Here’s an excellent database, so please provide links to such Canadian cases so that we can discuss them: CANLII.
I am not relying on case law to make my point; you are, so you provide the link.
The 5-minute limit on editing is a silly pain in the ass.
In red bold below is a garbled section which it would obviously do no harm
to edit 10-20-40-80 munutes or 10-20-40-80 days after submission:
Correction: …although the execs’ physical presence was required…
Here’s what I want to know: Why should a plane be diverted just because some people got disorderly? They’re not terrorists, they’re not going to blow anything up. Just lock them in the bathroom and proceed normally. I’d just wait it out
A few more comments on lawyer Spoons’ take here:
Unaddressed:
The RIM execs were totally, ridiculously, grossly intoxicated. If AC continued
to serve obvious drunks then there is an obvious negligence case vs AC, and
I do not think legal training is needed to say so.
If the RIM execs were not obviously drunk when they got on the plane but
became so during the flight then so much the worse for AC.
As for the cost to the passengers that was certainly not limited to a few
meals and a night in a hotel. Whether at work or on vacation they or their
employers all lost at least one day’s pay. Then there are the various costs
of being late in Beijing such as missed connections elswhere, non-refundable
hotel deposits, lost business, and the list goes on and on and on. I would
think AC is sweating all this out right along with RIM. You can be close to
100% sure they have a lawyer or two working on it now, full time, as we speak.
In order for the board to determine which edits do or do not substantially change the meaning of the underlying phrase, they’d have to do full natural language processing. Not an easy problem.
I did. If you are not relying on case law, then please cite the Canadian statute that you are relying on.
Let me put it this way: I stand on my own reasoning- my knowledge of fact
and use of logic- with limited reference to whatever law may apply, since my
knowlwdge of the law is sketchy. You are the one who started making case
citation part of the debate. However, the case you introduced was not helpful.
It may be that other law disallows action against RIM and I am unaware of it.
However, it may be that other law does allow action against RIM, and YOU
are unaware of it.
I am not going to go plowing through Canadian law sites to support my argument,
although it would be nice if someone could provide relevant citation regardless
of whether or not RIM is shielded from liability. The case you cited before provides
no such shield. If you want to try again be my guest.
'K, bye.
I don’t think any of AC’s lawyers are sweating, or indeed, working on it.
First, we have AC’s conditions of carriage (cite here, warning PDF). We find the following on page 91, under rule 0085:
So AC is not responsible for missed connections cause by a diversion or a delay. The only liability it will assume is for the unused portion of a ticket–and if the passengers got where they were going (i.e. Beijing), which they did, AC is not liable for that.
Next, we have the Montreal Convention on international air travel. Article 19, on Delay (PDF):
I’d say that the AC flight crew took all reasonably required measures to avoid damage–to the aircraft and to other passengers. Better to divert to Vancouver and get rid of a problem, than to allow it to continue for the next seven or eight hours.
If you still want to sue, then you may find this case encouraging: Mohammad c. Air Canada, 2010 QCCQ 6858 (CanLII). In brief, a family going from Montreal to Dhaka, return, with multiple connections, experienced delays resulting in missed flights, which required the purchase of new tickets in some cases. In addition to the actual damages they suffered by buying new tickets, they sued for $3000 for inconvenience. And all they got for inconvenience was $150 each.
If all I could collect was $150 for “inconvenience,” I don’t think I’d bother.
In other words you are talking out of your ass. I base that assessment on my own reasoning–my knowledge of fact and use of logic.
When you have time and are in a better mood feel free
to join the debate. I doubt you will add anything of value,
but maybe you can suprise me.
I notice we have gotten away from the question of RIM’s potential exposure,
and I hope our Mr. Spoons can provide more useful information on that note
than he does below on the question of AC’s possible exposure.
Not even a 1/312 chance of a single peep out of the other passengers, huh?
I would call that excessively optimistic.
This is not a scheduling issue.
I guess you did not notice my reply #105, so here is a part relevant to the stipulations
claimed by AC:
“The RIM execs were totally, ridiculously, grossly intoxicated. If AC continued to serve
obvious drunks then there is an obvious negligence case vs AC, and I do not think legal
training is needed to say so.
If the RIM execs were not obviously drunk when they got on the plane but became so
during the flight then so much the worse for AC.”
A bar owner may be held liable for damages caused by an intoxicated customer who they
have over served. AC may be liable under identical reasoning.
I would say overserving someone might be considered evidence that the carrier’s
servants and agents did NOT in fact take all measures that could reasonably be required.
Mohammed establishes that delayed passengers may have right of action
despite citations you provide above, am I right? Mechanical problems appear
to have been the initiating cause in Mohammed, and since AC was after all
motivated by safety considerations court may have had more sympathy than
it would be in our case if it is found that AC employees loaded the RIM passengers
up with 10-15 strong drinks.
Also note that three Mohammed defendants were awarded a total of 3149.59,
plus interest and other damages; Court found that Kuwaiti Airlines was liable
for considerable damages beyond the $150 convenience award AC had to pay.
