2013 QCCQ 14017, 2013 QCCQ 14017

Matteo c. Vacances Air Transat Division, division de Transat Tours inc. 2013 QCCQ 14017 COURT OF QUEBEC Small Claims Division CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF MONTREAL No: 500-32-128530-112 DATE: November 8, 2013 ______________________________________________________________________ PRESIDED BY THE HONOURABLE DAVID L. CAMERON, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ ANTONIO MATTEO […] QC, […] Intimé v.

VACANCES AIR TRANSAT DIVISION Division de Transat Tours Inc. 300, rue Léo Parizeau, bureau 500 Montréal, QC, H2X 4C2 -et- VACANCES ARC-EN-CIEL 2282 des Laurentides Laval, QC, H7M 2YB Défendeurs ____________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT ______________________________________________________________________ [ 1 ] Antonio Matteo sues his travel agent Vacances Arc-en-ciel and the wholesaler Vacances Air Transat, Division of Transat Tours inc. (“Transat”), in connexion with a return trip to Italy in September 2009. [ 2 ] The trip involved a return flight on Air Transat from Montreal to Rome/Fiumicino, with a coach connection to Vinchiaturo. [ 3 ] Mr Matteo missed his return flight on October 26, 2009, because of a change to the itinerary of which he was not aware.

He claims from the Defendants $ 5,750, including his cost of a return flight to Montreal on October 30, 2009, the cost of the additional lodging for the extra days spent in Italy and the cost of getting to the Rome airport from Vinchiaturo as well as moral damages. [ 4 ] At the hearing, he amended this claim to $ 7,000 in respect of Air Transat.

The Court did not permit any amendment in respect of Vacances Arc-en-ciel who was not present at the hearing. [ 5 ] Transat contests the case on the principle that it is up to the traveller to verify 24 hours before the departure to make sure there has been no change to the itinerary.

Mr Matteo answers this defence stating that he went to a travel agent at Campobasso the day before and was advised by an agent who checked for him that there was no change in the flight which, according to his e-ticket, was to depart at 11:55 a.m. on October 26. [ 6 ] Vacances Arc-en-ciel failed to contest the claim. [ 7 ] Mr Matteo’s understanding of the problem is somewhat muddled because of the fact that his e-ticket showing a return

departure at 11:55 a.m., October 26, already reflected the change that had been made since his initial booking of the trip. [ 8 ] Originally, the flight was scheduled to leave later in the day, but on October 1, 2001, Transat changed the

schedule so that the flight would leave at 11:55 am.

The e-ticket issued after the change shows accurately the amended flight time. [ 9 ] The problem arose because the travel voucher prepared in anticipation of the plane leaving at 2:00 p.m. indicated that the coach departure from Vinchiaturo would be 7:30 in the morning, arriving at 11:45 at the Rome airport, with plenty of time to catch the flight. [ 10 ] In reality, since Transat had changed the flight departure to 11:55 a.m., the coach from Vinchiaturo left much earlier, at approximatively 3:30 a.m. [ 11 ] When Mr Matteo arrived at the bus stop, he was told that the coach had left earlier that morning. [ 12 ] At the hearing, Mr Matteo was under the impression that he was told that the flight had left earlier in the morning.

It is actually not the case: it left as scheduled at 11.55 a.m. It was the coach departure time that had been changed. [ 13 ] The representative of Transat Tours Inc. explained to the Court that the change to the flight time was registered in the system on October 1; Transat only informed the agent on October 9. Mr Matteo had already left October 4.

His e-ticket reflected the change of the departure time of the return flight, but his voucher, that had been provided on “Transat Holidays” paper through the travel agent, did not reflect the change with respect to the coach departure time. [ 14 ] At the hearing, Mr Matteo’s mandatory deplores the fact that the coach was to arrive at 11:45, only 10 minutes before the flight departure.

