2016 QCCQ 13758, 2016 QCCQ 13758

Ramtohul c. Transat Tours Canada inc. (Air Transat) 2016 QCCQ 13758 COURT OF QUEBEC « Small Claims Division » CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF MONTREAL « Civil division » N° : 500-32-151293-166 DATE : November 8, 2016 ______________________________________________________________________ PRESIDED OVER BY THE HONORABLE DANIEL DORTÉLUS ______________________________________________________________________ YEEMAN RAMTOHUL Plaintiff c. TRANSAT TOURS CANADA INC. (d.b.u.n.

AIR TRANSAT) Defendant ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT ______________________________________________________________________ [ 1 ] Plaintiff, Ramtohul Yeeman, is suing Transat Tours for $ 2 276, claiming that on October 7, 2015, his mother in law was arbitrarily refused by Air Transat agent to board a plane from Montreal travelling to Dublin, although she hold a valid passport from the Republic of Mauritius.

She did not required a transit visa for a stop in Dublin and showed her plane ticket issued by Emirates air line for the second part of her flight to Mauritius, her final destination. [ 2 ] In his demand letter, transmitted on October 26, 2015, Mr. Yeeman describes the reasons for his suit as follow : « This letter is to inform you that I, Mr Yeeman Ramtohul, bought a plane ticket from Air Transat for my mother in law, Mrs Lutchmah Bungaroo. on April 20 th , 2015 (Exhibit 1). On June 18 th , 2015 she flew from Dublin to Montreal by Air Transat.

On October 7 th , 2015 she was scheduled to fly from Montreal to the Republic of Mauritius by transiting through Dublin then Dubai. Her flight from Montreal to Dublin was with Air Transat and the second part of her flight from Dublin to the Republic of Mauritius was with Emirates Airline (Exhibit 2). On October 7 th , 2015 with assistance from my wife Mrs Nishi Ramtohul, she obtained her boarding pass from the self- checked-in machine. However, at the check-in counter the Air Transat agent and the supervisor refused her to board the plane on the grounds that she did not hold a valid transit visa to Dublin.

Although my wife insisted with them that she was in transit to Dublin and did not require a transit visa and showed them the Emirates return ticket for the second part of her flight, they still refused her access. I should inform you that Mrs Lutchmah Bungaroo holds a valid passport from the Republic of Mauritius (Exhibit 3). According to the Irish immigration authorities it clearly shows that nationals from the Republic of Mauritius do not require a transit visa (no asterisk mark on Republic of Mauritius) (Exhibit 4).

On October 7 th , 2015, after returning from the airport, I contacted Emirates Airlines and they were able to re-route her ticket but leaving from Toronto to the Republic of Mauritius on October 9 th , 2015. I hereby requesting you to pay the costs incurred and damages following Air Transat refusal to allow Mrs Lutchmah Bungaroo to board the flight from Montreal to Dublin on October 7 th , 2015.

Ticket rerouting from Emirates Airline $ 776 Transportation & Food costs from Montreal to Toronto $ 500 Moral damages & stress caused $ 1,000 Total $ 2,276 Please note that this letter constitutes a formal notice to pay me, the sum of $ 2,276 within the next ten days, otherwise, I may take legal action at a small claim court against you immediately and without further notice.

Please also note that you will be liable to pay interest on the amount due and any legal cost incurred. » [ 3 ] In its response to the demand letter, Air Transat contends : “ For first, we would like to apologize for the delay in responding to you and we assure that no discourtesy was intended. In the context of your complaint, a complete review of Mrs. Bungaroo’s file was done including the review of all internal reports. Be assured that we sincerely regret the circumstances occurred last October 7 th , 2015 and any distress experienced as a result of being refused transport.

I strongly believe the people at Air Transat understand how difficult this can be when one has to endure these events.

We must underline that it is the passengers’ sole responsibility to ensure that they are holding the proper travel documentation at time of check-in. Furthermore, our agents are responsible to ensure that every passenger on an Air Transat flight has the proper documentation in order to travel on our flights. Further to the revision of your claim, we would like to highlight that the check in agent made no mistake as the agent acted on the information and directive issued by the host country. Mr. Ramtohul, we understand that you are disappointed and sincerely regret the difficulties Mrs.

