Court File No.

: T-428-20

PROPOSED CLASS PROCEEDING

Action No: T-_ _-20

FEDERAL COURT

BETWEEN:

Janet Donaldson

Plaintiff

AND:

Swoop Inc.

Westjet Airlines Ltd.

Air Canada

Air Transat A.T. Inc.

Sunwing Airlines Inc.

Defendant

STATEMENT OF CLAIM TO THE DEFENDANTS

A LEGAL PROCEEDING HAS BEEN COMMENCED AGAINST YOU by the

Plaintiff. The claim made against you is set out in the following pages.

IF YOU WISH TO DEFEND THIS PROCEEDING, you or a solicitor acting for you
are required to prepare a statement of defence in Form 171 B prescribed by the Federal
Courts Rules serve it on the plaintiff's solicitor or, where the plaintiff does not have a
solicitor, serve it on the plaintiff, and file it, with proof of service, at a local office of this
Court, WITHIN 30 DAYS after this statement of claim is served on you, if you are served
 -2 -

within Canada.

If you are served in the United States of America, the period for serving and filing
your statement of defence is forty days. If you are served outside Canada and the United
States of America, the period for serving and filing your statement of defence is sixty days.

Copies of the Federal Court Rules information concerning the local offices of the
Court and other necessary information may be obtained on request to the Administrator
of this Court at Ottawa (telephone 613-992-4238) or at any local office.

IF YOU FAIL TO DEFEND THIS PROCEEDING, judgment may be given against

you in your absence and without further notice to you.

March 27, 2020

lssued by: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
(Registry Officer)

Address of local office: Thomas D'Arcy McGee Building

90 Sparks Street, 5th floor
Ottawa, Ontario
K1A 0H9

TO: Swoop Inc.

c/o AHBL Corporate Services Ltd.
2700 - 700 West Georgia Street
Vancouver, BC, V7Y 1B8

Westjet Airlines Ltd.

c/o AHBL Corporate Services Ltd.
2700 - 700 West Georgia Street
Vancouver, BC, V7Y 1B8

Air Canada
c/o AHBL Corporate Services Ltd.
2700 - 700 West Georgia Street
Vancouver, BC, V7Y 1B8

Air Transat A.T. Inc.

c/o David Edinger
1200 - 925 West Georgia Street
Vancouver, BC V6C 3L2

Sunwing Airlines Inc.

c/o MacKenzie Fujisawa LLP
1600-1095 West Pender Street
Vancouver, BC V6E 2M6
 -3 -

OVERVIEW

1. This is a consumer protection class action seeking to enforce each passengers'

rights to a refund for manies paid for their air tickets, when they are not able to
travel for reasons outside of the contrai of the passengers. The Defendants
should not be permitted to hold the Glass Members' manies indefinitely for a
purchase that the Glass Members may or may not wish to make in the future.

CLAIM

2. The Plaintiff claims, on her own behalf and on behalf of the Glass, Members (as
defined below):

a. an Orcier pursuant to Rules 334.16(1) and 334.17 of the Federal Courts

Ru/es (the "Ru/es") certifying this action as a class proceeding and
providing any ancillary directions;

b. an Order pursuant to Rules 334.12(3), 334.16(1)(e) and 334.17(b)

appointing the Plaintiff as the representative plaintiff for the Glass;

c. an interim Order that any of the Defendants' communications with the

Glass Members, including messages posted publicly on their own websites
must prominently refer to the fact that there is a pending class action
seeking various relief including: refund for the manies paid and punitive
damages;

d. an Order under Rule 377 (or alternatively Rules 373 and/or 374) that the
manies received by the Defendants in relation to the Glass Members'
Gontracts of Garriage (defined further below) be paid into -Court pending
final disposition;

e. a declaration that the Gontracts of Garriage between each of the Glass

Members and a Defendant have been terminated pursuant to the doctrine
of frustration on March 13, 2020;

f. further, or in the alternative, a declaration that the Gontracts of Garriage

between each of the Glass Members and a Defendant include an
expressed or implied term that Glass Members are entitled to a full refund
if carriage is no longer possible for reasons outside the contrai of the Glass
Member, and that each of the Defendants have breached this term;
 -4 -

g. further, or in the alternative, a declaration that the Defendants have

breached the duty to perform the Contracts of Carriage in g·ood faith;

h. an Order that the Defendants refund to the original form of payment the
manies received in relation to the Class Members' Contracts of Carriage;

i. further, or in the alternative, an Order that the Defendants pay damages to

each Class Member including: special damages, general damages, nominal
damages, and/or punitive damages;

j. an Order pursuant to Rule 334.28(1) and (2) for the aggregateassessment

of the refund of manies to the Class Members;

k. an Order pursuant to Rule 334.26-334.27 and 334.28(3) for individual

assessment of compensatory damages to members of the Class and the
appointment of a special referee for assessing each individual case using
special modes of proof as directed by the Court;

1. pre-judgment and post-judgment interest pursuant to sections 36 and 37

of the Federal Courts Act, RSC 1985, c. F-7; and

m. such further and other relief as this Honourable Court deems just.

