COURT FILE NO.: CV-12-448628
DATE: 20140526
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
B E T W E E N:
alton a. robotham
Plaintiff
- and -
westjet airlines
Defendant
Alton A. Robotham, Plaintiff, Self-Represented
Michael Dery and Kathryn McGoldrick, for the Defendant
HEARD: April 7 to 10, 2014
SPENCE J.
REASONS FOR DECISION
[1] Mr. Alton A. Robotham (the “Plaintiff”) claims for damages arising from the breach by WestJet Airlines (the “Defendant” or “WestJet”) of its contract with the Plaintiff for his return trip to Toronto on September 25, 2011 when WestJet refused to allow the Plaintiff to board the flight.
[2] The Plaintiff also claims for damages in negligence on the ground that by refusing to transport him, WestJet failed to discharge the standard of care that applied in respect of its duty to the Plaintiff.
[3] The Plaintiff pleads that by refusing to transport him, WestJet violated s. 1 of the Identity Screening Regulations, SOR/2007-82 under the Aeronautics Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. A-2. The Plaintiff does not plead that WestJet owed a duty of care to him to comply with the Regulations.
Background Facts
[4] The Plaintiff is a Canadian citizen who carries on business in the Toronto area.
[5] On September 18, 2011 the Plaintiff attended at Toronto Pearson International Airport, Terminal 3 to board WestJet Flight 2702. At the ticket counter, the Plaintiff was requested to provide his ticket and identification. The Plaintiff presented his e-ticket and Canadian Citizenship Card which was accepted and he was given his boarding pass. The Plaintiff arrived in Montego Bay, Jamaica, without incident.
[6] The Plaintiff’s flight was the first part of a trip to Jamaica with a return ticket to Toronto one week later. The Plaintiff had not tried to find out what travel documents he would need to complete his trip.
[7] On September 25, 2011, the Plaintiff went to the WestJet counter in the airport in Jamaica to access his return flight to Toronto. The WestJet counter representative requested the Plaintiff’s ticket and identification. The Plaintiff presented his e-ticket and Canadian Citizenship Card. The WestJet counter representative called the WestJet Duty Manager to verify that the Plaintiff’s identification was acceptable. The Duty Manager asked the Plaintiff for his passport and the Plaintiff said that he did not have one. The Plaintiff presented his Ontario Driver’s License, his Ontario Health Insurance Plan card and his Social Insurance Number card.
[8] The WestJet Duty Manager told the Plaintiff that he would have to obtain a passport before he would be permitted to board the plane. The Plaintiff told the WestJet Duty Manager and counter representative that he had a contract that he might lose if he did not return to Toronto by a specific date and that he would sue WestJet if he lost the contract. The Duty Manager was adamant that the Plaintiff would not be allowed on WestJet Flight 2703 to Toronto and that he had to obtain a passport before he would be allowed to board. The Duty Manager subsequently phoned Toronto to keep the Plaintiff’s flight status valid so that it could be activated when the Plaintiff re-booked his flight. The Plaintiff received a bus card from the Duty Manager with two phone numbers to call when the Plaintiff was ready to re-book his flight.
[9] Following WestJet’s refusal to transport him on September 25, 2011, the Plaintiff did not attempt to determine whether another airline would transport him to Toronto without a passport. He did not take any steps to obtain an emergency Canadian passport.
[10] After spending almost two weeks more in Jamaica, the Plaintiff obtained a Jamaican passport and re-booked his flight via the Internet to return to Toronto on October 9, 2011 via WestJet Flight 2703. On returning to the WestJet counter on October 9, 2011 the Plaintiff was requested to present his ticket and identification. The Plaintiff told the counter representative that he had booked his ticket via the Internet and presented his Jamaican passport and Canadian Citizenship Card. The Duty Manager who had been on duty September 25, 2011 was present that day. The Duty Manager approved the Plaintiff’s documents and the Plaintiff was permitted to return to Toronto on his scheduled flight.
[11] The Plaintiff claims that WestJet breached the contract between the Plaintiff and WestJet by allowing the Plaintiff to board WestJet Flight 2702 on September 18, 2011 with his Canadian Citizenship Card and subsequently not allowing the Plaintiff to board WestJet Flight 2703 on September 25, 2011 with the same identification.
