Thibodeau v. Air Canada, (2014) 463 N.R. 231 (SCC)

• Judge: McLachlin, C.J.C., LeBel, Abella, Rothstein, Cromwell, Karakatsanis and Wagner, JJ.
• Court: Supreme Court (Canada)
• Case Date: March 26, 2014
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (2014), 463 N.R. 231 (SCC);2014 SCC 67

Thibodeau v. Air Can. (2014), 463 N.R. 231 (SCC)

MLB headnote and full text

[French language version follows English language version]

[La version française vient à la suite de la version anglaise]

.........................

Temp. Cite: [2014] N.R. TBEd. OC.029

Michel Thibodeau and Lynda Thibodeau (appellants) v. Air Canada (respondent)

Commissioner of Official Languages of Canada (appellant) v. Air Canada (respondent)

(35100; 2014 SCC 67; 2014 CSC 67)

Indexed As: Thibodeau v. Air Canada

Supreme Court of Canada

McLachlin, C.J.C., LeBel, Abella, Rothstein, Cromwell, Karakatsanis and Wagner, JJ.

October 28, 2014.

Summary:

Air Canada failed to provide services in French on some international flights as it was obliged to do under the Official Languages Act (Can.) (OLA). Two passengers, the Thibodeaus, applied for damages (incl. punitive damages) and for orders, referred to as "structural" or "institutional" orders, requiring Air Canada to take steps in order to ensure future compliance with the OLA. Air Canada argued that damages for breach of the OLA were not permitted under the Montreal Convention (i.e., the Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules for International Carriage by Air, which was part of Canadian federal law by virtue of the Carriage by Air Act (Can.)).

The Federal Court, in a decision reported 394 F.T.R. 160, rejected Air Canada's defence and awarded damages (i.e., the court held that the power to award damages under the OLA prevailed over the Montreal Convention). The court also granted a structural order requiring Air Canada to make every reasonable effort to comply with its duties under the OLA and giving Air Canada six months to implement a monitoring system and other procedures. Air Canada appealed.

The Federal Court of Appeal, in a decision reported 435 N.R. 131, allowed the appeal, and set aside both the award of damages and the structural order. The court held that the Montreal Convention precluded the damages remedy for the events that took place on board Air Canada flights and that a structural order was not appropriate. The Thibodeaus appealed.

The Supreme Court of Canada, Abella, J., dissenting (Wagner, J., concurring), dismissed the appeals. The court held that when the OLA and the Montreal Convention were properly interpreted, there was no conflict between the general remedial powers under the OLA and the exclusion of damages under the Montreal Convention and there was no need to consider which would prevail if there were. The court stated that "The Montreal Convention's uniform and exclusive scheme of damages liability for international air carriers does not permit an award of damages for breach of language rights during international carriage by air. To hold otherwise would do violence to the text and purpose of the Montreal Convention, depart from Canada's international obligations under it and put Canada off-side a strong international consensus concerning its scope and effect. The general remedial power under the OLA to award appropriate and just remedies cannot - and should not - be read as authorizing Canadian courts to depart from Canada's international obligations under the Montreal Convention". The court also held that the Federal Court of Appeal was correct to set aside the structural order as it was impermissibly vague and unclear.

Aeronautics - Topic 5145

Airlines - Carriage of passengers - Liability - Damages - [See both Aeronautics - Topic 5146 ].

Aeronautics - Topic 5146

Airlines - Carriage of passengers - Liability - Statutory limitations - Air Canada failed to observe its linguistic obligations to two passengers (the Thibodeaus) under the Official Languages Act (OLA) by failing to offer services in French on international flights - A question arose as to whether art. 29 of the Montreal Convention, which limited the actions in damages that could be brought for injuries in the course of international air carriage, excluded a claim by the Thibodeaus' for damages (incl. punitive damages) under the OLA for the incidents on international flights - The Supreme Court of Canada answered the question in the affirmative - Properly interpreted, there was no conflict between the general remedial powers under the OLA and the exclusion of damages under the Convention - The Convention's uniform and exclusive scheme of damages liability for international air carriers did not permit an award of damages for breach of language rights during international carriage by air - The Thibodeaus' claims fell squarely within the Convention's exclusion; therefore, the court could not award damages under the OLA for the incidents that occurred during international carriage - See paragraphs 29 to 118.

