Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Characterization of the flight booking as a consumer contract under the Civil Code of Québec and the Loi sur la protection du consommateur (LPC).
• Scope of FlightHub’s obligation to honor a flight credit and properly apply it to new tickets within the validity period.
• Alleged false or misleading representations by a FlightHub agent regarding the amount of the credit and the pricing of replacement tickets under article 219 LPC.
• Proof that comparable tickets could be purchased directly from Air Canada at a significantly lower price than what FlightHub attempted to charge.
• Contractual and civil liability of FlightHub under articles 1458 and 1463 C.c.Q. for its employee’s conduct in refusing or misapplying the credit.
• Quantum of compensation, including reimbursement of unused credits, cancellation/administration fees, and an award for troubles and inconveniences, along with interest and costs.

Facts of the case

Denis Lessard purchased, through FlightHub’s online platform, two airline tickets for himself and his spouse, Laila Jahjah, to travel from Québec to Munich, Germany. Each ticket cost 1,288.23 $, and Mr. Lessard paid the full amount. The couple intended to visit their daughter and son-in-law who were living in Germany for about eight months. Shortly after the purchase, the COVID-19 pandemic measures in Germany and Austria intensified. Germany closed many businesses and Austria closed its borders, substantially affecting the feasibility of the planned trip. Because of these pandemic-related restrictions, on 26 November 2021, Mr. Lessard contacted FlightHub to cancel the Québec–Munich trip. FlightHub informed him that a 150 $ fee would be charged and that a credit of 1,288.23 $ per ticket would be issued. The documentation from FlightHub indicated that this credit had to be used for a new booking before 12 October 2022. Later, Mr. Lessard decided to use these credits to book a new trip to Whitehorse, Yukon. He phoned FlightHub’s Montréal office to make the reservation and apply the existing credits. At that time, he was still within the validity period of the credit. During that call, the FlightHub representative advised him that, despite his credit of 1,288.23 $ per ticket, he would have to pay an additional 550 $ per ticket for Air Canada tickets to Whitehorse, making each ticket effectively 1,838 $. Mr. Lessard believed that, based on current fares, the actual value of the Yukon tickets should have been around 867.70 $ each and that the credit should have covered the cost of new tickets, or nearly so, without such a substantial surcharge. Unable to reach an agreement with the FlightHub agent, Mr. Lessard abandoned the booking through FlightHub. Instead, on 22 April 2022, still before the credit’s expiry date, he purchased the same Québec–Yukon tickets directly from Air Canada’s website for 931.46 $ per ticket, demonstrating that the price through Air Canada was far lower than what FlightHub had attempted to charge. Feeling that his credit had been effectively denied or misapplied, on 16 May 2022, Mr. Lessard sent a formal demand letter to FlightHub. He claimed 1,288.23 $ per ticket for a total of 2,576.46 $ representing the unused credits for both tickets. Receiving no satisfactory response, he filed a small claims action on 23 November 2022, seeking 2,576.46 $ corresponding to the credits, the 150 $ paid as a penalty or administration fee for cancelling the original trip, and an additional 1,625 $ in compensation for troubles, inconvenience, and the time spent pursuing the matter. FlightHub filed a written defence, arguing that the pricing and credit application depended on the airline’s tariff—in this case, Air Canada’s—and that any dispute about fare levels or credit application should be directed to the airline. It also suggested that the higher price could be due to the class of service. However, no representative of FlightHub appeared at the hearing, despite proper notice, and its absence was recorded.

