Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Interaction of the federal Air Passenger Protection Regulations and the Montreal Convention in compensating international passengers for flight delays
• Whether a mechanical defect affecting an aircraft door constituted a safety-related reason justifying the delay and exempting Air Canada from the Regulation’s standard compensation
• Adequacy and credibility of Air Canada’s technical and documentary evidence (maintenance records and testimony of the head of resolution and maintenance) to rebut presumptions of liability
• Assessment of the airline’s duty to take “all reasonable measures” to avoid or mitigate delay-related damage, including the decision to replace rather than repair the aircraft and to rebook passengers
• Compliance with regulatory obligations to provide information, alternative travel arrangements, and reasonable food and beverage during a lengthy delay, and the impact of the passengers’ failure to document additional expenses
• Application of the Montreal Convention’s fault-based, means-based standard of liability for delay, and recognition of reasonable diligence where the delay is driven by unanticipated safety-related mechanical issues

Facts of the case

The plaintiffs, Fabrizio Lunetta, Julie Farnsworth, and Olivia Farnsworth, purchased tickets for an international itinerary from Montréal to Lyon, with a scheduled connection in Brussels. Their first leg, Air Canada flight AC832 from Montréal to Brussels, was scheduled to leave on 11 January 2024 at 18:50 and arrive in Brussels on 12 January 2024 at 07:55. From there, they were booked on a connecting flight from Brussels to Lyon, scheduled to depart at 09:40 and arrive at 11:05 on 12 January 2024. Due to a significant delay on the Montréal–Brussels segment, the passengers missed their original connection. Air Canada rebooked them on a later Brussels–Lyon flight departing at 21:07 and arriving at 22:24 on the same day. As a result, the plaintiffs reached their final destination in Lyon more than 11 hours later than originally planned. Each plaintiff claimed CAD 1,100 from Air Canada: CAD 1,000 as standardized delay compensation and CAD 100 for food and drink expenses, for a total claim of CAD 3,300, plus interest and the additional indemnity provided by law. The claims were brought in the Small Claims Division of the Court of Québec.

Legal framework and regulatory context

The case required the court to address the interplay between two distinct but overlapping regimes: the Canadian Air Passenger Protection Regulations (the “Regulation”) and the Montreal Convention governing international air carriage. The Supreme Court of Canada has recently confirmed that the Montreal Convention, an international treaty incorporated into Canadian law by the Carriage by Air Act, applies to all international carriage of passengers. At the same time, the Regulation creates a standardized right to compensation that does not aim to reflect the passenger’s actual loss, but instead sets fixed amounts payable in certain circumstances. Because the Regulation’s scheme is not based on individualized damage assessment, it does not conflict with the Montreal Convention’s liability rules, and the two can coexist. In this matter, the court therefore examined the plaintiffs’ claims under both the Regulation and Article 19 of the Montreal Convention. Under the Regulation, compensation of CAD 1,000 is payable where a delay exceeds nine hours, unless the carrier proves that the delay was necessary for safety reasons and that it took reasonable measures to mitigate the consequences. The federal statute establishes a presumption that delays are not necessary for safety; the airline bears the burden, on a balance of probabilities, to rebut this presumption and to show reasonable mitigation. Separately, under Article 19 of the Montreal Convention, the carrier is presumptively liable for damage caused by delay in the international carriage of passengers, unless it proves that it took all measures that could reasonably be required to avoid the damage, or that it was impossible to take such measures. This is treated in Canadian case law as an obligation of means rather than an obligation of result: the airline must show due diligence, not guaranteed on-time performance.

Evidence relating to the mechanical defect and safety concerns

Air Canada defended the claim by asserting that the delay to flight AC832 was driven by an unexpected mechanical defect affecting a cabin door, which directly engaged safety considerations and prevented the aircraft from lawfully departing. The airline called its head of resolution and maintenance, who testified in detail about both the factual sequence and the maintenance documentation. According to this testimony, on 11 January 2024 the designated aircraft for AC832 (identified as aircraft 942) left the gate but had to return after a warning message indicated a problem with the rear door. Subsequent inspection revealed that the door’s guidance fittings were non-conforming. These fittings are critical to supporting the opening mechanism and withstanding wind loads; practically, this meant the door was not closing properly. The maintenance witness explained that, under the aircraft’s systems and safety logic, an aircraft with such a door defect cannot be permitted to take off because of the risk to cabin pressurization and overall safety. Faced with this defect, Air Canada decided that replacing the aircraft would be faster than waiting for the repair of aircraft 942. In fact, the original aircraft remained grounded for approximately 10 hours for maintenance on the door, whereas the replacement aircraft was able to depart with a delay of 6 hours and 36 minutes. The court accepted that this course of action was objectively more expedient than attempting to repair the original aircraft before departure. The evidence thus showed that the delay originated in an unforeseen mechanical failure, that the defect had direct implications for passenger safety, and that the airline reacted by switching aircraft in a manner designed to minimize total delay.