Aeronautics - Topic 5146

Airlines - Carriage of passengers - Liability - Statutory limitations - Article 29 of the Montreal Convention provided that "In the carriage of passengers, baggage and cargo, any action for damages, however founded, whether under this Convention or in contract or in tort or otherwise, can only be brought subject to the conditions and such limits of liability as are set out in this Convention without prejudice to the question as to who are the persons who have the right to bring suit and what are their respective rights. In any such action, punitive, exemplary or any other non-compensatory damages shall not be recoverable" - The Supreme Court of Canada interpreted this article - In doing so, the court reviewed the history of the Convention, its purpose and object and the relevant case law - See paragraphs 31 to 58.

Civil Rights - Topic 2866.1

Language - Right to use French or English in dealings with or within the public service or institutions, etc. - Breach - Remedies - Air Canada failed to observe its linguistic obligations to two passengers (the Thibodeaus) under the Official Languages Act (OLA) by failing to offer services in French on international flights - As a remedy under the OLA, the applications judge issued a structural order to address systemic problems, ordering Air Canada to make every reasonable effort to comply with all of its duties under Part IV of the OLA and giving Air Canada six months to implement a monitoring system and other procedures - The Federal Court of Appeal held that the portion of the order requiring Air Canada to comply with its duties was simply a general order to comply with the law - That type of order should be granted only in exceptional circumstances which did not exist here - As to the rest of the order, it was too imprecise - The Thibodeaus appealed - The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, holding that the Appeal Court correctly set aside the structural order - See paragraphs 119 to 132.

Civil Rights - Topic 2866.1

Language - Right to use French or English in dealings with or within the public service or institutions, etc. - Breach - Remedies - [See first Aeronautics - Topic 5146 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 2874

Language - Right to use French or English in dealings with or within the public service or institutions, etc. - Air Canada - [See first Aeronautics - Topic 5146 and first Civil Rights - Topic 2866.1 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 2969

Language - Complaints - Remedies - [See first Aeronautics - Topic 5146 and first Civil Rights - Topic 2866.1 ].

Damages - Topic 1332.3

Exemplary or punitive damages - Language rights violations - [See first Aeronautics - Topic 5146 ].

Cases Noticed:

Mercure v. Saskatchewan, [1988] 1 S.C.R. 234; 83 N.R. 81; 65 Sask.R. 1, refd to. [para. 4].

R. v. Mercure - see Mercure v. Saskatchewan.

Lavigne v. Commissioner of Official Languages (Can.) et al., [2002] 2 S.C.R. 773; 289 N.R. 282; 2002 SCC 53, refd to. [paras. 12, 166].

Canada (Attorney General) v. Viola et al., [1991] 1 F.C. 373; 123 N.R. 83 (F.C.A.), refd to. [paras. 12, 166].

Stott v. Cook (Thomas) Tour Operators Ltd., [2014] 2 W.L.R. 521; 458 N.R. 364; [2014] UKSC 15, refd to. [paras. 31, 169].

Pushpanathan v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [1998] 1 S.C.R. 982, addendum [1998] 1 S.C.R. 1222; 226 N.R. 201, refd to. [para. 35].

El Al Israel Airlines v. Tseng (1999), 525 U.S. 155, refd to. [paras. 44, 149].

King v. Bristow Helicopters Ltd., [2002] 2 A.C. 628; 286 N.R. 201; [2002] UKHL 7, refd to. [para. 50].

Plourde v. Service aérien FBO Inc. (Skyservice), 2007 QCCA 739, leave to appeal refused [2007] 3 S.C.R. xiii; 383 N.R. 390, refd to. [para. 50].

