Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Francine Leduc, a 70-year-old motorized wheelchair user, claimed $15,000 in damages against her travel agency and tour operator following a Caribbean cruise during which she was denied access to shore excursions.
• Central to the dispute was whether the defendants failed to provide services conforming to their representations, as required under articles 40 and 41 of the Quebec Consumer Protection Act and article 2100 of the Civil Code of Québec.
• Leduc also alleged that the denial of excursion access constituted discrimination on the basis of disability, violating rights protected under the Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms.
• Both defendants argued that shore excursions are optional services provided by local companies at destination, over which neither the travel agency nor the tour operator exercises control.
• A prior complaint filed with the Commission des droits de la personne et des droits de la jeunesse (file no. C0735-C2042) was rejected as unfounded, a fact the court took into account.
• Club Voyages Place Versaille's $10,000 counterclaim for abuse of process was dismissed, as the court recognized Leduc's fundamental right to pursue legal proceedings.

Facts of the case

Francine Leduc is a 70-year-old woman living with myopathie hypocondriale (muscular dystrophy) who requires a motorized wheelchair for mobility. On or around January 14–19, 2016, she contacted Club Voyages Place Versaille (Club Voyages) to book a Hawaii cruise departing in September 2016 aboard the Grand Princess from San Francisco, for a group of five persons with reduced mobility, with flights sold through Société en commandite Touram operating as Vacances Air Canada (AC). Club Voyages invoiced the bookings on January 19, 2016, including a $30 fee per person. In May 2016, Club Voyages discovered that the excursions were not accessible to motorized wheelchairs due to weight restrictions on the transport vehicles, and on July 8, 2016, it cancelled the reservation and issued a full refund.

Club Voyages subsequently proposed an alternative cruise, which Leduc accepted on August 22, 2016: a seven-day accessible Caribbean cruise called "Allure of the Seas" with Royal Caribbean International, departing Fort Lauderdale on November 26, 2017, with three adapted cabins with exterior balconies. She was invoiced $1,769.62 on August 25, 2016, including a $75 per person "frais de service pour dossier à mobilité réduite" (service fee for reduced mobility file). On January 4, 2017, Leduc requested to extend the trip by an additional week on the same vessel, resulting in a further invoice of $1,981.45 on January 5, 2017. On March 12, 2017, an additional $671.65 was charged for airfare and adapted transport. Extensive communications followed between the parties regarding the specifications of five motorized wheelchairs and excursion conditions.

On September 22, 2017, Club Voyages confirmed that all excursions were accessible. However, on October 17, 2017, it advised Leduc that the Montego Bay excursions were unavailable because the wheelchairs were too heavy for the bus lift platforms. On November 4, 2017, Club Voyages further informed her that four additional excursions — Island Roots, Chocolate Traditions, Charm and Beauty of Nassau, and Accessible Saint-Kitts, as well as Accessible Coral World — were also inaccessible due to weight and width limitations on motorized wheelchairs. Leduc requested cancellation on November 16, 2017, but this was refused. She proceeded with the trip to avoid forfeiting the money already paid, and described the experience as a nightmare, asserting she could not enjoy the cruise at all.

Policy terms and contractual clauses at issue

AC's general conditions, published on its website under the Cruises/Persons with Reduced Mobility section, stated that cabin, flight, and transfer requirements for persons with reduced mobility must be specified at the time of booking, that most cruise lines have a limited number of wheelchair-accessible cabins requiring a medical certificate at least 30 days before departure, and that wheelchair users may not be able to disembark when port facilities are inadequate. The same conditions expressly excluded shore excursions from the cruise package price, listing excursions among the items not included in AC's vacation packages. Leduc contracted directly with Club Voyages for the onboard reservation and not with AC for shore excursions.

Court's reasoning and analysis

The court applied the standard civil burden of proof under articles 2803 and 2804 of the Civil Code of Québec, requiring Leduc to establish by a preponderance of evidence the defendants' fault, the damages suffered, and the causal link between the two. The court found that Leduc had not met this burden. It accepted the defendants' position that shore excursions are optional services offered by local companies at destination over which neither Club Voyages nor AC exercises control or ownership. AC further argued — consistent with prior case law, including Robichaud c. Caribe Sol Canada inc., 2018 QCCQ 2425 and Plouffe c. Club voyage Raymonde Potvin, 2018 QCCQ 5597 — that as a tour operator it holds only an obligation to ensure conformity between the services it describes and those actually received, and that it fulfilled that obligation. The court also noted that a prior complaint filed by Leduc with the Commission des droits de la personne et des droits de la jeunesse (no. C0735-C2042) had been rejected as unfounded, reinforcing the finding that no fault was established. On the counterclaim, the court held that Club Voyages' $10,000 claim for abuse of process was without legal or factual basis, recognizing that Leduc had a fundamental right under the law to initiate the proceedings.

Ruling and overall outcome

The court dismissed all of Leduc's claims against both Club Voyages Place Versaille and AC, with costs of $317 each (representing the court filing fee, or timbre judiciaire) assessed against Leduc in favour of each defendant. The counterclaim filed by Club Voyages against Leduc for $10,000 in damages for abuse of process was also dismissed, without costs, in consideration of the particular circumstances of the file. The defendants were the successful parties.