#bc of the tariffs to be clear

[totalspiffage]

I do need to stress the importance of checking your sources and not taking anecdotes as factual evidence because I've seen several posts today of like, screenshots of reddit comments that are pure feel-good hearsay and we do NOT need to succumb to using hearsay when there are real issues to be dealt with. This can honestly be true of anything. Search it. Double check. Then post about it. Killing misinformation should be a priority.

[seokmattchuus]

i read on twitter that a woman voted for.. that guy for "the economy" and is now panicking bc he husband is undocumented..

i'm speechless.. ma'am you went to vote forgetting you were married? this is no 2 truths and a lie game

i feel bad for the husband

No because the people heard mr duck clear as day and just "well, he doesn't mean that" and now they're upset that he meant what he said. Like. Voting should not be for just anyone and it fucking shows. There's also that case where this husband's job isn't doing christmas bonuses because they have to stoke pile before the tariffs hit and no one knew why so their boss had to sit them down and explain tariffs. Americans all have half-digit IQs and it fucking shows

[180t0180]

Oh hai

Remembre me? Your pal with good intentions?

I’m baaaaaaack

Not going to make wild claims, but just going to not buy several categories of stuff for a WHILE, and make better use of what I DO have.

Today, I cancelled my Hulu account bc Mark has a better one and even tho it’s only $6 a month, it’s still money. Also, I printed out a return label for this pair of boots that didn’t work out, so that’s another hundo back in the account.

I have grand aspirations of doing a whole wardrobe audit, but didn’t I JUST say I wasn’t gonna make wild claims? 

We shall see.

We’re currently on the back end of a kitchen and entryway remodel. Like, full on, t to b, everything new remodel.

Right now, we’ve got floors and cabinets installed (after a prolonged period to remove all the old stuff, shore up the main wall, re-run electrical and plumbing and wait for cabinets to clear frickin’ customs thanks to SOMEBODY’S stupid tariffs). Next week, we’ll get our countertops and appliances installed. Then there’s the tile backsplash/wall, creating bench seating and storage, fixing transitions (and the hallway floor) and some other finishing touches. The end is in sight (finally!)

Once our kitchen is back in action, the rest of the house can be put to rights and the last few projects can happen. I totally plan to do a whole house tour once it’s satisfactory.

I also want to try and get our outdoor space improved, mainly by figuring out how to propagate moss so that most of our backyard can be soft springy . . . moss. We have an enormous tree back there, and between the shade and the knobbly roots, regular grass doesn’t want to grow/thrive there, and regular grass is beyond played out, anyhow. (I also dream of being able to afford a semi-mature lilac bush to plant next to our shed out back. That spot gets more light and I just LOOOOOOVE lilac.)

More than anything, this is a spot for me to just talk about plans for making my house better and more functional through organization and donating stuff and yeah.

Happy 2020 and here’s hoping we make it to 2021!

[allthecanadianpolitics]

April 27, 2017

To: All B.C. Steelworkers,

No matter what side of the border I work on, more and more I hear from right-wing politicians who don’t really have any ideas of their own so they just make things up. Apparently this B.C. election is no different.

BC Liberal leader Christy Clark has falsely claimed that my meeting with U.S. President Donald Trump was about softwood lumber – she just made that up – in fact it was about protecting our members’ jobs in the steel industry in both the U.S. and in Canada.

Clark even claimed she’s been to Washington, D.C. to defend B.C.’s lumber industry—she made that up too. Again, in fact, I have been to Washington, D.C., to defend our members in Canada’s forest industry and I’ll go again and again and again until we get a fair deal that protects our members’ livelihoods and Canadian forest communities.

The tariffs filed by Trump have nothing to do with protecting jobs in the US; in fact it will cost Americans 8,000 jobs in the construction industry alone. It has more to do with US lumber companies trying to drive up prices and increase their profits. And quite frankly Canadian lumber companies like West Fraser and Interfor stand to benefit no matter what. They’ve taken profits from B.C. to buy mills in the US and hedge their bets. It’s the small operators, the value added sector, and most importantly our members and their communities that get hurt the most. Think Christy Clark is on the side of the little guy? Think again.