THE PARTIES

3. The representative plaintiff, Janet Donaldson, is a resident of the province of

British Columbia.

4. The Defendant, Swoop Inc., is a body corporate incorporated in Alberta and extra-
provincially registered in British Columbia with an attorney in British Columbia at:
AHBL Corporate Services Ltd., 2700 - 700 West Georgia Street, Vancouver, BC,
V7Y 1B8 (hereafter "Swoop").

5. The Defendant, Westjet Airlines Ltd., is a body corporate incorporated in Alberta

and extra-provincially registered in British Columbia with an attorney in British
Columbia at: AHBL Corporate Services Ltd., 2700 - 700 West Georgia Street,
Vancouver, BC, V7Y 1B8 (hereafter "WestJet").

6. The Defendant, Air Canada, is a body corporate incorporated under the laws of
Canada and extra-provincially registered in British Columbia with an attorney in
British Columbia at: AHBL Corporate Services Ltd., 2700 - 700 West Georgia
Street, Vancouver, BC, V7Y 1B8 (hereafter "Air Canada").
 -5 -

7. The Defendant, Air Transat A.T. Inc., is a body corporate incorporated under the
laws of Canada and extra-provincially registered in British Columbia with an
attorney in British Columbia at: David Edinger, 1200-925 West Georgia Street,
Vancouver, BC V6C 3L2 (hereafter "Air Transat").

8. The Defendant, Sunwing Airlines Inc., is a body corporate incorporated in Ontario

and extra-provincially registered in British Columbia with an attorney in British
Columbia at: MacKenzie Fujisawa LLP, 1600-1095 West Pender Street,
Vancouver, BC, V6E 2M6 (hereafter "Sunwing").

9. Each of the Defendants are commercial airlines based in Canada licensed under
the Canada Transportation Act, S.C. 1996, c. 10 and the accompanying
regulations, operating domestic flights, international flights, and transborder
(USA) flights.

THE CLASS

1O. The representative plaintiff brings this action on her own behalf and on behalf of
all persans as follows (hereafter the "Class" or "Class Member(s)"):

Ali persans, residing anywhere in the world, who before March 11, 2020
entered into a Contract of Carriage (defined below) with any of the
Defendants for travel on a flight operated by a Defendant on a trip that was
scheduled to commence between March 13, 2020 until the date the
Government of Canada withdraws travel advisories for COVID-19, and
have not received a refund in the original form of payment:

A further subclass of Glass Members whose flights from March 13, 2020
until the dates listed below were cancelled and/or suspended by the
Defendant in response to the COVID-19 situation (hereafter the
Cancellation Su b-Class).

• May 31, 2020 (for Westjet and Swoop);

• April 30, 2020 (for Sunwing, Air Transat, and Air Canada); or
• Any other date to be determined by the Court.

11. The representative Plaintiff is a member of the Glass (including the Cancellation
Sub-Class).
 -6 -

12. lt is estimated that the Glass includes tens of thousands (if not hundreds of
thousands) of affected passengers.

THE DEFENDANT'$ FLIGHT OFFERINGS

13. Each of the Defendants offers the following categories of flights:

a. Domestic;
b. Transborder (USA); and
c. International.

14. Under section 67 of the Canada Transportation Act, each of the Defendants are
required to publish a tariff providing for the terms and conditions applicable to
domestic carriage (hereafter the "Domestic Tariffs").

15. Section 67(3) mandates that each of the Defendants must complywith the terms
of its own Domestic Tariffs.

16. Under sections 110-112 of the Air Transportation Regulations, SOR/88-58, each
of the Defendants are required to publish and file a tariff providing for the terms
and conditions applicable to international, including transborder, carriage
(hereafter the "International Tariffs").

17. Sections 110-112 also mandates that each of the Defendants must comply with
the terms of its own International Tariffs.

