2017 QCCQ 10565, 2017 QCCQ 10565

Bastiampillai c. Air France 2017 QCCQ 10565 COURT OF QUEBEC « Small Claims Division» CANADA PROVINCE OF QUÉBEC DISTRICT OF MONTRÉAL No: 500-32-151007-160 DATE: September 19, 2017 ______________________________________________________________________ BEFORE THE HONOURABLE MARIE-JULIE CROTEAU, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ NEWTON BASTIAMPILLAI Plaintiff v.

AIR FRANCE -and- FEMKE KROESE -and- LUCE GAUTHIER Defendants ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT ______________________________________________________________________ [ 1 ] Mr. Newton Bastiampillai is suing Air France and two of its employees, Ms. Femke Kroese and Ms. Luce Gauthier (collectively “ Air France ”) and is claiming an amount of $1,496. [ 2 ] He alleges that Air France billed him an extra charge, without any legal basis.

He further claims that, prior to do so, Air France should have notified him of any alleged wrongdoing in the booking of his airline tickets. [ 3 ] Air France denies having billed an extra charge to Mr. Bastiampillai. In fact, an Agency Debit Memo ( ADM ) was addressed to the ticketing agent Millennium Leisure Travel ( Millennium ) because it issued Mr. Bastiampillai’s airline tickets in violation of Air France’s booking policy more commonly referred to as “Breaking of Married Segments” or “Married Segment Abuse”. Furthermore, Air France alleges that Mr.

Bastiampillai has no right to claim the reimbursement of the ADM that Millennium accepted to pay. QUESTION IN ISSUE [ 4 ] By issuing an ADM to Millennium, has Air France committed any fault that could engage its liability towards Mr. Bastiampillai? CONTEXT [ 5 ] Ms. Luce Gauthier, an Air France representative, explained that “Married segment” are terms used to identify two or more segments in an itinerary which are offered as a single unit. In other words, when two segments are married it means that the two flights can be booked together, but not separately.

By joining connecting flights together and treating them as one unit, Air France can better manage the origin and destination availability , as well as the fares associated with the itineraries. When segments are unmarried, for example to gain access to otherwise unavailable seats or itineraries, the airline tickets end up being issued with an incorrect fare, thus hindering the revenues of Air France. [ 6 ] In order to prevent what is considered by Air France to be a fraudulent procedure, the airline controls all transactions in order to verify any bypassing of married segments.

All agents that break married segments are charged with ADMs. Even if more than one agent is involved in the booking, it is the agent that issues the ticket that will be held liable. [ 7 ] By using a print screen from the Sabre System used by travel agencies for airline ticket booking, Ms. Gauthier demonstrated that, in the present matter, a John F. Kennedy – Bremen segment was originally booked in the name of Mr. Bastiampillai. The segment was subsequently unmarried in order to obtain a Charles-de-Gaulle - Bremen segment.

Likewise, a Bremen – Singapour segment was first booked and subsequently unmarried to obtain a Bremen - Charles-de-Gaulle segment. [ 8 ] Consequently, Air France issued an ADM to Millennium stating: CR-Married segment policy violation | Abusive breaking of maried (sic) segment or origin and destination abuse – penalty of CAD 1496S BE applied per direction | Farecontrol (D)

[ 9 ] Millennium subsequently filed a dispute: First made the reservation only from CDG-BRE sector, not knowing the return date. After two-days made the reservation for the return sector BRE-CDG. From Paris I have flew (sic) to Montreal with Air Canada. There was no married connection was involved (sic) for Air France. Untill (sic) the ticketing day or even after the sectors used there was no indication of any wrong doing as married connection on the file . [ 10 ] Air France dismissed the dispute: ADM is maintained.

Pls see attachment showing the CDGBRE was obtained by requesting JFKBRE and the BRECDG was obtained by requesting the BRESIN . [ 11 ] Upon Air France’s final decision, the amount of $1,496 was automatically debited from the Millennium agency account. In order to avoid said withdrawal, Millennium could have filed what is called a Resolution 832 under IATA’s rules. Doing so would have blocked the withdrawal and the dispute between Air France and Millennium would then have continued under other rules. However, Millennium chose not to file this Resolution. [ 12 ] Mr.

Bastiampillai testified that he was then asked by Millennium to reimburse the penalty of $1,496 which he agreed to do. However, no direct proof of payment was filed into the Court record, nor was any explanation provided by Millennium for requesting such a reimbursement from Mr. Bastiampillai. ANALYSIS [ 13 ] In civil matters, a person wishing to assert a right must prove the facts on which their claim is based [1] . [ 14 ] The burden of proof lies on the party presenting a demand.

That party has to present evidence which will be weighed on a balance of probabilities, also referred to as the preponderance of evidence [2] . To convince the Court, the demand must demonstrate that the existence of a fact is more probable than its non-existence [3] . [ 15 ] Mr. Bastiampillai failed to demonstrate any fault or error committed by Air France. [ 16 ] Conversely, Air France convinced the Court that the ADM was issued based on its booking policy and in accordance with industry standards. The ADM was adressed to the appropriate party, Millennium.

Indeed, it is Millennium that failed to comply with the terms and conditions applicable to undertake sales on behalf of Air France. As Air France never addressed or directed the ADM to Mr. Bastiampillai, it had no obligation to inform him prior to issuing it. [ 17 ] Moreover, as the ticketing agency that issued the airline tickets in violation Air France’s booking policy, Millennium chose to pay the ADM without disputing it further. The fact that Millennium may then have requested Mr.

Bastiampillai to reimburse it for unknown reasons, and that the latter decided to comply, does not allow the Court to conclude that any fault has been committed by Air France towards Millennium, nor Mr. Bastiampillai . [ 18 ] In the absence of any proof of fault committed by Air France, Mr . Bastiampillai’s claim must be dismissed. FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT: DISMISSES the action of Mr. Newton Bastiampillai against Air France, Ms. Femke Kroese and Ms. Luce Gauthier; WITH LEGAL COSTS . __________________________________ MARIE-JULIE CROTEAU, J.C.Q.

Date of trial: Date at which the file was taken under advisement: July 17, 2017 August 4, 2017