Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Plaintiff sought to revive a dismissed class action for airline flight delays, relying on procedural discretion and alleged new evidence.

• Central issue was whether the Federal Court had remedial jurisdiction to revisit a final certification decision.

• Plaintiff invoked Rules 385 and 334.2 of the Federal Courts Rules, arguing they allowed rectification of prior deficiencies.

• The doctrines of functus officio and issue estoppel were applied to bar re-litigation of previously adjudicated matters.

• Legislative changes to the CTA’s dispute resolution process were deemed insufficient to warrant reopening the case.

• The Court found no compelling grounds to override finality, and the motion to schedule a new certification hearing was denied.

Facts and outcome of the case

Background and procedural history
Dora Berenguer initiated a proposed class action against SATA Internacional – Azores Airlines, S.A., seeking compensation for delayed flights to and from Canada. She claimed that under the airline’s contract of carriage, EU Regulation 261/2004 (EU 261) entitled her and other passengers to 600 euros in compensation for delays exceeding four hours. In 2021, the Federal Court dismissed her motion for class certification, citing the Canadian Transportation Agency (CTA) as a more appropriate forum and finding her statement of claim disclosed no reasonable cause of action. Although the Federal Court of Appeal later restored her claim in part, it upheld the dismissal of her certification motion.

Efforts to reopen the case
After exhausting her appeal rights, including a rejected leave application to the Supreme Court of Canada, the Plaintiff sought to reinitiate the class certification process. She argued that changes in CTA procedures and new evidence justified a fresh motion. She relied on Rule 385 (case management discretion) and Rule 334.2 (judicial discretion after decertification) to claim the Court retained jurisdiction to revisit or rectify previous deficiencies in the motion.

Legal analysis by the Court
Justice Lafrenière rejected the Plaintiff’s interpretation of both rules. He found that Rule 385 does not permit a case management judge to override a final order issued by a certification judge, and Rule 334.2 only allows proceedings to continue as ordinary (non-class) actions—not to revive a denied class action. The Court reaffirmed that the doctrines of functus officio (loss of jurisdiction after judgment) and issue estoppel (bar against re-litigation) applied fully. Attempts to use legislative changes in the CTA’s dispute process as material changes in circumstance also failed, as these did not impact the Court’s earlier findings or justify reopening the case.

Outcome and final decision
The Federal Court held that the Plaintiff’s motion amounted to an impermissible attempt to “do over” a previously resolved matter. It concluded that no remedial jurisdiction or exceptional circumstances justified revisiting the final certification decision. As a result, the Plaintiff’s motion to schedule a new certification hearing was denied. No costs or damages were awarded to either party. SATA Internacional – Azores Airlines, S.A. prevailed, with the class action remaining uncertified and closed.