Lindy Rouillard-Labbé

Air carriers challenged federal regulations providing standardized compensation to passengers for flight delays, cancellations, denial of boarding, and lost or damaged baggage, arguing the regulations conflicted with the exclusivity principle in Article 29 of the Montreal Convention as implemented by the Carriage by Air Act and were therefore ultra vires the Canadian Transportation Agency's regulation-making authority under the Canada Transportation Act.

The Supreme Court held that the exclusivity principle applies only to 'actions for damages' that share the characteristics of judicial proceedings seeking individualized compensation tied to injury caused by another.

Because the impugned regulations create a consumer protection scheme providing standardized statutory entitlements irrespective of harm actually suffered, they do not constitute 'actions for damages' and do not fall within Article 29's scope.

The Court also clarified that the Mohan framework governs admissibility of expert evidence on questions of international law.

Appeal dismissed.

This is Part 10 of a series of joint decisions in multi-jurisdictional class actions (Ontario and Quebec).

Class Counsel sought further revisions to the Distribution and Individual Issues Protocol (DIIP), specifically to increase the $6,000 costs cap for Track 2 claims to $12,000, and to add a clause about Rule 49 of the Rules of Civil Procedure applying to Track 2/3 claims, and to apply ordinary costs rules for contested Track 2 motions.

The court approved the latter two unopposed requests but denied the request to increase the costs cap, emphasizing proportionality and the need to simplify procedures rather than increase costs.

This decision, Part 9 of a series in a multi-jurisdictional class action, addresses bitterly contested motions by both the Attorney General of Canada and Class Counsel to revise the Distribution and Individual Issues Protocol (DIIP).

The dispute centered on the scope of reply position statements for Track 2 claims.

Canada sought to limit replies strictly to mitigating factors and causation rebuttal, while Class Counsel argued for broader replies to new issues raised by Canada.

The court denied both parties' specific requests, instead directing a revision to allow Canada a right of sur-reply if a claimant files a reply, and imposing an increased payment to the Manager/Expert in such instances.

The ruling aims to ensure fair, efficient, and proportionate litigation while discouraging procedural abuses by either party.