Damages
[12] The Plaintiff says that at the time he arranged to fly to Jamaica he was engaged in making what he calls a “career change” from the business he had previously carried on of pest control and extermination to a new business of home design and construction on which he had recently embarked with his first project – the design and construction of a house at 61 Denvale Road in Toronto. The construction work on the house was underway when he left Toronto for a contemplated 7-day trip to Jamaica. He says that the refusal of WestJet to carry him on the return flight resulted in his not being able to return to Canada until October 9, 2011; i.e. two weeks later than expected.
[13] In the Statement of Claim the Plaintiff claims for damages consisting of (1) the earnings he would have earned to complete the project at 61 Denvale Road; (ii) the amounts that are payable by him to subcontractors for their work on the project; and (iii) his foreseeable losses as a direct result of the loss of the Denvale project in respect of his experience and competence and also to his website interactive tutoring and promotion of his business.
Issues and the Law
Whether WestJet is Liable to the Plaintiff
[14] As set out below, WestJet is required, pursuant to legislation and government policy, to thoroughly screen passengers travelling to Canada to ensure that when they present themselves to a Canada Border Services Agency (“CBSA”) officer, they will be able to be permitted to enter the country. This task involves assessing the integrity of the documents presented for the purpose of identifying the passenger’s identity and status. Failure to do so may result in penalties to WestJet should the passenger be denied entry, including fines and other expenses, loss of license, and seizure of aircraft.
WestJet’s International and Transborder Tariff
[15] The key terms of the contract of carriage between the Plaintiff and WestJet are set out in WestJet’s International and Trans-Border Tariff (the “Tariff”).
[16] Section 110 of the Air Transportation Regulations, SOR/88-58 (the “ATRs”), requires every air carrier who operates an international service to have a tariff. Section 122 of the ATRs states that a tariff must address certain conditions of carriage, including exclusions from liability respecting passengers. Tariffs must be filed with the Canadian Transportation Agency (the “CTA”). The CTA is a quasi-judicial tribunal and an economic regulator. The CTA issues operating licenses to air carriers and has the authority to strike down unreasonable portions of a carrier’s tariff.
[17] WestJet’s Tariff contains the following Rule 8A (4) as to refusal to transport and Rule 8D as to liability for refusing carriage:
RULE 8. REFUSAL TO TRANSPORT
A. The carrier may reserve the right to refuse to transport or may remove from any flight any passenger for any reason, including but not limited to the following:
(4) Travel Documentation Requirements – The carrier will refuse to transport: any passenger, who in the carrier’s opinion:
(a) the travel documents of such passenger are not in order;
(b) such passenger's entry into, transit through or embarkation from Canada or any other point would be unlawful.
D. Liability of Carrier for Refusing Carriage of a Passenger
Except as otherwise provided for in this Rule 8 and to the extent permitted by law, THE CARRIER SHALL NOT BE LIABLE TO ANY PASSENGER or other person for refusing to board or transport that passenger or any person on an aircraft of the Carrier or for otherwise removing a passenger from the aircraft at any point in the flight; nor shall the Carrier be liable to any of the passengers or other persons for exercising its discretion not to refuse to board or transport or remove any passenger or other person on or from the aircraft.
[18] The Plaintiff understood that his ticket was subject to applicable terms and conditions and specifically the WestJet Tariff.
[19] Rule 5.1(a) under the Tariff, entitled “Responsibility of Passenger” provides as follows:
Each passenger desiring transportation across any international or transborder boundary shall be responsible for obtaining all necessary travel documents and for complying with the laws of each country from, through or to which he desires transportation, and unless applicable laws provide otherwise, shall indemnify the carrier for any loss, damage, or expense suffered or incurred by the carrier by reason of such passenger’s failure to do so. The carrier shall not be liable for any aid or information given by any agent or employee of the carrier to any passenger in connection with obtaining such documents or complying with such as, whether given orally or in writing or otherwise; or for the consequences to any passenger resulting from his failure to obtain such documents or to comply with such laws.
Air Carrier Obligations
[20] The Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. C-27, (“IRPA”) places certain obligations on air carriers, but these do not include an obligation to transport to Canada a passenger who presents a Canadian Citizenship Card (a “CCC”) as a travel document.
[21] Section 148(1) of the IRPA provides that transportation companies such as WestJet “must not carry to Canada a person who is prescribed or does not hold a prescribed document, or who an officer directs not to be carried”.
