Court upholds ruling requiring airline to compensate families of Flight PS752 victims
Ontario's highest court has upheld a ruling that found Ukraine International Airlines legally responsible to pay full compensation to families of victims who died in the downing of Flight PS752.
On Jan. 8, 2020, the plane was shot down by two Iranian missiles just minutes after taking off from Tehran, killing all 176 people on board.
Most of the passengers were bound for Canada, including 55 Canadian citizens and 30 permanent residents, while many others had connections to Canada.
Under the Montreal Convention, an international law governing air travel, airlines are responsible for proven damages up to US$180,000. Airlines are also responsible for claims above that amount unless the airline can prove the incident did not happen due to its own negligence.
Last year, an Ontario court found that Ukraine International Airlines was negligent because it failed to conduct a proper risk assessment for the flight out of Tehran, and the court found that decision meant the airline could not limit the amount of compensation it provided to families.
The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed the airline's appeal in a decision released Monday.
Joe Fiorante, a lawyer representing some of the families in the case, called the ruling 'an important result' for those who lost loved ones in the incident.
'The ruling of the Court of Appeal brings a small measure of justice for the families,' Fiorante said in a press release.
A joint statement by lawyers Paul Miller and Jamie Thornback, who also represent families in the case, called the ruling 'a landmark decision.'
'At a time of heightened conflicts around the world, the judgment sends a clear message to international airlines that open airspace cannot be assumed to be safe airspace,' they said in a press release.
'Airlines must exercise extreme caution and diligence when operating in or near a conflict zone.'
Monday's ruling comes after the Supreme Court of Canada decided last year that it would not hear an appeal from victims' families who were trying to enforce a 2021 default court judgment against Iran for $107 million plus interest and costs.
The families had taken steps to enforce the ruling by targeting Iran's properties and bank accounts in Canada. But an Ontario judge had dismissed that motion, finding that the Iranian property was protected by diplomatic immunity under Canadian law. The top court upheld that decision on appeal last year.
For years, Canada, along with international partners including the United Kingdom, Sweden and Ukraine, has vowed to seek answers about the crash and hold the Iranian regime accountable for violations of international law.
Global Affairs Canada says Iran has not claimed full legal responsibility for the incident, and current proceedings against Iran under international law will likely take several years before a resolution is reached.
This report by The Canadian Press was first published Aug. 11, 2025.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Globe and Mail
9 minutes ago
- Globe and Mail
Quebec says Bill 21 opponents are trying to overturn established law
The Quebec government says legal opponents challenging its secularism law at the Supreme Court of Canada are merely rehashing old, failed arguments in an effort to overturn established legal precedent. On Tuesday, Quebec filed 100 pages of legal arguments to the Supreme Court ahead of a hearing in which it will defend Bill 21 in court for a third time. The province won two previous decisions in the lower courts in Quebec, which led to the current appeal at the Supreme Court. Quebec's Bill 21, enacted in 2019, bans public sector workers, including teachers, from wearing religious symbols such as hijabs on the job. The province's goal is to promote secularism in Quebec, but critics argue it is an attack on minority rights. Record number of groups to speak at Supreme Court case against Quebec secularism law Quebec has won two court battles for overriding Charter rights to implement its secularism law. Now the fight hits the Supreme Court The Bill 21 case represents a landmark hearing at the Supreme Court, where the country's top court will consider governments' ability to override the rights and freedoms of Canadians in detail for the first time in almost four decades. The provincial government used Section 33 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the notwithstanding clause, to shield the secularism law from constitutional challenges on the basis of freedom of religion and other rights. The province's Tuesday filing says opponents are trying to circumvent its proper use of Section 33. In French, the filing says such arguments are asking the Supreme Court 'to amend established law.' Quebec further said its opponents are using legal arguments that have previously failed and that the challengers have not exposed errors in last year's Quebec Court of Appeal decision on Bill 21, which broadly upheld the provincial government's actions. The appeal court, Quebec said in its filing, 'conducted a detailed and meticulous analysis of all the arguments raised