Jun 21, 2018, 3:36 pm
Last edit by: canadiancow
Pertinent details/events/articles:
- https://goo.gl/ioL7Tx
- Original email sent to Mr. Wong, accusing him of abuse of MLL privileges: https://www.flyertalk.com/forum/26733198-post38.html
- CBC article: https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/briti...ourt-1.4717202
- VFTW post: https://viewfromthewing.boardingarea.com/2018/06/22/man-has-airline-status-yanked-for-refunding-tickets-after-using-airport-lounges-now-hes-suing/
- FBT story Air Canada ‘Super Elite’ Sues Airline After Status is Revoked for Using Airport Lounges Without Flying
- TPG post: https://thepointsguy.com/news/air-canada-super-elite-traveler-sues-carrier-over-revoked-airline-status/
Super Elite suspended; lawsuit filed but amicably settled out of court
Jul 7, 2018, 11:50 pm
#916
Suspended
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: YVR
Programs: Air Canada Super Elite 2+ Million Miles
Posts: 2,478
What a load of rubbish.
Q - for criminal law specialists does the Wong claim rise to the threshold that can lead to criminal proceedings against the MLL agent & any supervisor/mgmt who directed such actions? No.
Q - If answer is yes, do we know whether Wong has made a criminal complaint to the Richmond BC RCMP detachment who are responsible on Sea Island where YVR is located for investigations of non-aviation related criminal allegations? N/A
Q – given the serious nature of Wong claim 51.e, and if the claim remains unproven by Wong, does this public written statement rise to the level of Criminal Defamatory Libel, per Sec 298? No.
Q - If answer is NO, i.e. NOT level of criminal defamatory conduct, might still a civil defamation claim against Wong arise as damage may arise to personal reputation of the AC MLL Agent who will be known by fellow staff, mgrs, 3rd party investigators/advisors, friends, family etc.? No.
Labour Relations / Union Grievance – as having managed multiple unionized workplaces in my career, and dealt with sufficient # of grievances that I’m acutely aware that the harassment of staff or public accusations against staff by customers, well this can quickly lead to union-sponsored grievance that, in sum, the employer has failed to protect staff from workplace harassment.
Q – could someone with labour relations legal background comment on how 51.e, which alleges serious personal mis-conduct might play out. As workplace laws protect staff from being forced to execute an unlawful order, the MLL Agent had every right to deny any unlawful actions called for by mgmt., yet, according to the claim, the MLL agent acted in concert with mgmt. against Wong. As such, how might all this be interpreted by the AC unions representing this agent and even unionized supervisors, as AC mgmt. could on behalf of Wong act against staff via informal reprimand, formal disciplinary actions, loss of promotional opportunities or even outright termination? As an aside, what may on the surface appear as a commercial contract dispute, could hurt real people, NOT getting paid that much, just doing their jobs as instructed, and find themselves on the pointy end of this claim. No one other than the bargaining unit can say how it might interpret these events. No one other than the employees can say whether or not they feel aggrieved.
Q - might you further observe how this claim could impact the existing labour relations contract, if AC mgmt. fails to support staff in what Wong claims appears to be wrongful actions by the MLL agent acting under AC mgmt. instructions? Not at all.
Q - does 51.e make an NDA protected settlement even harder to achieve as without AC undertaking to repudiate the Wong public statement the unions may object that this unfairly tarnishes the staff and leaves in the public domain the unsettled 51.e. allegation? No.
Finally, for national security law practitioners, should this reach a public trial, and Wong repeats the statement made by OP herein to having voluntarily cancelled the ticket while in the MLL and was physically present in the YVR Restricted area and CBSA controlled TDF, without lawful authorization to remain, can AC, or anyone for that matter, make a criminal complaint against Wong regarding alleged violation of relevant national security laws & regs?
Q - As Wong claims in para. 26 to be a highly experienced travel Hobbyist, does this reinforce the notion that Wong should have, or ought to have known that cancelling the ticket while in the MLL was an offense against various National Security statutes? He cannot have actual or constructive knowledge of something that is false.
