Passengers lose High Court appeal against Air Canada over injuries claimed from turbulent 2019 flight

Australia Broadcast Center

14-05-2025

Two Air Canada passengers who were allegedly injured on a flight to Australia have lost a High Court appeal, in which they argued there should be no limit on the potential compensation owed by the airline.
Mother and daughter Renae and Stephanie Evans claim they suffered spinal and psychological injuries during a flight from Vancouver to Sydney in July 2019.
At the time, Air Canada said the aircraft hit "unforecast and sudden turbulence" which caused it to drop suddenly.
The flight was diverted to Honolulu, and 37 people were treated in local hospitals.
Images and video of the flight experiencing turbulence were shared on social media, showing oxygen masks falling from the ceiling.
Out of the 37 injuries sustained onboard, nine were deemed serious by authorities at the time.
Renae Evans claims she required surgery for an injury to the discs in her neck, while Stephanie Evans said the incident caused soft tissue damage to the whole of her spine.
An international treaty known as the Montreal Convention reduces airlines' liability for damages when death or injury to a passenger is not the airline's fault.
The Evans family argued the airline, in its general rules, had waived the limit on its liability, but the High Court has found it did not.
Air Canada could still be liable for compensation of almost a quarter of a million dollars for each passenger, whose substantive claims are yet to be decided.
The case boiled down to the interpretation of Air Canada's rule that, where the Montreal Convention applies, there are "no financial limits" on its liability "in respect of death or bodily injury".
Article 21 of the Montreal Convention makes clear that airlines bear strict liability for damages up to a limit of about $224,000 in the event of death or injury, regardless of whether it is the result of an airline's negligence.
But a later clause — Article 25 — allows carriers to subject themselves to "higher limits of liability than those provided for in this Convention or to no limits of liability whatsoever".
The passengers claimed Air Canada had done so, arguing the wording of the rule was "clear and unambiguous".
In response, Air Canada highlighted the preceding rule, in which it said the liability guidelines in the Montreal Convention "are fully incorporated herein and shall supersede and prevail over" any inconsistent clauses.
The New South Wales Supreme Court initially ruled in favour of the passengers, a decision which was overturned by that state's Court of Appeal.
The High Court has unanimously dismissed the passengers' case.
In its judgment, the court found Air Canada's rule "does not use the language of waiver … [nor] of raising or abolishing the limit."