18. When a persan purchases an air ticket for travel on a flight with any of the
Defendants, the terms of the applicable Domestic Tariff or International Tariff, as
the case may be, are incorporated into the terms of the transaction between that
persan and the Defendant (hereafter the "Contract of Carriage").

19. lt is an express and/or implied term of each of the Defendants' Domestic Tariffs,
International Tariffs, and/or Contract of Carriage that passengers have a
fundamental right to a refund of the manies paid if the air carrier is unable to
transport them for any reason that is outside the passengers' contrai and that the
carrier cannot keep the fare paid by the passengers and refuse to provide a refund
on the basis that its inability to provide transportation was due to certain events.
 -7 -

THE PLAINTIFF'S AND THE CLASS MEMBERS' CIRCUMSTANCES

20. On or about January 14, 2020, the Plaintiff booked a flight with another friend for
travel with WestJet via an online travel agent (Expedia for TD) to travel to New
York as follows:

a. WestJet Flight 710 on April 17, 2020 from Vancouver to Toronto, with a
connecting flight WestJet 1216 the same day from Toronto to New York.

b. WestJet Flight 1211 on April 23, 2020 from New York to Toronto, with a
connecting flight WestJet 719 the same day from Toronto to Vancouver.

(the "Booking")

21. The total cost of the Booking was $361.39 CAD, which was paid to WestJet on or
about January 14, 2020 using her credit card.

22.At the time of making the Booking, a Contract of Carriage was entered into
between the Plaintiff and the Defendant Westjet.

23. Each of the Glass Members before March 11, 2020 (a key date described below),
entered into a Contract of Carriage with a Defendant for travel that is set to begin
on or after March 13, 2020 (another key date described further below).

24. lndividuals who commenced travel before March 13, 2020 or entered into their
Contract of Carriage after March 11, 2020 are not included in this action.

25. The coronavirus (hereinafter "COVID-19") is a highly contagious virus that

originated from the province of Hubei of the Peoples Republic of China, and
began spreading outside of the Peoples Republic of China on or around February
2020.

26. On or about March 11, 2020, the World Health Organization declared COVID-19
as a global pandemic. lndividuals that entered into the Contract of Carriage prior
to March 11, 2020 would not be aware that a global pandemic would be declared
by the World Health Organization.

27.On or about March 13, 2020, the Government of Canada issued a blanket travel
advisory advising against non-essential travel outside of Canada until further
notice and restricting entry of foreign nationals into Canada, akin to a "declaration
of war" against COVID~19, and that those in Canada should stay home except if
 -8 -

absolutely necessary (hereafter the "Declaration").

28. Prior to March 13, 2020, there was no indication from the Government of Canada
that there would be any forthcoming restriction on international travel or that the
Declaration would be issued.

29. The provisions of the Canada Transportation Act (and accompanying regulations
such as the Air Passenger Protection Regulations) and the written terms of the
Domestic Tariffs and the International Tariffs only contemplated situations
involving relatively localized and short-term delays, cancellations, and/or
disruptions to flights. They never contemplated situations where the Declaration
would be issued against a global pandemic of the scale of COVID-19.

30. The COVID-19 situation is outside of the Glass Members' contrai.

31. Upon issuance of the Declaration, the Glass Members complied with the guidance
of the Government of Canada and did not commence the itineraries that they had
booked prior to March 11, 2020.

32. Shortly after the issuance of the Declaration, the Defendants on their own
initiative cancelled and/or suspended numerous flights up to and including May
31, 2020 (for Westjet and Swoop) and April 30, 2020 (for Sunwing, Air Transat,
and Air Canada), with further cancellations and suspensions expected to be
announced in the near future.

33. Regardless whether the flights were cancelled/suspended by the Defendants, or

the Glass Members adhering to the Declaration to not commence their itineraries,
all of the Defendants failed to provide the Glass Members with refunds of the
manies they paid to a Defendant under their respective Contracts of Carriage.

34. lnstead, all of the Defendants implemented new policies (that were never part of
the International Tariffs, Domestic Tariffs, or Contracts of Carriage) seeking to
keep all of the Glass Members manies, and in exchange issue (or offer to issue)
"travel credits" that are subject to various restrictions (detailed belôw}.

35. ln effect, each of the Oefendants are forcing the Glass Members to forego their
fundamental right to a refund and to spend their manies with the same Defendant
in the future to purchase travel that the Glass Members may not wish to undertake
any longer, and likely at a substantially different price.

