B.C.’s small claims tribunal has ordered Flair Airlines to compensate a woman who claimed her jewelry was stolen from her checked bag on a flight from Mexico to Vancouver. In a decision issued earlier this week, Civil Resolution Tribunal member Amanda Binnie ordered Flair to pay Henriette Tams $500 for the lost items. The flight took place in February 2024. While unpacking her checked bag the morning after a late-night landing in Vancouver, Tams discovered “it had been repacked and her jewelry pouch was missing,” according to the decision. Tams told the tribunal the pouch contained nine jewelry items, ranging from $15 to $535.24 in value, though she did not provide any receipts or other documents to prove their value. She claimed the jewelry was worth $868.73 in total. She reported the missing items to the airline, initially by text and later through Flair’s website, according to the decision. “Flair acknowledged Mrs. Tams’ missing item claim, apologized for the missing items, and said it might contact her for additional information,” the decision reads. “Though neither party said when, they agree that Flair denied Mrs. Tams’ claim because she did not provide an itemized list or receipts.” In its defence, Flair argued that Tams had not provided any supporting evidence to prove that it was responsible for her loss. Flair also told the tribunal that “under its international tariff, jewelry is unacceptable for transportation as checked baggage and can only be transported in a carry-on,” though it did not provide any evidence—such as a copy of the tariff—in its submissions. Under the Carriage by Air Act and the Montreal Convention, airlines are liable for the loss of registered baggage while it is in their care, Binnie explains in the decision. “Though Flair suggests that airport employees and other passengers could ‘all be suspects,’ it does not specifically dispute that Mrs. Tams’ items went missing while her baggage was in its care,” the decision reads. “Given Mrs. Tams provided evidence of her baggage tag provided by Flair, I find her baggage was registered. So, I find that Flair is liable for Mrs. Tams’ lost items.” Moreover, the tribunal member noted this interpretation of events was consistent with Flair’s own response to Tams, in which it said it would not pay her because she didn’t provide an itemized list or receipts, “not because it was not responsible for her loss.” “I acknowledge Flair’s argument that passengers should not place valuables in checked baggage,” Binnie’s decision reads. “However, as I note above, Flair did not provide any evidence, including its tariff. It also did not provide any evidence it told Mrs. Tams she should only transport valuable items in carry-on luggage before her flight.” Given the lack of evidence of the true value of the lost jewelry, Binnie concluded that the legal principle of “betterment” applied. This legal concept states that courts and tribunals should not overcompensate an individual for the replacement of an item, since such overcompensation could allow them to acquire an item of greater value than they previously had. Binnie decided $500 would be an appropriate amount to award Tams, based on this principle. With $38.68 in pre-judgment interest and $67.50 in CRT fees, Binnie calculated the total amount Flair must pay Tams as $606.18.
