sa国际传媒’s Civil Resolution Tribunal has ordered Air sa国际传媒 to pay three people $1,870 in negligence damages after ticket changes left them stranded on a Caribbean island.
In a , tribunal member Christopher Rivers said Huibert Visscher, Sandra Sofia Broenink and Sofie Rose Visscher booked tickets to fly from Aruba to Vancouver, with stops in Charlotte, North Carolina and Toronto.
Rivers said Air sa国际传媒 operated the final leg from Toronto to Vancouver. Due to a snowstorm in Toronto, Air sa国际传媒 rebooked the trio on a new flight from Aruba to Vancouver, with stops in Chicago and Seattle.
However, the three claimed, despite apparently rebooking them, Air sa国际传媒 did not issue tickets for the revised itinerary, leaving them stranded in Aruba until they could book a new flight.
Air sa国际传媒 said it was not liable, saying it met its obligations under the Air Passenger Protection Regulations and its contract with the three. The airline further argued the group failed to take necessary steps to confirm the new itinerary, and that they did not suffer damages as they allege.
Air sa国际传媒 asked that the claim be dismissed.
What happened?
Rivers said the three paid Air sa国际传媒 and Air sa国际传媒 agreed to fly them from Toronto to Vancouver as the final leg of a series of flights beginning in Aruba March 3, 2023.
On that date, they were scheduled to fly with American Airlines (AA) from Oranjestad, Aruba to Charlotte and then to Toronto. Air sa国际传媒 would then fly the applicants from Toronto to Vancouver.
“Due to a snowstorm in sa国际传媒, Air sa国际传媒 cancelled the applicants’ flight,” Rivers said.
On March 3, 2023, Air sa国际传媒 emailed Visscher to say the three’s previous Toronto to Vancouver Air sa国际传媒 flight had been changed to United Airlines (UA) Aruba to Chicago, UA’s Chicago to Seattle and Air sa国际传媒’s Seattle to Vancouver.
“The email showed three flights marked in orange as “Previous” – AA 875 (Aruba to Charlotte), AA 1745 (Charlotte to Toronto), and AC 103. The table also showed three flights marked in blue as “New” – UA 1650, UA 1046, and AC 8801,” Rivers said.
Throughout its submissions, Air sa国际传媒 argued it was only responsible for the final leg of the trip, from Toronto to Vancouver.
Rivers said the airline accurately noted that the three had different itinerary numbers for the American Airlines and Air sa国际传媒 legs of their flights. However, Air sa国际传媒 sent the three an email advising of the change to all their flights.
“The email specifically addressed the original flights that would have been operated by American Airlines from Aruba to Charlotte to Chicago,” Rivers said.
“Despite this change being a fundamental and central issue to the dispute, Air sa国际传媒 does not provide any explanation for what happened,” Rivers said. “It does not say if or how it cancelled the applicants’ original flights on American Airlines or how it chose to rebook the applicants on United Airlines.”
Airline obligation
Rivers said Air sa国际传媒 said two things of the changed itinerary.
“First, Air sa国际传媒 says its legal obligation was limited to rebooking the applicants on an alternate flight from Toronto to Vancouver,” the tribunal member wrote. “As the revised itinerary shows, it did not do that.”
Rivers said when a party fails to provide relevant evidence without sufficient explanation, an adjudicator is entitled to draw an adverse inference. That, he said, is where an adjudicator assumes a party has failed to provide relevant evidence because the missing evidence would not support their case.
“I make an adverse inference that Air sa国际传媒 was responsible for the entire itinerary, even if the initial legs of the itinerary were operated by other airlines. In other words, I find Air sa国际传媒 is responsible for the applicants’ entire flight, from Aruba to Vancouver,” Rivers said.
Visscher got the new itinerary and the three went to the airport on March 4.
“United Airlines was unable to check them in for their revised itinerary,” Rivers said. “The applicants say they attempted to contact Air sa国际传媒 but were unsuccessful.”
The three arranged other plans and arrived in Vancouver 62 hours later than their original itinerary.
Rivers found Air sa国际传媒 was liable for damages for expenses incurred after March 4, 2023 at 2:40 p.m., when their revised itinerary was set to begin.
“The total of the applicants’ receipts for hotel, food, and transportation during the relevant period is $1,374.61 U.S. dollars,” the tribunal ruled.
