2015 QCCQ 6663, 2015 QCCQ 6663

Gazith c. Uniglobe Lexus Travels 2015 QCCQ 6663 COURT OF QUEBEC Small Claims Division CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF MONTREAL Civil Division No: 500-32-140454-135 DATE: July 7, 2015 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE ELIANA MARENGO, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ TSAFRIR GAZITH Plaintiff v.

UNIGLOBE LEXUS TRAVELS Defendant ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT ______________________________________________________________________ [ 1 ] GIVEN the evidence; [ 2 ] WHEREAS defendant operates a travel agency; [ 3 ] WHEREAS a services contract intervened between the parties, in the month of April, 2013, for the purchase of 3 round-trip tickets from Montreal to Paris/Marseille/Tel Aviv and back (exhibit P-2); [ 4 ] WHEREAS , before proceeding with the booking, defendant asked for and received plaintiff's and his family's required passport information, including expiry dates; [ 5 ] WHEREAS , on July 14, 2013, in Marseille, plaintiff and his family were denied carriage, by Air France personnel, on the Tel Aviv bound aircraft, because one of their passports would expire in less than 6 months; [ 6 ] WHEREAS plaintiff asked Air France to transfer their tickets to El Al Airlines, which did not apply the same rules, that which Air France refused to do so; [ 7 ] WHEREAS plaintiff was therefore obliged to purchase 3 new tickets for the Marseille/Tel Aviv portion of the trip, at a cost of $2,127.01 (exhibit P-7); [ 8 ] WHEREAS , in Tel Aviv, plaintiff and his family visited the Canadian consulate and obtained a new passport, for the return trip; [ 9 ] WHEREAS plaintiff is claiming the cost of the above tickets ($2,127.01), notarial fees ($50.00), passport fees ($300.00) and an amount of $1,200.00 for stress, trouble and inconvenience;

[ 10 ] WHEREAS defendant denies liability, claiming that plaintiff alone was responsible for not traveling with the required travel documents; [ 11 ] WHEREAS , at trial, defendant's representative David Razon, who is in fact the agent who organized the trip and made the bookings for plaintiff, admitted that different countries and airlines have different requirements with regards to passport expiration dates; [ 12 ] WHEREAS he also admitted knowing that Air France had a 6 month passport validity requirement; [ 13 ] WHEREAS , therefore, as the expert, Razon should have foreseen that plaintiff and his family would run into this problem, and should have advised them accordingly; [ 14 ] GIVEN

section 228 of the Consumer Protection Act (CQLR, c. P-40.1), which states: " 228 . No merchant, manufacturer or advertiser may fail to mention an important fact in any representation made to a consumer. " [ 15 ] WHEREAS this obligation has been interpreted as applying to information relating to the validity of travel documents, as observed by authors Jean-Louis Baudouin, Patrice Deslauriers and Benoît Moore: " 2-487 […] Cette obligation comprend celle de garantir la validité du

titre de transport, de confirmer les réservations lorsque nécessaire, de renseigner le client sur les formalités administratives obligatoires (visa, passeport, vaccinations, assurances…). [1] " [ 16 ] WHEREAS the authors also make a point of mentioning that the client also has a duty to inform himself: " 2-487 […] Le client a également le devoir de se renseigner lui-même, par exemple sur la situation politique du pays qu'il entend visiter, sur les risques inhérents du périple qu'il entreprend, sur le caractère luxueux ou modeste du gîte et des services, sur l'existence d'assurances.

La chose est maintenant plus fréquente et plus facile grâce à Internet.

Tout est, ici, question de dosage et d'équilibre entre l'obligation de renseigner et le devoir de se renseigner. [2] " [ 17 ] WHEREAS authors Nicole L'Heureux and Marc Lacoursière, in their book Droit de la consommation , state the following, with regards to the travel agent's duty to advise and give information: "408. […] Il a également la responsabilité de vérifier les conditions de voyages dans certains pays, comme l'exigence d'un visa ou la duré maximale permise du séjour, ou certaines restrictions temporaires […] [3] " [ 18 ] WHEREAS , however, in the present case, the missing information was too specific and particular for plaintiff to know; [ 19 ] WHEREAS , furthermore, having given the required passport information to defendant, it was reasonable for plaintiff to assume that all was in order with the travel documents; [ 20 ] WHEREAS defendant had an obligation of result, [4] and failed to mention an important fact to plaintiff, namely that one of their passports would fail to meet travel requirements and regulations of Air France; [5] [ 21 ] GIVEN

section 272 of the Act ; [ 22 ] WHEREAS defendant did not act in the best interests of plaintiff and with prudence and diligence (

article 2100 of the Civil Code of Quebec ); [ 23 ] WHEREAS in, Bérubé c. Voyages à rabais , 2014 QCCQ 202 , the claimant was traveling to Costa Rica, where the passport must be valid for at least 6 months after the return date. Since her's was expiring 4 and a half months after the return date (par. 6), she was denied entry (par. 7). The Court acknowledged that the period of validity of the passport is an "essential information" (par. 14), and that the travel agent must make sure that this important fact is known to his or her client, in a reasonable time (par. 14); [ 24 ] WHEREAS , in Côté c.

Fillion (Vasco), 2013 QCCQ 4999 , the claimant was travelling to Salvador with her children. Her children's passports were expiring within 5 and a half months after the date of the trip (par. 5). She was therefore denied entry to the country, on the basis that she did not respect the minimum 6 months expiration period. The Court was of the view that the travel agent's duty to inform is more important than the consumer's obligation to inform himself/herself, and concluded that the travel agency was liable for the damages (par. 15).

It is worth reproducing the following paragraph of the decision: " [14] Cette faute de se renseigner est toutefois moindre que le défaut d'information de Vasco et c'est pourquoi cette dernière devra indemniser Mme Côté des deux tiers des dommages de 4 200 $ encourus, soit 2 800 $. S'ajouteront les intérêts et les frais. Il ne faut pas minimiser le fardeau qu'a une agence de voyage pour un client sans grande expérience de voyage comme Mme Côté. Même si la transaction est intervenue par l'intermédiaire de sa sœur Lise, c'est elle qui est désignée cliente de Vasco.

Il eut été très facile pour l'agence de joindre un document informatif de bon voyage plus complet, document qui explique les formalités et délais des passeports, plutôt qu'une simple facture vide."

[ 25 ] WHEREAS defendant was bound to produce results, and may not therefore be relieved from liability except by proving superior force, that which it didn't ( art. 2100 C.C.Q .); [ 26 ] WHEREAS plaintiff is entitled to damages in the amount of $2,627.01, representing the price of the El Al Airlines tickets ($2,127.01) and an amount of $450.00 for the stress, trouble and inconvenience suffered as a direct result of defendant's omission; [ 27 ] WHEREAS, however, it is not incumbent upon defendant to pay the notarial fees and passport fees claimed; WHEREFORE THE COURT HEREBY: GRANTS plaintiff's application, in part; CONDEMNS defendant to pay plaintiff the sum of $2,577.01, plus interest at the legal annual rate of 5% and the additional indemnity provided for in

article 1619 of the Civil Code of Quebec , as of September 23, 2013, plus costs in the amount of $136.00. __________________________________ ELIANA MARENGO, J.C.Q. Date of hearing: June 12, 2015