by the appellants and rightly dismissed them.' The key precedent is a 1988 case called Ford, where the Supreme Court considered Section 33 on a narrow legal basis but didn't delve in deeper questions about the notwithstanding clause. The Supreme Court at the time said the 'essential requirement' is for a government that uses Section 33 to name the Charter sections it aims to override. The basis of Quebec's Bill 21 argument is that the Ford decision is a precedent that should not be reconsidered. In Bill 21, Quebec stated it was using Section 33 to override the 10 sections of the Charter to which the notwithstanding clause can apply. But in the decades since Ford, and especially in recent years as more provincial governments have used Section 33 to shield laws, legal academics and others have argued there may be more for the top court to say about the notwithstanding clause. That includes whether it can be invoked pre-emptively, as Quebec did with Bill 21, or whether a court can declare rights have been violated even if a law is allowed to continue to operate because of Section 33. This week, the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal said there is room for such judicial declarations. Last year, the Quebec appeal court came to the opposite conclusion. Six groups are appealing last year's Quebec Court of Appeal decision. They filed their legal arguments in mid-April. The appellants want the Supreme Court to overturn Bill 21. Among the arguments is a call to reconsider the 1988 Ford precedent. Further arguments include looking at other parts of the Charter, the Constitution, Canada's history and the limits of provincial powers to question the validity of Quebec's use of Section 33 in Bill 21. In Quebec's arguments filed Tuesday, the province said the Bill 21 case 'does not raise any new issues distinct from those considered in Ford.' Quebec then suggested that two of the appellants are effectively trying to rewrite Section 33 of the Charter 'to add conditions that are not found there.' A Bill 21 hearing has not been scheduled, but it could happen this winter. Supreme Court Chief Justice Richard Wagner has said it could be heard over three days. Most Supreme Court hearings take one day; rare cases occupy two days. The landmark Bill 21 case has attracted a record number of intervenors, as 38 outside groups will present written legal arguments to the court by mid-September. The federal government is also set to file its legal arguments at the same time, alongside six provincial attorneys-general, including Ontario, British Columbia and Alberta. Ottawa has previously expressed concern about provincial governments pre-emptively invoking Section 33.
Globe and Mail
9 minutes ago
- Globe and Mail
Access restrictions on wooded areas in N.S., N.B., during heightened wildfire risk face opposition
Nova Scotia and New Brunswick are facing opposition and threats of legal action after ordering residents to stay out of wooded areas and threatening hefty fines in an effort to prevent wildfires. Both provinces banned hiking, camping, fishing and vehicle use in wooded areas, with violators in Nova Scotia facing fines of up to $25,000. The restrictions have prompted debate among residents and backcountry users, raised concerns about the impact on homeless people, and prompted an advocacy group to threaten a legal challenge. The governments say the restrictions are necessary to stop human activity that can start wildfires in the current stretch of hot and dry weather. As of Tuesday, Nova Scotia has issued six fines, and New Brunswick Premier Susan Holt said Monday her province has handed out two fines for violating the woods ban. Burn bans are in place across both provinces, carrying fines of $25,000 in Nova Scotia and $140 in New Brunswick. The Editorial Board: Provincial forest bans miss the point The fines in Nova Scotia include one levied against Jeff Evely, who intentionally incurred a $28,872.50 fine as a form of protest. He posted a video about it on YouTube. Mr. Evely, who frequently walks his husky on the forest trails near his Cape Breton home, said he intends to fight the ticket as a violation of his rights under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. 'There is no logical connection between my sneakers and fire. There's no fire hazard associated with simply walking in a wooded area,' Mr. Evely said. 'I'm trying to stand on a matter of principle.' Under Nova Scotia's Forests Act, the Minister of Natural Resources can put travel restrictions in place in any forested area to protect the woods. Two constitutional lawyers told The Globe and Mail the main question in a legal challenge of the restrictions would be whether the measures are proportionate to the risk of wildfires. 'The purpose here is pretty clear and fairly compelling – which is important for these kinds of Charter cases – in that it's a very high fire risk,' said Wayne MacKay, a law professor at Halifax's Dalhousie University. 