along with the arrangements between Alliance partners, which is why I expect it will never get that far.
Because "Anything you say can be used against you in a court of law", even though this is not a criminal case.
A well-counselled firm/client will say only what their lawyer tell them to say or make a statement through their lawyer as to not express anything that may be used against them as evidence in trial.
If one party wants publicity, their lawyer would go to the press to get the media attention or at least coach their client on what to say to a reporter (someone posted an imaginary scenario with CBC, which could be a good strategy particularly when one party is an underdog in a lawsuit). They would not be telling their client to discuss an active litigation in flyertalk.com. What he is doing is basically like a plaintiff in a personal injury lawsuit claiming total disability, but posting on Instagram their workout routines. The plaintiff may indeed be injured and needs to do exercise for rehabilitation, but the appearance of them hitting the gym hard can have a tremendous impact on the perception of the judge/jury who decides the case.
Originally Posted by
Sean Peever
Assuming they can prove the unauthorized access/impersonation, and that the brownouts were caused by the excessive load, they will likely be successful in getting damages as well.
I work in insurance law. Proving business interruption and loss of profit based due to the action of one party is extremely hard. There are simply too many variables at any given moment for AC to precisely pinpoint the cause of a drop of profit. Defense can argue that the loss is due to change in customer appetites, a system shutdown due to other reasons, seasonal changes to fly demands, issues with retrieving partner seats, etc. And AC will be forced to disclose their profit making mechanism and private contracts with airline partners related to award redemption. There is no way AC will want to go to trial and disclose so much business secrets.