|
Travel - Travel Agencies. Miskewycz v. Gaal
In Miskewycz v. Gaal (Div Ct, 2009) the Divisional Court considered a duty under the Travel Industry Act that travel agents had to inform customers of travel document requirements for the destination country:[8] The issue was whether the appellant, Ms. Gaal complied with the statutory obligations to inform clients about passport restrictions pursuant to the Travel Industry Act, Ontario Regulation 26/05.
[9] The statutory duty to inform clients involves obligations both before and after entry into a contract.
[10] Section 36 of the Travel Industry Act confirms the obligation of the travel agent to advise the customer about passport requirements prior to entering into a contract:36. Before entering into an agreement with a customer for travel services, and before taking payment or credit card information from the customer, a travel agent shall,
(e) in the case of proposed travel outside Canada, advise the customer,
(i) about typical information and travel documents, such as passports, visas and affidavits, that will be needed for each person for whom travel services are being purchased. [11] There is also an obligation imposed on travel agents to inform clients about passport or other required travel documents in writing in the invoice or receipt after purchase. Section 38 of the Travel Industry Act provides:38.(1) After selling travel services to a customer, a travel agent shall promptly provide the customer with a statement, invoice or receipt that sets out,
(k) the information given to the customer under clause 36(e). Section 36(e) refers to the requirement about passport information.
....
[12] It is not disputed that the requirements of s.38 of the Travel Industry Act were not complied with. After selling the Panama package to the respondents, no statement, invoice or receipt was provided to the respondents in writing advising them about the six month rule for Panama.
[13] The respondents went to the airport and were denied access to the flight as they were not in compliance with the rule. The respondents were understandably upset and promptly went to the appellant’s office to complain.
|