Q - for criminal law specialists does the Wong claim rise to the threshold that can lead to criminal proceedings against the MLL agent & any supervisor/mgmt who directed such actions? No.
Q - If answer is yes, do we know whether Wong has made a criminal complaint to the Richmond BC RCMP detachment who are responsible on Sea Island where YVR is located for investigations of non-aviation related criminal allegations? N/A
Q – given the serious nature of Wong claim 51.e, and if the claim remains unproven by Wong, does this public written statement rise to the level of Criminal Defamatory Libel, per Sec 298? No.
Q - If answer is NO, i.e. NOT level of criminal defamatory conduct, might still a civil defamation claim against Wong arise as damage may arise to personal reputation of the AC MLL Agent who will be known by fellow staff, mgrs, 3rd party investigators/advisors, friends, family etc.? No.
Labour Relations / Union Grievance – as having managed multiple unionized workplaces in my career, and dealt with sufficient # of grievances that I’m acutely aware that the harassment of staff or public accusations against staff by customers, well this can quickly lead to union-sponsored grievance that, in sum, the employer has failed to protect staff from workplace harassment.
Q – could someone with labour relations legal background comment on how 51.e, which alleges serious personal mis-conduct might play out. As workplace laws protect staff from being forced to execute an unlawful order, the MLL Agent had every right to deny any unlawful actions called for by mgmt., yet, according to the claim, the MLL agent acted in concert with mgmt. against Wong. As such, how might all this be interpreted by the AC unions representing this agent and even unionized supervisors, as AC mgmt. could on behalf of Wong act against staff via informal reprimand, formal disciplinary actions, loss of promotional opportunities or even outright termination? As an aside, what may on the surface appear as a commercial contract dispute, could hurt real people, NOT getting paid that much, just doing their jobs as instructed, and find themselves on the pointy end of this claim. No one other than the bargaining unit can say how it might interpret these events. No one other than the employees can say whether or not they feel aggrieved.
Q - might you further observe how this claim could impact the existing labour relations contract, if AC mgmt. fails to support staff in what Wong claims appears to be wrongful actions by the MLL agent acting under AC mgmt. instructions? Not at all.
Q - does 51.e make an NDA protected settlement even harder to achieve as without AC undertaking to repudiate the Wong public statement the unions may object that this unfairly tarnishes the staff and leaves in the public domain the unsettled 51.e. allegation? No.
Finally, for national security law practitioners, should this reach a public trial, and Wong repeats the statement made by OP herein to having voluntarily cancelled the ticket while in the MLL and was physically present in the YVR Restricted area and CBSA controlled TDF, without lawful authorization to remain, can AC, or anyone for that matter, make a criminal complaint against Wong regarding alleged violation of relevant national security laws & regs?
Q - As Wong claims in para. 26 to be a highly experienced travel Hobbyist, does this reinforce the notion that Wong should have, or ought to have known that cancelling the ticket while in the MLL was an offense against various National Security statutes? He cannot have actual or constructive knowledge of something that is false.
ill await a more fulsome response as I’m sure OP might benefit from understanding the various nuances that the claim generates and explanations thereof
Jul 7, 2018, 11:58 pm
#917
Suspended
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: YVR
Programs: Air Canada Super Elite 2+ Million Miles
Posts: 2,478
The obligation neither rests with govt nor AC for you to understand your obligations under law - Sec 19 of the Criminal code is explicit in this regard.
Acting first, seeking permission later is definitely good way to create attention for yourself from the law enforcement establishment.
And back to OP, a hobbyist can make NO excuse of lack of knowledge
Jul 8, 2018, 2:12 am
#918
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: YYC
Posts: 23,804
These things obviously can work either way. Still, I suppose on the whole, flyers like clarity. OTOH airlines, which are the side setting up rules might prefer them not to get invalidated. As long as there is ambiguity they are typically able to use their rules to bully the customers. Who may well take these rules as gospel even if their enforceability is dubious.
