Delayed Baggage: FAQ

In addition to reasonable interim expenses, inconvenience and loss of part of the purpose of the trip caused by the baggage delay is also recoverable.

• Axel Walz v. ClickAir, European Court of Justice, Case C‑63/09, para. 29

The airline cannot limit their liability based on how long your baggage was missing. Reasonableness of interim expenses depends on the purpose and circumstances of your travel, and not the length of the delay of your baggage. The airline must compensate you based on the following precedents:

• Dandoy v. Corsair, Decision No. 107-C-A-2007, para. 23
• Shetty v. Air Canada, Decision No. 353-C-A-2012, paras. 11-13
• Lukács v. Porter Airlines, Decision No. 16-C-A-2013, paras. 151-158
• Lukács v. Sunwing Airlines, Decision No. 249-C-A-2013, para. 22
• Yoganathanng v. Emirates, Decision No. 61-C-A-2017, paras. 30-31

Providing receipts is not the only way to prove your damages, although it is the easiest one. A statutory declaration or a sworn affidavit setting out the losses and the reasons for the absence of receipts is sufficient as long as the expenses themselves are reasonable in the circumstances. You should send the airline such a declaration or affidavit, and tell the airline that it must compensate you based on the following precedents:

• MacGillivary v. Cubana, Decision No. 308-C-A-2010, paras. 36-38
• Cankech v. Brussel Airlines, Decision No. 244-C-A-2014, para. 23

The first carrier and the last carrier are jointly and severally liable for baggage-related claims. The first carrier cannot insist that you claim damages from the last carrier. You should tell the first carrier that it must compensate you based on the following precedent:

• Lukács v. WestJet, Decision No. 420-C-A-2014

Article 22(5) of the Montreal Convention provides that the liability limit can be exceeded if you prove, in addition to your damages, that:

• the damage resulted from an act or omission of the carrier, its servants or agents;
• the servant or agent was acting within the scope of their employment.

Relevant case law:

• Connaught Laboratories Ltd. v. British Airways, 2002 CanLII 4642 (ON SC)
• Connaught Laboratories Ltd v. British Airways, 2005 CanLII 16576 (ON CA)
• Mudrinic v. Air Serbia, Decision No. 8-C-A-2018, paras. 24-29

Compensation payable under the Montreal Convention or the Tariff must be “paid in the form of cash, cheque, credit to a passenger’s credit card, or any other form acceptable to the passenger.” Travel vouchers are mere goodwill gestures, and do not relieve the airline from paying compensation.

• Decision No. LET-C-A-83-2011 of the Canadian Transportation Agency