Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Liability was determined under Article 19 of the Montreal Convention concerning delay in international air travel.

• The court found that Air Canada agents failed to enter visa data, triggering an unnecessary visa cancellation.

• Key testimony from the plaintiff was preferred over Air Canada’s, highlighting discrepancies in evidence.

• The CBSA and IRCC actions did not constitute negligence or public law wrongdoing under federal standards.

• The absence of testimony from the male Air Canada agent led to an adverse inference against Air Canada.

• Damages were awarded based on proven expenses directly resulting from the 33-day delay in Panama.

Facts of the case

Nazarelys Paula Mejias Turmero and her three children were traveling from Venezuela to Toronto, Canada, with a planned transit through Panama City. On August 4, 2017, they were denied boarding by Air Canada at Tocumen International Airport in Panama because their valid Canadian visas were suddenly cancelled. These cancellations occurred after a male Air Canada agent initiated a verification process upon reviewing their travel documents and one-way tickets. This triggered a chain of communications involving Air Canada personnel and officers from the Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA) and Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC). Eventually, the Deputy Program Manager for Immigration at the Canadian Embassy in Mexico, Mr. Francis, made the decision to cancel the visas.

Ms. Mejias and her children were stranded in Panama for 33 days as they worked to resolve the situation. Their visas were eventually reissued, and they were permitted to travel to Canada on September 6, 2017. Subsequently, they made refugee claims which were later accepted. Ms. Mejias filed suit against Air Canada and, in the alternative, the Attorney General of Canada, seeking compensatory damages for expenses incurred due to the delay.

Claims and legal framework

Ms. Mejias pursued her primary claim against Air Canada under Article 19 of the Montreal Convention, which governs air carrier liability in international travel. In the alternative, she brought claims against the federal government for negligence and public law damages under the Crown Liability and Proceedings Act.

The court noted that Article 19 makes carriers liable for delay unless they can prove they and their agents took all reasonable measures to avoid the delay or that it was impossible to do so. It was undisputed that the delay occurred; the focus was on whether Air Canada met its burden of proof for the defense.

Analysis and findings

The court found that Air Canada failed to take all reasonable measures to avoid the delay. Crucially, the Air Canada agent never entered the visa information into the system, meaning no valid system response was generated (such as “OK to board”). The resulting concern about the passengers’ intent to overstay led to an overreaction by immigration officials who cancelled the visas based on incomplete or miscommunicated information.

Air Canada did not produce testimony from the male agent who interacted with Ms. Mejias at check-in. The court found this failure significant and drew an adverse inference—assuming his evidence would not have supported Air Canada’s case. Ms. Mejias’s testimony was deemed credible, especially in contrast to that of the Air Canada supervisor, Ms. Corrales, who had a vague recollection of events and provided conflicting testimony.

Regarding the claim against the federal government, the court found no legal duty of care existed between immigration authorities and Ms. Mejias, and therefore the negligence claim failed. Similarly, the claim for public law damages was dismissed, as recent Supreme Court jurisprudence (Nelson v. Marchi, 2021 SCC 41) rejected the legal foundation for such a claim.

Outcome and damages

The court ruled in favor of Ms. Mejias against Air Canada, awarding her CAD 4,129.04 in damages. This amount reflected proven accommodation and incidental expenses resulting from the delay, excluding estimates without receipts. Pre-judgment and post-judgment interest were also granted at rates of 2% and 4.75% respectively. The claim against the Attorney General of Canada was dismissed in full. The issue of court costs was left for the parties to resolve or submit further arguments.