Clark is attacking our union and me personally, because she wants to distract from the fact that the BC Liberals have been the most corporate government in North America. Our members work hard for the wages they earn, Christy Clark’s actually been fattening her wallet with money from corporate donations, including companies like Weyerhaeuser – one of the very same lumber companies that instigated the softwood lumber dispute. She’s pocketed $300,000 from donations from big companies, including many of our biggest employers in the forest industry. We support John Horgan and the BC NDP’s plan for election finance reform, the real question is why Clark and her corporate cronies don’t.

Outside of powerful U.S. lumber companies most Americans don’t want a trade fight with Canada. Like Canadians they want to stop unfair dumping of manufactured goods from overseas and end the race to the bottom on lower standards for workers and the environment. Just a few years ago Christy Clark had a chance to stand with us when the United Steelworkers intervened to fight the unfair dumping of overseas rebar.

Instead she opposed our efforts and stood with anti-union groups who claimed rebar was driving up the cost of B.C. homes —she made that up too. Thankfully she lost, and we won.

We’ve canvassed, surveyed and talked to our members all across British Columbia. A massive majority are tired of a government that only cares about the wealthy and big corporations. They want change in B.C., and it’s no surprise to me.

Let’s remember the BC Liberals closed over 100 mills and killed 35, 000 forestry jobs, while allowing raw log exports to skyrocket. When Christy Clark and the BC Liberals encouraged the exploitation of temporary foreign workers in B.C. mines and other workplaces, instead of hiring local workers, Steelworkers stood up and fought back. And no one has fought more against the BC Liberal deregulation of health and safety standards than the United Steelworkers. From botched investigations to poor enforcement and cuts to pensions we’ve held Christy Clark and the BC Liberals to account. We’re a union that fights and the BC Liberals just don’t like it.

Our members have been clear; we want a government that’s on the side of working people for a change. That’s why this election we’re supporting John Horgan and the BC NDP.

So Steelworkers you know the old adage, when under attack, stand up and fight back. I’m asking you for your help; hand out more leaflets, knock on more doors, make more phone calls, get our fellow members and their families out to vote. Get involved with #SteelworkersVote. Let’s make sure this election we send Christy Clark and the BC Liberals a message where it counts—at the ballot box. Together, this May 9th, let’s elect John Horgan and the BC NDP.

In solidarity,

Leo W. Gerard USW International President

[startupcanada]

Discover how Canada’s trade agreements can help you do business.

Canada has one of the world’s most open trading economies and businesses in British Columbia benefit from significant international trade agreements. When you do business with Canada, you gain the benefits of dealing with one of the world’s most open, transparent and stable trading economies.

The Canadian government is the signatory to international and domestic agreements designed to reduce or eliminate barriers to trade.

Trade agreements provide preferential and improved market access in other jurisdictions for BC’s workers, goods, and services, making it easier and more efficient to do business. These agreements:

Outline clear rules, increasing predictability;

Reduce costs through the reduction and/or elimination of tariff and non-tariff barriers and;

Provide a mechanism to address discriminatory practices that hinder trade and investment.

Canada Company Registration for Non-Canadian residents

Incorporating in Canada – Canada Incorporation for Non-Canadians for only $2200 (All-Inclusive.) Company Formations provides fast and easy Company Registration in Canada for non-Canadians residents and provides all the documents your new Canada corporation will need to stay up-to-date and in compliance with your province of registration corporation law.