[22] Section 259 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations, SOR/2002-227, (the “IRPA Regulations”) lists prescribed documents for the purposes of s. 148(1). These do not include a CCC. The listed documents are all documents which would be in the possession of foreign nationals, not Canadians.
[23] Under the IRPA, WestJet must also “carry from Canada a person whom it has carried to…Canada and who is prescribed or whom an officer directs to be carried”. [Emphasis added.] Consequently, if WestJet carries to Canada an inadmissible person or a person it is directed not to carry, it will be responsible to remove that person from the country. Pursuant to section 148(2) of the IRPA, if WestJet “fails to comply with an obligation” under the IRPA, security provided by it or its aircraft may be seized and/or forfeited.
[24] The IRPA Regulations provide for additional consequences and penalties for airlines that violate their obligations under the IRPA. Where a transporter has been notified by an officer that it is required to carry a person from Canada, it must do so within 48 hours, failing which it will be liable to pay the costs of carriage arranged by the officer (s. 276). In addition, the transporter is required to pay costs of accommodation or transport of the passenger and/or escorts for the person, of obtaining passports or other travel documents for the passenger, of meals and incidentals, of wages paid to escorts, medical costs, and costs for medical personnel or interpreters (s. 278).
[25] An airline may also be subject to fines under s. 279 of the IRPA Regulations if it carries inadmissible persons to Canada.
[26] In order to ensure it is not transporting inadmissible persons in violation of s. 148 of the IRPA, WestJet must do its best to satisfy itself that all passengers are either Canadian citizens or persons in possession of a prescribed document
Section 19(1) of the IRPA
[27] Section 19(1) of the IRPA:
- (1) Every Canadian citizen within the meaning of the Citizenship Act and every person registered as an Indian under the Indian Act has the right to enter and remain in Canada in accordance with this Act, and an officer shall allow the person to enter Canada if satisfied following an examination on their entry that the person is a citizen or registered Indian.
Section 19(1) is set out in Division 3 of the IRPA entitled “Entering and Remaining in Canada”.
[28] Section 18(1) provides that every person seeking to enter Canada must appear for an examination to determine whether that person has a right to enter Canada or is or may become authorized to enter or remain in Canada.
[29] Sections 18(1) and 19(1) address the requirements for entry into Canada and the related examination by an officer under the IRPA for that purpose. These provisions do not address the requirements that apply to airlines and their passengers with respect to travel by air to Canada. The refusal by the WestJet agent on September 25, 2011 to allow the Plaintiff to board his return flight related to the rights and obligations relating to air travel to a destination in Canada. It was not a determination by an officer under the IRPA of the right of the Plaintiff to enter Canada on arrival.
The Aeronautics Act Identity Screening Regulations
[30] The Plaintiff submits that WestJet violated the Identity Screening Regulations, SOR/2007-82 under the Aeronautics Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. A-2:
- (3) The required identification to take an international flight is
(a) one piece of government-issued photo identification that shows the holder’s name, date of birth and gender; or
(b) a restricted area identity card.
[31] The Plaintiff submits that the requirements of the Aeronautics Act Regulations for identity screening makes it evident that the Plaintiff complied with the requirements of the Aeronautics Act to take an international flight and that WestJet was in violation of the Plaintiff’s rights on September 25, 2011 when they refused to permit him to board WestJet Flight 2703 to return to Toronto when he presented his Canadian Citizenship Card for identification.
[32] These Regulations are made pursuant to s. 4.71(1)(c) of the Aeronautics Act. The Court has not been advised of any provision in the Aeronautics Act that would make the provision in s. 1.(3) of the Regulations the exclusive identity screening requirement for all purposes of Canadian law regardless of other provisions of Canadian law. In the absence of a provision to that effect, such other provisions of Canadian law must be taken to be applicable. To the extent that such other provisions impose further requirements for the screening of identity of passengers on international flights, compliance by an air carrier such as WestJet with those further requirements would not constitute a violation of the Regulations. As set out above and as further set out below, WestJet was subject to such further requirements and its actions complied with those requirements.
Whether Travel Documents of a Passenger are in Order
[33] Section 4(2) of the IRPA states that the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness (the "Minister") is responsible for the following:
(a) examinations at ports of entry into Canada;
(b) the enforcement of the IRPA, including arrest, detention, and removal of persons;
(c) the establishment of policies respecting the enforcement of the IRPA and inadmissibility on grounds of security, among other grounds.
