9283 v. Travel Industry Council of Ontario, 2015 CanLII 26060

Licence Tribunal

Appeal d'appel en Tribunal matière de permis

DATE: 2015-04-26

FILE: 9283/TIA

CASE NAME: 9283 v. Travel Industry Council of Ontario

An appeal of a Decision of the Board of the Travel Industry Council of Ontario to Disallow a Claim

Appellant Appellant

-and-

Travel Industry Council of Ontario Respondent

REASONS FOR DECISION AND ORDER

ADJUDICATOR: D. Gregory Flude, Vice-Chair

APPEARANCES:

For the Appellant: No one appeared

For the Respondent: Soussanna Karas, Counsel

Heard in Toronto: March 27, 2015

REASONS FOR DECISION AND ORDER

1The Appellant appealed from the decision of the Board of the Travel Industry Council of Ontario (“TICO”) to deny his claim for compensation. The Appellant was not in attendance at 9:30 a.m. on March 27, 2015 when the hearing was scheduled to commence. The Tribunal delayed the commencement of the hearing until 10:00 a.m. to give the Appellant the opportunity to appear or to contact the Tribunal to explain his absence. Tribunal staff made efforts to contact him at the telephone number he had provided to the Tribunal, all to no avail. The Tribunal commenced the hearing in his absence.

2The Tribunal noted that the Appellant had attended the pre-hearing in this matter on January 28, 2015. The date for the hearing was set at the pre-hearing after consultation with both parties. A copy of the Pre-Hearing Order was sent to the Appellant by regular mail on March 3, 2015. A second copy of the Pre-Hearing Order was sent to the Appellant by courier on March 25, 2015 and receipt was acknowledged on March 26, 2015. The Tribunal is satisfied that the Appellant was given notice of the hearing date, both personally by his attendance at the pre-hearing conference and by his receipt of the Pre-Hearing Order.

3The facts of the case are set out in the documents provided by TICO. They include documents apparently authored by the Appellant setting out his position. The facts not in dispute concern the bankruptcy of a travel agency, Sky Asia Travel, to which the Appellant paid $1,630.00 for round trip travel to Vietnam. He was to travel on January 31, 2014 returning on April 30, 2014. Sky Asia Travel ceased doing business on January 16, 2014 and the Appellant was provided with a claim form sometime after that date but still in January.

4TICO is charged with the administration of a Compensation Fund established under the Travel Industry Act, 2002, S.O. 2002, c. 30, Sched. D (the “Act”). In particular, O. Reg. 26/05 passed under the Act sets out strict timelines for making a claim:

Time for claim

60. (1) A customer or a registrant may make a claim to be reimbursed in writing to the board of directors within,

(a) six months after the relevant registrant or end supplier becomes bankrupt or insolvent or ceases to carry on business, if the claim is made under section 57, 58 or 59; or

(b) three months after the relevant registrant becomes bankrupt or insolvent or ceases to carry on business, if the claim is made under section 57.1 or 58.1.

(2) A claim to be reimbursed that is made after the end of the time period specified in subsection (1) is not valid.

5TICO does not take issue with the fact that, but for the missed limitation period, the Appellant’s claim is one that would fall within the regulatory compensation scheme. It feels bound, as the statutory trustee of the Compensation Fund, by what it considers the unambiguous wording of the regulation concerning the consequences of late filing. There is no discretion set out in the legislation that appears to give TICO the authority to extend the time limit. While the Licence Appeal Tribunal Act, 1999 does give the Tribunal discretion to extend the time limit for making an appeal to this Tribunal, there is no discretion to extend time limits for making a claim to the Board for compensation. According to TICO, the latest date upon which the Appellant could make a claim was six months after Sky Asia Travel ceased business, that is, July 17, 2014. The consequence of the Appellant’s failure to make his claim in a timely manner is that he no longer has a valid claim. The Appellant filed his claim on July 23, 2014.

6In a letter dated August 19, 2014 in support of his claim, the Appellant states that he had filed a claim in January. He is not specific about the date. He goes on to say that, when he had heard nothing about his claim by July 10, 2014 he instigated enquiries. Thus, seven days before the expiration of the claims period he addressed his mind to making a claim, yet he still did not file a claim until approximately one week after the limitation period expired. He provides no explanation for this late filing except to say that he contacted someone called “Jason” who dealt with TICO on his behalf.

7The Tribunal agrees that the wording of s. 60 of O. Reg. 26/05 is unambiguous with respect to the limitation period for filing claims and the consequences of missing the filing deadline. The only issue for the Tribunal to consider is the possibility that the Appellant filed his claim in January 2014. In its documents, TICO denies receipt of anything from the Appellant until July 23, 2014. In the absence of evidence from the Appellant to establish that he filed a claim in January 2014, the Tribunal can find no support for the Appellant’s allegations in this regard. The Appellant’s claim must fail.

ORDER

8Pursuant to the authority vested in it by s. 71(6) of O. Reg. 26/05, the Tribunal refuses to allow the Appellant’s claim for compensation from the Compensation Fund of the Travel Industry Council of Ontario.