Incorporation Fees:

$2200 (All-Inclusive)

Our Canada Incorporation Service for non-Canadian includes:

Name Search Report Preparation of Articles of Incorporation and Incorporation Documents Incorporation Agreement By-Laws, Company Minute Book, Share Certificates Canada Registered Agent Service for 1 year Government Fees Our Service Fees Original Certificates Copy of Documents in PDF Taxes

Request More Information

For more information about our Canada Corporations for non-Canadians, please contact us using the form below:

* indicates required field

Name:*

Email:*

Your Inquiry:

Message:*

CAPTCHA Code:*

The post Discover how Canada’s trade agreements can help you do business. appeared first on Company Formations Canada.

from Company Formations Canada https://ift.tt/32kuCB9

[ruthhays052]

Timed Out

The Supreme Court of Nova Scotia recently reaffirmed a lower court decision, Paine v. Air Canada, 2018 NSSC 215, which considered Air Canada’s passenger tariff (terms and conditions of travel).  The court ruled that Air Canada was not required to compensate passengers who were denied boarding when they presented themselves at the check-in counter after the cut off time due to a lengthy line-up.

Three passengers were ticketed to travel on a domestic flight with Air Canada from Vancouver, BC to Sydney, NS.  Upon arriving at YVR, they joined the queue to check-in.  At that time, they were within the check-in time frame recommended by Air Canada.  However, by the time they reached the check-in counter, they were informed that their flight was closed and they were denied boarding.  The airline attempted to rebook them on a flight departing one hour later, but the family declined on the basis that this was inconvenient.  Ultimately, they were rebooked to travel the next day.  The family then commenced an action in the Small Claims Court seeking $800 for denied boarding compensation, relying upon Rule 245AC of the Air Canada Domestic Tariff.  The Small Claims Court adjudicator dismissed the claim on the basis that the passengers had not established that they were denied boarding on the basis of overbooking.  The passengers appealed.

On appeal, the court considered whether the adjudicator erred in his interpretation of Rule 245AC and his finding that the passengers had the onus of proving that the denial of boarding was based on overbooking in order to be entitled to compensation.

On appeal, the court found there was no error by the adjudicator in interpreting the tariff.  The language was clear and the remedies set out in the Rule only arose when “overbooking” is the cause of the involuntary denied boarding.  The court was not prepared to find that the Rule applied to denied boarding due to a check-in delay.  Further, the court went on to find that in order to succeed with a claim for denied boarding compensation pursuant to Rule 245AC, the claimants had the onus of presenting evidence to establish, on a balance of probabilities, that they were denied boarding because of overbooking.  Here, the claimants had failed to do so and their appeal was dismissed.

The decision confirms that clear and unambiguous terms and conditions of carriage will be applied and highlights the importance for passengers to allow sufficient time for check-in.

The post Timed Out appeared first on Aviation Law Blog.

https://aviationlawblog.ahbl.ca/2019/02/05/timed-out/

[hantljano26]

Timed Out

The Supreme Court of Nova Scotia recently reaffirmed a lower court decision, Paine v. Air Canada, 2018 NSSC 215, which considered Air Canada’s passenger tariff (terms and conditions of travel).  The court ruled that Air Canada was not required to compensate passengers who were denied boarding when they presented themselves at the check-in counter after the cut off time due to a lengthy line-up.

Three passengers were ticketed to travel on a domestic flight with Air Canada from Vancouver, BC to Sydney, NS.  Upon arriving at YVR, they joined the queue to check-in.  At that time, they were within the check-in time frame recommended by Air Canada.  However, by the time they reached the check-in counter, they were informed that their flight was closed and they were denied boarding.  The airline attempted to rebook them on a flight departing one hour later, but the family declined on the basis that this was inconvenient.  Ultimately, they were rebooked to travel the next day.  The family then commenced an action in the Small Claims Court seeking $800 for denied boarding compensation, relying upon Rule 245AC of the Air Canada Domestic Tariff.  The Small Claims Court adjudicator dismissed the claim on the basis that the passengers had not established that they were denied boarding on the basis of overbooking.  The passengers appealed.

On appeal, the court considered whether the adjudicator erred in his interpretation of Rule 245AC and his finding that the passengers had the onus of proving that the denial of boarding was based on overbooking in order to be entitled to compensation.

