2015 QCCQ 6588, 2015 QCCQ 6588

Hans c. Air France 2015 QCCQ 6588 COURT OF QUEBEC “CIVIL DIVISION” CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF MONTREAL No: 500-22-202865-138 DATE: July 29, 2015. ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE ARMANDO AZNAR, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ AMANJIT HANS Plaintiff vs.

AIR FRANCE AND AIR CANADA AND GURDINER SINGH MULTANI AND AMANDEEP KAUR MULTAMI AND SERGINE FALLOU NADIAYE Defendants ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT ______________________________________________________________________ [ 1 ] Plaintiff claims solidarily from Defendants an amount of $ 20,001.00 in damages as compensation for “moral prejudice, distress, trouble and inconvenience” plus an amount of $ 5,000.00 for punitive damages. [ 2 ] In substance, Plaintiff is suing Defendants Air France and Air Canada regarding credit card charges made to his accounts pursuant to the fraudulent purchase by unknown third parties of air travel tickets which charges were eventually credited back to Plaintiff’s accounts by the credit card issuers. [ 3 ] Furthermore, Plaintiff also seeks the said damages from Defendants, Gurdiner Singh Multani, Amandeep Kaur Multani and Sergine Fallou Nadiaye who apparently travelled with the air tickets fraudulently obtained. [ 4 ] More particularly, in the re-amended motion to institute proceedings, Plaintiff alleges the following : “3.

On or about June 01, 2010, DEFENDANT Air France charged plaintiff Amanjit Hans’s TD Green Visa credit card an amount of $2152.02, as it appears from Exhibit P-3 filed herewith; 4. Upon noticing the above said charge, plaintiff advised TD Green Visa, issuer of credit card, of a fraudulent charge; 5. TD Green Visa, reversed the charge upon being advised that it was a fraudulent charge and plaintiff’s account was credited; 6. After a few weeks, plaintiff noticed that the same charge reappeared again; 7. Upon seeing the charge again, plaintiff contacted TD Green Visa again and asked about the charge; 8.

TD Green Visa, advised plaintiff to provide a written and signed statement that plaintiff did note authorized defendant Air France to charge his credit card; 9. Plaintiff provided the signed and written statement to TD Green Visa as it appears from Exhibit P-4 filed herewith; 11. After spending lot of time and effort, finally the charge was removed on or about end of August, 2010; 14. Plaintiff just had the above charge reversed after spending considerable time and effort. In the month of September, 2010, defendant

Air Canada charged plaintiff Amanjit Hans’s HBC master car an amount of $3489.18 CAD for three air tickets each costing $1163.06 CAD, as it appears from Exhibit P-5 filed herewith; 15. Upon noticing above said fraudulent charge by defendant Air Canada, plaintiff immediately advised HBC Master card, issuer of credit card, of not having made the above said purchase or authorizing anyone to use his credit card; 16. Again after spending considerable time and effort the above said charge was reversed by HBC Master card; 18.

Despite several repeated written requests filed herewith as Exhibit P-11, defendant Air France did not respond to plaintiff Amanjit Hans’s requests. However after a demand letter was sent to defendant Air France, defendant did respond disclosing the name of its agent who processed the transaction for defendant Air France; 19. Plaintiff also contacted defendant Air Canada asking for similar details about the charges made to plaintiff Amanjit Hans’s credit card as mentioned in

section 14; 20. Defendant Air Canada did provide the pertinent itineraries to plaintiff Amanjit Hans , filed herein as Exhibit P-6; 21. Upon receiving the above said itineraries, plaintiff came to know that three tickets were purchased to fly from Vancouver to Montreal and back from Montreal to Vancouver; 28. Per defendant Air Canada, it was defendants Amandeep Kaur Multani and Gurdiner Singh Multani, who travelled on Air Canada flights; 30.

Plaintiff further states in unequivocal terms that he had no contact or communication of any kind with defendants Srigne Fallou Nadiaye, Gurdiner Singh Multani and Amandeep Kaur Multani; 31. As evident, the same flawed process was used by defendants Air Canada and Air France, to process incorrect and mismatching information by deliberately circumventing the proper validation process, to successfully create fraudulent charge on plaintiff’s credit card; 33.

Plaintiff’s information was illegitimately acquired, used in a fraudulent manner, deliberately and negligently processed without validation resulting in profound distress to plaintiff. All defendants played their

part in the whole process and are solidarily liable; 34. As a result of the collective actions of all the defendants, plaintiff sustained inconvenience, moral and material damages and said actions caused profoung distress to plaintiff Amanjit Hans. All the defendants are solidarily liable for these damages; 35.

PLAINTIFF is entitled to claim damages from all the DEFENDANTS since the damages that incurred were the direct results of all the DEFENDANTS’ collective and coordinated acts & actions”. [ 5 ] Defendants Air France and Air Canada contest Plaintiff’s action. [ 6 ] In essence, both Defendants plead that : a. they committed no fault by issuing the air tickets after having been given a credit authorization number by the credit card issuers; b. that they were in no way involved in any fraudulent activity when the air tickets were issued and charged to Plaintiff’s credit card accounts; c. that they cooperated with Plaintiff to the full extent of the law to provide him with the pertinent information regarding the issuance of the air tickets and the name of the passengers that used the said tickets; d. that the credit charges made to Plaintiff’s credit card accounts were reversed without any opposition on their part. [ 7 ] Furthermore, Air France and Air Canada both allege the following in their respective amended defences: Air France “18.

