2018 QCCQ 1645, 2018 QCCQ 1645

Charbonneau c. Scoot Pte Ltd. (Scoot Airlines) 2018 QCCQ 1645 COURT OF QUEBEC Small Claims Division CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF MONTREAL Civil Division No: 500-32-700113-162 DATE: March 19, 2018 ______________________________________________________________________ PRESIDED BY THE HONOURABLE MADAM JUSTICE MARIE MICHELLE LAVIGNE, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ MARTIN CHARBONNEAU, MARIE-ÈVE QUINTAL-THIBAULT, and JEAN-FRANÇOIS DAIGLE, Plaintiffs v.

SCOOT PTE LTD. (SCOOT AIRLINES) Defendant ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT ______________________________________________________________________ [ 1 ] The Plaintiffs are each claiming the sum of $2,000.00 from Scoot Pte Ltd. (“Scoot Airlines”) for the loss of their luggage while taking a flight from Hong Kong to Singapore.

This flight was booked with Scoot Airlines through an internet access from their home in the Province of Québec, Canada. [ 2 ] Scoot Airlines contests the quantum of the claims alleging that the Plaintiffs have been unable to provide invoices in support of their claims. [ 3 ] More importantly, Scoot Airlines argues that the Court of Québec does not have jurisdiction over the litigation. Quantum [ 4 ] Although the Plaintiffs could not provide invoices for their personal goods, they provided a list of items that, more than likely, exceeds the value of the amount claimed.

This amount is the maximum that can be claimed according to the Montreal International Convention [1] which applies in this case. Jurisdiction [ 5 ] Scoot Airlines recognizes that the Montreal International Convention applies to the present litigation. However, it is of the opinion that

Section 33 of the Montreal International Convention states that the action for damages should have been brought at the domicile of the carrier (Singapore), at its principal place of business (Asia) or in the location where it has its servers (Australia). Scoot Airlines does not have a place of business in the Province of Québec. [ 6 ]

Section 33 of the Montreal International Convention reads as follows: Jurisdiction 1. An action for damages must be brought, at the option of the plaintiff, in the territory of one of the States Parties, either before the court of the domicile of the carrier or of its principal place of business, or where it has a place of business through which the contract has been made or before the court at the place of destination. (Emphasis added) [ 7 ] The Plaintiffs believe that they had the option to sue the Defendant in the territory of “one of the States Parties”. Since Canada,

Singapore, Hong Kong (China) and Australia are all “State Parties”, they believe their action could be filed in either one of these states, including Canada. [ 8 ] The Plaintiffs are also of the opinion that since they purchased the tickets on the internet from their residence in the Province of Québec, Scoot Airlines should be considered as having a place of business in Québec and their action could be filed in Québec.

Question: Is the Court of Québec competent to dispose of the Plaintiffs’ claim against Scoot Airlines? [ 9 ] The first allegation of the Plaintiffs that they are entitled to sue the Defendant Scoot Airlines in the territory of “one of the States Parties” is not a valid one. [ 10 ] This

section of the Convention may be confounding. The Convention applies only in the “territory of one of the States Parties”. However, a claim against a carrier doing business in “one of the States Parties” may only be filed: (

i) At the domicile of the carrier; (ii) At its principal place of business; (iii) Where it has a place of business through which the contract has been made; or (iv) Before the court at the place of destination. [ 11 ] The Province of Québec is not the domicile of Scoot Airlines. Scott Airlines does not have a principal place of business in the Province of Québec. The tickets were purchased on the internet from the Province of Québec.

However, Scoot Airlines does not have “a place of business” in Québec and Québec was not the place of destination of the Plaintiffs for this segment of their trip. [ 12 ] Since the airplane tickets were sold to the Plaintiffs on the internet from the Province of Québec, can this be considered as giving Scoot Airlines a “place of business” in Québec “through which the contract has been made”? [ 13 ] It might be logical to consider that since Scoot Airlines earns revenues through a sale made from an internet access in Québec, it should also be liable for its fault or negligence in the Province of Québec.

However, this is not what the Montreal International Convention says. [ 14 ] The Court cannot interpret “place of business” as being the computer of the Plaintiffs which was used to purchase the tickets. This would be going too far by changing the meaning of the words used by the Convention. [ 15 ] The courts cannot rewrite the law. It is the legislator of the Montreal International Convention that should make the appropriate changes to the Convention, which changes would later be adopted by the legislature of the State Parties.

FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT: DISMISSES the Plaintiffs’ claims; THE WHOLE without costs. __________________________________ MARIE MICHELLE LAVIGNE, J.C.Q. Date of hearing: February 12, 2018