“Air Canada did not take reasonably serious steps to comply with the law after the closure of Aveos,” wrote Justice Marie-Christine Hivon, who concluded there was a “continuous breach” of the law from March 2012 to June 2016. Nearly 2,200 former employees are affected by the outcome of the class action. The vast majority of them were based in Montreal. In a video posted on his Facebook page shortly after the decision, Jean Poirier, the Aveos union representative at the time of the company’s closure, said he was “very, very moved”. “We won! We beat Air Canada. We beat everything. David beat Goliath. 14 year battle, friends.” He asked Air Canada shareholders, who could appeal the decision, to start “fresh” and settle the case. In her 154-page ruling, Judge Hivon ordered the airline to compensate the workers for loss of income and employment, as well as for loss of social benefits. Air Canada will also have to compensate workers for “anxiety, doubt, diminished self-esteem, insecurity, feelings of injustice and loss of enjoyment of life.” It will also have to pay individual claims for those who suffered moral damage, such as psychological problems, insomnia, family problems, divorce and suicide. However, Judge Hivon found that the former Aveos employees had not established that Aveos’ collapse was caused by Air Canada’s bad faith or willful misconduct. It therefore dismissed the claim for $110 million in punitive damages. In a written statement, Air Canada said it “always acted in good faith in this case” and noted that the court concluded that the company did not cause the Aveos’ collapse, rejecting punitive damages. As for the possibility of appealing the decision, the carrier said it would consider it before deciding on next steps. Under the Air Canada Public Participation Act, the company was required to maintain its hubs in Montreal, Winnipeg and Mississauga, a task it had outsourced to Aveos, which went bankrupt in March 2012. The federal government amended the law in June 2016 to facilitate this obligation. The court was clear that the use of subcontracting did not relieve Air Canada of its legal obligations when the subcontractor ceased operations. Also, the amendment to the law was not retroactive and did not have the effect of clarifying what the law always meant, contrary to the company’s argument.