Plaintiff’s allegations that Air France intentionally created false charges on his credit back for “calculated, unjust, dishonest financial gain” and that it subjected Plaintiff “to organize harassment to cause profound distress and significant financial injury””(which the plaintiff illegally removed after Air France had replied to them in its original Statement of Defense) are unsupported by the evidence and are defamatory. 19.

Furthermore, the allegation that Air Canada and Air France, two vigorous competitors, acted hand in hand in “fallacious and fraudulent maneuvers towards the Plaintiff” (as originally alleged by plaintiff), or to “deliberately circumvent the proper validation process” (as newly alleged in paragraph 31 of the Re-amended Motion to institute proceedings), is preposterous. 21. Plaintiff does note offer a speck of evidence of wrongdoing on the part of Air France, and his various claims against the latter are clearly unfounded, frivolous and unreasonable. 22.

Plaintiff’s improper use of procedures has cost Air France to suffer a prejudice, in that it had to retain the services to the undersigned lawyer to defend itself and, as a result has incurred and continue to incur fees and costs which should not have been subject to.” Air Canada “24. Plaintiff’s allegations that Air Canada intentionally created false charges on his credit back for “calculated, unjust, dishonest

financial gain” and that it subjected Plaintiff “to organize harassment to cause profound distress and significant financial injury “(which the plaintiff illegally removed after Air Canada had replied to them in its original Statement of Defense) are clearly not supported by the evidence and are defamatory. 25.

Furthermore, the allegation that Air Canada and Air France, two vigorous competitors, acted hand in hand in “fallacious and fraudulent maneuvers towards the Plaintiff” (as originally alleged by plaintiff), or to “deliberately circumvent the proper validation process” (as newly alleged in paragraph 31 of the Re-amended Motion to institute proceedings), is preposterous. 27. Plaintiff does not offer a speck of evidence of wrongdoing on the part of Air Canada, and his various claims against the latter are clearly unfounded, frivolous and unreasonable. 28.

Plaintiff’s improper use of procedures has cost Air Canada to suffer a prejudice, in that it had to retain the services of the undersigned lawyer to defend itself and, as a result, has incurred and continue to incur fees and costs which should have been subject to.” [ 8 ] The evidence adduced at trial has established that Plaintiff’s credit cards were fraudulently utilised by an unknown third party with the result that the said credit cards were charged with the purchase of air tickets issued by Defendants Air France and Air Canada for the benefit of passengers other than the Plaintiff namely the three others co-defendants. [ 9 ] However, in view of the evidence adduced at trial, the Court agrees with Defendants Air France and Air Canada when they allege that Plaintiff did not offer a speck of evidence of any wrongdoing on their

part in the present case. [ 10 ] The evidence has revealed, without any doubt, that Defendants Air France and Air Canada committed no fault when they issued the air tickets in question after having obtained a credit authorization number from the credit card issuers. [ 11 ] Nothing in the evidence provided by Plaintiff has established, even remotely, that Defendants Air France and Air Canada did not act properly or in accordance with the applicable rules by issuing the air tickets and charging them to Plaintiff’s credit card accounts.

In this regard, it must be reiterated that the said charges were, in due course, reversed to the benefit of Plaintiff who sustained no monetary loss whatsoever. [ 12 ] Nothing in the evidence provided to the Court by Plaintiff reveals that Defendants Air France and Air Canada knew, should have known or should have suspected that his credit cards were being fraudulently used by an unknown third party when the air travel tickets were issued. [ 13 ] Considering the absence of evidence provided by Plaintiff regarding the liability of Defendants Air France and Air Canada, the Court concludes that his action is clearly unfounded in fact and in law and must be dismissed. [ 14 ] However, as Plaintiff was not represented by attorney in the present case, the Court considers that the institution of the action is attributable to his incomprehension of the applicable rules governing contractual and extra-contractual liability under Quebec law and not from any malicious intent on his part that would justify Defendants to claim any damages regarding the fact that they had to defend themselves against the said action. [ 15 ] As concerns Defendants Gurdiner Singh Multani, Amandeep Kaur Multani and Sergine Fallou Nadiaye, the action was served against them through public notice in a local newspaper.

No appearance was filed in the file by the said Defendants and consequently, the trial proceeded against them, by default. [ 16 ] This being said, as concerns the above mentioned Defendants, the only evidence provided to the Court by Plaintiff, is that their name corresponds to the name of the passengers to whom the air tickets were issued by Defendants Air France and Air Canada and that the said air tickets were used. [ 17 ] However, no evidence whatsoever was provided to the Court by Plaintiff establishing that the said Defendants knew that the air tickets issued for their benefits had been obtained through the fraudulent use of Plaintiff’s credit cards.

Such a fact cannot be presumed and the Court cannot conclude in this manner without any evidence supporting the allegation. [ 18 ] Consequently, as concerns Defendants Gurdiner Singh Multani, Amandeep Kaur Multani and Sergine Fallou Nadiaye, as Plaintiff has not established the commission of any fault on their part, his action is dismissed, without costs. FOR THE FOREGOING REASONS, THE COURT: DISMISSES Plaintiff’s action, as concerns Defendants Air France and Air Canada; THE WHOLE , with costs.

DISMISSES Plaintiff’s action as concerns Defendants Gurdiner Singh Multani, Amandeep Kaur Multani and Sergine Fallou Nadiaye, without costs. __________________________________ ARMANDO AZNAR, J.C.Q. Mr. Amanjit Hans Plaintiff Me Gilbert Poliquin

Attorney for Defendants Air France and Air Canada Date of hearing: May 14 and 15, 2015.