Air Canada v. Canadian Transportation Agency
Source text
Air Canada v. Canadian Transportation Agency Court (s) Database Federal Court of Appeal Decisions Date 2009-03-23 Neutral citation 2009 FCA 95 File numbers A-412-08 Decision Content Date: 20090323 Docket: A-412-08 Citation: 2009 FCA 95 CORAM: DESJARDINS J.A. NOËL J.A. TRUDEL J.A. BETWEEN: AIR CANADA Appellant and CANADIAN TRANSPORTATION AGENCY and PETER GRIFFITHS Respondents Heard at Toronto, Ontario, on March 23, 2009. Judgment delivered from the Bench at Toronto, Ontario, on March 23, 2009. REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT BY: DESJARDINS J.A. Date: 20090323 Docket: A-412-08 Citation: 2009 FCA 95 CORAM: DESJARDINS J.A. NOËL J.A. TRUDEL J.A. BETWEEN: AIR CANADA Appellant and CANADIAN TRANSPORTATION AGENCY and PETER GRIFFITHS Respondents REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Delivered from the Bench at Toronto, Ontario, on March 23, 2009) DESJARDINS J.A. [1] We are all of the view that the Canadian Transportation Agency (the Agency) ignored the balancing test which it itself outlined at the beginning of its analysis at paragraph 20 of its reasons (see also the Agency’s decisions in Del Anderson No. 666-C-A-2001, Zuker No. 680-C-A-2001, Morgan No. 38-C-A-2002, Bass No. 37-C-A-2002 & Clark No. 55-C-A-2002 where the same test was applied.) [2] In particular, it was incumbent upon the Agency to take into account and weigh the reasons for the Air Canada’s tariff revisions against the inconveniences to the respondent Peter Griffiths. [3] That, the Agency did not do. [4] This appeal wi…
Full judgment (source text)
Mirrored from decisions.fca-caf.gc.ca — the linked original is authoritative.
Air Canada v. Canadian Transportation Agency Court (s) Database Federal Court of Appeal Decisions Date 2009-03-23 Neutral citation 2009 FCA 95 File numbers A-412-08 Decision Content Date: 20090323 Docket: A-412-08 Citation: 2009 FCA 95 CORAM: DESJARDINS J.A. NOËL J.A. TRUDEL J.A. BETWEEN: AIR CANADA Appellant and CANADIAN TRANSPORTATION AGENCY and PETER GRIFFITHS Respondents Heard at Toronto, Ontario, on March 23, 2009. Judgment delivered from the Bench at Toronto, Ontario, on March 23, 2009. REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT BY: DESJARDINS J.A. Date: 20090323 Docket: A-412-08 Citation: 2009 FCA 95 CORAM: DESJARDINS J.A. NOËL J.A. TRUDEL J.A. BETWEEN: AIR CANADA Appellant and CANADIAN TRANSPORTATION AGENCY and PETER GRIFFITHS Respondents REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Delivered from the Bench at Toronto, Ontario, on March 23, 2009) DESJARDINS J.A. [1] We are all of the view that the Canadian Transportation Agency (the Agency) ignored the balancing test which it itself outlined at the beginning of its analysis at paragraph 20 of its reasons (see also the Agency’s decisions in Del Anderson No. 666-C-A-2001, Zuker No. 680-C-A-2001, Morgan No. 38-C-A-2002, Bass No. 37-C-A-2002 & Clark No. 55-C-A-2002 where the same test was applied.) [2] In particular, it was incumbent upon the Agency to take into account and weigh the reasons for the Air Canada’s tariff revisions against the inconveniences to the respondent Peter Griffiths. [3] That, the Agency did not do. [4] This appeal will be allowed, the decision of the Agency will be set aside and the matter will be returned to the Agency for a redetermination so that the balancing exercise be conducted on the basis of the existing record. [5] As no costs are sought, none will be awarded. "Alice Desjardins" J.A. FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD DOCKET: A-412-08 (APPEAL FROM A JUDGMENT OR ORDER OF THE CANADIAN TRANSPORT AGENCY, DATED APRIL 4, 2008, DECISION NO. 155-C-A-2008) STYLE OF CAUSE: AIR CANADA v. CANADIAN TRANSPORTATION AGENCY and PETER GRIFFITHS PLACE OF HEARING: TORONTO, ONTARIO DATE OF HEARING: MARCH 23, 2009 REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT BY: (DESJARDINS, NOËL & TRUDEL JJ.A.) DELIVERED FROM THE BENCH BY: DESJARDINS J.A. APPEARANCES: Gerard Chouest Iona Balla FOR THE APPELLANT David Demirkan FOR THE RESPONDENTS SOLICITORS OF RECORD: Bersenas Jacobsen Chouest Thomson Blackburn LLP Barristers and Solicitors Toronto, Ontario FOR THE APPELLANT Canadian Transportation Agency Gatineau, Quebec FOR THE RESPONDENTS
Source: decisions.fca-caf.gc.ca
Quebec (Attorney General) v A
[2013] 1 SCR 61