AC might not be so lucky with any or all the 312 potential claims it is facing
in our case.
I’d settle for $100 if it were one of those new shiny plastic ones (my eyes lit up with anticipation when a stack of C-notes were counted out to me today, but once again my joy was short-lived, for they were not the bling for which I had hoped). What do I have to do to stroke one of the these things? Hell, I’d even fly on Air Canada if they’d give me one of them.
Skald, your assessment is correct. Unfortunately, colonial is confusing his own opinion with the law, and is not willing to actually look at what the law says, so when he speaks of debate, really it is just him talking to himself, for without actually looking at the law, a debate on the application of that law to a specific set of facts is meaningless.
Up here in Kanukistan, an employer’s vicarious liabilty is not triggered simply because the employee committed an intentional tort while on the job. This is set out by our top court in Bazley, in which the soon-to-be Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada wrote the unanimous decision of the Court, setting out that:
So there we have the law in the Great White: " A wrong that is only coincidentally linked to the activity of the employer and duties of the employee cannot justify the imposition of vicarious liability on the employer." Now let’s turn to the RIM drunks. On its face, their going ape-shit is only coincidentally linked their being on the plane as RIM employees, so unless there was something to make that link more than coincidental, there would not be vicarious liability. That’s where RIM’s good behaviour policy comes into play. In another matter in which the link was apparently only coincidental, a lower court judge thought that a good behaviour contract might be sufficient to establish the non-coincidental link required by the Bazley test. A higher level court shot it down (as set out in my earlier post), applying the principle of Bazley to the good behaviour clause:
That leaves us with the drunks being on the job not being a sufficient link to establish vicarious liability (Bazley), and RIM having a good behaviour policy not being a sufficent link to establish vicarious liability (Bazley as applied by the Divisional Court).
That works for me, as long as I can piss on them when I use the bathroom in which they are locked.
Since Air Canada flight attendents are what they are, they could drive anyone to drink, so their union and Air Canada should be liable.
No, I saw it. I simply ignored it, as it was unsupported. If you’re prepared to provide solid citations to relevant Canadian cases or statute law dealing with the pertinent issue, I’ll reconsider my position.
Hey I showed, through citations, why AC is not liable to the passengers and why it wouldn’t be worth anyone’s while to sue. Now you show me, through citations and not your opinion, why AC is liable to the passengers.
I don’t know a whole lot about employment terms in Canada, but the piece that doesn’t fit here is these guys were executives. In the US executives tend to be bargaining employees, meaning they have a specific employment contract, which still has to fit within the legal framework, but can have additional terms and additional compensation. Sort of like a Union of One. So they may have all these cool things like bonuses and golden parachutes, but they may also have clauses like non-compete clauses or personal appearance/behavior clauses which are enforceable at all times.
If a non-compete agreement comes up against a government statute, the statute usually wins, but I would not be at all surprised, assuming the RIM executives are bargaining employees with contracts, if they were terminated under some sort of personal conduct clause unique to their position. Poor behavior not generally being a protected class of actions, the odds are good that the statutes aren’t going to step in and rule this clause of the employment contract unenforceable.
Enjoy,
Steven
That is a ridiculous thing to say. I made this unambiguous comment
reply# 108: “It may be that other law disallows action against RIM
and I am unaware of it.”
That is a ridiculous thing to say. I took good look at the law you posted
earlier, and made the fully accurate observation that it did not apply
to the RIM issue because the facts were so different.
This citation is useful, and it does support your side of the argument.
More below, though.
That is a reasonable inference.
However, consider this: suppose it had been not merely two RIM employees,
but say 30 of them- all belligerently drunk and assaultive, and too numerous
to be quelled by the flight crew. The plane subsequently crash lands with
everyone on board either killed or injured. In such an event actual damages
would be in the millions, and then there would be consideration for pain,
suffering and grief. Total damages would be in the 10s of millions at least,
more than even 30 RIM VPs could afford to cover.
The facts of this hypothetical case differ only in the numbers and extent of
damages from the one we are discussing; there is no difference in principle.
For any victim to remain uncompensated due to denial of vicarious liability
would create a firestorm of public outrage, and rightly so.
I wonder if the Supreme Court of Canada would then follow the logic of Bazely
to the bitter end. If it did the legislature would have to take action to clearly
define the concept of vicarious liability in a way less favorable to a malefactor’s employer.
Previously addressed. There was no connection between Payton et al going to
a strip joint and their employer’s enterprise. There was a definite connection
between the RIM VPs going to China and their employer’s enterprise. The question
is whether the connection was close enough to impute liability to RIM.
Originally I was thinking RIM itself for releasing information, that being the termination notice being sent out wideband, even before the perfumed princes got into Ontario. However its been mentioned that RIM was within its rights with the media action it took. Like I said earlier, I had no problem with them getting canned, I am more interested in what set the situation off.
Declan