In fact, the coach departure time was changed appropriately, so that the passengers would arrive well in advance of the flight departure, but Mr Matteo was not aware of this change through his agent, who failed to contact him. [ 15 ] When Mr Matteo showed his e-ticket to the travel agent in Campobasso, it showed the flight departure at 11:55 which was accurate, and so he was not advised of any change. [ 16 ] The retailer, Vacances Arc-en-ciel, should have contacted Mr Matteo at his Italian coordinates when it was reminded on October 9 by Transat that the flight time had been changed to inform him of the accurate flight time, and the new coach departure time. [ 17 ] Mr Matteo is an ordinary man; he did not notice the discrepancy between the e-ticket he had on hand and the travel voucher providing for a coach departure time that was impossible in light of the scheduled flight departure. [ 18 ] Mr Matteo is not negligent, because he took the trouble to go to a travel agency in Campobasso, a locality near his destination in Vinchiaturo.

Nor did the agent he spoke to there note the discrepancy and advise him that the coach departure time would be three hours earlier than the time he had been given. [ 19 ] A seasoned expert traveller may not have not been mistaken, but Mr Matteo, an elderly traveller on his own, was vulnerable to this type of inadequate information. [ 20 ] The Court must determine whether the Defendants are liable in respect of Mr Matteo’s loss. [ 21 ] The Court readily comes to the conclusion that Vacances arc-en-ciel is responsible.

It issued to Mr Matteo a voucher showing a coach departure time consistent with the original departure time for the return flight, and did not advise Mr Matteo by an amended voucher or some other written or oral communication of the change. It could have done so before his departure and, when reminded by Transat Tours of the change on October 9, it could have made contact with him either directly or through Auratours Italia, the local representative. [ 22 ] Transat did not have an obligation to directly communicate with the traveller. Transat Tours not have Mr Matteo’s contact information.

Transat’s duty was to communicate with the agent. [ 23 ] Transat is however responsible in another manner. The e-ticket and the travel vouchers are generated through Transat’s computer system, and provided through that system to the traveller through the retailer. [ 24 ] Transat’s system changed the flight information on October 1, but the corresponding changes to the voucher were not made. [ 25 ] Mr Matteo’s bill was actually issued on September 30, 2009. It shows the correct departure time at 11:55 a.m.

This would indicate that Transat actually made a change before October 1; according to Transat Tours representative, the change was only registered in the system on October 1 st . [ 26 ] Be that as it may, the miscommunication resulting from the discrepancy between the itinerary as shown in the e-ticket on the one hand and the travel voucher on the other, can be traced back to a quirk in Air Transat’s computer system as used for generating e- tickets and vouchers. [ 27 ] Transat is therefore responsible for generating the mistake in the documentation, even though it eventually contacted the travel agent. [ 28 ] Transat offered to compensate Mr Matteo for the modest amount of $ 713.50, the value of the return trip with Transat at the time. [ 29 ] Mr Matteo claims $ 800 for the return ticket he actually purchased as well as $ 2,500 for an amount he claims to have spent on hotel accommodation, meals and a ride to the Rome Airport on October 30, 2009.

He raised his claim to $ 7,000 by adding more moral damages.

[ 30 ] In the Court’s estimation, an accurate assessment of Mr Matteo’s damages would be the cost of his ticket at $ 800, a reasonable price for a coach trip to the airport, $ 200, and 3 extra nights of accommodation at $ 250 per day, for a total of $ 1,750, plus an additional $ 250 for stress and anxiety. [ 31 ] In all, the damages amount to $ 2,000, a solidary obligation as between Transat Tours and Vacances Arc-en-ciel. FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT: CONDEMNS the Defendants solidarily to pay the Plaintiff the sum of $ 2,000, together with interest at the legal rate of 5% per annum and the additional indemnity provided at

article 1619 of the Civil Code of Quebec , calculated from the date of the institution of the proceedings; CONDEMNS the Defendants to pay to the Plaintiff’s judicial fees of $ 159. __________________________________ DAVID L. CAMERON, J.C.Q . Date of hearing: 27 août 2013