Sakka v. Societe Air France et al., [2011] O.T.C. Uned. 1995; 18 C.P.C.(7th) 150; 2011 ONSC 1995, refd to. [para. 50].

Abnett v. British Airways plc, [1997] A.C. 430; 206 N.R. 211 (H.L.), refd to. [paras. 52, 169].

Sidhu v. British Airways plc - see Abnett v. British Airways plc.

Deep Vein Thrombosis and Air Travel Group Litigation, Re, [2006] 1 A.C. 495; 345 N.R. 30; [2005] UKHL 72, refd to. [paras. 53, 169].

Ong v. Malaysian Airline System Bhd., [2008] 3 H.K.L.R.D. 153 (H.K.C.A.), refd to. [para. 56].

Hennessey v. Aer Lingus Ltd., [2012] IEHC 124 (I.H.C.), refd to. [para. 56].

Emery Air Freight Corp. v. Nerine Nurseries Ltd., [1997] 3 N.Z.L.R. 723 (N.Z.C.A.), refd to. [para. 56].

Seagate Technology International v. Changi International Airport Services Pte Ltd., [1997] 2 S.L.R.(R.) 57; [1997] SGCA 22 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 56].

Potgieter v. British Airways plc, [2005] ZAWCHC 5 (S.A.H.C.), refd to. [para. 56].

Gal v. Northern Mountain Helicopters Inc. et al. (1999), 128 B.C.A.C. 290; 208 W.A.C. 290; 1999 BCCA 486, refd to. [para. 56].

McAuley v. Aer Lingus Ltd., [2011] IEHC 89, refd to. [para. 56].

O'Mara v. Air Canada (2013), 115 O.R.(3d) 673; 2013 ONSC 2931, refd to. [para. 56].

Walton et al. v. MyTravel Canada Holdings Inc. et al. (2006), 280 Sask.R. 1; 2006 SKQB 231, refd to. [para. 56].

King v. American Airlines Inc. (2002), 284 F.3d 352 (2nd Cir. N.D.N.Y Dist. Ct.), refd to. [paras. 67, 169].

Gibbs v. American Airlines Inc. (2002), 191 F. Supp.2d 144 (D.C. Dist. Ct.), refd to. [para. 70].

Turturro v. Continental Airlines (2001), 128 F. Supp.2d 170 (S.D.N.Y.), refd to. [para. 70].

Brandt v. American Airlines, 2000 WL 288393 (N.D. Cal.), refd to. [para. 70].

Ward v. Vancouver (City) et al., [2010] 2 S.C.R. 28; 404 N.R. 1; 290 B.C.A.C. 222; 491 W.A.C. 222; 2010 SCC 27, refd to. [para. 76].

International Air Transport Association v. Department for Transport, [2006] E.C.R. I-403 (Eur. C.J.), refd to. [para. 80].

Wallentin-Hermann v. Alitalia, [2008] E.C.R. I-11061 (Eur. C.J.), refd to. [para. 80].

Sturgeon v. Condor Flugdienst GmbH, [2009] E.C.R. I-10923, refd to. [para. 80].

Nelson v. Deutsche Lufthansa AG, [2013] 1 C.M.L.R. 42, refd to. [para. 80].

R. v. Ulybel Enterprises Ltd., [2001] 2 S.C.R. 867; 275 N.R. 201; 206 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 304; 618 A.P.R. 304; 2001 SCC 56, refd to. [para. 93].

Friends of the Oldman River Society v. Canada (Minister of Transport and Minister of Fisheries and Oceans), [1992] 1 S.C.R. 3; 132 N.R. 321, refd to. [para. 93].

Daniels v. White, [1968] S.C.R. 517, refd to. [para. 94].

Toronto Railway Co. v. Paget (1909), 42 S.C.R. 488, refd to. [para. 94].

Canadian Westinghouse Co. v. Grant, [1927] S.C.R. 625, refd to. [para. 94].