On appeal, the court found there was no error by the adjudicator in interpreting the tariff.  The language was clear and the remedies set out in the Rule only arose when “overbooking” is the cause of the involuntary denied boarding.  The court was not prepared to find that the Rule applied to denied boarding due to a check-in delay.  Further, the court went on to find that in order to succeed with a claim for denied boarding compensation pursuant to Rule 245AC, the claimants had the onus of presenting evidence to establish, on a balance of probabilities, that they were denied boarding because of overbooking.  Here, the claimants had failed to do so and their appeal was dismissed.

The decision confirms that clear and unambiguous terms and conditions of carriage will be applied and highlights the importance for passengers to allow sufficient time for check-in.

The post Timed Out appeared first on Aviation Law Blog.

https://aviationlawblog.ahbl.ca/2019/02/05/timed-out/

[hhfjanot26]

Timed Out

The Supreme Court of Nova Scotia recently reaffirmed a lower court decision, Paine v. Air Canada, 2018 NSSC 215, which considered Air Canada’s passenger tariff (terms and conditions of travel).  The court ruled that Air Canada was not required to compensate passengers who were denied boarding when they presented themselves at the check-in counter after the cut off time due to a lengthy line-up.

Three passengers were ticketed to travel on a domestic flight with Air Canada from Vancouver, BC to Sydney, NS.  Upon arriving at YVR, they joined the queue to check-in.  At that time, they were within the check-in time frame recommended by Air Canada.  However, by the time they reached the check-in counter, they were informed that their flight was closed and they were denied boarding.  The airline attempted to rebook them on a flight departing one hour later, but the family declined on the basis that this was inconvenient.  Ultimately, they were rebooked to travel the next day.  The family then commenced an action in the Small Claims Court seeking $800 for denied boarding compensation, relying upon Rule 245AC of the Air Canada Domestic Tariff.  The Small Claims Court adjudicator dismissed the claim on the basis that the passengers had not established that they were denied boarding on the basis of overbooking.  The passengers appealed.

On appeal, the court considered whether the adjudicator erred in his interpretation of Rule 245AC and his finding that the passengers had the onus of proving that the denial of boarding was based on overbooking in order to be entitled to compensation.

On appeal, the court found there was no error by the adjudicator in interpreting the tariff.  The language was clear and the remedies set out in the Rule only arose when “overbooking” is the cause of the involuntary denied boarding.  The court was not prepared to find that the Rule applied to denied boarding due to a check-in delay.  Further, the court went on to find that in order to succeed with a claim for denied boarding compensation pursuant to Rule 245AC, the claimants had the onus of presenting evidence to establish, on a balance of probabilities, that they were denied boarding because of overbooking.  Here, the claimants had failed to do so and their appeal was dismissed.

The decision confirms that clear and unambiguous terms and conditions of carriage will be applied and highlights the importance for passengers to allow sufficient time for check-in.

The post Timed Out appeared first on Aviation Law Blog.

https://aviationlawblog.ahbl.ca/2019/02/05/timed-out/

[losenjano993]

Timed Out

The Supreme Court of Nova Scotia recently reaffirmed a lower court decision, Paine v. Air Canada, 2018 NSSC 215, which considered Air Canada’s passenger tariff (terms and conditions of travel).  The court ruled that Air Canada was not required to compensate passengers who were denied boarding when they presented themselves at the check-in counter after the cut off time due to a lengthy line-up.

Three passengers were ticketed to travel on a domestic flight with Air Canada from Vancouver, BC to Sydney, NS.  Upon arriving at YVR, they joined the queue to check-in.  At that time, they were within the check-in time frame recommended by Air Canada.  However, by the time they reached the check-in counter, they were informed that their flight was closed and they were denied boarding.  The airline attempted to rebook them on a flight departing one hour later, but the family declined on the basis that this was inconvenient.  Ultimately, they were rebooked to travel the next day.  The family then commenced an action in the Small Claims Court seeking $800 for denied boarding compensation, relying upon Rule 245AC of the Air Canada Domestic Tariff.  The Small Claims Court adjudicator dismissed the claim on the basis that the passengers had not established that they were denied boarding on the basis of overbooking.  The passengers appealed.

