Aviation - Montreal Convention. International Air Transport Association v. Canadian Transportation Agency
In International Air Transport Association v. Canadian Transportation Agency (Fed CA, 2022) the Federal Court of Appeal considered whether 'Ministerial Directions' under the Canada Transportation Act and related Regulations violated the Warsaw Convention, and it's successor the Montreal Convention, treaties addressing international aviation:
 The appellants challenge numerous provisions of the new Regulations on the basis that they exceed the Agency’s authority under the CTA. They claim that the regulations contravene Canada’s international obligations under the Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules Relating to International Carriage by Air, 12 October 1929, 137 L.N.T.S. 11 (the Warsaw Convention), its successor the Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules for International Carriage by Air, 28 May 1999, 2242 U.N.T.S. 309 (the Montreal Convention), and the Carriage by Air Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-26 (the CAA). They also allege that many of the Regulations’ provisions are ultra vires because they have impermissible extraterritorial effects, which violate fundamental notions of international law. Finally, the appellants challenge the Minister’s Direction on the basis that it exceeds the limitations imposed by its enabling statute. International Air Transport Association v. Canadian Transportation Agency
In International Air Transport Association v. Canadian Transportation Agency (Fed CA, 2022) the Federal Court of Appeal considers the relation between the "Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules for International Carriage by Air, 28 May 1999", 2242 U.N.T.S. 309 (the Montreal Convention) and the federal Carriage By Air Act:
 It is no doubt true that subsection 2(2.1) of the CAA which generally incorporates the provisions of the Montreal Convention insofar as they relate to "“the rights and liabilities”" of various actors involved in air transportation, is on its face less precise than the detailed obligations and compensation provided for by section 86.11 of the CTA. Subsection 2(2.1) of the CAA is only meant to be a short hand reference to the various provisions of the Montreal Convention dealing with the rights and liabilities of carriers, passengers and other persons covered by the Convention, not a full-fledged description of these rights and liabilities. For that, one must refer to the Convention itself. And the Convention can hardly be said to be less specific than the CTA.These quotes also contain an extensive review of the Montreal Convention [at para 93-111].
. Ace Aviation Holding Inc. v. Holden
In Ace Aviation Holding Inc. v. Holden (Div Ct, 2008) the Divisional Court heard a lost luggage claim where a second person who had property in the checked passenger's luggage also sued for the value of their loss. The case is also interesting for it's involvement of the treaty that limits passenger baggage losses:
 The rights and responsibilities of the Holdens and Air Canada relative to the Holdens' international flight to New York is governed by the Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules for International Carriage by Air ("the Montreal Convention, 1999") which is incorporated into the laws of Canada by the Carriage by Air Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-26 as amended.
 The relevant article for purposes of deciding the claim and this appeal is Article 22(2) of the Montreal Convention, 1999 which provides:
In the carriage of baggage, the liability of the carrier in the case of destruction, loss, damage or delay is limited to 1 000 Special Drawing Rights for each passenger unless the passenger has made, at the time when the checked baggage was handed over to the carrier, a special declaration of interest in delivery at destination and has paid a supplementary sum if the case so requires. In that case the carrier will be liable to pay a sum not exceeding the declared sum, unless it proves that the sum is greater than the passenger's actual interest in delivery at destination. There is no dispute that the value of 1000 Special Drawing Rights was $1,776.49 at the time of loss. ....
 In my view, the proper construction of the word "passenger" in the context of Article 22(2) is the one which denotes an individual who is a passenger and who has checked the piece of baggage that is lost. That construction is consonant with the purposes of the Convention and results in all of the language of the Article having meaning and internal logic. It avoids the potential for exposure to an uncertain quantum of liability and exposure to an uncertain number of claimants. There is no prejudice to the passenger as he or she is at liberty to check his or her own bag and/or make the special declaration contemplated in the Article. Accordingly, I would allow the appeal and set aside the judgment in favour of William Holden in the amount of $1,776.49.