Jul 8, 2018, 4:40 am
#919
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: ZOA, SFO, HKG
Programs: UA 1K 0.9MM, Marriott Gold, HHonors Gold, Hertz PC, SBux Gold, TSA Pre✓
Posts: 13,811
However, it is impossible to open up the Canadian market. In short, Canadian market is only 10% or less of the size of the U.S. market. Even the Government of Canada allows foreign carriers for domestic routes, the demand is simply not high enough to attract carriers to invest.
Per a CBC Marketplace investigation, there is a reason why Canadian often have to spend more money than the U.S. counterpart in buying the same item.
Q - If answer is NO, i.e. NOT level of criminal defamatory conduct, might still a civil defamation claim against Wong arise as damage may arise to personal reputation of the AC MLL Agent who will be known by fellow staff, mgrs, 3rd party investigators/advisors, friends, family etc.?
Q – could someone with labour relations legal background comment on how 51.e, which alleges serious personal mis-conduct might play out. As workplace laws protect staff from being forced to execute an unlawful order, the MLL Agent had every right to deny any unlawful actions called for by mgmt., yet, according to the claim, the MLL agent acted in concert with mgmt. against Wong. As such, how might all this be interpreted by the AC unions representing this agent and even unionized supervisors, as AC mgmt. could on behalf of Wong act against staff via informal reprimand, formal disciplinary actions, loss of promotional opportunities or even outright termination? As an aside, what may on the surface appear as a commercial contract dispute, could hurt real people, NOT getting paid that much, just doing their jobs as instructed, and find themselves on the pointy end of this claim.
Finally, for national security law practitioners, should this reach a public trial, and Wong repeats the statement made by OP herein to having voluntarily cancelled the ticket while in the MLL and was physically present in the YVR Restricted area and CBSA controlled TDF, without lawful authorization to remain, can AC, or anyone for that matter, make a criminal complaint against Wong regarding alleged violation of relevant national security laws & regs?
(The problem, in short, is a hobbylist is not professionally trained in term of airport security law. However, a person with airport clearance is required to have some kind of security training periodically.)
Last edited by garykung; Jul 8, 2018 at 4:50 am
Jul 8, 2018, 4:59 am
#920
Suspended
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: YVR
Programs: Air Canada Super Elite 2+ Million Miles
Posts: 2,478
agree with you about safe travel, and unfortunately civil aviation remains a high priority target, including here in Canada, such as this which includes AC
https://toronto.ctvnews.ca/mobile/to...lled-1.3024290
Canadian flights targeted in British terror plot
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...service=mobile
OP has every right to press a claim for alleged mistreatment- at the same time such claims have yet to be proven and unclear why ina civil contract matter, the suit is accusing AC staff of unlawful authority to hold Wong in the MLL, and how this supports the civil claim for damages related to loss of status?
if Wong is successful - fine, if NOT, then would be highly instructive to what is or not acceptable behaviour towards AC staff, and other clarifications arising from the claim.
in fact, OP posted this very same need for clarity in the past few days.
https://toronto.ctvnews.ca/mobile/to...lled-1.3024290
Canadian flights targeted in British terror plot
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...service=mobile
OP has every right to press a claim for alleged mistreatment- at the same time such claims have yet to be proven and unclear why ina civil contract matter, the suit is accusing AC staff of unlawful authority to hold Wong in the MLL, and how this supports the civil claim for damages related to loss of status?
if Wong is successful - fine, if NOT, then would be highly instructive to what is or not acceptable behaviour towards AC staff, and other clarifications arising from the claim.
in fact, OP posted this very same need for clarity in the past few days.
Jul 8, 2018, 5:08 am
#922
Original Member
Join Date: May 1998
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 6,222
Jul 8, 2018, 6:12 am
#923
Suspended
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: YVR
Programs: Air Canada Super Elite 2+ Million Miles
Posts: 2,478
Contrary to your belief, law is all about ambiguity, which leaves rooms for interpretation.
Not true. The correct characterization is "in most legal cases".
I express no comment on pro-consumer laws, as that will be related to Canada's politics.