On appeal, the court considered whether the adjudicator erred in his interpretation of Rule 245AC and his finding that the passengers had the onus of proving that the denial of boarding was based on overbooking in order to be entitled to compensation.

On appeal, the court found there was no error by the adjudicator in interpreting the tariff.  The language was clear and the remedies set out in the Rule only arose when “overbooking” is the cause of the involuntary denied boarding.  The court was not prepared to find that the Rule applied to denied boarding due to a check-in delay.  Further, the court went on to find that in order to succeed with a claim for denied boarding compensation pursuant to Rule 245AC, the claimants had the onus of presenting evidence to establish, on a balance of probabilities, that they were denied boarding because of overbooking.  Here, the claimants had failed to do so and their appeal was dismissed.

The decision confirms that clear and unambiguous terms and conditions of carriage will be applied and highlights the importance for passengers to allow sufficient time for check-in.

The post Timed Out appeared first on Aviation Law Blog.

https://aviationlawblog.ahbl.ca/2019/02/05/timed-out/

[teresaajones9]

Timed Out

The Supreme Court of Nova Scotia recently reaffirmed a lower court decision, Paine v. Air Canada, 2018 NSSC 215, which considered Air Canada’s passenger tariff (terms and conditions of travel).  The court ruled that Air Canada was not required to compensate passengers who were denied boarding when they presented themselves at the check-in counter after the cut off time due to a lengthy line-up.

Three passengers were ticketed to travel on a domestic flight with Air Canada from Vancouver, BC to Sydney, NS.  Upon arriving at YVR, they joined the queue to check-in.  At that time, they were within the check-in time frame recommended by Air Canada.  However, by the time they reached the check-in counter, they were informed that their flight was closed and they were denied boarding.  The airline attempted to rebook them on a flight departing one hour later, but the family declined on the basis that this was inconvenient.  Ultimately, they were rebooked to travel the next day.  The family then commenced an action in the Small Claims Court seeking $800 for denied boarding compensation, relying upon Rule 245AC of the Air Canada Domestic Tariff.  The Small Claims Court adjudicator dismissed the claim on the basis that the passengers had not established that they were denied boarding on the basis of overbooking.  The passengers appealed.

On appeal, the court considered whether the adjudicator erred in his interpretation of Rule 245AC and his finding that the passengers had the onus of proving that the denial of boarding was based on overbooking in order to be entitled to compensation.

On appeal, the court found there was no error by the adjudicator in interpreting the tariff.  The language was clear and the remedies set out in the Rule only arose when “overbooking” is the cause of the involuntary denied boarding.  The court was not prepared to find that the Rule applied to denied boarding due to a check-in delay.  Further, the court went on to find that in order to succeed with a claim for denied boarding compensation pursuant to Rule 245AC, the claimants had the onus of presenting evidence to establish, on a balance of probabilities, that they were denied boarding because of overbooking.  Here, the claimants had failed to do so and their appeal was dismissed.

The decision confirms that clear and unambiguous terms and conditions of carriage will be applied and highlights the importance for passengers to allow sufficient time for check-in.

The post Timed Out appeared first on Aviation Law Blog.

https://aviationlawblog.ahbl.ca/2019/02/05/timed-out/

[lattlyjanoh26]

Timed Out

The Supreme Court of Nova Scotia recently reaffirmed a lower court decision, Paine v. Air Canada, 2018 NSSC 215, which considered Air Canada’s passenger tariff (terms and conditions of travel).  The court ruled that Air Canada was not required to compensate passengers who were denied boarding when they presented themselves at the check-in counter after the cut off time due to a lengthy line-up.

