Mejias Turmero v. Air Canada and Attorney General of Canada, 2025 FC 673

Does this apply to you?

This case applies if you reached check-in for an international flight with valid documents, and the airline's own agents set off the events that got you refused boarding. It is a Montreal Convention case, not an Air Passenger Protection Regulations (APPR) case. The airline must prove it took all reasonable measures to avoid the delay, or it pays.

What happened

Nazarelys Paula Mejias Turmero and her three children were citizens of Venezuela with valid Canadian visas. Her husband was studying in Toronto. They held one-way tickets from Panama City to Toronto on Air Canada flight AC 1949 for 4 August 2017.

At the counter, a male Air Canada agent questioned Ms. Mejias. She said it was their first trip to Canada. She explained the one-way tickets: her husband would apply for a post-graduation work permit when he finished his studies. The agent said he needed to check with "Immigration" and made a call.

The court found that the agent never entered the visa details into Air Canada's system. His supervisor, Ms. Corrales, phoned the Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA) liaison officer in Panama. She said the family might overstay because of their luggage, their one-way tickets, and the number of people leaving Venezuela. She did not mention the husband's work permit. The call went up the chain to an immigration official in Mexico City, Mr. Francis, who cancelled the visas that day.

A lawyer for Ms. Mejias told Mr. Francis on 28 August 2017 about the husband's work permit plan, and he re-issued the visas. Air Canada rebooked the family at no charge. They flew to Toronto on 6 September 2017, 33 days late.

Ms. Mejias, representing herself, sued Air Canada in the Federal Court for USD 4,520.13 in expenses under Article 19 of the Montreal Convention. In the alternative, she sued the Attorney General of Canada for negligence and public law damages.

What the passenger argued

Ms. Mejias built her case through cross-examination. Air Canada's own witness agreed its records showed no visa information entered at check-in. Ms. Corrales admitted she never heard the answers Ms. Mejias gave the male agent. Ms. Mejias said the key fact she gave that agent never reached the official who cancelled the visas. She said she stayed in Panama to find out what had happened and fix it.

What Air Canada argued

Air Canada said Article 19 only required it to show it took reasonable measures to avoid the damage from the delay, not the delay itself. It pointed to its legal duty not to carry passengers to Canada without the right documents. It said there was no need to call the male agent because Ms. Corrales gave direct evidence. Air Canada and the Crown both said Ms. Mejias failed to mitigate: nothing stopped her from going back to Venezuela, which counsel put to her would have cost about $240. It also said her food and living costs would have been spent anywhere.

What the court decided

Air Canada had to prove it took all reasonable measures to avoid the delay, not just the damage. The court reviewed Canadian and international authorities and rejected Air Canada's narrower reading.

This was not a passenger's mistake. Cases that protect airlines when passengers lack visas did not apply. The family had valid documents, and the visas were cancelled as "the direct result of a chain of events set in motion by Air Canada."

Air Canada's defence failed for lack of evidence. The male agent who questioned Ms. Mejias did not testify, and nobody said he was unavailable. The court found Ms. Corrales unreliable. Her affidavit claimed she witnessed the questions and answers, but she admitted she only heard them second-hand. She never told CBSA about the husband's work permit plan. It drew an adverse inference that the missing agent's evidence would have hurt Air Canada.

No failure to mitigate. The family did not know on 4 August 2017 that they would be stuck for 33 days. Staying in Panama while they worked to get the visas back was reasonable.

Most expenses were caused by the delay. The hotel bill of USD 2,301.10 was allowed in full, as were receipted food and other costs, because the delay forced the family to buy them in Panama. Pharmacy costs of USD 311.36 were cut because the children had chickenpox and the court could not separate those costs from the delay. The unreceipted USD 925.50 was refused as estimates.

The claim against the Crown was dismissed. Immigration authorities owe no duty of care to the people they decide about, and the Supreme Court of Canada has rejected public law damages.

The court ordered Air Canada to pay CAD 4,129.04 (USD 3,283.27 converted at 1.2576), plus interest at 2 per cent from 20 August 2017 and 4.75 per cent after judgment. Costs were left for later submissions.

Why this matters

• Under Article 19 of the Montreal Convention, the airline carries the burden. It must prove it took all reasonable measures to avoid the delay itself, not only to limit the damage afterward.
• If the airline's own staff started the problem, it needs evidence from those staff. An unexplained missing witness can lead to an adverse inference.
• The court did not decide whether you must leave for another country to mitigate. On these facts, staying in Panama while the family fixed the problem was reasonable.
• Keep every receipt. Estimated costs with no receipts were refused, even though the court accepted the money was spent.

The details