2015 QCCQ 5416, 2015 QCCQ 5416

Santos c. Voyages Cathcan Travel inc. (Nikka Tours) 2015 QCCQ 5416 JP 2262 COURT OF QUEBEC Small Claims Division CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF MONTREAL CIVIL DIVISION No: 500-32-137014-132 DATE: June 2, 2015 ______________________________________________________________________ IN THE PRESENCE OF: THE HONOURABLE VINCENZO PIAZZA, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ SALVACION SANTOS and RENARIZZA SALVE SANTOS Plaintiffs v.

VOYAGES CATHCAN TRAVEL INC., DOING BUSINESS AS NIKKA TOURS and 3602354 CANADA INC., DOING BUSINESS AS SI TRAVELS Defendant ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT ______________________________________________________________________ [ 1 ] 3602354 Canada inc. (“ SI Travels ”) seeks the revocation of a judgment (the “ Judgment ”) rendered on March 10, 2015 [1] , which grants the Plaintiffs’ action and condemns SI Travels to pay them $900, with costs. [ 2 ] As the Court notes at paragraph 19 of the Judgment, “The itinerary sent on March 18, 2012 to Mrs.

Santos by TravelPort indicates that SI Travels is the travel provider.” [ 3 ] At the hearing, SI Travels’ representative, Mr. Akhtar, who was out of Canada when the hearing which lead to the Judgment took place, testifies that Mr. Nayuki used to be an important player in the Montreal travel industry before he went bankrupt. [ 4 ] Since his bankruptcy, Mr. Nayuki tries to re-establish himself in the industry by pre-selling airplane tickets as an independent contractor. These tickets are in fact issued by licensed travel agents such as SI Travels. Mr.

Akhtar recognizes that he printed the itinerary referred to in the Judgment upon a request from Mr. Nayuki. Mr. Nayuki identified the potential traveler as being Renarizza Salve Santos and SI Travels filled out the itinerary with her personal information and the flight details. [ 5 ] Mr. Akhtar explains that the itinerary referred to in the Judgment is not a plane ticket. It is merely a proposition, an illustration. Anyone could have asked for an itinerary and SI Travels would have printed one for them. [ 6 ] It is possible that Mr. Nayuki did collect $900 from Mrs. Santos but, Mr.

Akhtar insists, this money was never remitted to SI Travels. Mr. Akhtar never met Mrs. Santos before the hearing. [ 7 ] Questioned by the Tribunal, Mr. Akhtar recognizes that had Mr. Nayuki brought the money to SI Travels to confirm the booking, SI Travels would have issued the plane tickets in accordance with the itinerary he printed. ANALYSIS [ 8 ]

Section 2163 of the Civil Code of Québec provides as follows: Where a person has allowed it to be believed that a person was his mandatary, he is liable, as if there had been a mandate, to a third person who in good faith has contracted with that person, unless he took appropriate measures to prevent the error in circumstances in which it was foreseeable. [ 9 ] By giving Mr.

Nayuki an itinerary which, in the eye of the non-specialist, looks very much like a formal plane ticket reservation, with the traveler’s name and identification of SI Travels as travel provider, SI Travel should have foreseen that a person, such as Mrs. Santos, would have normally concluded that Mr. Nayuki was its authorized agent. [ 10 ] Therefore, whether or not SI Travels has a distinct recourse against Mr. Nayuki, there is no reason to revoke the Judgment. SI Travels is liable to Mrs. Santos for the damages she suffered pursuant to the contract which she thought, in good faith, that she had passed with Mr.

Nayuki. FOR THE FOREGOING REASONS, THE TRIBUNAL:

DISMISSES the application for revocation of judgment. __________________________________ VINCENZO PIAZZA, J.C.Q. Date of hearing: June 1 st , 2015