Three passengers were ticketed to travel on a domestic flight with Air Canada from Vancouver, BC to Sydney, NS.  Upon arriving at YVR, they joined the queue to check-in.  At that time, they were within the check-in time frame recommended by Air Canada.  However, by the time they reached the check-in counter, they were informed that their flight was closed and they were denied boarding.  The airline attempted to rebook them on a flight departing one hour later, but the family declined on the basis that this was inconvenient.  Ultimately, they were rebooked to travel the next day.  The family then commenced an action in the Small Claims Court seeking $800 for denied boarding compensation, relying upon Rule 245AC of the Air Canada Domestic Tariff.  The Small Claims Court adjudicator dismissed the claim on the basis that the passengers had not established that they were denied boarding on the basis of overbooking.  The passengers appealed.

On appeal, the court considered whether the adjudicator erred in his interpretation of Rule 245AC and his finding that the passengers had the onus of proving that the denial of boarding was based on overbooking in order to be entitled to compensation.

On appeal, the court found there was no error by the adjudicator in interpreting the tariff.  The language was clear and the remedies set out in the Rule only arose when “overbooking” is the cause of the involuntary denied boarding.  The court was not prepared to find that the Rule applied to denied boarding due to a check-in delay.  Further, the court went on to find that in order to succeed with a claim for denied boarding compensation pursuant to Rule 245AC, the claimants had the onus of presenting evidence to establish, on a balance of probabilities, that they were denied boarding because of overbooking.  Here, the claimants had failed to do so and their appeal was dismissed.

The decision confirms that clear and unambiguous terms and conditions of carriage will be applied and highlights the importance for passengers to allow sufficient time for check-in.

The post Timed Out appeared first on Aviation Law Blog.

[grapjano26]

Timed Out

The Supreme Court of Nova Scotia recently reaffirmed a lower court decision, Paine v. Air Canada, 2018 NSSC 215, which considered Air Canada’s passenger tariff (terms and conditions of travel).  The court ruled that Air Canada was not required to compensate passengers who were denied boarding when they presented themselves at the check-in counter after the cut off time due to a lengthy line-up.

Three passengers were ticketed to travel on a domestic flight with Air Canada from Vancouver, BC to Sydney, NS.  Upon arriving at YVR, they joined the queue to check-in.  At that time, they were within the check-in time frame recommended by Air Canada.  However, by the time they reached the check-in counter, they were informed that their flight was closed and they were denied boarding.  The airline attempted to rebook them on a flight departing one hour later, but the family declined on the basis that this was inconvenient.  Ultimately, they were rebooked to travel the next day.  The family then commenced an action in the Small Claims Court seeking $800 for denied boarding compensation, relying upon Rule 245AC of the Air Canada Domestic Tariff.  The Small Claims Court adjudicator dismissed the claim on the basis that the passengers had not established that they were denied boarding on the basis of overbooking.  The passengers appealed.

On appeal, the court considered whether the adjudicator erred in his interpretation of Rule 245AC and his finding that the passengers had the onus of proving that the denial of boarding was based on overbooking in order to be entitled to compensation.

On appeal, the court found there was no error by the adjudicator in interpreting the tariff.  The language was clear and the remedies set out in the Rule only arose when “overbooking” is the cause of the involuntary denied boarding.  The court was not prepared to find that the Rule applied to denied boarding due to a check-in delay.  Further, the court went on to find that in order to succeed with a claim for denied boarding compensation pursuant to Rule 245AC, the claimants had the onus of presenting evidence to establish, on a balance of probabilities, that they were denied boarding because of overbooking.  Here, the claimants had failed to do so and their appeal was dismissed.

The decision confirms that clear and unambiguous terms and conditions of carriage will be applied and highlights the importance for passengers to allow sufficient time for check-in.

The post Timed Out appeared first on Aviation Law Blog.

https://aviationlawblog.ahbl.ca/2019/02/05/timed-out/

[sorejano9]

Timed Out

The Supreme Court of Nova Scotia recently reaffirmed a lower court decision, Paine v. Air Canada, 2018 NSSC 215, which considered Air Canada’s passenger tariff (terms and conditions of travel).  The court ruled that Air Canada was not required to compensate passengers who were denied boarding when they presented themselves at the check-in counter after the cut off time due to a lengthy line-up.

