Proposed Class Action against Air Canada for Flight pass expiry and fees
 

I read this in the morning and I don't see any discussion here.

http://evolinklaw.com/air-canada-expiry-classaction/

A Federally regulated airline subject to provincial laws?

Didn't our founding fathers realize the absurdity of forcing nationwide business (ie: railways) to adhere to provincial laws?

<insert lawyer and ambulance chaser jokes here>

Hope AC wins this one and finally nails down the precedent that the provincial legislatures cannot regulate them.

Not only this, but the T&Cs are clear. It's not like Air Canada did something shady here.

It's like starting a class action after spending $50,000 on a car with a 4 year warranty and then saying "well, the warranty expired 4 years after I bought the car" and wanting damages because some tort was committed.

Here's the original thread

http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/air-c...t-pass-31.html

I think this one is for all flight passes, not just the mistake price.

In most (all?) jurisdictions in Canada, it's illegal to sell a gift card with an expiry date.

It doesn't matter what you put in the terms if it's not legal.

This has nothing to do with that. I know you like linking to things from the past, but it would be helpful to verify that they're related first.

That the terms were clear is not necessarily good enough.

At least in some jurisdictions these terms would be illegal. In which case they are void.

Will be an interesting jurisdictional case but I think you'll find that absurdity is in the eye of the beholder and many complex cases have delved into areas of shared Provincial/Federal jurisdiction (and the dividing-line isn't necessarily all-or-none when it comes to various aspects of a business operations). One principle is "By virtue of the Federal precedence principle, in case of incompatibility, Federal law will have precedence over the provincial legislation but only to remedy such incompatibility." Not so clear-cut eh?

Another example test that is probably more appropriate was a case-study on potential airport privitization: "The test for determining the jurisdiction over an airport's activities is the "interjurisdictional immunity" test. The two-pronged test requires the federal party relying on the immunity doctrine to show that the provincial regulation impacts the core of the federal power over aeronautics and that it impairs the core of that power. The jurisprudence suggests that the content of the core of federal power involves decisions relating to the location, design and operation of aeronautics undertakings." It is easy how this case-study could be repurposed to fit the Canada Transportation Act, which governs airline operations.

So, the question is - are provincial expiry date regulations on flight-passes an impact on the core of the federal power over air transport?

Regardless, you won't likely get a court ruling that primary Federal jurisdiction excludes any and all provincial jurisdiction over the same corporate entity because it just doesn't work that way in this country.

Sure it does.

Why do you think MLLs can ignore provincial liquor laws?

The T&C are very clear. So I wouldn't necessarily agree with the concept of the action.

However, do folks really have sympathy for AC on this?

The same airline that imposes made up scam-charges on Aeroplan rewards? That lacks any sort of transparency or honesty or 1KK or R-space for upgrades? It's not like AC regularly shows any sense of moral duty, so why not join and see if it is possible to extract a pound of flesh from them.

My 2c worth.

This is interesting.

For the provincial laws governing expiry date of gift cards, those laws do not apply to something purchased from a vendor for a specific good or a specific service. For example, if you buy a voucher which is good for a sundae from MCD before Jan 1 2018, those laws do not prevent the expiry.

They might have a chance of arguing that the flight credits, on the "expiry" date turn into "cash like credit". The standard example of how things are supposed to work in Nova Scotia is that something like a $50 coupon for a $75 meal will, when it "expires", turns into a $50 coupon.

So, if successful, it would be a question of measuring fair market value of the residual credits.

Noi matter how clear, they don't override legislation.

Vive la difference!
 

Right, but here's the beauty of Quebec and our codified set of laws in our Civil Code - the Civil Code outlines our rights and obligations here in Quebec, and explicitly states that rights and obligations cannot be signed away, regardless of what we as consumers agree to. If the clauses are contrary to our Civil Code laws, they are without effect, or, meaningless in the eyes of the court. So, even if we are dumb enough as clients to sign, what in effect are actually contracts of lesion, here in Quebec we get automatic protections from such abuses without the bother of having to comb through related jurisprudence to try and make our case.

That's the same everywhere. Contracts cannot override legislation.