Tribunal File Number: 13790/TIA
Appeal from a Decision of the Board of the Travel Industry Council to Disallow a Claim
Between:
Samra Rehman
Appellant
and
Travel Industry Council of Canada
Respondent
DECISION AND ORDER
ADJUDICATOR: Avril A. Farlam, Vice-Chair
APPEARANCES:
For the Appellant: Samra Rehman, Self-represented
For the Respondent: John Park, Counsel
Heard by videoconference: June 10, 2022
REASONS FOR DECISION AND ORDER
background
1Samra Rehman (the “appellant”) appealed the decision of the Board of Directors of the Travel Industry Council of Ontario (“TICO”) made December 16, 2021.
2At that time, TICO determined that the appellant’s claim is not eligible for reimbursement from TICO because it was received after the filing deadline set out in s. 60(2) of O.Reg. 26/05 (the “Regulation”) made under the Travel Industry Act, 2002, S.O. 2002, c. 30, Sched. D. (the “Act”).
3Section 71 of the Regulation provides for an appeal to the Tribunal if TICO determines that a claim or any part of a claim is not eligible for reimbursement.
ISSUE
4The issue to be determined is whether I should under s. 71(6) of the Regulation allow the appellant’s claim and direct TICO to pay the amount out of the Travel Compensation Fund (the “Fund”) or, refuse to allow the appellant’s claim.
result
5For the reasons set out below, I refuse to allow the appellant’s claim for compensation from the Fund.
LAW AND ANALYSIS
6TICO administers the Fund established under the Act.
7Section 60(1) of the Regulation provides that a customer or a registrant may make a claim to be reimbursed from the Fund in writing to TICO within six months after the registrant or end supplier becomes bankrupt or insolvent or ceases to carry on business.
8Section 60(2) provides that a claim to be reimbursed that is made after the end of the time period in s. 60(1) is not valid.
Facts
9Here the facts are not in dispute. The appellant testified that in January 2020 she paid $2,630.00 to Albarkah Travel and Tours Inc. (“her travel agency”) for airfare for herself and her mother to travel to Pakistan later in the 2020. Because of the COVID-19 pandemic they were unable to travel as planned and she asked her travel agency for a refund. Instead, she was offered a travel voucher said to be good for two years, which she accepted.
10In June 2021, the appellant contacted her travel agency and learned that it had gone bankrupt. The appellant admitted that when she contacted TICO about filing a claim to the Fund, she was told that it was too late to file a claim. The appellant filed her claim with TICO anyway in August 2021.
11The TICO decision in December 2021 was that the appellant’s claim was received beyond the statutory filing deadline. Her travel agency ceased operations on October 1, 2020 and the filing deadline for the appellant’s expired April 2, 2021.
12In cross-examination the appellant admitted that her travel agency ceased operation on October 1, 2020, that the six month deadline for making her claim to TICO expired April 2, 2021, that her claim filed on August 11, 2021 was made beyond the six month deadline, and that she knew she had missed the deadline when she filed her application to TICO. The documents filed by TICO, including the appellant’s application, establish these dates.
13As a result, it is clear that the appellant’s claim to TICO was made some four months after the time limit in s. 60 had expired.
Appellant’s Position
14The appellant testified that she appealed to the Tribunal in order to ask for an exemption to the six month deadline because she has a sympathetic position in that her travel agency lied to her and gave her a travel voucher she couldn’t use. Further, she had never booked plane tickets before, and she had no idea what was going on. The appellant believes the six month deadline is unfair, this is not her fault, and someone should have contacted her, especially since she was only 22 years old at the time. The appellant also testified that she was not aware that her travel agency had ceased operations on October 1, 2020 until after the six month deadline had passed. Also, the loss of the money she paid to her travel agency will be a financial hardship on her.
TICO’s Position
15TICO’s position is that the Fund acts like an industry insurance fund made up of contributions from the industry. Its purpose is to protect consumers who have dealt with a travel agency. While the appellant has a claim, she has not complied with the statutory deadline for submitting her claim. Section 60(2) of the Regulation makes it clear that a claim made beyond the six month statutory time limit is not valid. Neither TICO or the Tribunal has the authority to override this statutory time limit and to do so would be a legal error.
16I agree with the TICO’s submission that s. 60(2) of the Regulation is clear and there is no basis for the Tribunal to override the statutory deadline including the reasons put forward by the appellant. As the Tribunal has said before, “…s. 60 of the Regulation is unambiguous with respect to the limitation period for filing claims and the consequences of missing the filing deadline.”1 As a result, I refuse to allow the appellant’s claim.
ORDER
17Pursuant to s. 71(6) of the Regulation, I refuse to allow the appellant’s claim for compensation from the Fund.
LICENCE APPEAL TRIBUNAL
Avril A. Farlam, Vice-Chair
Released: June 27, 2022
Footnotes
- See for example, 9283 v. Travel Industry Council of Ontario, 2015 CanLII 26060 (ON LAT) per Vice Chair D. Gregory Flude at para. 7.