Three passengers were ticketed to travel on a domestic flight with Air Canada from Vancouver, BC to Sydney, NS.  Upon arriving at YVR, they joined the queue to check-in.  At that time, they were within the check-in time frame recommended by Air Canada.  However, by the time they reached the check-in counter, they were informed that their flight was closed and they were denied boarding.  The airline attempted to rebook them on a flight departing one hour later, but the family declined on the basis that this was inconvenient.  Ultimately, they were rebooked to travel the next day.  The family then commenced an action in the Small Claims Court seeking $800 for denied boarding compensation, relying upon Rule 245AC of the Air Canada Domestic Tariff.  The Small Claims Court adjudicator dismissed the claim on the basis that the passengers had not established that they were denied boarding on the basis of overbooking.  The passengers appealed.

On appeal, the court considered whether the adjudicator erred in his interpretation of Rule 245AC and his finding that the passengers had the onus of proving that the denial of boarding was based on overbooking in order to be entitled to compensation.

On appeal, the court found there was no error by the adjudicator in interpreting the tariff.  The language was clear and the remedies set out in the Rule only arose when “overbooking” is the cause of the involuntary denied boarding.  The court was not prepared to find that the Rule applied to denied boarding due to a check-in delay.  Further, the court went on to find that in order to succeed with a claim for denied boarding compensation pursuant to Rule 245AC, the claimants had the onus of presenting evidence to establish, on a balance of probabilities, that they were denied boarding because of overbooking.  Here, the claimants had failed to do so and their appeal was dismissed.

The decision confirms that clear and unambiguous terms and conditions of carriage will be applied and highlights the importance for passengers to allow sufficient time for check-in.

The post Timed Out appeared first on Aviation Law Blog.

https://aviationlawblog.ahbl.ca/2019/02/05/timed-out/

[hgorjano6]

Timed Out

The Supreme Court of Nova Scotia recently reaffirmed a lower court decision, Paine v. Air Canada, 2018 NSSC 215, which considered Air Canada’s passenger tariff (terms and conditions of travel).  The court ruled that Air Canada was not required to compensate passengers who were denied boarding when they presented themselves at the check-in counter after the cut off time due to a lengthy line-up.

Three passengers were ticketed to travel on a domestic flight with Air Canada from Vancouver, BC to Sydney, NS.  Upon arriving at YVR, they joined the queue to check-in.  At that time, they were within the check-in time frame recommended by Air Canada.  However, by the time they reached the check-in counter, they were informed that their flight was closed and they were denied boarding.  The airline attempted to rebook them on a flight departing one hour later, but the family declined on the basis that this was inconvenient.  Ultimately, they were rebooked to travel the next day.  The family then commenced an action in the Small Claims Court seeking $800 for denied boarding compensation, relying upon Rule 245AC of the Air Canada Domestic Tariff.  The Small Claims Court adjudicator dismissed the claim on the basis that the passengers had not established that they were denied boarding on the basis of overbooking.  The passengers appealed.

On appeal, the court considered whether the adjudicator erred in his interpretation of Rule 245AC and his finding that the passengers had the onus of proving that the denial of boarding was based on overbooking in order to be entitled to compensation.

On appeal, the court found there was no error by the adjudicator in interpreting the tariff.  The language was clear and the remedies set out in the Rule only arose when “overbooking” is the cause of the involuntary denied boarding.  The court was not prepared to find that the Rule applied to denied boarding due to a check-in delay.  Further, the court went on to find that in order to succeed with a claim for denied boarding compensation pursuant to Rule 245AC, the claimants had the onus of presenting evidence to establish, on a balance of probabilities, that they were denied boarding because of overbooking.  Here, the claimants had failed to do so and their appeal was dismissed.

The decision confirms that clear and unambiguous terms and conditions of carriage will be applied and highlights the importance for passengers to allow sufficient time for check-in.

The post Timed Out appeared first on Aviation Law Blog.

https://aviationlawblog.ahbl.ca/2019/02/05/timed-out/

[startupcanada]

Discover how Canada’s trade agreements can help you do business.

