Dr. Gábor Lukács, Air Passenger Rights Advocate, presented his oral arguments at the Supreme Court of Canada for the first time. Have a watch of a video clip of Justice Russell Brown asking Dr. Gábor Lukács questions during the Supreme Court hearing.
The following is an interview with Dr. Lukacs soon after the hearing finished while he was still at the Supreme Court of Canada when everything were still fresh in his mind. Some linked timecodes and rough notes are included but all notes are rough, and the video is the real authority of what were said.
0:00 Reporter Kempton Lam (KL) thanks Dr. Gabor Lukacs (GL) for doing the interview. GL talks about where he is located. 0:30 [KL:] How do you feel right now after appearing in front of the 9 Supreme Court Justices? 1:03 [GL:] Particularly impressed by Justice Malcolm Rowe. 1:58 [GL:] Also impressed by how respectful the hearing was. And how interested the judges were in the case. 2:14 [GL:] On a personal level … 2:50 [KL:] The Judges’ probing questions and pointed comments/observations fascinated me, can you talk about your experiences? How do you feel about the case itself after the hearing? 4:27 [GL:] I think the star of the day is the Amicus Curiae Mr. Benjamin Zarnett. 4:37 [GL:] Also very impressed by Byron Williams, Counsel for Council of Canadians with Disabilities able to achieve in 5 minutes. 5:04 [KL:] I try to clarify if I had the right Amicus Curiae Mr. Benjamin Zarnett in mind. (note: I did) 6:15 [KL:] My impression of Amicus Curiae’s arguments and I ask GL to share his take. 6:53 [KL:] How do you feel about your own presentation? What is your main take away? 7:54 [GL:] Cover about 2/3 of points want to cover. Happy with being able to “roll with the blows” (answer questions asked and get along with the line of arguments). 8:28 [KL:] What do you feel about Delta’s presentation and arguments? To me as a layman, it feels like the two Delta lawyers were kinda speechless (in a bad way) and weren’t able to answer Judges’ questions well. 9:10 [GL:] Delta’s lawyers didn’t seem to be handling the situations well. Lacking a big picture thinking of what is the case about. 9:31 [GL:] Two moments of the hearing. 11:50 [KL:] While this is not an exact quote, I ask GL to comment on what one justice said, “… I think the rule of law just died a little bit.” which was quite memorable. 12:46 [KL:] Was it during presentations by CTA or Delta lawyers? 13:10 [KL:] Your take on CTA’s legal presentation and performance during the hearing. 15:14 [KL:] 3-5 key legal take aways (questions asked by Judges, etc) that you can share with us? 17:00 [KL:] We will talk in coming days. At the end you shook hands with all the other lawyers. How do you feel now the case is with the justices now?
As a mark of civility of Dr. Lukacs and all the lawyers arguing as best and hard as they can for their views, they shook hands after the hearing was finished.
P.S. In advance of Dr. Lukacs presenting his oral arguments today, this reporter interviewed him at length and you can have a watch/listen to that interview.
Here is my 2017/Oct/02 Audio interview with Dr. Gabor Lukacs, Air Passenger Rights Advocate, talking about his Supreme Court of Canada case with Delta Air Lines. Here are some rough notes and timecodes (link points) in the interview.
0:00 Independent reporter Kempton [K] asked Dr. Gabor Lukacs [G], Air Passenger Rights Advocate, how is he feeling two days before he appears in front of Supreme Court of Canada Judges? 0:49 [K:] Any special preparation one day before your first Supreme Court appearance? (Yes, G is scheduled to teach a match class Tuesday morning!) 1:20 [G:] Teaching twice a week this term helps my public speaking skills. 2:13 [K:] Not a good idea to lecture the justices? G explains how is it like appearing in front of Supreme Court justices. 4:25 [K:] Briefly explain what this case with Delta is about? And your role? 5:25 G gives a great analogy using a speeding car driving 160km/h down the highway. Who can complain about it? 6:35 G explains Federal Court of Appeal sided with his reasoning and ruled against the CTA (Canadian Transportation Agency) and said it was unreasonable to dismiss the complain. 7:15 G talks about the various PDF files (see reference) filed by him, Delta and other parties. [K’s apologies here re misunderstanding of the pages of documents filed.] 8:22 G explains to K an Amicus Curiae (an impartial adviser) is hired by the Supreme Court and paid for by Attorney General of Canada. And four interveners: ATTORNEY GENERAL (ONTARIO), CANADIAN TRANSPORT AGENCY, INTERNATIONAL AIR TRANSPORT ASSOCIATION, COUNCIL OF CANADIANS WITH DISABILITIES. 9:32 [K:] So the COUNCIL OF CANADIANS WITH DISABILITIES agrees with you and Delta against you. Are there some against you and with you? 11:17 [K:] So roughly how much time have you put into preparing for the case? 13:02 [K:] Have you been to the Supreme Court as a tourist before? How will you feel when you step into the court for the first time arguing a case? 14:30 [K:] How long will it take you to argue the case in front of the Supreme Court justices? [G talks about the Supreme Court proceedings on Wednesday and the various potential outcomes and scenarios.] 