Case Details

Citation(s)
2018 SLG 1177 2018 SLD 1177 2018 SCMR 967

Decided on 19-1-2018, hearing Date : 4-10-2017. On appeal from the Federal Court of Appeal

Carlos P. Martins and Andrew W. Macdonald for Appellant. Heather Mackay and Edmund Huang, for the intervener the Attorney General of Ontario. Allan Matte and Mante Molepo, for the intervener the Canadian Transportation Agency. David Neave and Derek Bell, for the intervener the International Air Transport Association. Byron Williams, Joelle Pastora Sala and Alyssa Mariani, for the intervener the Council of Canadians with Disabilities.

DELTA AIR LINES INC.

VS

GABOR LUKACS And ATTORNEY GENERAL OF ONTARIO, CANADIAN TRANSPORTATION AGENCY, INTERNATIONAL AIR TRANSPORT ASSOCIATION AND COUNCIL OF CANADIANS WITH DISABILITIESInterveners

Law:

Section:

(a) Administrative law--- ----Administrative body---[Government] Transportation Agency---Complaint---Maintainability---Standing (locus standi) of complainant---'Public interest standing' and 'private interest standing'---Discretion of administrative body to dismiss complaint---Scope---Complainant alleged that a certain air carrier's practices regarding transportation of obese persons were discriminatory and filed a complaint before the Transportation Agency ("the Agency")---Agency dismissed the complaint on basis that complainant failed to meet the tests for private interest standing and public interest standing as developed by and for courts of civil jurisdiction; that complainant lacked private interest standing because he was not himself obese, and so could not claim to be aggrieved or affected or to have some other sufficient interest; that complainant lacked public interest standing because his complaint did not challenge the constitutionality of legislation or the illegal exercise of an administrative authority---Appellate Court allowed complainant's appeal and held that a strict application of the law of standing as applied in courts was inconsistent with the Agency's enabling legislation, and directed that the matter be returned to the Agency to determine, otherwise than on the basis of standing, whether it would inquire into, hear and decide the complaint--- Validity---[Per McLachlin C.J. (Majority view): Relevant statute (Canada Transportation Act, S.C. 1996) bestowed broad discretion on the Agency to hear and determine complaints---In the present case, the Agency did not reasonably exercise its discretion to dismiss the complaint---Decision was reasonable if it was justifiable, transparent and intelligible, and fell within a range of possible, acceptable outcomes---Agency's decision that the complainant lacked standing did not satisfy the requirements of justification, transparency, and intelligibility for two reasons; first, the Agency presumed public interest standing was available and then applied a test that could never be met---Any valid complaint against an air carrier would impugn the terms and conditions established by a private…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492