Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Liability for lost checked baggage in international air travel is governed by the Montreal Convention, which caps recoverable damages despite higher actual loss claimed by the passenger.
• The court characterizes the travel arrangement as a contract of services and a consumer contract under the Civil Code of Québec, but gives precedence to the Montreal Convention’s specific liability regime.
• Proof obligations under articles 2803 and 2804 C.c.Q. require the passenger to establish, on a balance of probabilities, the occurrence of loss, the value of the lost items, and the causal link with the carrier’s fault.
• Eva Airways invokes the Montreal Convention, article 22, to limit its liability to 1,288 Special Drawing Rights (SDR), converted by the court to 2,361.16 CAD.
• Evidence of extensive communications and a formal demand (mise en demeure) support the claim but do not allow recovery for additional moral or inconvenience damages beyond the Convention cap.
• The judgment accepts that the loss is proven but restricts recovery to the statutory limit, awarding Yang 2,361.16 CAD plus 213 CAD in court costs, with interest and additional indemnity from the date of formal notice.

Factual background of the dispute

Yu-Wei Yang was travelling internationally on 14 October 2023 under an itinerary that began with an Air Canada flight from Montréal to Chicago, followed by Eva Airways flights on the Chicago–Taipei and Taipei–Hong Kong segments. Upon arrival at his final destination in Hong Kong, Yang discovered that his checked baggage was missing. The baggage included clothing, a golf bag, and various electronic devices, among other items. Based on invoices he produced in evidence, Yang valued the contents of the lost baggage at 6,065 USD. On top of this, he claimed additional damages for trouble, inconvenience and anxiety, bringing his total claim to 10,000 CAD. Numerous exchanges took place between Yang and the airlines as he attempted to locate his baggage and obtain compensation, but no resolution was reached. A formal demand (mise en demeure) was sent on 5 January 2024 and denied, prompting Yang to file a claim in the Small Claims Division (Division des petites créances) of the Court of Québec. Eva Airways defended the claim and did not admit liability for the full amount sought. The carrier’s representative also pointed out that the baggage had initially been transported by Air Canada from Montréal to Chicago and allegedly was never transferred to Eva Airways for the onward segments to Taipei and Hong Kong.

Contractual and legal framework

The court characterizes the arrangement as a contract of travel, which in Quebec civil law is treated as both a contract of services and a consumer contract, by reference to articles 2098 and following of the Civil Code of Québec. As such, general principles of contract and consumer protection could apply. However, because the trip involved international air carriage, the judge holds that the Montreal Convention is the governing legal framework for liability relating to lost baggage. The Montreal Convention establishes a uniform regime for international air carriers and, in particular, restricts the extent of compensation that may be recovered by passengers when baggage is lost, delayed, or damaged. In this case, Eva Airways relies specifically on article 22 of the Convention. That provision limits the air carrier’s liability for destruction, loss, damage or delay of baggage to a specified amount expressed in Special Drawing Rights (SDR), unless the passenger has made a special declaration of interest in delivery and paid any supplementary sum required—which Yang did not do. By invoking article 22, Eva Airways argues that, regardless of the higher value of Yang’s belongings or his claim for moral and inconvenience damages, any award must be capped at the Convention limit. The court accepts this position and also refers to prior case law, including Thibodeau v. Air Canada (2014 SCC 67), which confirms the primacy of the Montreal Convention and its remedial limits for international air carriage claims.

Burden and standard of proof

The judgment then turns to the general evidentiary rules under the Civil Code of Québec, citing articles 2803 and 2804. Article 2803 provides that a party who seeks to assert a right must prove the facts that support its claim, and a party who alleges that a right is null, modified or extinguished must prove the underlying facts. Article 2804 establishes that proof is sufficient when it makes the existence of a fact more probable than its non-existence, unless a stricter standard is imposed by law. Applied to a damages claim such as this, Yang had to prove, on a balance of probabilities, that (1) the carrier committed a fault (here, the loss of his baggage in the course of carriage); (2) he suffered damages (the loss of property and the alleged non-pecuniary harms); and (3) there is a causal link between the carrier’s fault and those damages. These are standard elements of civil liability and contractual damages in Quebec law.

Assessment of the evidence and legal issues

On the factual side, the court accepts that Yang did check his baggage for the trip, that it did not arrive in Hong Kong, and that he lost the items listed in his invoices. The invoices total 6,065 USD and serve as evidence of the approximate value of the lost contents. The court also accepts that the communications between Yang and the airlines, as well as the formal demand, show his efforts to resolve the issue and document his claim. However, the key legal issue is not whether a loss occurred—the judge finds that the loss is sufficiently proven—but how much compensation can be legally awarded in light of the Montreal Convention. Eva Airways contests the quantum, not the basic fact that baggage was lost during the international itinerary. It maintains that any liability is limited by article 22 of the Montreal Convention to 1,288 SDR. The court agrees that this convention applies and that it supersedes the broader heads of damages Yang sought under domestic contract and consumer law. The judge notes that, even though the travel contract is a consumer contract and a contract of services under Quebec law, the specific liability regime of the Montreal Convention governs in this context and determines the “montant payable en cas de perte de bagages.”

Application of the Montreal Convention limit and quantum

In applying the Convention, the judge converts the 1,288 SDR liability limit to Canadian dollars and fixes the recoverable amount at 2,361.16 CAD. Eva Airways had in fact offered to pay this exact sum in its defence, acknowledging that this amount corresponds to the applicable limit under the law. The court emphasizes that, in any lawsuit, the plaintiff must prove the validity of the claim, and here Yang met that burden “only up to the amount of 2,361.16 CAD.” While the actual loss in USD may exceed this statutory cap, the Convention prevents the court from awarding more in the absence of a prior special declaration of interest and extra fee, which were not present. Consequently, Yang’s broader claim for 10,000 CAD, including moral and inconvenience damages, is not fully granted; recovery is restricted to the Convention limit that the carrier itself had admitted in its written contestation.

Final judgment and outcome

In the dispositive portion of the judgment, the Court of Québec, Small Claims Division, orders Eva Airways Corporation to pay Yang 2,361.16 CAD, together with legal interest at the statutory rate plus the additional indemnity provided under article 1619 of the Civil Code of Québec, calculated from 5 January 2024, the date of the mise en demeure. The court also grants Yang his judicial costs in the amount of 213 CAD for the court filing fee (timbre judiciaire). The precise total monetary recovery will ultimately depend on the running legal interest and additional indemnity—figures that cannot be fully determined from the judgment alone—but the fixed principal amounts are 2,361.16 CAD in damages plus 213 CAD in costs, for a base total of 2,574.16 CAD. Overall, the successful party is the plaintiff, Yu-Wei Yang, who obtains judgment against Eva Airways Corporation for 2,574.16 CAD in principal (damages and costs) together with interest and the additional indemnity, reflecting full enforcement of the Montreal Convention’s liability cap on his lost-baggage claim.