17:32 [G:] “What we are dealing with here is a cat which is claiming to be a lion (which is the Canadian Transportation Agency). They have been trying to pretend they are a court.” [K:] “You are not a fan of the CTA? :)” 18:01 [K:] Do you get to reply on top of your 40 minutes presentation time [before the Supreme Court justices]? 19:36 [G:] “This is the first time I’m the respondent! I’m usually the appellant.” [K:] You are usually the underdog in front of the court! 20:05 [G:] [The Federal Court of Appeal got things right substantially.] “We are dealing here with preventive power …” 20:38 G talks about Canadian Transportation Agency recently commencing an investigation of the Air Transat case based on media report without receiving any formal complain. 21:03 [K:] Since I first interviewed you in August 2013, more than four years ago, for the Air Canada case where you helped bumped passengers get $200, $400, or $800 compensation, how does it feel with your hours of hard work getting you to the Supreme Court of Canada, the highest court of the land on Wednesday (Oct 4th, 2017)? [K: Great answers that go into some wonderful insight. I may try to transcript some of the answers when I can find some time.] 25:22 [K:] If you accidentally run into the Minister of Transport, The Honourable Marc Garneau, in the airport and get stuck with him in an elevator, what would you tell him in 30 seconds? 26:43 [K:] Taking my independent reporter hat off for a moment to speak as an air passenger and wishing G the best of luck.
References:
1) 20+ downloadable PDF files relating to SCC File No. 37276.
2) Via Air Passenger Rights’ FB page:
//The hearing is open for the public, and will be webcast live [Wednesday Oct 4th, 2017]: http://www.scc-csc.ca/case-dossier/info/webcast-webdiffusion-eng.aspx?cas=37276
THE ISSUE
The Court is called upon to decide whether Lukacs can complain about Delta’s practice of discriminating against “large” passengers.
BACKGROUND
The Canadian Transportatoin Agency (Agency) dismissed the complaint because Lukacs is not “large.”
The Federal Court of Appeal quashed the Agency’s decision as being unreasonable: the purpose of the complaint is to prevent harm to the public, and not to seek individual benefits.
SUBMISSIONS OF THE PARTIES
Factums on appeals are available online: http://www.scc-csc.ca/case-dossier/info/af-ma-eng.aspx?cas=37276 //
The following is my video interview with Dr. Gabor Lukacs, Air Passenger Rights Advocate, to talk about the new Airline Passenger Bill of Rights (Bill C-49).
In a short/precise and yet powerful judgement (PDF file) by the Federal Court of Appeal today dismissing an appeal (2016 FCA 314) by Air Passenger Rights advocate Dr. Gabor Lukacs, the court effectively also clarified and defined the source of protection that Dr. Lukacs has been seeking for passengers. While the reseller, NewLeaf in this case, is not required to hold an air license, ultimately the licensed air carrier, Flair Air in this case, is responsible.
“The appeal was dismissed but the reasons [see note 1 below for more details] really resolved a very significant issue that now it is clear that passengers will have a recourse against Flair [note: Flair is the “licensed air carrier” in this court case] no matter what. […]
The Federal Court of Appeal made it clear that the fact that NewLeaf is involved in selling tickets still keeps Flair fully responsible for the entire operation. So Flair cannot walk away from any kind of responsibility on the basis that ‘it wasn’t us, it was NewLeaf’. If Flair choose to enter into this kind of relationship with NewLeaf, Flair will have to face the consequences if anything goes wrong.”
Lukacs looks at the judgement as a win for passengers because from the passenger’s point of view Flair is responsible and can no longer point at NewLeaf if things go wrong. The ruling makes it clear that Flair is responsible to the passengers whether they have a contract with them or not.
“The federal court of appeal ruling that has dismissed the case between Gabor Lukacs and the CTA/NewLeaf essentially means the courts rule in favour of Canadians continuing to save money on air travel with NewLeaf!!“
It is true that the case has been dismissed but one wonders if both NewLeaf‘s and Flair‘s legal teams have time to really carefully read and digest the full implications of the court ruling yet?
Given Mr. Chris Lapointe, Vice-President Commercial Operations for Flair stated a few months ago in July 2016 that “it’s not built into our financial model“ for Flair “to foot the bill and take the risk of people being stranded” (see “note 2 financial model” below). One has to wonder if there will be any serious business renegotiations between NewLeaf and Flair? Or is Flair now willing and able to accept the financial risks and responsibilities (e.g. “prescribed liability insurance”) that the Court of Appeal has now clarified it has?