Mitigation of delay and services provided to passengers

The court then examined whether Air Canada took reasonable steps to mitigate the impact of the delay and complied with its obligations toward the passengers during the disruption. The documentary and testimonial record established that the plaintiffs received regular text messages explaining the cause of the delay and keeping them informed of the evolving situation. Air Canada proactively changed the second leg of the itinerary, rebooking the passengers on an alternative Brussels–Lyon flight later the same day so that they could still reach their final destination. Additionally, the airline offered a procedure through which passengers could arrange alternative travel solutions; the plaintiffs were informed of this option but chose not to use it. With respect to food and beverages, the Regulation requires carriers to provide reasonable quantities in the event of certain delays. The evidence showed that each plaintiff received a CAD 20 voucher for the purchase of food. Despite that, the plaintiffs claimed CAD 100 each for food expenses, but they produced no receipts or proof of any additional purchases beyond the voucher. On this evidentiary record, the court held that the airline had discharged its obligations to inform, re-accommodate, and provide basic amenities, and that the passengers had not substantiated any further out-of-pocket expenses.

Application of the Air Passenger Protection Regulations

Under the Regulation, the plaintiffs sought a standardized payment of CAD 1,000 each on the basis that their arrival delay exceeded nine hours. The court acknowledged that the temporal threshold for compensation was plainly met, but focused on the statutory exceptions. Because the governing law creates a presumption that delays are not necessary for safety, Air Canada bore the burden of proving that this was in fact a safety-related delay and that it took reasonable steps to reduce the knock-on effects. Relying on the maintenance witness and the supporting records, the court found that the mechanical defect affecting the cabin door made it impossible for the aircraft to depart without compromising safety. Given the risk of pressurization issues and the system’s own inhibition of takeoff, the delay was characterized as necessary for safety reasons. The decision to replace the aircraft, and the resulting 6-hour-and-36-minute departure delay compared with a 10-hour ground time for repairs, was viewed as a reasonable and efficient mitigation measure. The court refused to impose on the airline a duty to have a spare aircraft constantly available in anticipation of potential mechanical failures, considering such a requirement unrealistic and beyond the standard of reasonable care. In these circumstances, the court concluded that the delay fell within the safety exception and that the plaintiffs were not entitled to the CAD 1,000 regulatory compensation.

Application of the Montreal Convention

The plaintiffs also anchored their claim in Article 19 of the Montreal Convention, arguing that the delay in reaching Lyon gave rise to compensable damage under international air carriage law. The court approached the Convention analysis as parallel to, but distinct from, the regulatory scheme. Under Article 19, the carrier is presumptively responsible for damage caused by delay, but can avoid liability by proving it took all measures that could reasonably be required to prevent the damage, or that such measures were impossible. Drawing again on the maintenance evidence, the court accepted that Air Canada had carried out the required preventive maintenance on the aircraft prior to the incident, and that the defect in the door mechanism was unforeseen. The airline’s response—identifying the defect, grounding the unsafe aircraft, substituting a different aircraft, and rebooking passengers on a later connection—was characterized as reasonable and diligent in light of the safety imperatives. The court emphasized that Article 19 imposes an obligation of means, not of result; the airline must demonstrate reasonable diligence, not that it will invariably prevent any delay. Here, the mechanical problem was genuinely unpredictable, safety-driven, and addressed through reasonable operational measures. On that basis, the court held that Air Canada had met the Article 19 standard and could not be held liable for delay damages under the Convention.

Disposition and monetary outcome

Having found that the delay was necessary for safety reasons and that Air Canada took reasonable steps to mitigate its impact, the court rejected the plaintiffs’ claim for the CAD 1,000 in standardized compensation per passenger under the Regulation. It likewise dismissed their claim for CAD 100 each in food expenses because they failed to produce receipts or other documentary proof of any costs beyond the CAD 20 food voucher that Air Canada had already provided to each of them. In the aggregate, the plaintiffs’ entire claim of CAD 3,300 in compensation and expenses was denied. The court therefore dismissed the action and ordered that the plaintiffs pay Air Canada court costs in the amount of CAD 182. Air Canada is thus the successful party in the litigation, having owed no damages or compensation to the plaintiffs and having been awarded CAD 182 in judicial costs in its favor.