IATA v. CTA: The SCC Rules on the Compatibility of Canada’s Air Passenger Protection Regulations with the Montreal Convention 1999
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In its recent ruling in IATA v. CTA, the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) examined whether Canada’s Air Passenger Protection Regulations (APPR) were preempted by the exclusivity provision of Article 29 of the Montreal Convention 1999. The APPR is a consumer rights measure that imposes minimum compensation standards on airlines for occurrences such as flight delays and baggage disruptions – domains that at face value overlap with the Convention. The analysis begins with the SCC’s earlier decision in Thibodeau v. Air Canada, a case that established many of the foundational principles of Article 29 interpretation. The examination then turns to the Federal Court of Appeal’s decision in IATA, which upheld the APPR primarily based on the contentious notion of ‘state practice’. This outcome was affirmed by the SCC, chiefly on the basis of a narrow, definitional interpretation of Article 29’s preclusion of non-Convention ‘action[s] for damages’. Such an approach is criticized for misapplying key principles from Thibodeau. Ultimately, it is suggested that IATA reflects less of a shift toward greater Convention progressivism and more of a case-specific ruling.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.017 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.011 | 0.012 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".