Go Back  FlyerTalk Forums > Miles&Points > Airlines and Mileage Programs > Air Canada | Aeroplan
Reload this Page >

Super Elite suspended; lawsuit filed but amicably settled out of court

Super Elite suspended; lawsuit filed but amicably settled out of court

    Hide Wikipost
Old Jun 24, 18, 7:07 am   -   Wikipost
Please read: This is a community-maintained wiki post containing the most important information from this thread. You may edit the Wiki once you have been on FT for 90 days and have made 90 posts.
 
Last edit by: canadiancow
Wiki Link
Print Wikipost

Old Jun 21, 18, 9:15 am
  #421  
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: トロント
Programs: AC E50K, Accor , ANA, Avios
Posts: 4,621
I find paragraph 26 in the claim an interesting one. Many of us here would meet that "hobbyist" criteria methinks.

I have never bothered with the Earn Your Wings contests--not really my cup of tea, but I suppose some had a particular obsession with it.
mapleg is offline  
Old Jun 21, 18, 9:53 am
  #422  
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: YVR
Programs: Bottom feeder Star Gold
Posts: 2,651
I think the airline's actions are a response to the gamers being gamed. While we all suspect that the plaintiff's travel plans (wink wink) suddenly changed not as a result of client circumstance, I don't think we can point to any behaviour not specifically permitted under Air Canada's or anybody else's own rules.

Good luck to the plaintiff and may his future travel be less dramatic.
CZAMFlyer is offline  
Old Jun 21, 18, 10:01 am
  #423  
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: YYC / random hotel in YYZ
Programs: Back of the bus
Posts: 824
We all know who this was. More power to him. I'm assuming filing the claim is because of inaction on AC's part, and obviously trying to file before any limitation period runs out.

Sometimes formal action is what gets these things addressed. AC has no choice but to either file a notice of intention to defend, followed by a statement of defense, or ignore it, in which case he can bring a request for Summary Judgement. I doubt AC would want that --- they will fight this one.

CHeering from calgary with popcorn in hand!
jazzsax is offline  
Old Jun 21, 18, 10:07 am
  #424  
Original Member
 
Join Date: May 1998
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 6,219
So I guess everyone understands the origins of the phrase "lounge dragon" now.
KenHamer is offline  
Old Jun 21, 18, 10:08 am
  #425  
Original Member
 
Join Date: May 1998
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 6,219
Originally Posted by jazzsax View Post
We all know who this was. More power to him. I'm assuming filing the claim is because of inaction on AC's part, and obviously trying to file before any limitation period runs out.

Sometimes formal action is what gets these things addressed. AC has no choice but to either file a notice of intention to defend, followed by a statement of defense, or ignore it, in which case he can bring a request for Summary Judgement. I doubt AC would want that --- they will fight this one.

CHeering from calgary with popcorn in hand!
They have a 3rd option: settle out of court.
KenHamer is offline  
Old Jun 21, 18, 10:10 am
  #426  
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: YOW
Programs: AC-SE100K, AC-3MM, Marriott- LT Titanium, SPG RIP
Posts: 2,818
Originally Posted by longtimeflyin View Post
They are pretty sorry lounges in the first place.
Hence wanting the International Lounge- it is better than DOM.
Plumber is offline  
Old Jun 21, 18, 10:14 am
  #427  
Suspended
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Programs: AC
Posts: 2,167
Originally Posted by jazzsax View Post
Sometimes formal action is what gets these things addressed. AC has no choice but to either file a notice of intention to defend, followed by a statement of defense, or ignore it, in which case he can bring a request for Summary Judgement. I doubt AC would want that --- they will fight this one.
A motion for summary judgement in this case is incredibly unlikely to be approved by the courts. This is 1) a relatively complex matter and 2) the costs consequences for Mr. Wong is he loses the summary judgement are pretty significant. Right now, if things proceed through the judicial manner in the traditional process, it would appear that Mr. Wong's legal costs, at least on a partial if not substantial basis, may be reimbursed. If he proceeds with a motion for summary judgement, the risk of paying his own legal fees on top of Air Canada's becomes much larger. Costs aside, I highly doubt a judge will allow this case to be "tried" through summary judgement.