Bungaroo encountered, however, Air Transat cannot be held liable for the expensed incurred as a result. We must remain fair and consistent with our handling of similar requests for all customers. Regrettably, no compensation or refund is available in this instance. In closing, we truly hop you can understand our position and wish to respectfully mention that this represents Air Transat’s position regarding your complaint. We do look forward to serving you and Mrs. Bungaroo in the near future. ” [ 4 ] At the hearing, Mr.

Yeeman reiterates the same position indicated in his demand letter. [ 5 ] He affirms that before buying the plane ticket, he spoke to a representative of Air Transat, and mentioned the travel itinerary of his mother in law. He was told to contact the authorities of Ireland for information regarding visa requirements. [ 6 ] Moreover, Air Transat’s Web page did not provide any information regarding the restriction of passengers in transit specific to Air Transat’s tour terminal location. [ 7 ] Madam L.

Delaney represents Air Transat at the hearing, she admits that the passenger in question did not need a transit visa for Dublin. However, it is due to the location of the terminal where Air Transat operates in Dublin that do not permit to accommodate such passenger. [ 8 ] Some Airlines provide transportation to travellers without a transit visa via Dublin, but not Air Transat. [ 9 ] According to Mrs.

Delaney for any information regarding visa requirements, the traveller is referred to the authorities of Ireland and she recognizes that the only way, the Plaintiff could have find out about the specific situation is by communicating with an Air Transat agent and providing detailed informations regarding the situation of his mother in law. She suggests that the Plaintiff failed to do so.

QUESTIONS AT ISSUE [ 10 ] The Court must determine if Air Transat has the obligation to inform a passenger traveling to Dublin that he won’t be allowed without visa, due to Air Transat’s terminal location. [ 11 ] If such obligation exists, the Court must determine if Air Transat has fulfilled its obligation. ANALYSIS [ 12 ] The evidence reveals that Mr.

Yeeman bought on April 20, 2015, the tickets online for which he paid $ 705 including taxes. [ 13 ] On June 18, 2015, the outbound flight scheduled from Dublin to Montreal took place without difficulty. [ 14 ] It is only on the return flight from Montreal to Dublin, on October 7, 2015, that Air Transat’s agent refused the passenger to board the plane on the ground that she did not hold a transit visa to Dublin, the Republic of Mauritius being her final destination. [ 15 ] At the hearing, Air Transat admitted that indeed, no transit visa was required by the passenger who holds a valid passport from the Republic of Mauritius. [ 16 ] In fact, it is due to the location of Air Transat’s terminal at Dublin airport, that the passenger was not admitted on the plane. [ 17 ] The evidence shows that Air Transat Website does not provide clients with information regarding this particular restriction. [ 18 ] The court retains that Mr.

Yeeman contends he spoke with an Air Transat agent before buying the tickets, who referred him to the Website of the Dublin’s authorities where he was reassured that as a Mauritius national, the passenger did not need a transit visa for Dublin’s airport. [ 19 ] He argues that the information contains in exhibit D-1 filed by Air Transat which is a printing from their Website was not available at the time he bought the tickets and when the passenger was refused boarding in October 2015. [ 20 ] In fact, the Website was updated recently, somewhere around January 2016, in which Air Transat included a

section « Transiting without visa » with all the information regarding flights via Dublin. However, according to Mr. Yeeman, this information was not there at the time he purchased the ticket. [ 21 ] The Court is satisfied that the evidence supports Plaintiff’s position to the effect that Air Transat did not fulfill its obligation of information. Consequently, the claim is granted in part for the sum of $ 431 representing the difference in the cost for a new ticket, plus $ 200 for damages for a total of $ 631. [ 22 ] FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT : [ 23 ] GRANTS the claim in part;

[ 24 ] CONDEMN the Defendant, Transat Tours Canada Inc. (Air Transat) to pay to Plaintiff the amount of $ 631, with interest at the legal rate, plus the additional indemnity provided for in

Section 1619 of the Civil Code of Quebec as of February 22 nd , 2015, plus court fees of $ 100. __________________________________ DANIEL DORTÉLUS, J.C.Q. Date of hearing : October 25, 2016