The appellant purchased airline tickets for her sister and niece.
Following a flight delay, the relatives assigned their claims against the airline to the appellant, who sued in Small Claims Court.
The airline successfully moved to strike the claim on the basis that the assignment was invalid under the Conveyancing and Law of Property Act and violated the rule against champerty and maintenance.
On appeal, the Divisional Court set aside the order, finding the motion judge erred in law by concluding the Act only applied to real property and by finding the assignment champertous despite the appellant's pre-existing financial interest in recouping her expenses.
The matter was remitted to the Small Claims Court.
