On November 10, Judge Marie-Christine Hivon consistently ruled in favor of the plaintiffs in the class action lawsuit they filed against the largest airline. We are talking about compensation in the tens of millions, which will have to be determined later.

According to Air Canada’s complaint, the judge erred on five counts. The Montreal-based company believes that although it has violated federal laws (Air Canada Public Participation Act) that required it to maintain its maintenance centers in Montreal, Winnipeg, and Mississauga, the court finds that this does not constitute a civil fault.

“The maintenance of such centers is therefore not an elementary precautionary measure, and its violation cannot give rise to a claim for damages,” argues Air Canada in documents filed with the Quebec Court of Appeals.

A hearing is scheduled for January 24 to consider the application.

long quarrel

Aveos, a former subsidiary of Air Canada, became independent in 2011 after a change in staff. The maintenance specialist went out of business overnight in spring 2012 when its main customer turned to other suppliers.

The Aveos debacle left around 2,600 people unemployed, including 1,800 in Quebec. The closure had sparked a series of lawsuits against the airline. Quebec and Ottawa switched sides in 2016 after an order for 45 former Bombardier C-Series aircraft. The law that led to Air Canada’s privatization had been changed.

This prompted the former Aveos to file a class action lawsuit.

Jean Poirier, a former union official who served as workers’ spokesman for years, is not surprised by the turn of events.

In its statement, Air Canada refers to arguments that have already been put forward. Therefore, the company believes that it should never have been convicted since the transfer of Aveos employees was carried out through a legal and supervised process. The workers’ union International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers (IAMAW) had approved the release. Almost 55 million were paid in compensation.

“As part of this transfer, IAMAW has issued Air Canada a clearance, the wording of which clearly states that both the transfer of the affected employees to Aveos and the possible closure of Aveos are subject to a transaction, the company argues. The judge erred in stating that the release existed […] does not constitute a complete rejection of the recourse claims of the unionized members of the group. »

Aviation’s other arguments revolve around the statute of limitations and the moral damages alleged by the plaintiffs. Air Canada recalls that the trial court rejected the argument that the company intentionally caused the collapse of Aveos. Therefore, the carrier believes that he cannot be convicted of moral damage because he did not fire the maintenance specialist’s employees.