Originally Posted by KenHamer View Post
They have a 3rd option: settle out of court.
Unfortunately for us then, notwithstanding the fact that Air Canada will most likely request Mr. Wong to sign a NDA, settlement privilege will preclude us from knowing the outcome.

Originally Posted by Plumber View Post
Hence wanting the International Lounge- it is better than DOM.
This would be the equivalent, to me, of going to Wendy's for "5* dining" vs going to McDonalds. They are still both pretty terrible.
eracerblue likes this.

Last edited by longtimeflyin; Jun 21, 18 at 10:19 am
longtimeflyin is offline  
Old Jun 21, 18, 10:32 am
  #428  
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: YYC / random hotel in YYZ
Programs: Back of the bus
Posts: 824
Originally Posted by KenHamer View Post
They have a 3rd option: settle out of court.
Yes, but in the meantime they still need to file a notice of intention to defend and file some sort of statement of defense otherwise the plaintiff could technically note them in default.

Wouldn't be surprised if they ended up settling in the end, but you can bet legal is working up a response already.
jazzsax is offline  
Old Jun 21, 18, 10:33 am
  #429  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: SFO
Programs: AC SE MM, Bonvoy Tit LT Sil, Hyatt Glob, HH Diamond, Accor Gold, UA Silver
Posts: 39,158
Originally Posted by Jaimito Cartero View Post
Reminds me of a certain bovine...


I can assure you that my Super Elite status was never suspended.

It shouldn't take more than 5 seconds to piece together who this is, especially given that half the regulars on this forum have met Mr. Wong in person.

Anyway, this has been a long time coming. I've suffered "damages" from this case as well, as I lost my EYW travel partner. So I have a very vested interest in how this plays out. It would be nice to have a reunion in EYWv8.

Originally Posted by Plumber View Post
Hence wanting the International Lounge- it is better than DOM.
I'm sure scrolling up through this thread will have my thoughts on this, but we're not talking about the Signature Suite. We're talking about YVR international, pre-renovation. The plaintiff is a $25 taxi ride from the airport.

Would it be worth $50 at YVR now, during meal hours? Maybe. But I still suspect you could buy a bottle of better scotch and order in some better food for less than $50.

Then there are claims like "Specifically, Air Canada was advised that in 2015, the Plaintiff flew on Air Canada or Star Alliance flights approximately 150 times and was entitled to use the Maple Leaf Lounge approximately 300 times."

How many "abuses" would actually constitute a pattern?

But again, this case seems to have evolved beyond "boo hoo I have no status".

Look at paragraph 66: "a breach by Air Canada of section 7 4.06 of the Competition Act"
67: "a breach by Air Canada of section 74.06, of the Competition Act"
76-79 allege PIPEDA violations

If these claims are proven true, AC is in a lot more trouble than just having to pay someone whatever they can agree upon for the value of SE.

On June 18, 2016, the Plaintiff was travelling on an Air Canada flight from Vancouver to Victoria with several friends when he was escorted off the plane and detained by Air Canada employees after he and everyone had boarded, and made to submit while the Air Canada employees scrutinized his identification and, ultimately, allowed the Plaintiff Eric Wong to re-board the plane after subjecting him to humiliation in front of fellow passengers, including his friends.
I remember that. @philelite remembers that. I can't recall who else was there, but there were a few of us. It was absolutely ridiculous. We had all boarded, they came on, and told Mr. Wong he had to get off and go with them. A few minutes later, they came to collect his jacket from the overhead bin.

Then there was the time I tried to guest him into the YVR domestic MLL after we flew, in business class, YYZ-YVR, which I am fully entitled to do as a Super Elite. Nope. Supervisor got called, and the end result was "Mr. Kennedy, you can enter. Mr. Wong, you cannot." Wasted 20 minutes of my time and was extremely frustrating. That was actually a denial of one of my advertised Super Elite benefits.

