cp fa Posted October 28, 2014 Share Posted October 28, 2014 The Supreme Court told these professional complainers to find some other way to make a living. http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/michel-and-lynda-thibodeau-awarded-no-money-over-lack-of-french-on-air-canada-flight-1.2815518 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seeker Posted October 28, 2014 Share Posted October 28, 2014 NICE! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
acsidestick Posted October 28, 2014 Share Posted October 28, 2014 Well done Supreme Court. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DEFCON Posted October 28, 2014 Share Posted October 28, 2014 It's nice to know that this pair will be out-of-pocket for all their lawyers costs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kip Powick Posted October 28, 2014 Share Posted October 28, 2014 It's nice to know that this pair will be out-of-pocket for all their lawyers costs.I would think that if they won, the lawyer would get a %, probably a very big percentage................ If they lost the lawyer may have been on his own....many "ambulance chasers" work that way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seeker Posted October 28, 2014 Share Posted October 28, 2014 Probably the best outcome of this is that the "pair" will no longer be able to hassle AC - maybe they will move on..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boestar Posted October 28, 2014 Share Posted October 28, 2014 Just glad the court didn't cave. This whole thing has wasted valuable time that could have been better allocated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moeman Posted October 28, 2014 Share Posted October 28, 2014 They are still free to harass us with frivolous lawsuits any time they want. They just can't turn their obsession into a money making scheme. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rudder Posted October 28, 2014 Share Posted October 28, 2014 There is sanity in at least one court of law. Fact is that the list of routes on which AC travellers can expect (demand?) French service has recently been reduced.Ironic that the identification of several transformer routes as 'bilingual' has since been reversed coincident with the assignment of those routes away from Jazz to GGN.Coincidence? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boney Posted October 28, 2014 Share Posted October 28, 2014 Agreed. It's time for even the lower courts to throw out or not even waste time of complaints like this. If you don't like the service, go elsewhere. The question now is "where". LolNicely done Supreme Court. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
acsidestick Posted October 28, 2014 Share Posted October 28, 2014 The great part about this isn't the this couple may never travel again, it's that the Supreme Court has made a ruling that all the Lower Courts may now reference in regards to nuisance lawsuits. It will have those who make a living bringing them forward (and I'm talking about the scammers, not the lawyers) quake a little at the idea of having to cover the costs, and it brings those who wish to thwart common sense into a very hot spotlight. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DEFCON Posted October 28, 2014 Share Posted October 28, 2014 You're correct Kip, the prosecuting lawyer may have been retained on a contingent basis. Having failed to consider the possibility of contingency arrangements, I was being prematurely optimistic in my hope that because the Decision was split in a sense, the Court would leave the matter of costs to the individual Party, which would punish the linguistically offended. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
acsidestick Posted October 28, 2014 Share Posted October 28, 2014 CBC got the original article wrong, go back and note they have changed the article with an apologyAn earlier version of this story said the Supreme Court of Canada had ruled in favour of Michel and Lynda Thibodeau in their complaint against Air Canada over a lack of French service. In fact, the court upheld a Federal Court of Appeal decision that said the couple were not entitled to $12,000 in compensation. The Supreme Court agreed the couple's French-language rights were violated, but said they did not qualify for damages. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inchman Posted October 28, 2014 Share Posted October 28, 2014 I would think that if they won, the lawyer would get a %, probably a very big percentage................ If they lost the lawyer may have been on his own....many "ambulance chasers" work that way.You're correct Kip, the prosecuting lawyer may have been retained on a contingent basis. Having failed to consider the possibility of contingency arrangements, I was being prematurely optimistic in my hope that because the Decision was split in a sense, the Court would leave the matter of costs to the individual Party, which would punish the linguistically offended.I don't think that any of the contingent lawyers would touch this because it was a peanuts case. $12,000 is just too little money. Even if the lawyer got 100%, it wouldn't have covered the time it would have taken to put a case in front of the Supreme Court.If they did have a lawyer, it would have been a relative, someone who either had a grudge against AC, someone who felt strongly about french language rights or someone supplied by a french language support group. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kip Powick Posted October 28, 2014 Share Posted October 28, 2014 I don't think that any of the contingent lawyers would touch this because it was a peanuts case. $12,000 is just too little money. Even if the lawyer got 100%, it wouldn't have covered the time it would have taken to put a case in front of the Supreme Court.If they did have a lawyer, it would have been a relative, someone who either had a grudge against AC, someone who felt strongly about french language rights or someone supplied by a french language support group. His original suit that he was appealing was for $525,000 in damages. The Federal court upheld his complaint, ordered the airline to make a formal apology and pay him $5,375.95. He was appealing that AC settlement, and his original suit of the $525,000.00 in the SCC....................peanuts ???. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inchman Posted October 28, 2014 Share Posted October 28, 2014 His original suit that he was appealing was for $525,000 in damages. The Federal court upheld his complaint, ordered the airline to make a formal apology and pay him $5,375.95. He was appealing that AC settlement, and his original suit of the $525,000.00 in the SCC....................peanuts ???.This had nothing to do with the original money-grab-attempt in 2000 in which they sued for $525,000 and was awarded the $5375.95 amount.This was to do with a $12,000 award that was given on another series of flights in 2009. AC appealed, won the appeal and this was the appeal to the SCC of that judgement by the Federal Court of Appeal. The case had been taken up by the Federal Languages Commissioner, so there was no contingency fee, it was our money.So, bottom line... they they wasted our money to waste the SCC's time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DEFCON Posted October 28, 2014 Share Posted October 28, 2014 If someone on here has access to one of the Canadian legal databases they could determine who represented the plaintiff at each of the various levels of the process. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J.O. Posted October 28, 2014 Share Posted October 28, 2014 This couple is the boil on the backside of bilingualism. Hopefully it's been lanced for good. I say hopefully because I doubt it. These folks are serial whiners and they'll be back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
acsidestick Posted October 28, 2014 Share Posted October 28, 2014 Not sure about the earlier cases, but in SCC they were represent by Solicitors for the appellants Michel and Lynda Thibodeau: CazaSaikaley, Ottawa.Solicitor for the appellant the Commissioner of Official Languages of Canada: Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages, Ottawa Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greenmachine Posted October 28, 2014 Share Posted October 28, 2014 At the trial level in the Federal Court they represented themselves as they did in the Federal Court of Appeal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kip Powick Posted October 28, 2014 Share Posted October 28, 2014 SCC..ruling here................http://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/fr/item/14418/index.doClick ENGLISH in top right corner, if required Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cp fa Posted October 28, 2014 Author Share Posted October 28, 2014 And, just to further illustrate how opportunistic this is, let us not forget that they are fluently bilingual. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moeman Posted October 29, 2014 Share Posted October 29, 2014 I don't think it's really relevant whether they speak English or not, although it does irk me that they act so outraged when someone doesn't translate a sentence for them. If I were crusading against establishments that don't provide the proper accessibility or parking spots for disabled customers, not being disabled myself, I don't think my efforts would be any less valuable or appreciated. However, if I were asking for damages paid to myself for these infractions I could see ridicule heaped my way, not for fighting the fight, but for being compensated for it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.