“Further, the licenced air carrier [reporter’s note: Flair in this case] will be required to hold the prescribed liability insurance. Put more broadly, licenced air carriers are regulated under the Act when they provide an air service. The involvement of a reseller does not obviate the requirement that licensees comply with all of the obligations imposed upon them under the Act.”
note 2 “financial model”: In a transcript of a conversation between Lukcas and Mr. Chris Lapointe, Vice-President Commercial Operations for Flair Airlines Ltd taken on July 8, 2016 filed with the Federal Court of Appeal (top of electronic page 189 of this Motion Record (PDF file) – Court File No.:A-242-16) [emphasis added],
“Mr. Lukcas: […] And, you know, if Flair is willing to foot the bill and take the risk of people being stranded and look after —
Mr. Lapointe: No, we’re not. We’re not. I’m not — no, no, we’re not. We don’t — it’s not built into our — it’s not built into our financial model, Gabor. We’re not — I’m not saying that we’re going to — we did that once before, it cost us a quarter-million dollars, and we did it and because we did it — because we realized we had to do it, right.“
““I was thrilled that (the court) actually saw that the CTA had got their ruling correct,” said NewLeaf chief executive Jim Young. “We weren’t worried too much about it in the past because we knew we’d prevail but I was glad to see that it’s now closed.”
Lukacs said his main goal was to ensure passengers are protected, and he was relieved to see the court’s finding that “passengers will still be covered, and so protected, by the terms and conditions of carriage set out in the tariff issued by the licensed air carrier operating the aircraft on which the passengers travel” — in this case, Flair.
“This is a case of losing the battle and winning the war,” Lukacs said. “I was extremely pleased with how concerned the court was about protection of passengers.”
Flair president Jim Rogers did not immediately reply to a request for comment, but he indicated in July that his airline was not responsible for passenger protection since it is only supplying the aircraft. [reporter’s note: This echoes the transcribed phone conversation between Lukacs and Mr. Chris Lapointe, Vice-President Commercial Operations for Flair Airlines described in note 2 above.]
“The contract with the passenger is with NewLeaf and they have a passenger protection plan in place,” Rogers said at the time.“
“Jim Young, CEO of NewLeaf Travel Company, said he was happy with the appeal’s dismissal. He said Flair Air and NewLeaf had already been operating under the agreement that the airline was ultimately responsible for ensuring passenger rights. (reporter’s note: This clarification by Young is significant.)
“In fact, the tariff that we had published is still the tariff today. We’ve made no changes to it,” Young said.
Tariffs are the agreements between passengers and airlines that lay out rights and responsibilities. The Canadian Transportation Agency recommends airline passengers treat tariffs like a contract, and that they understand the terms and conditions spelled out in them.
Young said if passengers run into an issue such as a flight cancellation or lost baggage, they should first contact his company, NewLeaf, to resolve the issue. Young said the first response is referring passengers to the tariff.
“We operate on behalf of Flair as the passenger reservation system,” he said. “We accommodate them based on the terms and conditions in the tariff.”
Passengers who are not happy with NewLeaf’s response can still file a formal complaint with the Canadian Transportation Agency, but they would do so naming Flair, the airline operator.
Flair Air owner Jim Rogers confirmed his company is ultimately responsible for meeting the tariff agreement with passengers.
He said his company is “pleased to accept the decision as per our tariff.” (reporter’s note: This clarification by Roger is very significant and gets passengers the protection they deserve without ambiguity.)“
A Look Back: 10 Years of Banff World Media Festival
Ten years ago in June 2006, I was awarded a CTV Fellowship to attend the prestigious Banff World Television Festival. Since then I’ve attended to report on most of the yearly Banff World Media Festival (Banff’s new name). Based on my personal experiences, I recommend the annual Banff gathering be something someone working in media/entertainment industry should attend at least once in her/his life (and may be even yearly). Great way to pitch projects to concentrated groups of decision makers from around the world, to meet and make friends with industry peers, and learn from the many Master Classes you given by some of the best creatives in the industry.
Let me share just another highly insightful and fun to watch video from the 2016 Banff:In Conversation with Sir Peter Ustinov Comedy Award Recipient Russell Peters. I love Russell Peters even more as I heard the etalk co-host Lainey Lui asked Russell, “You’ve been making this kind of money for the last few years and you are still hustling, 250 shows, 120 cities, 25 countries, you are still hustling with an immigrant work ethic!”
In the last 10 years, I’ve met and interviewed a lot of creatives and senior executives at Banff. The following are some samples of my video interviews.
*2006) Finally, It was my honour to meet and listen to Oscar winning director & writer Paul Haggis at my absolute first Banff in 2006. I wish my “professionalism” hadn’t stopped me from asking for a photo! Oh well, something I have regretted ever since. Anyway, the story of how Paul broke into Television is something I will likely remember for the rest of my life! Enjoy!
