longtimeflyin

This is not the United States. I have touched on how this works in Canada several times already. Any lawyer who tells you this information is just raping your wallet for his or her benefit.

tcook052

From a few accounts I've read in FT hotel forums there have been infractions committed such as a member using promo or bonus codes they weren't entitled that has lead to account closure but AFAIK no account was closed or elite status stripped simply because the member made and cancelled too many hotel reservations.

expert7700

If I book and go the lounge, a good portion of the time I used lounge resouces (internet, chairs, work space, printer) to actually work on or improve the very same trip I am about to board. A deal breaker convincing me to not fly could be something major, or it could be something as simple as a hotel that didn't open up, a text or email inviting me to an event with family/friends, etc. A previously sold our flight on another carrier may open up. An award segment could open up. I could (and have) booked day of travel without checking weather at my destination then see there are storm warnings right before boarding.

Last year, on two separate occasions I even used the United POLARIS lounge without flying.

-The first time I was remorseful for booking a connection,so I skipped my polaris qualifying ord-yyz in favor of a domestic nonstop. I found and booked the new nonstop from the comfort of the Polaris lounge. I was financially harmed ***specifically due to Mr. Wong's AC ban***, I did not cancel my airfare or receive any refund that I was entitled to. Instead, since I used the lounge I felt bullied into not cancelling my original flight, and instead paid for two flights that day. result: no ban.

-The second time I used the Polaris lounge with my family. Due to a mistake by LH, there I was, back in the Polaris lounge the next day. The staff recognized me and I could see they were puzzled because there was no way I flew my original trip and back. Result; No ban.

The flip side of what Mr Wong is accused of is also likely. Just this past weekend, my family and I entered an AC MLL as arriving customers with no onward travel. After hours of research and calls , I walked up to the counter and got a stack of boarding passes including multiple AC international segments.

Stranger

Aren't we saying the same thing? Precisely that higher up they have no idea that somewhere down the totem pole, pettiness reigns and affected our friend here. No one at the top should care too much. But someone must have cared enough to have (1) cancelled his status, and (2) steadfastly refused to reopen the matter.

KenHamer

Back in the Mexican Hat Dance days we fastidiously followed every tariff rule yet Air Canada still saw fit to call us "tariff abusers" - a label I wore with pride.

In Air Canada's eyes anyone who isn't paying the maximum amount is somehow abusing the airline. They are the ultimate victim/snowflake.

Sean Peever

N.B.: All my comments are trying to just stick to the facts without preference for Mr. Wong or Air Canada

If it's being settled outside of court then everything is up for debate. If it's that important to Mr. Wong that it be public, he could make it a condition of the settlement that there is no NDA.


Yes, the lounge agents have used the word Peeve with me many times.


For 1) There is really just no way that they could do a decent job of tracking this. What if you cancel the PNR and book a new one? etc? This would be a told Cluster. Not to mention, and what I consider even the biggest issue, pissing off your customers who are actually paying you latitude or J prices. I don't think AC actually wants to do that.

Also - just a point of reference, it doesn't say in the filing anywhere that he cancelled a fully refundable fare ( latitude ).

I've been offloaded many times before (usually yyz) when I am there standing in line before pre-boarding. I just simply stay in the line holding up the gate agent until they let me on the plane.

Well now this really is turning into something popcorn worthy! I know it's not hard for CBC to pick up anything that is negative to AC, but still, this will be fun.

This would just litearlly piss off your customers who are buying latitude or J (the fare classes that are refundable). I'll be blunt, there have been many time for me when I'm through security and I need to cancel the PNR and either book a new one or just cancel it all togeather. Now, most those times, if not all those times, I'm not in the lounge - but that's just because I don't really care about the lounge as frankly I don't find it that nice or exciting. Broken chairs, no food, broken coffee machines, empty liquor bottles, garbage on all the tables, etc - no thanks I'll just grab something from a resturant.

This is a very valid point. If the plantiff bought fares that are advertised as fully refundable (such as latitude or flexiable J) then the expectation is that I can refund those fares when I don't need to travel anymore. I buy latitude a lot, and latitude flight passes, and that's because I know my plans can change. If you're going to offer me a fully flexiable fare then I expect to recieve what I paid for. If you're not going to offer that, then I'm going to fly with someone else who will.

garykung

Transpacificflyer, when I respect your opinion, here are some problems:

The issue here is OP's status has not been revoked, but suspended indefinitely. Should AC determines to revoke OP's membership, OP could have earn the status back from a *A partner, such as UA. AC's 2-year and ongoing suspension without a final disposition is in fact arbitrary and unreasonable.

(Note - Whether OP's prior acts were correct or not, the delays caused by AC standalone are sufficient enough to harm OP for damages.)

Just because AC claims no monetary value it does not mean it has no monetary value. IIRC - I have read a case that a Canadian provincial court actually awarded the cost of the award ticket in a monetary value to the plaintiff of the case (Note - award tickets do not generally carry any monetary values).

First - there is nothing saying that the BCSC can't apply the ON law in this case (to satisfy the choice of law clause). OP is suing 2 common law and 2 federal causes of action. BC or ON law won't make a big difference, as the beauty of common law is a court of law can apply precedent whenever they see fit (Yes - an ON Superior Court of Justice is allowed to cite BCSC cases when deemed necessary, and vice versa).