36. ln the case of Swoop, all international and transborder flights have been
 -9 -

suspended as of March 23, 2020, with substantial reductions to domestic flights,

and Swoop would issue to the Glass Members a non-transferable credit that is
valid for 24 months from the cancellation date. ln the case of itineraries containing
more than one traveller, the non-transferable credit will be issued in the name of
one of the travellers only and must be used in the future by that traveller only.

37. ln the case of WestJet, ail international and transborder flights have been
suspended as of March 22, 2020, with substantial reductions to domestic flights,
and WestJet would issue to the Glass Members a transferable credit that is valid
for 24 months from the cancellation date.

38. ln the case of Air Canada, substantial reductions were implemented for domestic,
international and transborder flights. Air Canada would issue to the Glass
Members a non-transferable credit that is valid for 24 months from the
cancellation date. If the new booking is cheaper than the non-transferable credit,
the monetary difference will be completely forfeited to Air Canada.

39. ln the case of Air Transat, substantial reductions were implemented for domestic,
international and transborder flights. Air Transat would issue to the Glass
Members a non-transferable credit that is valid for 24 months from the
cancellation date. If the new booking is cheaper than the non-transferable credit,
the remaining amount will be completely forfeited to Air Transat.

40. ln the case of Sunwing, ail international and transborder flights have been
suspended as of March 17, 2020, with substantial reductions to domestic flights,
and Sunwing would issue to the Glass Members a non-transferable, non-
refundable credit with no cash value that is valid for 24 months from the original
departure date. lt is not clear if the remaining amount will be forfeited to Sunwing
if the new booking is cheaper than the non-transferable credit.

41. On or about March 24, 2020, WestJet (which includes its wholly owned subsidiary
Swoop) officially announced that it will layoff 50% of its staff members amounting
to 6,900 employees.

42. On or about March 20, 2020, Air Canada officially announced that it will layoff
5,000 of its staff members, mostly flight attendants and pilots.

43. On or about March 20, 2020, Air Transat officially announced that it will layoff
2,000 of its staff members, mostly flight attendants and pilots.

44. On or about March 17, 2020, Sunwing officially announced that it will layoff ail of
its flight attendants and pilots and suspend operations in the near term.
 - 10

45.As a result of the layoffs above, the Defendants would not incurvarious operating
costs associated with operating their flights, for example, labour, fuel, and landing
fees.

46. lt would be unconscionable and unreasonable for the Defendants to not provide
the services, and also not having to incur the key operational costs for procuring
the services, on the one hand, while seeking on the other hand that 100% of the
manies paid by the Glass Members to the Defendants be forfeited for the promise
of a "credit" to be redeemed within two years.

47. lt would also be unconscionable and unreasonable because the Glass Members
would bear the risk of any of the Defendants becoming insolvent, and as a result
the "credits" becoming worthless.

48. The Defendants' conduct is high handed, lax and completely disregards the
fundamental right of (and legitimate expectations of) the Glass Members to a
monetary refund when services could not (or will not) be rendered for reasons
completely outside the contrai of the Glass Members.

49. Each of the Defendants are experienced commercial airlines that have, or ought
to have, proper contingency or financial planning to account for situations like
GOVID-19. ln the alternative, each of the Defendants ought to have acquired
proper business interruption insu rance policies to limit their exposure to situations
like GOVID-19.

THE CLASS MEMBERS' BASIS FOR CLAIM

50. The Glass Members are in the same or similar situation as the Plaintiff in that all
of the Glass Members:

a. entered into a Gontract of Garriage containing the same or similar terms,

including an express and/or implied term providing for the absolute right to
a refund in circumstances outside of the Glass Members' contrai; and

b. their travel plans were all disrupted from the GOVID-19 situation.

Frustration of the Contracts of Carriage

51. The doctrine of frustration rests upon a term or a condition implied into the
contract ab initio.
Cheong Yue Steamship Company v. Hirji Mulji, 1926 Canlll 523 (UK JCPC) at p. 922
 - 11

52. By applying the doctrine the law is only doing what the parties really meant to do
themselves and would have inserted into the contract had the situation occurred
to them, on the basis of what is fair and reasonable and the main object of the
contract.
Cheong Yue Steamship Company v. Hirji Mulji, 1926 Canlll 523 (UK JCPC) at pp. 922 and 927

53. The changed circumstances brought about by GOVID-19 and the Declaration
altered the fundamental nature of the Gontracts of Garriage between each of the
Glass Members and the Defendants, frustrating the object of same and making
performance as intended, impossible or radically different.