However, it is impossible to open up the Canadian market. In short, Canadian market is only 10% or less of the size of the U.S. market. Even the Government of Canada allows foreign carriers for domestic routes, the demand is simply not high enough to attract carriers to invest.
Per a CBC Marketplace investigation, there is a reason why Canadian often have to spend more money than the U.S. counterpart in buying the same item.
No - Only the Crown can make criminal prosecutions. Even allowed, private criminal prosecutions are extremely rare and are usually not allowed (as one must petition the Court for leave to do so).
N/A - See above.
No - Statements made in a court proceeding is exempted from defamation. However, depending on the extent of the statement, the court can impose necessary civil and/or criminal sanctions to ensure proper administration of justice. For example, if OP loses the case, he can be ordered to pay for AC's legal fees and costs (subject to taxation).
If the MLL agent acted after consulting the management, it will be unlikely for that agent to face any actions at all.
No impact. No individual has been named in this lawsuit.
A NDA is intended to protect the materials from third-parties. In this case, AC employees and/or union are not third-parties. So it will never make thing harder. In fact - OP can discuss the settlement, if exists, with any AC employees when he feels like to share.
No - See above.
No - being a hobbylist makes no impact. On the other hand, hypothetically, a statement mentioning that OP has some kind of airport clearance will actually make the case worse.
(The problem, in short, is a hobbylist is not professionally trained in term of airport security law. However, a person with airport clearance is required to have some kind of security training periodically.)
Not true. The correct characterization is "in most legal cases".
I express no comment on pro-consumer laws, as that will be related to Canada's politics.
However, it is impossible to open up the Canadian market. In short, Canadian market is only 10% or less of the size of the U.S. market. Even the Government of Canada allows foreign carriers for domestic routes, the demand is simply not high enough to attract carriers to invest.
Per a CBC Marketplace investigation, there is a reason why Canadian often have to spend more money than the U.S. counterpart in buying the same item.
No - Only the Crown can make criminal prosecutions. Even allowed, private criminal prosecutions are extremely rare and are usually not allowed (as one must petition the Court for leave to do so).
N/A - See above.
No - Statements made in a court proceeding is exempted from defamation. However, depending on the extent of the statement, the court can impose necessary civil and/or criminal sanctions to ensure proper administration of justice. For example, if OP loses the case, he can be ordered to pay for AC's legal fees and costs (subject to taxation).
If the MLL agent acted after consulting the management, it will be unlikely for that agent to face any actions at all.
No impact. No individual has been named in this lawsuit.
A NDA is intended to protect the materials from third-parties. In this case, AC employees and/or union are not third-parties. So it will never make thing harder. In fact - OP can discuss the settlement, if exists, with any AC employees when he feels like to share.
No - See above.
No - being a hobbylist makes no impact. On the other hand, hypothetically, a statement mentioning that OP has some kind of airport clearance will actually make the case worse.
(The problem, in short, is a hobbylist is not professionally trained in term of airport security law. However, a person with airport clearance is required to have some kind of security training periodically.)
Jul 8, 2018, 6:30 am
#924
Suspended
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: YVR
Programs: Air Canada Super Elite 2+ Million Miles
Posts: 2,478
so allow me please to correct my previous posts based on your sage comments- in no manner could I make the excuse I did NOT know the law and its application in Cdn airports.
Jul 8, 2018, 8:11 pm
#925
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: YYZ
Programs: AC SE MM, Bonvoy Plat, Hilton G,Nexus, Amex MR Plat,IHG Plat
Posts: 4,426
Really for the amount this customer spends (used too) on AC, even if AC thought there was misuse of the cancellable tickets for lounge access, they could just bring it to the attention of the customer. What good can come of this ? Yes, I understand one party could win this court case but is it worth all the aggravation, costs, media coverage, etc ? Seems a bit weird from a corporate perspective. Almost vindictive but I don't have all the facts so we will have to wait and see.
Jul 8, 2018, 9:42 pm
#926
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: ZOA, SFO, HKG
Programs: UA 1K 0.9MM, Marriott Gold, HHonors Gold, Hertz PC, SBux Gold, TSA Pre✓
Posts: 13,811
@garykung Law strives for clarity.