Second - moving the case to ON Superior Court of Justice is meaningless. If AC loses the case, AC will have to be responsible for OP's travel cost as well. Also - when a case has filed, it means it is serious enough. Moving the cases is only a temporary fix.

Third - given the majority of the incidents occurred in BC rather than ON, BCSC is actually a better forum for the dispute. In fact, ON Superior Court of Justice can refuse to exercise jurisdiction even agreed upon under the doctrine of forum non conveniens.

Are you seriously believing that?

The problem is the news cycle. Without any efforts, this case makes to mainstream media within days of filing. Even assuming AC is right and should win, AC will still suffer significant amount of bad press, which is not ideal in the perspective of risk management.

This is why UA has to resolve Dao incident so quickly that even a lawsuit has not been filed against UA.

24left

And @DrunkCargo Welcome back.

DrunkCargo

Thank you friend of AF358!

Sunny Day

Mr. Wong was either #1 or top 5 in previous EYW contests - my guess is upper management probably was pissed at his success in winning and used his flight cancelations as an excuse to exclude him from playing. As already stated, it is a fully refundable fare, you don't have to provide AC with a reason to cancel. AC must have marked up his file with a litany of comments and refused to provide him access upon his PIPEDA request. There will be a price to pay for non-compliance. I also hope he wins. And the judge throws the book at AC and sets a huge fine as deterrence and make an example out of them for these abusive corporate behaviour.

KenHamer

"Imagine" is definitely the right word.

If he has that kind of legal firepower behind him then I suspect Air Canada is the underdog.

JustSomeGuy1978

I see a new ac fare class. Mll class. Access to the mll only

longtimeflyin

Yes, and no. I'll explain how this works and then try and come up with a scenario that might be able to accomplish what you are suggesting, but even in that case it makes no sense financially.

In general, and in this case, once a pleading is filed and served against the defendant, in this case, Air Canada, the defendant is required (for all intents and purposes) to defend themselves, and this causes them to have to incur legal expenses (again, for all intents and purposes). If the plaintiff then withdraws the pleading, then the defendant is allowed to recover all of his or her costs because they were forced to incur legal expenses.

For example, if I sue you in superior court, and you spend money to have to file a reply, and then I withdraw my claim, you are entitled to your money back - and that is perfectly fair because you were forced to spend money that you didn't have to prior to me suing you, so the fairest outcome is for the courts to award costs to you in order to make you whole again (which is really the objective of many civil litigation cases).

Now, let's assume, in your case, that Mr. Wong and Air Canada does settle out of court, then Mr. Wong and Air Canada would have to draw up a contract deciding how costs are dealt with, and if the terms are breached by each party - to then sue each other over breach of contract. This ultimately costs even more money and time - and let's be blunt here, Air Canada would most likely subject their settlement to a NDA anyways.

Now, in your example you have brought up a scenario whereby you are assuming Mr. Wong will not allow for the settlement to be kept privileged, then in that case it is still far easier for Mr. Wong to withdraw his pleadings with the court through the usual process, exchange an offer to settle, agree to settle, and simply in the offer itself mention that the offer is not subject to settlement privilege, and have Air Canada accept. (if both parties agree to waive privilege, then yes, the offer to settle can be made public). Should that happen, it is the cheapest and most cost effective way to settle this case without having to enter into a side contract as well dealing with items in the pleading and how costs/confidentiality is dealt with. The latter is almost unheard of.

Air Canada could however request this be handled through mediation/arbitration should Mr. Wong accept but this is highly unlikely given the plaintiff has now filed his pleading with the BCSC.

PS - a NDA and settlement privilege are two wholly different things. For the outcome of this case to be made public, a NDA must not be signed by Mr. Wong or Air Canada, and both parties would have to waive settlement privilege. However, I understand what you are inferring, but thought it'd be best to clarify this as this is a legal case being discussed.

Edited to add: Once a case has begun, and the case has been settled, settlement privilege is automatically at play. It must be waived by both parties in order for it to be "lifted". An offer to settle is more or less defined as an offer to bring the case to an end (I'm not using legal jargon here for a reason). An offer may resolve one or more, or all issues in the case, and what may surprise many is that while the courts love their forms, there is no official form for an offer to settle (at least in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice). There are a whole plethora of reasons why this is, but I'll end here. There are also a whole host of requirements in an offer to settle but as it has happened in many cases, an offer to settle can be and has been drawn on napkins and random pieces of paper.

Thus, even if Mr. Wong and Air Canada try and settle this issue using a "contract" on the side, I would still surmise that if either parties went back to court to declare their side contract as an offer to settle, the courts would probably still view it as such* (provided it met the conditions required in an Offer). I guess one could attempt what you are suggesting Mr. Peever, but that'd be a pretty difficult feat to accomplish here. In conclusion, settling this in the traditional process while waiving settlement privilege and both parties agreeing that there is no confidentiality aspect here is the easiest, and financially prudent way to go.

*The courts have the right to set aside a contract.

longtimeflyin

It would be far easier to have this sort of provision in fully refundable fares:

"Air Canada reserves the right to deduct the cost of entry into a Maple Leaf Lounge from the refund of the fare provided the customer has entered the Maple Leaf Lounge prior to applying for the refund or credit of the flight"

Cost of entry being dependent on whether it be domestic/transborder or international.

canadiancow

They could have attempted that anyway. Send him a bill for a few dollars and tell him he will keep receiving an invoice if this behavior continues.