The Agency’s interpretation is correct: a disruption is 'within a carrier’s control but required for safety purposes' when the carrier incurs that disruption to reduce a risk to passenger safety despite having taken reasonable measures (1) to plan and conduct day-to-day operations to avoid situations causing that risk and (2) to follow a reasonable contingency plan developed to effectively and expeditiously reduce the risk. The Court upheld the Agency’s approach (prudent and diligent carrier standard), concluded WestJet failed to discharge the evidentiary burden, and dismissed the appeal.
The Court upheld the trial judge: UIA failed to prove on the balance of probabilities that it was not negligent under Article 21 of the Montreal Convention because its security risk assessment breached the standard of care (insufficient information gathering, failure to perform required safety assessment, and failure to consult the flight commander/Operational Control), those breaches were a but‑for cause of the fatalities, and the losses were not too remote, therefore the appeal is dismissed and UIA’s liability remains unlimited under the Montreal Convention.
Source excerpt
Montreal convention article 21
Standard of care
Causation (but for)
Foreseeability
Icao document 10084 (conflict zone risk assessment)
The Tribunal granted the BCCLA limited interested person status, allowing focused submissions on Charter and CHRA remedy issues but barring new evidence and CMCC participation.
Discrimination based on colour/race/sex/national or ethnic origin/disability
Remedies under s.53 chra (damages)
Intervention/interested person status
Application of the charter to federal aviation statutes and international conventions
The Tribunal denied the Commission’s motion to join the Francis and Antwi complaints, holding that the imminent Francis hearing would be delayed and the cases were at different stages.
Joinder of complaints
Discrimination (race, colour, sex, national or ethnic origin)
Timeliness and delay
Expert evidence
Charter s.15 challenge
Montreal convention / carriage by air act s.53 (damages)
The Federal Court dismissed a motion to schedule a fresh certification hearing, holding it had no jurisdiction to reopen a final refusal of class certification.
Sunwing Vacations Inc. was properly added as a defendant and, on the evidence, the cancellations were within the control of the defendants and they failed to prove they took all reasonable measures to avoid the damage; accordingly Sunwing Airlines Inc. and Sunwing Vacations Inc. are jointly and severally liable under Article 19 of the Montreal Convention and contract law for the claimant’s additional costs, assessed at $2,652.76 plus costs $200.00.
The court granted a narrow interim injunction preventing WestJet from reposting fixed reimbursement limits for hotels and meals, but refused mandatory notice and policy-change relief.
The Federal Court held Brink’s did not make a special declaration of interest or pay a supplementary sum under Article 22(3) of the Montreal Convention.