Using one of the most discussed T&Cs in this case as an example:
Air Canada Altitude status is a privilege, which can be revoked by Air Canada at its discretion.
Any act or omission by the Air Canada Altitude member or anyone acting on his/her behalf which is detrimental to Air Canada or any one of its partners in Air Canada Altitude, may result in any or all of the following: revocation of membership, prohibition of membership for a number of years regardless of flying activity, revocation of mileage accumulation as part of Air Canada Altitude, without prejudice to any other rights or recourses of Air Canada, including but not limited to the right to recover damages.
However, this is the exact purpose of the term. By not defining the circumstances, this CYA term, AC reserves all rights to revoke, even it has no reason to do so. If AC strives for clarity and defines the circumstances, this move will actually work against AC, as AC's authority will be severely constrained by its own terms.
Hence, the ambiguity.
Jul 8, 2018, 10:01 pm
#927
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Shanghai
Posts: 42,036
Ambiguous laws are poorly written laws, full stop. (I studied Chinese law at SLS during the late 90s, and the key objective was achieving clarity that was severely lacking at the time.)
Jul 8, 2018, 10:10 pm
#928
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: BGI (ex-YYC, YYZ)
Programs: AC*G-E100K (once again)
Posts: 1,701
So when is the hearing? Maybe we can make it into a Do lol
Jul 8, 2018, 10:32 pm
#929
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: YYZ
Programs: AC SEMM / HH Diamond
Posts: 3,166
Jul 9, 2018, 5:31 am
#930
Original Poster
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: YVR
Programs: Ice Cream Club, AC SE MM, Bonvoy Life Plat
Posts: 2,803
Been reading through first year case books (just contracts and torts) for US and Canada (common law)... far from being a lawyer, and being married to one for over 10 years I'm constantly reminded of this, but at least I understand some of what my lawyers are saying. It's less "technical" than IT stuff for sure, and it looks like it changes much slower... seems like a new future side career. Years ago I read through the first year of UK, but it was super confusing with all the language dating beyond the 1600's... then they restructured all the court names and hierarchy to confuse reading further. Ambiguity is a result of a long history. Some serious shoulders we stand on for sure... It also peeves me that we use a natural language (Say English) to articulate laws... talk about an ambiguous platform on which to rest a system of rules. But, it's one that's (loosely) understood by more commoners than say, Haskell or REXX.
As I understand it with no more than a google search's worth of knowledge, Civil law likely strives for less ambiguity as it seems like judges have less power in those systems... And, Civil law has no bearing in this case.
Law has ambiguities. Legal practitioners attempt to apply those ambiguities to achieve a goal, sometimes greedy, sometimes altruistic. (well run) Corporations typically do not waste resources on altruistic goals, however individuals I think mostly do. Presumably law makers try to remove ambiguities as conflicts arise... does this seem accurate? It all feels like stuff we learn in Social Studies 8, or philosophy 9...
It's a hurry up and wait right now... I do have a meeting with AC next week, but I'm not holding my breath. The silly games their inexperienced juniors have been playing are totally a waste of resources and time. Court seems faster, but I will keep an open mind.
As I understand it with no more than a google search's worth of knowledge, Civil law likely strives for less ambiguity as it seems like judges have less power in those systems... And, Civil law has no bearing in this case.
Law has ambiguities. Legal practitioners attempt to apply those ambiguities to achieve a goal, sometimes greedy, sometimes altruistic. (well run) Corporations typically do not waste resources on altruistic goals, however individuals I think mostly do. Presumably law makers try to remove ambiguities as conflicts arise... does this seem accurate? It all feels like stuff we learn in Social Studies 8, or philosophy 9...
It's a hurry up and wait right now... I do have a meeting with AC next week, but I'm not holding my breath. The silly games their inexperienced juniors have been playing are totally a waste of resources and time. Court seems faster, but I will keep an open mind.
Last edited by tcook052; Jul 9, 2018 at 8:16 am Reason: remove off topic