[34] The Minister is responsible for the CBSA pursuant to s. 6(1) of the Canada Border Services Agency Act, S.C. 2005, c. 38 ("CBSA Act"). Pursuant to s. 5(1) of the CBSA Act, the CBSA is responsible for:
…providing integrated border services that support national security and public safety priorities and facilitate the free flow of persons and goods…, that meet all requirements under the program legislation [pursuant to s. 2 of the CBSA Act and s. 4(2) of the IRPA, ‘program legislation’ is defined to include the IRPA] by:
(i) supporting the administration or enforcement, or both, as the case may be, of the program legislation…
[35] In keeping with its responsibility to do so, the CBSA publishes a Guide for Transporters which provides direction to transporters with respect to the screening of passengers seeking carriage to Canada.
[36] The objectives of the Guide for Transporters are stated in its introduction as follows:
This guide is designed to ensure that transporters are fully aware of Canada's immigration requirements and the immigration control documents required of visitors and immigrants to Canada. It is also designed to ensure that transporters understand their obligations under Canada's Immigration and Refugee Protection Act and the operational, procedural and financial liabilities set out in the accompanying Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations.
[Emphasis added; footnotes omitted.]
[37] Part 1 of the Guide states in part:
- Obligations and Liabilities of Transporters
1.1 Refuse to carry improperly documented persons to Canada
Passengers carried by transporters must be properly documented for travel to Canada. Transporters are prohibited from carrying to Canada any person who does not hold the prescribed documents required for entry to Canada [para. 148(1)(a) of the IRPA]. . . .
A transporter must require persons exempt from the legal requirement for a passport and visa, such as those claiming to be citizens of Canada or the United States, to present sufficient credible evidence of their identity and citizenship.
The responsibility to ensure that a passenger is properly documented applies from the time the transporter boards the person at the final embarkation point before arrival in Canada, until that person is presented for examination at a Canadian port of entry.
[Emphasis added.]
[38] Section 1.1 of the Guide for Transporters makes clear to airlines that they are required to satisfy themselves on the basis of sufficient, credible, evidence that a person presenting him- or herself for travel who claims to be Canadian is in fact a citizen of Canada. More detail on this is found in Part 2 of the Guide:
- Immigration Control - Document Requirements
2.1 Canadian citizens, permanent residents and registered Indians
Canadian citizens…enter Canada by right. To be accepted for travel, Canadian citizens…must be able to produce satisfactory evidence of their identity and status.
The Government of Canada recommends that Canadian citizens travel with a valid Canadian passport for all visits abroad, including the United States. A passport is the only reliable and universally accepted identification document, and it proves that they have a right to return to Canada.
International transportation companies may require travellers to present a passport. Therefore, Canadian citizens who present other documents, such as birth certificates, citizenship cards or certificates of Indian Status, may face delays or may not be allowed to board the vehicle.
Canadian citizens
The following documents are proof of Canadian citizenship for the purpose of international travel:
• Canadian passport…
• Canadian temporary passport…
• Canadian emergency passport...
A Canadian citizenship certificate (“CCC”) is not a travel document. However, it may be used within Canada as evidence of citizenship.
[Emphasis added.]
How These Requirements Applied to the Plaintiff
[39] Since the Plaintiff did not have a passport, he was not able to meet these requirements to prove that he was a Canadian citizen. He was therefore not entitled to be accepted for travel to Canada and WestJet could properly refuse to allow him to board without a passport.
[40] It is helpful to consider the WestJet refusal to allow the Plaintiff to board the flight in the context of the evidence of airline concerns about fraud in travel documents. The CBSA employs officers, called “Migration Integrity Officers” or “MIOs” to monitor migration trends throughout the world, including fraud in travel documents. WestJet has frequently received direction and guidance from MIOs. MIOs are CBSA employees who work throughout the world monitoring migration trends, such as increased fraud with respect to travel documents. They assist WestJet and other airlines to comply with their obligations under IRPA and the IRPA Regulations in a number of ways.
[41] The MIOs in Jamaica considered there were particular concerns in respect of passengers seeking transport to Canada from that country, and particularly those presenting CCCs. An official of WestJet, Ms. Gauthier, testified that there were difficulties with imposters who were not the rightful holders of the CCCs and with persons who had substituted the photo in an otherwise valid CCC. She gave evidence that the MIOs had encouraged the airlines to be very vigilant in their screening of passengers seeking entry to Canada from Jamaica with CCCs, and that any time they received a call for a passenger presenting a CCC, they would recommend denying travel, even where the passenger presented other Canadian documents such as a driver's license or health card. She testified to receiving correspondence from one of the Jamaican MIOs, Brian Crocker, to the effect that he would always recommend denying such passengers.
