mapleg

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.

CZAMFlyer

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.

jazzsax

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!

KenHamer

So I guess everyone understands the origins of the phrase "lounge dragon" now.

KenHamer

They have a 3rd option: settle out of court.

Plumber

Hence wanting the International Lounge- it is better than DOM.

longtimeflyin

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.

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.

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.

jazzsax

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.

canadiancow

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.

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.

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.

jazzsax

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.

Plumber

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.

rjp123

This one is especially concerning to me.

Jumper Jack

Did Eric ever got anything for entering into a Tolling Agreement in Jan?

longtimeflyin

Agreed. A summary judgement also has to be much more clearly defined case.

jazzsax

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.