New aviation industry ombudsman & customer rights charter in Australia

[MEL_Traveller]

My argument here is that they have tribunals (at least in BC) and small claims courts everywhere else where they can hear matters under the Montreal Convention. This makes justice accessible for everyone since you simply need to pay a filing fee (usually $100) and make your case.

This has not been the case, at least in Canada. Cases tend to move fairly quickly (certainly quicker than our other option, filing a complaint to the Canadian Transportation Agency). And again, it won't cost thousands of dollars for the simple fact that you just need to put in a filing fee of $108 with court costs for the losing party being statutorily capped.

The other argument I would make here is that the Montreal Convention isn't new. It's been around for well over 2 decades now with good precedent having been set. For instance, quite recently the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that the Air Passenger Protection Regulations apply to flights covered under the Montreal Convention. In other words, the exclusivity clause of the convention does not preclude statutory non-damage related consumer protections (i.e. entitlements) from being applied to international trips. The fact that it is an internationally agreed to treaty has no effect on how courts rule since treaties become law in a country through enabling legislation much how any other law of the land is passed.

The problem with your example is you are comparing apples to oranges. In the case you cited, this was one which involved the airline security department causing a passenger's visa to be revoked. It's a very extreme edge case compared to the types of issues most passengers face like a flight being delayed by 14 hours or the airline making the commercial decision to cancel flights during a strike and not rebooking you on another flight. These are more straightforward examples where the airline clearly needs to take all reasonable measures including booking you on a competitor's flight if it can minimize that disruption.

-RooFlyer88

The Supreme Court of Canada ruling that Air Passenger Protection Regulations apply to flights covered under Montreal is not new. The EU and UK courts have made a similar determination, although for slightly different reasoning.

I am not comparing apples with oranges. And this is why it’s important to read cases in full and follow the context of cases and quoted cases.

The reasonableness to use automated rebooking did not come from the case of the denied visa. If you follow cases quoted in the visa case, they lead you to where the court has ruled on reasonable measures. One of which is that the use of automated rebooking programs is perfectly reasonable.

In the context of an Australian bulletin board the fact that you can bring a case under Montreal in a small claim court in Canada has no relevance in Australia where it can’t. And where it would cost you thousands of dollars.

 

[kangarooflyer88]

In the context of an Australian bulletin board the fact that you can bring a case under Montreal in a small claim court in Canada has no relevance in Australia where it can’t. And where it would cost you thousands of dollars.

I think you can take a matter related to the Montreal Convention to a magistrate's court in your state. Specifically, the Montreal Convention is implemented in Australian law under the Civil Aviation (Carriers' Liability) Act 1959 (Cth). Under section 9L of the act it expressly provides that state courts have jurisdiction to hear Montreal Convention claims to the same extent that they have Federal jurisdiction:

9L Jurisdiction of State courts preserved
For the purposes of section 38 of the Judiciary Act 1903, an action under the Convention is taken not to be a matter arising directly under a treaty.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

I think you can take a matter related to the Montreal Convention to a magistrate's court in your state. Specifically, the Montreal Convention is implemented in Australian law under the Civil Aviation (Carriers' Liability) Act 1959 (Cth). Under section 9L of the act it expressly provides that state courts have jurisdiction to hear Montreal Convention claims to the same extent that they have Federal jurisdiction:

Still going to cost you thousands with lawyer fees. And the likelihood of an appeal for something complex like reasonable measures.