54. The main object of the Gontracts of Garriage was:

a. to carry the Glass Member to their destination on the dates and times
stipulated in their Gontract of Garriage, with the allowance for short and
reasonable delays; and

b. that the carriage was to occur during "peace times" and not during global
"war times" like the GOVID-19 situation.

55. lrrespective of whether the Glass Members would want to travel or not, the
GOVID-19 situation is clearly a prolonged situation that is not expected to subside
in a reasonable time, and therefore the Gontracts of Garriage could not be
performed (as previously contemplated) within a reasonable time.

56. Upon the Government of Ganada's Declaration on or about March 13, 2020, the
Contracts of Carriage have been frustrated since that moment, as a matter of law.
Cheong Yue Steamship Company v. Hirji Mulji, 1926 Canlll 523 (UK JCPC) at p. 923

57. The parties never meant to allow the Defendants to keep the manies received
under the Gontracts of Garriage when a situation like GOVID-19 occurs.
Furthermore, it is not just and reasonable to permit the Defendants to keep those
monies, as the fundamental nature of the contract is altered in light of the changed
circumstances.

58. The Glass Members are entitled to a refund of the manies paid to the Defendants
under the Contracts of Carriage.
Fibrosa Spa/ka Akcyjna v Fairbaim Lawson Combe Barbour Ltd, [1942] UKHL 4; cited with
approval in Cahan v. Fraser, 1951 Ca_nlll 253 (BC CA)
 - 12

The Defendants' Breach of Contract

59. Each of the Domestic Tariffs and/or International Tariffs includes an express
and/or implied term that each Glass Member has a right to a refund of the manies
paid if a Defendant is unable to transport them for any reason that is outside the
Glass Member's contrai and that the Defendant cannot keep the manies paid by
the Glass Member and refuse to provide a refund on the basis that its inability to
provide transportation was due to certain events.

60. The Defendants' have breached the terms of the Contracts of Carriage by
refusing to provide the refunds in accordance with the express and/or implied
terms for a refund.

61. The Defendants have further breached the terms of the Contracts of Carriage by
the imposition of a "new policy" that deprives the Glass Members of their right to
a refund and in exchange issues to the Glass Members a future credit.

62. The Defendants' conduct is also a breach of the duty to perform contractual
obligations in good faith, including the duty to properly inform the Glass Members.

63. The Defendants are entitled to damages in an amount equivalent to the manies
previously paid, plus special, general, nominal, and punitive damages for the
Defendants' breach of the Contract of Carriage.

JURISDICTION
64. This Action concerns aeronautics and/or works and undertakings extending
beyond the limits of province, and is governed by a comprehensive federal
statutory framework including:

a. Canada Transportation Act, S.C. 1996, c. 1 O

b. Air Transportation Regulations, SOR/88-58
c. Aeronautics Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. A-2

65. Subsections 23(b) and 23(c) of the Federal Courts Act provide that the Federal
Court has jurisdiction over the subject-matter.

66. Furthermore, and in particular, this Court has jurisdiction over contracts of
carriage by air, which includes the Domestic Tariffs, International Tariffs, and the
Contracts of Carriage.
Warner-Lambert Canada Ltd. v. Canadian Pacifie Airlines Ltd., 1981 CanLII 2627 (FC)
 - 13

67. The Contracts of Carriage are governed by federal common law, including the
law relating to breach of contracts, restitution, tort, unjust enrichment, and/or
waiver of tort.

68. The members of the Glass are within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court as the
respective flights originate from Canada or have Canada as its destination and
there is a "real and substantial connection" with Canada.

69. Regardless of the residency of the Glass Member, their Contract of Carriage
would be subject to and governed by the Canada Transportation Act and/or Air
Transport Regulations, as the case may be.

Location of Trial

70. The Plaintiff proposes that this action be tried at Vancouver, BC.

Me. Jérém' John Martin

Me. Séb ien A. Paquette
Champlain Avocats
1434 Sainte-Catherine Street West, Suite
200 Montréal, Québec, H3G 1R4
Tel: 514-944-7344
Fax: 514-800-2286
Email: [email protected]
Notifications: [email protected]

Simon Lin
Evolink Law Group
4388 Still Creek Drive, Suite 237
Burnaby, British Columbia, V5C 6C6
Tel: 604-620-2666
Email: [email protected]