International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers v. Summerside (Town), [1960] S.C.R. 591, refd to. [para. 94].

Reference Re Broadcasting Act, [2012] 3 S.C.R. 489; 437 N.R. 124; 2012 SCC 68, refd to. [para. 94].

Lévis (City) v. Fraternité des policiers de Lévis Inc. et al., [2007] 1 S.C.R. 591; 359 N.R. 199; 2007 SCC 14, refd to. [para. 94].

Massicotte v. Boutin, [1969] S.C.R. 818, refd to. [para. 96].

R. v. Williams, [1944] S.C.R. 226, refd to. [para. 101].

R. v. Myran, [1976] 2 S.C.R. 137; 5 N.R. 551, refd to. [para. 103].

Perron-Malenfant v. Poliquin, [1999] 3 S.C.R. 375; 244 N.R. 350, refd to. [para. 105].

R. v. Beaulac (J.V.), [1999] 1 S.C.R. 768; 238 N.R. 131; 121 B.C.A.C. 227; 198 W.A.C. 227, refd to. [para. 112].

R. v. Zingre, Wuest and Reiser, [1981] 2 S.C.R. 392; 38 N.R. 272; 10 Man.R.(2d) 62, refd to. [para. 113].

Ordon et al. v. Grail, [1998] 3 S.C.R. 437; 232 N.R. 201; 115 O.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 113].

Doucet-Boudreau et al. v. Nova Scotia (Minister of Education) et al., [2003] 3 S.C.R. 3; 312 N.R. 1; 218 N.S.R.(2d) 311; 687 A.P.R. 311; 2003 SCC 62, refd to. [para. 126].

Pro Swing Inc. v. Elta Golf Inc., [2006] 2 S.C.R. 612; 354 N.R. 201; 218 O.A.C. 339; 2006 SCC 52, refd to. [para. 127].

Ehrlich v. American Airlines Inc. (2004), 360 F.3d 366 (2nd Cir.), refd to. [para. 159].

Dickason and Human Rights Commission (Alta.) v. University of Alberta, [1992] 2 S.C.R. 1103; 141 N.R. 1; 127 A.R. 241; 20 W.A.C. 241, refd to. [para. 166].

Craton v. Winnipeg School Division No. 1 and Winnipeg Teachers' Association No. 1 of the Manitoba Teachers' Society, [1985] 2 S.C.R. 150; 61 N.R. 241; 38 Man.R.(2d) 1, refd to. [para. 166].

Walker v. Eastern Airlines Inc. (1992), 785 F. Supp. 1168 (S.D.N.Y.), refd to. [para. 169].

Beaudet v. British Airways plc (1994), 853 F. Supp. 1062 (N.D. Ill.), refd to. [para. 169].

Eastern Airlines Inc. v. Floyd (1991), 499 U.S. 530, refd to. [para. 175].

Statutes Noticed:

Air Canada Public Participation Act, R.S.C. 1985 (4th Supp.), c. 35, sect. 10 [para. 13, Appendix].

Carriage by Air Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-26, sect. 2 [para. 33, Appendix]; Schedule I [para. 31]; Schedule III [paras. 31, 155]; Schedule IV [para. 32]; Schedule V [para. 155]; Schedule VI (Montreal Convention), preamble [para. 159]; art. 3(4) [para. 164]; art. 17, art. 18, art. 19 [paras. 14, 144, Appendix]; art. 21, art. 22 [paras. 41, 144, Appendix]; art. 26 [para. 41, Appendix]; art. 29 [paras. 36, 138, Appendix]; art. 49 [para. 40, Appendix].

Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules Relating to International Carriage By Air - see Carriage by Air Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-26, Schedule VI.

Montreal Convention - see Carriage by Air Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-26, Schedule VI (Montreal Convention).

Official Languages Act, R.S.C. 1985 (4th Supp.), c. 31, sect. 2 [para. 9, Appendix]; sect. 22(b) [para. 13, Appendix]; sect. 77(1), sect. 77(4) [para. 11, Appendix].