Anyway, my point is, I hope he wins.
Xyzzy, MSPeconomist, wrp96 and 4 others like this.
canadiancow is offline  
Old Jun 21, 18, 11:02 am
  #430  
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: YYC / random hotel in YYZ
Programs: Back of the bus
Posts: 824
longtimeflyin - i'm sure he will get competent advice. Yes, this probably needs to be adjudicated at trial, i'm simply mentioning the next steps. Obviously summary judgement requires quantified damages (which he hasn't laid out in the claim) so it would likely go the trial route if AC doesn't settle. Regardless --- AC needs to file some sort of notice of intent to defend otherwise Wong could begin next steps towards getting some sort of judgement / result.

AC has dragged their butt's, now they have to react in the specified amount of time and get moving. They're taken two years without a response, no wonder this was filed.
longtimeflyin likes this.

Last edited by jazzsax; Jun 21, 18 at 11:08 am
jazzsax is offline  
Old Jun 21, 18, 11:03 am
  #431  
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: YOW
Programs: AC-SE100K, AC-3MM, Marriott- LT Titanium, SPG RIP
Posts: 2,818
Originally Posted by longtimeflyin View Post
This would be the equivalent, to me, of going to Wendy's for "5* dining" vs going to McDonalds. They are still both pretty terrible.
I completely agree- I was just pointing out that there is a quality difference between INTL and DOM... I would never go to the airport to eat at a Lounge with no intention of travelling-- gross!! I spend enough time in airports as it is.

But people do it...for whatever reason.

Nor am I saying Mr. Wong did or didnt do as AC alleges. I do not have a stake in the fight.

The whole thing is bizarre to me.
longtimeflyin likes this.
Plumber is offline  
Old Jun 21, 18, 11:12 am
  #432  
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Worldwide
Programs: UA MileagePlus Premier Platinum, HHonors Diamond
Posts: 286
Originally Posted by canadiancow View Post
76-79 allege PIPEDA violation.
This one is especially concerning to me.
rjp123 is offline  
Old Jun 21, 18, 11:17 am
  #433  
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Location: YYZ
Programs: Eupgrade4Lyfe, Gifted E50K, 777HDPeasant or The Unexpected Virtue of Ignorance and Narcissism.
Posts: 5,691
Did Eric ever got anything for entering into a Tolling Agreement in Jan?
Jumper Jack is offline  
Old Jun 21, 18, 11:23 am
  #434  
Suspended
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Programs: AC
Posts: 2,167
Originally Posted by rjp123 View Post
This one is especially concerning to me.
Originally Posted by jazzsax View Post
longtimeflyin - i'm sure he will get competent advice. Yes, this probably needs to be adjudicated at trial, i'm simply mentioning the next steps. Obviously summary judgement requires quantified damages (which he hasn't laid out in the claim) so it would likely go the trial route if AC doesn't settle. Regardless --- AC needs to file some sort of notice of intent to defend otherwise Wong could begin next steps towards getting some sort of judgement / result.

AC has dragged their butt's, now they have to react in the specified amount of time and get moving. They're taken two years without a response, no wonder this was filed.
Agreed. A summary judgement also has to be much more clearly defined case.
longtimeflyin is offline  
Old Jun 21, 18, 11:24 am
  #435  
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: YYC / random hotel in YYZ
Programs: Back of the bus
Posts: 824
Yes - he had 6 months of which the clock "Stopped" so he could still seek civil remedy if AC did not negotiate or settle in good faith. Essentially his clock on when he had to file paused. tolling period expired at which point the action was filed.

I can't speak for him, don't know him, but my guess is the 6 months was to give AC time to propose a settlement... i'm going to guess they didn't bother (or something suitable to Eric wasn't proposed) so now he has filed and is forcing them to waste internal legal resources to fight this.

He has a vested interest to fight this. He's lost benefits. It's not like he was a bottom feeder with AC, he was paying premium fares. Baffles me how they would treat him.
jazzsax is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread