The plaintiffs commenced an action for damages arising from destroyed cargo within the two-year limitation period under the Warsaw Convention, but failed to serve the statement of claim on the defendant airline within the time required by the Rules of Civil Procedure.
The defendant appealed a master's order extending the time for service, arguing that the action was not 'brought' within the meaning of Article 29 of the Convention because it was not served within two years.
The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that 'brought' means initiating the legal proceeding, not initiating and serving it, and that Ontario procedural rules govern the extension of time for service.
