5 total
Appeal allowed; Tribunal's reasonable finding that bank was a customer entitled to compensation reinstated.
The appellant bank appealed a Divisional Court decision that overturned a Tribunal's finding that the bank was a 'customer' entitled to compensation under a travel industry scheme.
The Court of Appeal found that the Tribunal's interpretation of the relationship between the bank and the travel agency was reasonable based on the evidence.
The appeal was allowed, the Divisional Court's decision was set aside, and the Tribunal's decision was reinstated.
Bank reimbursing credit card reward points is not a 'customer' eligible for travel industry compensation.
The Travel Industry Council of Ontario (TICO) appealed a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision ordering it to pay the respondent bank $15,117.85 from the Travel Industry Compensation Fund.
The bank had reimbursed its credit card customers for travel reward points after a travel wholesaler went bankrupt.
The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that the Tribunal's interpretation of 'customer' under s. 57(1) of O. Reg. 26/05 was unreasonable.
Applying the modern approach to statutory interpretation, the Court held that the bank was not a 'customer' eligible for compensation, as the legislative scheme is intended to protect the travelling public who directly purchase travel services, not entities providing indirect payment methods.
Travel compensation fund claim denied because the customer voluntarily cancelled the available travel services.
The respondent purchased a travel package but cancelled it due to her husband's illness.
After failing to obtain a refund from the travel wholesaler and her cancellation insurance, she applied to the Travel Industry Compensation Fund.
The Board denied her claim, but the Licence Appeal Tribunal allowed her appeal.
The Travel Industry Council of Ontario appealed to the Divisional Court.
The Court allowed the appeal, finding that under s. 57(3) 3 of O. Reg. 26/05, a customer is not entitled to reimbursement if the travel services were available but not received because of the customer's own act of cancellation.
The Tribunal's decision was set aside and the Board's decision denying the claim was restored.
Appeal dismissed; Tribunal's determination of airfare reimbursement based on comparable prices was reasonable.
The appellant, the Travel Industry Council of Ontario, appealed a decision of the Licence Appeal Tribunal ordering it to reimburse the respondent $1,206.50 for the airfare portion of a cancelled travel package.
The Tribunal had rejected the appellant's documentary evidence of the airfare cost and instead accepted the respondent's evidence of comparable airfare prices.
The Divisional Court applied a reasonableness standard of review and found that the Tribunal was entitled to accept the respondent's evidence as the best available.
The appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs.
Motion for stay of travel agency registration revocation dismissed as balance of convenience favoured consumer protection.
The applicant sought a stay of execution of a Licence Appeal Tribunal order revoking its registration under the Travel Industry Act pending an appeal to the Divisional Court.
Applying the RJR-MacDonald test, the court found that while there was a serious issue and irreparable harm to the applicant, the balance of convenience favoured the respondent.
The court held that the risk of potential harm to consumers outweighed the financial harm to the applicant, given the applicant's precarious financial situation, past breaches of regulations, and failure to fully repay consumers.