United Nations, Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules for International Carriage by Air, 2242 U.N.T.S. 350 - Carriage by Air Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-26, Schedule VI (Montreal Convention).

United Nations, Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules Relating to International Carriage by Air (Warsaw Convention), 137 L.N.T.S. 11, art. 17, art. 18, art. 19 [paras. 44, 147, Appendix]; art. 20, art. 22, art. 23 [para. 44, Appendix]; art. 24 [paras. 45, 146, Appendix]; art. 25 [para. 44, Appendix].

United Nations, Convention, Supplementary to the Warsaw Convention, for the Unification of Certain Rules Relating to International Carriage by Air Performed by a Person Other than the Contracting Carrier, 500 U.N.T.S. 31, generally [para. 155].

United Nations, Montreal Protocol No. 4 to amend the Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules Relating to International Carriage by Air signed at Warsaw on 12 October 1929 as amended by the Protocol done at The Hague on 28 September 1955, 2145 U.N.T.S. 36, generally [para. 32].

United Nations, Montreal Protocol No. 4 to Amend the Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules Relating to International Carriage by Air, 25 September 1975, generally [para. 155].

United Nations, Protocol to amend the Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules Relating to International Carriage by Air, 478 U.N.T.S. 371, generally [para. 155].

United Nations, Protocol to Amend the Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules Relating to International Carriage by Air Signed at Warsaw on 12 October 1929 as Amended by the Protocol Done at The Hague on 28 September 1955, signed at Guatemala City on 8 March 1971 (not in force), generally [para. 155].

Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, Can. T.S. 1980, No. 37, art. 31 [paras. 35, 139, Appendix].

Warsaw Convention - see United Nations, Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules Relating to International Carriage by Air (Warsaw Convention).

Authors and Works Noticed:

Canada, Hansard, House of Commons Debates, vol. x, 2nd Sess., 33rd Parliament (February 8, 1988), pp. 12706, 12712, 12715, 12737 [para. 115].

Canada, Hansard, House of Commons Debates, vol. xiv, 2nd Sess., 33rd Parliament (July 7, 1988), p. 17224 [para. 115].

Canada, Hansard, House of Commons Debates, vol. 137, 1st Sess., 37th Parliament (November 20, 2001), p. 7346 [para. 162].

Canada, House of Commons, Standing Committee on Transport and Government Operations, Meeting No. 40 - Evidence (2001), generally [para. 162].

Canada, Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages, Audit of Service Delivery in English and French to Air Canada Passengers: Final Report (2011), generally [para. 20].

Canada, Senate, Debates of the Senate, vol. iv, 2nd Sess., 33rd Parliament (July 27, 1988), pp. 4135 to 4136 [para. 115].

Canada, Senate, Debates of the Senate, vol. 139, 1st Sess., 37th Parliament (October 2, 2001), p. 1346 [para. 162].

Canada, Senate, Standing Senate Committee on Transport and Communications, Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on Transport and Communications, Issue No. 15 - Evidence (2001), generally [para. 162].

Chassot, Laurent, Les sources de la responsabilité du transporteur aérien international: entre conflit et complémentarité (2012), pp. 45 to 46 [para. 42]; 179 [para. 75].

Clare, John E.J., Evaluation of Proposals to Increase the "Warsaw Convention" Limit of Passenger Liability (1949), 16 J. Air L. & Com. 53, generally [para. 153].

Clarke, Malcolm, Contracts of Carriage by Air (2nd Ed. 2010), pp. 8, 160 to 162 [para. 47].

Côté, Pierre-André, Beaulac, Stéphane, and Devinat, Mathieu, The Interpretation of Legislation in Canada (4th Ed. 2011), pp. 375 [para. 93]; 376 [paras. 94, 98]; 379 to 380 [para. 99].

Côté, Pierre-André, The Interpretation of Legislation in Canada (3rd Ed. 2000), p. 350 [para. 94].

