Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• The case examined whether perishable cargo damage occurred during international air transport under the Montreal Convention.

• Fleurigros bore the burden of proving the damage arose while the goods were under Air Canada’s custody.

• The court scrutinized the chain of custody and temperature exposure during each stage of the cargo's journey.

• Expert testimony was insufficient to establish that damage resulted from conditions during the air carriage segment.

• Air Canada’s liability was contractually limited to $5,000 USD absent a special declared value.

• The court dismissed the claim without costs due to failure to meet evidentiary standards.

Facts and procedural background

Fleurigros 1995 inc., a flower wholesaler, regularly uses Air Canada Cargo to ship perishable foliage from U.S. suppliers. In April 2022, Fleurigros received a shipment of Eucalyptus and Wax Flowers from California, transported under Air Canada’s “AC Fraîcheur Service Standard.” Upon arrival in Montreal, the foliage was severely damaged—hot, humid, and unsellable. Fleurigros claimed $31,762.61 in losses and alleged the cargo had been exposed to excessive heat during air transit.

Air Canada disputed liability, arguing that Fleurigros failed to prove the damage occurred during the air transport phase. The airline also relied on the Montreal Convention, which governs international air carriage, and limited liability provisions capping its exposure at $5,000 USD, as declared in the air waybill.

Legal framework and evidentiary findings

The Montreal Convention (Annex VI of Canada’s Air Transportation Act) provides a presumption of carrier liability for cargo damage occurring “during the carriage by air,” including time spent in airport custody. However, the plaintiff must establish the probability that the damage occurred while the goods were in the carrier’s possession.

The court closely examined the timeline. The shipment was handed over to Air Canada on April 25, 2022, in Los Angeles, and delivered to Fleurigros on April 27. Weather data showed ambient temperatures below the critical threshold of 30°C at key transit points. Moreover, expert testimony and internal tracking documents failed to conclusively demonstrate that the foliage was exposed to harmful temperatures during air transit. Instead, evidence suggested the damage was more likely caused before the cargo reached Air Canada, during storage or transport by third-party handlers.

Although Fleurigros attempted to claim higher damages under a weight-based compensation formula (22 Special Drawing Rights per kg), the air waybill included a declared value of $5,000 USD, limiting liability.

Outcome and conclusion

The court concluded that Fleurigros did not meet its burden of proving the damage occurred during the air carriage segment. Even if it had, recovery would have been limited to the declared value under the Montreal Convention and Air Canada’s tariff rules. While acknowledging Fleurigros's diligence, the court dismissed the claim without costs, citing ambiguity in Air Canada’s claims handling process and the undue expense of expert fees required by its forms. The decision reaffirms the stringent evidentiary standards and liability limits applicable under international air transport law.