garykung

The purpose of the entire lawsuit is to resolve a problem. Given how the pleading was written, it is clear that OP wants the benefits back. So giving out extensions help the parties to work the problems (Note - a lot of time, a case has to be filed because of the statute of limitation. It does not mean at the time of the filing, the case is fully ready to proceed legally).

Beside - in this case, AC will get its extension this time, with or without the OP's concerns, as this is the first ever extension. So making it difficult only makes the relationship worsen.

However, IME - I would have asked AC to waive its right to seek discontinuance of the case as an exchange.

Just because a defense/answer is not filed does not mean the case never goes forward.

When a case is filed, unless for simplified proceeding, usually the Court will automatically schedule a case management conference (case planning conference in BCSC) after certain time frame of the day of filing. The parties are expected to appear to discuss the case progresses unless the cases end before the conference.

Also - even OP grants AC infinite period of extension to respond, the grant is not absolutely. The conference judge/master can in fact overrule the extension and order response filing or default judgment.

CAD$6.

Actually, it does not at all.

Litigation privilege is never about anything used in the Court. Unless filed under seal, anything filed with the Court is public record. Instead, litigation privilege is about anything created because of litigation.

For example, assuming I was a lawyer, I hired an expert to create an expert report. Unless I introduced this expert/report as witness/evidence, this report is not discoverable under the privilege, and I would have no obligation to disclose I had such witness/report.

DrunkCargo

This clarifies a lot actually, and seems consistent with what I've been reading. To be honest senior lawyers and profs don't have time to explain a lot of these procedural mechanics so I've been a bit blind through the process. Looking forward to discovery! =)

KenHamer

External counsel?

That's telling.

Indefinite does not mean forever.

I suspect DC could at any time say "your 21 days starts now."

In granting AC this courtesy I presume there is some tactical benefit.

About 15 years ago AC banned their then most prolific flyer. To tho day we still don't know the reasons.

So yes AC will cut off their head to spite their nose in enforcement their rules, as undefined as they may be.

garykung

If you want to know about the process, here are something you can do:

1. If allowed, enroll paralegal classed related to civil procedures (like LEGL 1301 Litigation for Paralegals 1 and LEGL 1302 Litigation for Paralegals 2 from VCC - this should cover the basic professional aspects of the Canada's federal and provincial civil procedures). In the alternative, buy their civil procedure textbook and read it.

2. Read this book - Represent Yourself in Court: How to Prepare and Try a Winning Case

Note - this is a book for the U.S. legal system, especially California. However, IMHO - it is one of the best books in the market if you want to know about in-depth civil procedures in plain language. So by reading this, you may not know specific Canada information, but you will know how a case proceeds (so that you know what's going on with your case).

Using external counsels is an extremely common practice in litigation.

In fact, unless your case is minor enough (like Small Claims) or one of the parties is a government entity, it is almost certain that external counsels will be involved to avoid conflict of interest.

longtimeflyin

Litigation privilege is indeed more expansive than that; however, unless one gets a lawsuit as a result of an opposing party claiming damages as a result of breach of litigation privilege, one really does not know the scope of what it entails until a judge rules on it. I may or may not have had experience with this one.

Let's set that one aside as I understand that you are using the traditional definition of litigation privilege and we can discuss that until the bees come home. While the Reply/Statement of Defence appears to be accessible based on your comment that it only costs $6 in the BSCS to pull, and anyone can pull it, information exchanged (e.g. during discovery) between the plaintiff and the defendant is protected under the implied undertaking rule (now should this get to trial everything changes), which has been in effect in the province of BC since 1995.

Not for a corporation like Air Canada. This one surprised me as well as Air Canada employs several corporate lawyers on payroll.

--
I would suggest urging some caution to the plaintiff. Even on this one topic of litigation privilege as mentioned/being discussed, one participant has used a black/white definition of this privilege, while I have used a more loose definition. Once I brought up the implied undertaking rule, this is yet another layer that prevents inappropriate disclosure. I would recommend the plaintiff seek permission from his counsel before disclosing anything in a public forum. If I've learned anything in my quasi-law days, there is always something that has not been discussed that might bite one's behind pretty strongly. Tread carefully if winning the case is something that is a priority.

RangerNS

This seems like a major lawsuit. The corporate lawyers will manage the outside bodies, but it does seem an unusual level of work to take on internally.

CZAMFlyer

As loathe as I am to use the term "I would suggest", I would suggest that we respect that the plaintiff has retained a rather experienced and expensive lawyer, who is better positioned to offer advice than those who use such dependable credentials as:

longtimeflyin

Most corporations represent themselves when sued, and even Air Canada typically represents themselves from what I glean.

https://www.canlii.org/en/#search/te...ir%20canada%22

Already discussed that everything should be deferred to the plaintiff's lawyer, but as the plaintiff has mentioned upthread, he doesn't know what he doesn't know and does not want to consume money discussing items that are not pivotal to winning his case with his lawyer, as is usually the norm. I'm not sure if you have gone through any legal case yourself, but until you do, you may not full well appreciate the fine line between leaving a question unanswered and/or asking your lawyer and getting billed for it.

yytleisure

longtimeflyin

If that were the case, the plaintiff in this case would not be making posts such as:

https://www.flyertalk.com/forum/29903177-post617.html

So in your case, just tune it out.

RangerNS

Do filings list whose name is on the lawyers paycheck? I'm not sure how I can derive anything from the cover sheets of those cases without looking up the employment of the given lawyers.

But anyway, I humbly submit for consideration that AC legal issues mostly fall into two categories: nuisance trivial small claims cases which could be handled easily internally by interns, and highly technical cases involving tariffs, international treaties, or highly detailed industry specific contracts, which indicate a highly specialized internal full time legal staff.

This case is a far more general contract problem. The details are the details, but the case can be sluffed off onto any tort lawyer and AC can keep those who have memorized international air transportation regulations free to deal with the specialty cases.

The Lev

Why is he/she still employed? By AC's actions in not quickly settling this matter, Management seem to be telegraphing that they support their employee's actions in this case. even if they didn't support those actions, membership in a trade union pretty much guarantees that the person would not be fired for what they are alleged to have said/done.

With regards to records, have you ever used a CRM? In our organisation, probably 2/3 of all employees can enter whever they want about whatever customer exists in the system.

Presumably if the Plaintiff feels it is not in his best interest to post the response here, he can let people on this thread know when it has been filed and another enterprising member of our community might invest the $6.00 on our behalf.

global happy traveller

assuming if they'd be convinced. IME there are ones that like to question further....
why is it cancelled? who cancelled it? why did they do it last minute? why are you cancelling it so many times? i'm not convinced by this, your cancelling this for etc.....

FlyerTalker70

There have been numerous instances of overzealous AC employees destroying people's travel plans, here's a couple recent examples I could find with a quick web search:

• Game Developer Misses Flight Due to AC Corporate Security Boondoggle at YVR
• Air Canada's Check-In Crack Down Needs Fixing

Safe Travel,

James

The Lev

At which point it's pretty easy to say something along the lines of "as a courtesy I answered your first question. I have neither the wish nor the need to discuss this further with you. I am on a fully refundable ticket and you have other customers to admit to the lounge. Have a lovely day."