*2016) I think Girls is one of the most cutting edge and funny TV comedies in recent years. I had the pleasure this year to attend and listen to Jenni Konner talk in person. And I enjoyed the session very much.
P.S. On a personal note, I want to thank Scott Benzie, Lindsay Nahmiache, Robert Montgomery, and, for the last 10 years, many other team members for their kind help at Banff and arranging my press credentials, etc. I really enjoyed attending Banff and I’m happy to share what I learned with my readers/viewers.
It has taken me some time to create this post and I am still amazed how many great creatives and industry senior executives I’ve met and tried to learn from all these years. And there are still some that I haven’t listed! Like in 2009 when I met and interviewedRon Moore who amazingly re-imagined Battlestar Galactica (BSG)!
If you ask me, I say the C$1.6 billion deal has to be one of the biggest deals that Banff World Media Festival has *indirectly* facilitated! Pretty cool!
Highlight #1)How NewLeaf thinks credit card purchase will protect traveling Canadians. (with highlight added) (reference: court filing PDF file)
How NewLeaf thinks credit card purchase will protect traveling Canadians. (with highlight added)
Highlight #2) How Air Passenger Rights Advocate Dr. Gábor Lukács disagrees with NewLeaf. (with highlight added) (ref: court filing PDF file)
How Air Passenger Rights Advocate Dr. Gábor Lukács disagrees with NewLeaf. (with highlight added)
Highlight #3) Latest Federal Court of Appeal directive to NewLeaf. (ref: court filing PDF file)
Latest Federal Court of Appeal directive to NewLeaf.
NOTE 1: This reporter sent an email out early Friday July 22nd morning to invite Jim Young, CEO of New Leaf Travel, to tell his company’s side of the story in a Skype video interview but have not received any reply as of press time (early morning 1:30am MST Saturday July 23rd).
NOTE 2: This is a developing story with NewLeaf being directed by the Federal Court of Appeal to “file its affidavit in support of its letter of response” by noon EST July 23, this reporter will try to post new updates as soon as practical.
20151029 China to allow two children for all couples
After 35 years, China’s ruling Communist Party finally announced after a key meeting on Thursday (today October 29th, 2015) via its official Xinhua News Agency that the country will “allow all couples to have two children, abandoning its decades-long one-child policy“.
For those unfamiliar with China’s one-child policy, it was first introduced in 1978 and formally launched nationwide in 1980 to “rein in the surging population by limiting most urban couples to one child and most rural couples to two children, if the first child born was a girl.”
China expert Dr. Ning Wang at Arizona State University (Dr. Wang is the co-author of “How China Became Capitalist” with late Nobel prize winning economist Ronald Coase) shared his view about the ending of China’s one-child policy in an exclusive interview with this reporter.
Dr. Wang stated (emphasis added), “After more than 30 years, the one-child policy finally came to its end. It was a rushed policy, poorly thought-out, implemented with violence and brutality. It has done more harm to the Chinese people and the Chinese civilization than any other policy implemented since the beginning of reform.”
Wang continued, “While we celebrate the end of the one-child policy, we have to recognize that to allow a couple to have two children is far from enough. In the first place, the replacement level fertility rate is 2.1; this is, each woman should give birth to a bit more than two children simply to keep the population stable. In addition, some women will have one child only or no child at all. It is hence critical for other women to have 3 or even more children.”
Wang concluded the interview by stating, “how many children a family wants to have is their private business — I cannot think of anything else more private. The state should stay away from such private decisions. If the state wants to be remain active, it can invest in education and health care, particularly in rural areas.”
Here is a video excerpt of Dr. Wang interview with Nobel Laureate Ronald Coase on China’s One-Child Policy conducted in 2013, a few months before Coase passed away at 102 years old.
P.S. With a foresight of 30 years, Hong Kong University economics professor Steven N. S. Cheung in 1985 published the article “A society without brothers and sisters” (“沒有兄弟姐妹的社會“) discussing China’s one-child policy. Cheung wrote in the newspaper Hong Kong Economics Journal,
(rough English translation:) “If continued, 10 or 20 years later, Chinese youth will have no brothers or sisters. With further passing of time, everyone will have no uncles or aunts. Everyone, other than their parents, will be kinless!” (original Chinese: “長此下去，一二十年後，中國的青年都沒有兄弟姐妹。再過些時日，所有的人都沒有叔、伯、姑、表――除父母以外，每個人都是舉目無親！“)
While the word “everyone” was probably a literary device, thus a bit exaggerated, the world that Cheung foretold has unfortunately come true in 2015 for many Chinese as they, other than their aging parents, are basically kinless.
Posted by kempton 
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Subscribe by email
