º£½ÇÉçÇø¹ÙÍø

Mejias subsequently sued Air Canada and the federal government for negligence and abuse of power claiming they were wrongfully denied entry to Canada. 

“I did it because I needed answers, and Canadians deserve answers about how travellers are being treated,” Mejias, who represented herself in court, said in an interview on Monday. “I did it not only for myself and my family, but for those who, for many reasons, have no voice and no access to justice.”

At issue in Mejias’ case was what transpired between Air Canada, Canada Border Services Agency and Canada’s embassy in Mexico that ultimately led to the cancelled visas. The case also sheds light on the grey area between airline and government officials where decisions are made that can stop passengers boarding a flight.

.

“At the time Ms. Mejias and the children presented themselves at the Air Canada check-in counter, they had valid passports and the required visas and travel documents,” wrote Justice John C. Cotter in a 60-page decision.

“The delay was caused by the visas being cancelled, which was the direct result of a chain of events set in motion by Air Canada.”

In drawing the conclusion against the airline, the court cited the conflicting evidence of Air Canada’s check-in supervisor, Arlin Corrales, who penned the words “CANCELLED CBSA” across Mejias’ and her children’s visas.

At the hearing, the court was told that Air Canada check-in agents are required to swipe a passenger’s passport and manually enter the person’s visa information. The check-in system, which interacts with the border agency’s systems, then either generates an “OK to board” or an alert message such as “do not board” or “document not on file.”

Court also heard that it’s common practice at the Canadian border agency to rely on an airline’s preliminary assessment of a foreign national before it conducts its own assessment.

Justice Cotter gave a list of examples that called into question the reliability of the evidence of Corrales, Air Canada’s key witness. These include:

• The extent of her presence and involvement in the check-in process that was conducted by another male agent, who wasn’t called as a witness;
• Her claim that the family had a large amount of baggage including two large television boxes, the nature and number of which was atypical and greater than she would typically see;
• Her evidence that the border agency’s liaison officer in Panama attended at the airport and spoke with Mejias.

The court found that the Mejias’ visa information was not entered into the Air Canada system and refuted Corrales’ evidence that the family was flagged after a “no board” alert appeared.

“The reason she contacted (the border agency) was that she was concerned about the intentions of Ms. Mejias and the children, namely that they would overstay their authorized stay in Canada,” Cotter said.

Kent Francis was a senior official at the Canadian embassy in Mexico who cancelled the Mejias’ visas. He testified that whenever there were concerns over visa decisions, his practice was to put those concerns to the visa holder through the border agency. He said he only learned later Mejias never engaged with a border agent.

The Air Canada agents dealing directly with the family rather than the CBSA “adds a whole new dynamic to the situation … not having the officer there, it does change the situation,” testified Francis.

Francis later restored the family’s visas after he was contacted by Mejias’ lawyer and realized that the woman’s husband was applying for a postgraduation work permit and wanted to extend his stay, which explained his wife’s and children’s visit.

The court ordered Air Canada to pay Mejias $4,129 for the expenses incurred during the family’s ordeal.

“The judgment recognizes that airlines should not meddle with immigration-related matters,” said Mejias, 42, now a Canadian permanent resident. “The airlines’ role is limited to ensuring that passengers present travel documents that are valid at the time they are being presented.”

In a statement to the Star, Air Canada called the ruling “troubling,” saying the airline, by law, is not allowed to carry customers to Canada if they don’t have the required travel documents and can face fines and other consequences for doing so.

“We are also obliged to raise with a CBSA liaison officer any concerns about customers, in this case the mismatched dates on the documents and the student visa near-expiry date,” it said.

“Effectively, Air Canada is being penalized for its due diligence to obey the law. More concerning, this ruling creates great uncertainty for all airlines about their obligations under Canada’s immigration laws.”