Dempsey, Paul Stephen, and Milde, Michael, International Air Carrier Liability: The Montreal Convention of 1999 (2005), pp. 7 [para. 31]; 15 to 16 [para. 153]; 17 to 41 [para. 155]; 29 to 31 [para. 156]; 32 to 35 [para. 157]; 36 to 38 [para. 158]; 36 to 41 [para. 32]; 40 to 41 [para. 158]; 50 to 51 [para. 153]; 124 [para. 175]; 417 [para. 157].

Dempsey, Paul Stephen, Aviation Liability Law (2nd Ed. 2013), pp. 304 [para. 31]; 309 [paras. 42, 151]; 310 [paras. 33, 42, 151]; 315 to 316 [para. 154]; 332 to 334 [para. 157]; 336 [paras. 32, 158]; 338 to 340 [para. 33]; 439 to 441 [para. 85].

Driedger, Elmer A., Construction of Statutes (2nd Ed. 1983), p. 87 [para. 112].

Field, Andrew, International Air Carriage, The Montreal Convention and the Injuries for Which There is No Compensation (2006), 12 Canta. L. Rev. 237, p. 239 [para. 42].

Fountain Court Chambers, Carriage by Air (2001), p. 3 [para. 42].

Hansard - see Canada, Hansard, House of Commons Debates.

International Civil Aviation Organization, International Conference on Air Law (2001), vol. 1, p. 137 [para. 38].

Radoཕ༹evic, Sonja, CJEU's Decision in Nelson and Others in Light of the Exclusivity of the Montreal Convention (2013), 38 Air & Space L. 95, p. 99 [para. 50].

Shawcross and Beaumont, Air Law (1997) (2008 Looseleaf Update), Issue 111, pp. VII-103 to VII-165 [para. 32]; VII-105 to VII-105A [para. 42]; VII-251 [para. 33]; VII-685 to VII-687 [para. 85].

Sullivan, Ruth, Sullivan on the Construction of Statutes (5th Ed. 2008), pp. 325 [para. 93]; 326 [para. 98]; 328 [para. 99]; 539 to 542 [para. 113].

Tompkins, George N., Jr., The Continuing Development of Montreal Convention 1999 Jurisprudence (2010), 35 Air & Space L. 433, pp. 433 to 436 [para. 47].

Weber, Ludwig, and Jakob, Arie, The Modernization of the Warsaw System: The Montreal Convention of 1999 (1999), 24 Ann. Air & Space L. 333, pp. 334 to 335 [para. 32].

Wegter, Jorn J., The ECJ Decision of 10 January 2006 on the Validity of Regulation 261/2004: Ignoring the Exclusivity of the Montreal Convention (2006), 31 Air & Space L. 133, p. 144 [para. 75].

Counsel:

Érik Labelle Eastaugh, Ronald F. Caza and Alyssa Tomkins, for the appellants, Michel and Lynda Thibodeau;

Pascale Giguère, Kevin Shaar and Mathew Croitoru, for the appellant, the Commissioner of Official Languages of Canada;

Louise-Hélène Sénécal, Pierre Bienvenu and Andres Garin, for the respondent.

Solicitors of Record:

CazaSaikaley, Ottawa, Ontario, for the appellants, Michel and Lynda Thibodeau;

Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages, Ottawa, Ontario, for the appellant, the Commissioner of Official Languages of Canada;

Air Canada, Dorval, Quebec; Norton Rose Fulbright Canada, Montreal, Quebec, for the respondent.

This appeal was heard on March 26, 2014, before McLachlin, C.J.C., LeBel, Abella, Rothstein, Cromwell, Karakatsanis and Wagner, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada. The decision of the court was delivered in both official languages on October 28, 2014, including the following opinions:

Cromwell, J. (McLachlin, C.J.C., LeBel, Rothstein and Karakatsanis, JJ., concurring) - see paragraphs 1 to 133;

Abella, J., dissenting (Wagner, J., concurring) - see paragraphs 134 to 178.