IATA v. CTA: The SCC Rules on the Compatibility of Canada’s Air Passenger Protection Regulations with the Montreal Convention 1999

In its recent ruling in IATA v. CTA, the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) examined whether Canada’s Air Passenger Protection Regulations (APPR) were preempted by the exclusivity provision of Article 29 of the Montreal Convention 1999. The APPR is a consumer rights measure that imposes minimum compensation standards on airlines for occurrences such as flight delays and baggage disruptions – domains that at face value overlap with the Convention. The analysis begins with the SCC’s earlier decision in Thibodeau v. Air Canada, a case that established many of the foundational principles of Article 29 interpretation. The examination then turns to the Federal Court of Appeal’s decision in IATA, which upheld the APPR primarily based on the contentious notion of ‘state practice’. This outcome was affirmed by the SCC, chiefly on the basis of a narrow, definitional interpretation of Article 29’s preclusion of non-Convention ‘action[s] for damages’. Such an approach is criticized for misapplying key principles from Thibodeau. Ultimately, it is suggested that IATA reflects less of a shift toward greater Convention progressivism and more of a case-specific ruling.