[42] In refusing a passenger presenting a CCC because it is not satisfied of the passenger's citizenship, WestJet is following the direction of the CBSA, and attempting to ensure compliance with its obligations under the IRPA. The actions of WestJet in this regard cannot be considered unreasonable, even where a passenger may present more than simply a CCC. In all the circumstances, they must exercise the greatest possible care not to be in violation of their statutory obligations.
[43] In Tsanova v. Austrian Airlines, 2007 QCCQ 11463, the plaintiff claimed damages against the airline for refusing to allow her to board a flight from Vienna to Montreal on the basis of improper travel documents. The plaintiff, who was a dual Bulgarian-Canadian citizen, was travelling with a Bulgarian passport, a Canadian Citizenship Card, a Canadian driver’s license, and a provincial health card. She had travelled with the defendant from Montreal to Vienna without incident.
[44] As a result of having been denied boarding and being delayed in Vienna for the three days it took to obtain a temporary Canadian passport, the plaintiff claimed that she had lost a business contract and sought damages.
[45] The Court dismissed the claim. It ruled that it is a Canadian passport which confirms citizenship, and that a Citizenship Card, a health card or other similar documents can be used to confirm identity but not as proof of citizenship. It observed further that the obligation in section 148(1) of IRPA (requiring passengers to be in possession of the prescribed documents) was an obligation belonging to the passenger, not the airline.
[46] See also the decisions to the same effect in Bousbia v. Air France, 2009 QCCQ 11660 and Turner v. Air Transat A.T., Inc. 2013 QCCQ 16411.
[47] These decisions are consistent in their conclusions that it is the passenger's responsibility to ensure they have the required travel documents, and that airline companies are not liable for requiring Canadians returning to Canada to present a Canadian passport or visa. A CCC or other documentation such as a driver's license or health card will not be sufficient.
[48] In each of these cases the plaintiff was on the return portion of the ticket. No reason has been given why the fact that the airline permitted the plaintiff to leave Canada without a Canadian passport or visa for return entry to Canada should lead to the conclusion that liability would attach where that passenger is refused boarding on his or her return to Canada.
Conclusion as to Liability
[49] For the reasons set out above, WestJet exercised its right properly under its contract of carriage with the Plaintiff when it refused to allow him to board the return flight on September 25, 2011. Accordingly, it did not breach the contract and is not liable to the Plaintiff for any breach.
[50] The Plaintiff asserts a claim in negligence. There is no reason why WestJet would have a duty to the Plaintiff with respect to the alleged breach other than its duty under the contract. Since WestJet exercised its rights under the contract properly, it did not breach its duty under the contract. Accordingly, WestJet is not liable in negligence.
[51] For the reasons set out above, there is no claim to be determined with respect to the Aeronautics Act.
Damages
The 61 Denvale Road Project
[52] The Plaintiff claims $30,000 damages “for the earnings he would have earned to complete the project”. The amount claimed is an estimate. The Plaintiff concedes that the amount must be reduced by the amount of the judgment for $16,000 which he obtained against Mr. King, the owner of the house, to compensate the Plaintiff for the loss of the project.
[53] The Plaintiff testified that the $30,000 amount was a number he advised Mr. King in August 2011 would be needed to complete the rest of the work on the house. However, he did not provide any evidence of a quote provided to Mr. King at any time with respect to the Project, or of the agreed-upon price of the contract, or what he had already been paid. Nor did the Plaintiff clarify whether this $30,000 represented only what he would earn for completion of the Denvale Project, or whether this would be the cost to Mr. King.
[54] The Plaintiff said he believed he could earn for himself, 20% of the cost of the homes he expected he would have been able to build.
[55] The Plaintiff attributes the loss of the Project to his having been forced to spend an extra two weeks in Jamaica and thus not having been able to continue with the work during that time. Prior to that delay he had already spent a week in Jamaica on a trip that he said he did not need to take and he had done nothing about getting a passport during that week or seeking carriage with another airline. Mr. King did not terminate the Plaintiff’s contract to build the house until after the Plaintiff had refused to hire the assistance of another contractor and had then returned to Canada. If the Plaintiff had agreed to the hiring, it appears the contract might have stayed with the Plaintiff. So, at least in some degree, the Plaintiff’s own conduct contributed to any loss that was incurred.