'The real debate is: Is it going too far? Is the fine too high?' The Canadian Constitution Foundation started a petition against Nova Scotia's woods ban and sent a letter to Premier Tim Houston, saying the province's decision 'arbitrarily infringes' on Charter and Aboriginal treaty rights. Nova Scotians lament early end to summer after wildfire risks force ban on most outdoor activities People living, visiting and running businesses in Atlantic Canada are affected by the ban, said Joshua Dehaas, counsel to the foundation. He said his organization is particularly concerned about the restrictions in Nova Scotia because the fines are large and could apply to private property, including guests of residents with wooded areas in their own backyards. 'The big uncertainty is what really counts as woods, because there's a legal definition,' Mr. Dehaas said. 'Halifax has interpreted woods to mean that if there's a municipal park and it's got a lot of trees in it, it's entirely closed. But if there are roads going through that park … that's no longer forest.' The Ecology Action Centre in Nova Scotia previously criticized the province as relying on 'blunt tools,' and called the woods ban 'heavy-handed.' However, the environmental group has since revised its position, calling on the government to devise 'a meaningful, evidence-backed and clearly communicated plan to address the climate emergency.' This is the seventh time Nova Scotia has restricted travel and activities in the woods, most recently in the spring of 2023. With no rain in the forecast, prevention is the best medicine for protecting communities from wildfires, said Scott Tingley, manager of forest protection with the Department of Natural Resources. In 2023, Canada's worst wildfire season on record, humans caused 95 per cent or more of wildfires across the Maritime provinces, according to a Canadian Interagency Forest Fire Centre report. Some human-caused wildfires are arson, but many are accidental, starting as a partially extinguished campfire, cigarette embers or a falling power line. Parks Canada is following the provinces' lead, closing national park backcountry and trails 'in the interest of visitor and public safety,' spokesperson Martin Bauman said. Opinion: The people opposing Nova Scotia's ban on accessing the woods don't understand our culture Areas outside of the forest, such as front-country campgrounds and beaches, remain open at national parks. 'These measures will be in effect until conditions allow them to be lifted,' Mr. Bauman said. It's important for all levels of government to warn the public about the risks during extreme weather events, said Gordon McBean, a climate expert and professor at Western University. The provinces' woods bans stop people from accidentally starting fires in densely forested regions and protect them from the toll wildfires and smoke have on their physical and mental well-being, he said. 'They've got areas of high-level risk based on their science-based analysis, based on the dryness, the temperature, the lack of precipitation of these areas across New Brunswick and Nova Scotia,' Prof. McBean said. Other Atlantic provinces are taking precautions to prevent wildfires from spreading. Prince Edward Island and Newfoundland and Labrador have banned all open fires on public and private property. Last week, Newfoundland Premier John Hogan announced fines for lighting illegal fires that could amount to $50,000 for first-time offenders, while an unpaid fine could result in up to six months' imprisonment.
CTV News
9 minutes ago
- CTV News
B.C. government staff spent more than $220K on pricey Helijet flights in 2024, says watchdog
The Canadian Taxpayers Federation is questioning the travel habits of B.C. government staff after finding they spent more than $220,000 on costly Helijet flights last year, instead of using the much more affordable BC Ferries. It argued the trips, which included $93,000 from the Ministry of Tourism, Arts, Culture and Sport alone, amounted to wasteful spending at a time when the province is urging ministries to tighten their belts. 'There's a lot of ways to get between the capital and the Lower Mainland, but taking a luxury helicopter service is literally the most expensive way to do it,' said Carson Binda, with the federation. 'There is no realistic reason why a senior executive at the tourism ministry, for example, should be expensing taxpayers for 27 separate luxury helicopter trips,' he argued. The CTF found the Ministry of Housing and Municipal Affairs billed over $40,000 for Helijet travel, while the Ministry of Jobs, Economic Development and Innovation expensed more than $90,000. In a statement to CTV News, the Ministry of Finance said cost-saving measures are already underway. 'The province is committed to making sure every dollar we spend has the greatest impact on the lives of British Columbians,' it read. 'As directed by the minister of finance earlier this year, all government ministries are cutting back on travel. We're finding savings on contracting, hiring and travel – to safeguard key services like health care and education while investing in jobs and the economy.' The ministry said travel decisions are evaluated based on need, urgency, and available options, and that staff are expected to find the most cost-efficient method given their circumstances.