Canada has one of the world’s most open trading economies and businesses in British Columbia benefit from significant international trade agreements. When you do business with Canada, you gain the benefits of dealing with one of the world’s most open, transparent and stable trading economies.

The Canadian government is the signatory to international and domestic agreements designed to reduce or eliminate barriers to trade.

Trade agreements provide preferential and improved market access in other jurisdictions for BC’s workers, goods, and services, making it easier and more efficient to do business. These agreements:

Outline clear rules, increasing predictability;

Reduce costs through the reduction and/or elimination of tariff and non-tariff barriers and;

Provide a mechanism to address discriminatory practices that hinder trade and investment.

Canada Company Registration for Non-Canadian residents

Incorporating in Canada – Canada Incorporation for Non-Canadians for only $2200 (All-Inclusive.) Company Formations provides fast and easy Company Registration in Canada for non-Canadians residents and provides all the documents your new Canada corporation will need to stay up-to-date and in compliance with your province of registration corporation law.

Incorporation Fees:

$2200 (All-Inclusive)

Our Canada Incorporation Service for non-Canadian includes:

Name Search Report Preparation of Articles of Incorporation and Incorporation Documents Incorporation Agreement By-Laws, Company Minute Book, Share Certificates Canada Registered Agent Service for 1 year Government Fees Our Service Fees Original Certificates Copy of Documents in PDF Taxes

Request More Information

For more information about our Canada Corporations for non-Canadians, please contact us using the form below:

* indicates required field

Name:*

Email:*

Your Inquiry:

Message:*

CAPTCHA Code:*

The post Discover how Canada’s trade agreements can help you do business. appeared first on Company Formations Canada.

from Company Formations Canada https://ift.tt/32kuCB9

[distinguishedpirateland]

Timed Out

The Supreme Court of Nova Scotia recently reaffirmed a lower court decision, Paine v. Air Canada, 2018 NSSC 215, which considered Air Canada’s passenger tariff (terms and conditions of travel).  The court ruled that Air Canada was not required to compensate passengers who were denied boarding when they presented themselves at the check-in counter after the cut off time due to a lengthy line-up.

Three passengers were ticketed to travel on a domestic flight with Air Canada from Vancouver, BC to Sydney, NS.  Upon arriving at YVR, they joined the queue to check-in.  At that time, they were within the check-in time frame recommended by Air Canada.  However, by the time they reached the check-in counter, they were informed that their flight was closed and they were denied boarding.  The airline attempted to rebook them on a flight departing one hour later, but the family declined on the basis that this was inconvenient.  Ultimately, they were rebooked to travel the next day.  The family then commenced an action in the Small Claims Court seeking $800 for denied boarding compensation, relying upon Rule 245AC of the Air Canada Domestic Tariff.  The Small Claims Court adjudicator dismissed the claim on the basis that the passengers had not established that they were denied boarding on the basis of overbooking.  The passengers appealed.

On appeal, the court considered whether the adjudicator erred in his interpretation of Rule 245AC and his finding that the passengers had the onus of proving that the denial of boarding was based on overbooking in order to be entitled to compensation.

On appeal, the court found there was no error by the adjudicator in interpreting the tariff.  The language was clear and the remedies set out in the Rule only arose when “overbooking” is the cause of the involuntary denied boarding.  The court was not prepared to find that the Rule applied to denied boarding due to a check-in delay.  Further, the court went on to find that in order to succeed with a claim for denied boarding compensation pursuant to Rule 245AC, the claimants had the onus of presenting evidence to establish, on a balance of probabilities, that they were denied boarding because of overbooking.  Here, the claimants had failed to do so and their appeal was dismissed.

The decision confirms that clear and unambiguous terms and conditions of carriage will be applied and highlights the importance for passengers to allow sufficient time for check-in.

The post Timed Out appeared first on Aviation Law Blog.

https://aviationlawblog.ahbl.ca/2019/02/05/timed-out/