Hui v. Air Canada, 2026 BCCRT 45

Does this apply to you?

This case applies if an airline lost your luggage on an international trip and you claimed your replacement costs at the Civil Resolution Tribunal (CRT). It matters most if the airline refused, then paid your full claim after you filed. The tribunal dismissed the claim as moot but still made Air Canada repay the passengers' tribunal fee and service cost.

What happened

Christopher Hui and Shannon Hui flew Air Canada from Kelowna to Dublin, with a connection in Vancouver. Their luggage did not arrive in Dublin with their flight and was not recovered.

They claimed $1,785.95 at the CRT for the cost of replacing their lost belongings. They claimed under the Montreal Convention, which governs airline liability on international flights, and represented themselves.

Air Canada filed a Dispute Response denying the claim. Despite that, Air Canada later sent the Huis an e-transfer for the full $1,785.95. They cashed it on 24 December 2024.

On 30 October 2025, the BC Supreme Court decided Air Passenger Rights v. WestJet Airlines Ltd., 2025 BCSC 2145. It said claims for flight delays, cancellations and denied boarding under the Air Passenger Protection Regulations (APPR) must be handled by the Canadian Transportation Agency (CTA), not the CRT. The CRT told the Huis it might not have jurisdiction and let them withdraw with a fee refund, pause, or argue the point. They chose to proceed. Air Canada then raised mootness.

What the passengers argued

The Huis said there was still a live dispute. Air Canada had not admitted liability or wrongdoing. The parties had not signed a settlement agreement or a release. And interest and their CRT fees were still unpaid.

What Air Canada argued

In its Dispute Response, Air Canada said any loss was not caused by a breach of duty on its part, or was caused by situations outside its control.

After it paid, Air Canada said the dispute was moot. Its refusal to admit wrongdoing did not necessarily keep a live controversy going. Mootness did not require a binding settlement. The determinative question was whether any practical remedy remained.

What the tribunal decided

The CRT could hear a lost baggage claim. The APPR has a provision about lost or delayed baggage, but it says compensation is payable according to the Montreal Convention. The Air Passenger Rights decision made no express finding on the CRT's jurisdiction over baggage or Montreal Convention claims. The flight was international, so the Montreal Convention applied, and the claim could be decided without applying or considering the APPR. In the circumstances, the tribunal had jurisdiction.

The claim was moot. A claim is moot when there is no longer a live controversy between the parties, so deciding it would have no practical application. Courts and tribunals generally dismiss a moot claim, though the CRT can decide one if that would have a practical impact and could help avoid future disputes. Air Canada had paid the amount sought, so there was no live controversy.

No admission and no release did not change that. A refusal to admit wrongdoing does not necessarily preserve a live controversy. There is no need to determine wrongdoing if no remedy can flow from it, and the CRT cannot order declaratory relief. Mootness does not require a binding settlement either.

Interest could not keep the claim alive. The Montreal Convention does not expressly address interest or give any standalone right to it on a lost baggage claim. The Court Order Interest Act applies to the CRT, but it adds interest to a pecuniary judgment. Air Canada had already paid, so there would be no judgment to add interest to.

The tribunal declined to decide the case anyway. A decision would not practically impact the parties and would be unlikely to prevent a similar dispute. The issues were important to the Huis, but they were fact specific and did not rise to the level of public importance. The claim was dismissed.

The passengers were still the successful party. The CRT generally orders the unsuccessful party to reimburse the successful party's CRT fees and reasonable dispute-related expenses. Air Canada only agreed to pay the $1,785.95 after the Huis filed the dispute and went through the CRT's process. So the Huis were successful, having obtained the claimed amount. The tribunal awarded $125 for their CRT fees and $13.22 for serving the Dispute Notice.

Air Canada was ordered to pay $138.22 within 21 days, plus post-judgment interest as applicable.

Why this matters

• If the airline pays your full claim after you file, the tribunal will generally dismiss the claim as moot, even if it never admits fault.
• You do not need a signed settlement or release for a claim to be moot. Payment of the amount claimed was enough here.
• Interest did not keep this claim alive. The tribunal said interest attaches to a money judgment, and there was none once the airline paid.
• Filing can still pay off. Air Canada refused until the Huis filed, and the tribunal made it repay their fee and service cost because they got what they claimed.
• The tribunal heard this lost baggage claim under the Montreal Convention without applying the APPR. It said the BC Supreme Court's ruling on APPR flight claims made no express finding about baggage claims.
• Note that the BCSC ruling was overturned by the BC Court of Appeal.

The details