Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Manon De Arburn sought authorization to bring a class action against Air Canada on behalf of passengers who purchased international tickets to 38 identified airports, claiming they were misled about the nature of the Passenger Services Charge (PSC).
• Central to the dispute was whether Air Canada falsely categorized the PSC under "Taxes, fees and surcharges," when it allegedly constituted an operating cost borne by Air Canada rather than a charge imposed on passengers.
• Air Canada's evidence showed that the PSC is imposed on passengers under the IATA Passenger Air Tariff, collected by Air Canada, and remitted in full to the foreign airport authority.
• Documentary evidence confirmed that the CAD $57.54 charged to Ms. De Arburn corresponded to two international passenger service charges (WY) at Brisbane Airport, consistent with the IATA tariff rate of AUD $28.67 per journey.
• Federal regulations — specifically the Air Passenger Protection Regulations — expressly require that third-party charges collected on behalf of airport authorities be listed under the "Taxes, fees and charges" heading.
• Authorization was refused because the alleged facts, read alongside the documentary evidence, did not support a viable cause of action for misrepresentation or unjust enrichment.

Facts of the case

In December 2017, Manon De Arburn purchased an Air Canada ticket for travel to Australia and was charged a Passenger Services Charge (PSC) — Australia of CAD $57.54. This amount appeared on her itinerary receipt under the category "Taxes, frais et surtaxes" (Taxes, fees and surcharges). Ms. De Arburn alleged she paid this amount under the false impression it was collected on behalf of the Australian government, based on Air Canada's FAQ page, which states that certain taxes and fees are collected on behalf of foreign authorities. She argued that the PSC was, in reality, an operating cost contractually owed by Air Canada to Brisbane Airport, and that Air Canada was wrongly passing it on to passengers under a misleading label. She sought authorization to certify a class action on behalf of all Air Canada passengers who purchased tickets to any of the 38 identified international airports from 1 September 2015 onwards. Air Canada denied misrepresentation, asserting that the PSC is imposed on passengers and that Air Canada collects and remits the amounts in full to the respective airport authorities.

Contractual and regulatory framework

Several key instruments governed the characterization of the PSC. The IATA Passenger Air Tariff, relied upon by Air Canada, expressly states that the Passenger Service Charge – International (WY) is "levied on passengers holding international tickets" at the point where their continuous international travel to or from Australia begins or ends. Ms. De Arburn's electronic ticket itself used the "WY" designation from the IATA guide, listing "57.54 WY." The Air Passenger Protection Regulations (DORS-2019-150) define a "third party charge" as a tax, fee, or charge established by a government, public authority, airport authority, or their agent, collected by the carrier at the time of purchase and remitted to that authority. Under section 28(2) of those regulations, such charges must be disclosed under the heading "Taxes, frais et droits" (Taxes, fees and charges). Air Canada's International Tariff, which formed part of Ms. De Arburn's contract of carriage, further provides that taxes, fees, and surcharges imposed by an airport authority and collectible from a passenger are payable in addition to the base fare.

Court's reasoning and analysis

Justice Dominique Poulin of the Quebec Superior Court applied the authorization stage filter under article 575(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, which requires only that the applicant demonstrate a defensible cause of action — a low threshold requiring a mere possibility of success. The court may treat factual allegations as proven but is not required to accept vague, imprecise, or speculative assertions, and it may also examine exhibits to assess whether the claim is supportable. The court found that Ms. De Arburn's entire case rested on two essential premises: that Air Canada made false representations about the nature of the PSC, and that class members paid those amounts without legal basis. However, the sworn declaration of Marie-Noël Fredette, Air Canada's Senior Director of Consumption Taxes, supported by the IATA tariff, the Brisbane Airport contracts, combined PSC invoices for December 2017 and January 2018, and the applicable regulations, collectively demonstrated that the PSC is imposed on passengers, collected by Air Canada, and remitted in full to Brisbane Airport. The court noted that Air Canada's contractual obligation to pay the airport authority does not support the hypothesis that the PSC is an operating cost for Air Canada. Equally, the court found that Air Canada's FAQ — which described fees collected for foreign authorities as non-exhaustive examples — did not constitute evidence of misrepresentation merely because it did not specifically identify the PSC as an amount collected for airport authorities.

Ruling and overall outcome

The court dismissed Ms. De Arburn's application for authorization to institute a class action. Air Canada was the successful party. The court ordered costs against Ms. De Arburn, though no specific monetary amount for costs was stated in the judgment. No damages or monetary award was granted to any party.