[56] When all of the above considerations are taken into account, it is unlikely that the Plaintiff suffered any compensable loss in respect of the Project that is attributable to the delay caused by WestJet’s refusal to provide carriage.
Amounts Owing to the Subcontractors on the Project
[57] The Plaintiff seeks $4,000 payable to Leblon Carpentry Inc., $581 payable to Super Save Fence Rental Inc. and $1,100 payable to Land Survey Group (“LSG”).
[58] These accounts are two and one-half years old. None has been paid. There is no invoice from any of the subcontractors other than LSG. The Plaintiff said LSG had done a shoddy job and he could have sued them. The Plaintiff said that Leblon never completed its work.
[59] There is no basis in this evidence to find that an amount of damages would be payable to the Plaintiff in respect of these accounts if WestJet were liable to him.
Future Earnings from the Contracting Business
[60] The Plaintiff seeks $1,000,000 as “foreseeable losses” in respect of the opportunity he has lost to use the Denvale Road project, when completed, to develop a continuing business of house construction and website interactive tutoring and promotion of the business.
[61] When the Plaintiff purchased his ticket online, he did not advise WestJet about the Denvale Road Project or about the further business opportunities he expected to be able to develop from it. He told the WestJet agent in Montego Bay on September 25, 2001 about the risk of losing the Denvale Road Project, but not about the subsequent business development prospects.
[62] The alleged loss of the continuing business opportunity is said to be a consequence of the loss of the Denvale Project. For the reasons given above, the amount of the loss is not proven and attribution of the loss of that Project to WestJet fails to take into account the contribution of the Plaintiff to that loss and his failure to mitigate by seeking other carriage. Moreover, there is an issue of the remoteness of the damages sought by the Plaintiff with respect to the expected subsequent business.
[63] In a claim for breach of contract, the question is whether the damages were within the reasonable contemplation of the parties at the time the contract was made: see Hadley v. Baxendale, [1843-60] All ER Rep at 461:
Where two parties have made a contract which one of them has broken the damages which the other party ought to receive in respect of such breach of contract should be such as may fairly and reasonably be considered as either arising naturally, i.e., according to the usual course of things, from such breach of contract itself, or such as may reasonably be supposed to have been in the contemplation of both parties at the time they made the contract as the probable result of the breach of it.
[64] As noted above, WestJet had no knowledge of the business of the Plaintiff beyond the Denvale Road Project. WestJet is a common carrier and not a manufacturer of goods. It was unaware of the possible business prospects of the Plaintiff and how they might be affected by a delay in his trip.
[65] In British Columbia and Vancouver's Island Spar, Lumber and Saw Mill Co Ltd. v. Nettleship, [1861-73] All ER Rep 339, a ship owner agreed to carry a piece of machinery from the United Kingdom to Vancouver, where it was to be used in a mill. A box containing part of the machinery, which was integral to its functioning, was lost at sea, and as a result, the mill could not operate for 11 months until a replacement could be provided. The defendant was not aware of the importance of the part or that it could not be replaced in British Columbia.
[66] In finding the defendant liable only for the value of the lost part, Bovill C.J. stated, "It is to be observed that the defendant is a carrier and not a manufacturer; he is liable only for the damages which may be taken to have been contemplated at the time when the contract was entered into, to which he assented."
Conclusion as to Damages
[67] For the above reasons, there is no amount that could be awarded as damages to the Plaintiff even if WestJet were liable to him, which it is not.
Conclusion
[68] For the reasons set out above, the claim of the Plaintiff is dismissed.
[69] If submissions on costs are necessary, they may be made to me in writing with a copy to my assistant by e-mail. The submissions of WestJet are to be made within 10 days from the release of these reasons, the response submissions of the Plaintiff within the 10 days after that, and any reply submissions of WestJet within a further 10 days.
Spence J.
Released: May 26, 2014
COURT FILE NO.: CV-12-448628
DATE: 20140526
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
B E T W E E N:
alton a. robotham
Plaintiff
- and -
westjet airlines
Defendant
REASONS FOR DECISION
Spence J.
Released: May 26, 2014