Library:
Travel Agent’s Duty to Advise
Published in the February 2009 issue of Transportation Notes - View Article
As described by Justice Wilson of the Ontario Divisional Court, the case of Miskewycz v. Gaal and Y2K Budapest Travel, decided on January 21, 2009, “involves a matter of some importance to the travel industry about the statutory obligations of travel agents to inform clients about the required travel documents.” At issue in that case was whether a travel agent was liable for allegedly failing to provide proper notice of the requirement that entry to a travel destination – Panama City – required a valid Canadian passport which was not to expire within six months of the date of travel (the “six-month rule”).
The finding in the case promotes a requirement that such information must be provided to a customer both before and after entering into travel arrangements. The latter requirement should be met in writing.
The plaintiffs, who were respondents in the appeal, booked a package vacation with the appellants. An intermediary was used because of language difficulties of the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs claimed they were not made aware of the “six-month rule”. They showed up at the airport with passports which were valid, but which expired within three months of the trip. They were denied boarding, and lost approximately $2500 which they had paid for the trip.
Justice Wilson, in reviewing the finding in favour of the plaintiffs rendered at Small Claims Court, found that the Travel Industry Act imposes two notice requirements on travel agents regarding information about documents that will be needed for travel. The first is before travel arrangements are purchased by the customer. The second is on the invoice or receipt after the purchase.
It was clear on the evidence that the second requirement was not met, as no statement, invoice or receipt was provided to the customers advising them of the six-month rule.
There was some dispute on the evidence as to whether the first requirement was met. The travel agent claimed that the information was provided, and brought further evidence from another travel agent who claimed to have overheard a conversation with respect to providing the information. However, the trial judge was persuaded that, had the information been properly provided, the plaintiffs would not have showed up at the airport with a passport that did not meet the six-month rule. Justice Wilson found this finding of fact reasonable, and upheld the trial judge’s conclusion.
Miskewycz v. Gaal,
2009 CanLII 2489 (ON S.C.D.C.)