Legal framework and issues

The Court first qualified the agreement as a consumer contract. Mr. Lessard, a physical person acquiring services for personal and family purposes, contracted with FlightHub, a company offering flight booking services in the course of its business. This characterization triggered the application of article 1384 of the Civil Code of Québec on contracts of consumption and the Loi sur la protection du consommateur (LPC). Under article 1373 C.c.Q., the object of an obligation must be possible and determined or determinable, and cannot be contrary to law or public order. Here, FlightHub’s essential obligation was to provide the flight service—or, in the context of cancellation, to honor the agreed credit—that formed part of the contractual arrangement. Article 16 LPC states that the merchant’s principal obligation consists in delivering the goods or providing the services stipulated in the contract. In a successive performance contract, the merchant is presumed to be performing once it begins to carry out that obligation according to the contract terms. The case also raised the question of false or misleading representations. Mr. Lessard alleged that the FlightHub representative misrepresented his rights under the credit and the cost of replacement tickets. Article 219 LPC strictly prohibits any merchant from making false or misleading representations to a consumer, by any means. If a merchant fails to meet statutory obligations under the LPC, article 272 LPC allows the consumer to seek a range of remedies, including damages, contract modification, or rescission, in addition to the possibility of punitive damages. From a contractual liability standpoint, article 1458 C.c.Q. holds any person responsible for the prejudice caused to their co-contracting party when they fail to honor their contractual undertakings. Under article 1463 C.c.Q., a company is responsible for the faults of its employees committed in the performance of their functions. Finally, the evidentiary burden was governed by articles 2803 and 2804 C.c.Q., which require the party asserting a right to prove the supporting facts on a balance of probabilities, unless the law demands a higher standard.

Court’s analysis

The Court evaluated whether FlightHub, through its employee, had breached its obligations by effectively denying or limiting the usable value of the credit. Mr. Lessard’s evidence showed that he had a valid credit of 1,288.23 $ per ticket, which, according to FlightHub’s own documentation, could be used before 12 October 2022. When he attempted to apply this credit for travel to the Yukon, the FlightHub agent proposed a pricing structure that would have required him to pay an additional 550 $ per ticket, leading to a total of 1,838 $ per ticket even after the credit was supposedly applied. The judge considered the objective evidence that Mr. Lessard was able to purchase the comparable tickets directly from Air Canada at 931.46 $ each for the same trip and within the validity period of the credit. This significant discrepancy between the Air Canada fare and the amount FlightHub was attempting to charge, coupled with the existence of a substantial unused credit, led the Court to conclude that FlightHub’s employee had not respected FlightHub’s contractual and statutory obligations. The Court found that the employee’s conduct ran contrary to articles 16 and 219 LPC and article 1373 C.c.Q. By insisting on an inflated fare and refusing to properly apply the credit as promised, FlightHub’s representative deprived Mr. Lessard of the full benefit of the credit that formed part of the overall contractual arrangement when the original trip was cancelled. Consequently, FlightHub, as principal, was held liable for its employee’s fault under article 1463 C.c.Q. The Court was satisfied that Mr. Lessard had met his burden of proof under articles 2803 and 2804 C.c.Q. by showing, on a preponderance of evidence, that he held a valid credit, that he tried in good faith to use it within the time limit, and that FlightHub’s actions and representations prevented him from doing so on fair and reasonable terms. The written defence filed by FlightHub—suggesting that Air Canada’s pricing or fare class justified the additional costs and that Air Canada should be the target of any claim—was not supported by testimonial evidence at trial, because no representative attended. In the face of Mr. Lessard’s detailed and uncontested testimony and documentary proof, the Court preferred his version of events and applied the consumer protection and contractual liability framework accordingly.

Outcome and implications

Having found that FlightHub failed to honour its obligations and had made representations contrary to the consumer protection regime, the Court granted Mr. Lessard the value of the credits he had been unable to use: 1,288.23 $ per ticket, for a total of 2,576.46 $. The Court also ordered reimbursement of the 150 $ that had been charged as a “penalty” or administration fee upon cancellation of the original Québec–Munich trip, holding that this amount should not have been borne by the consumer in the circumstances. On the claimed amount for troubles and inconveniences, the Court did not award the full 1,625 $ requested. Instead, it assessed the non-pecuniary prejudice at 500 $, recognizing the time, effort, and frustration involved in Mr. Lessard’s dealings with FlightHub and his need to pursue a formal legal claim. Adding these components together, the Court ordered FlightHub to pay a total of 3,226.46 $ in principal to Mr. Lessard, plus interest at the legal rate and the additional indemnity under article 1619 C.c.Q. from 16 May 2022, the date of the demand letter. The exact amounts of interest and additional indemnity are not specified in the judgment and must be calculated based on statutory rates up to the date of payment. The Court also awarded 108 $ in judicial costs. In sum, Denis Lessard was the successful party, obtaining judgment against Groupe FlightHub inc. for 3,226.46 $ in principal damages, together with 108 $ in costs and unquantified legal interest and additional indemnity, reflecting the Court’s view that the travel agency had failed in its consumer and contractual obligations regarding the promised flight credits.