4. Additional cargo-specific case laws

The following cases are particularly useful because they address the carriage of goods by air, the Montreal Convention, and the enforceability of liability limitations.

Case 9. Durunna v. Air Canada, 2013 ABPC 31

Subject: Lost cargo and notice of liability limits

The claimant arranged to ship ten laptop computers from Canada to Nigeria. The computers disappeared during transit. Air Canada relied on liability limitations under the Montreal Convention and information contained in the air waybill.

The Alberta Provincial Court found that the carrier had not given reasonably sufficient notice of the limitation terms. The waybill used abbreviations such as “NCV” and “NVD” without adequately explaining their significance. The Court also considered the shipper's communication of the goods' value to the carrier's representative.

Legal significance:

Cargo liability limitations may be challenged where the applicable legal requirements have not been satisfied.

Ambiguous or unexplained waybill terminology can create disputes about whether the shipper was adequately informed.

Shippers should document declared values and preserve the shipping paperwork.

A carrier's reliance on a convention-based limitation must be examined under the governing legal framework.

This is a Canadian trial-level decision and should not be treated as establishing that every liability limitation requires the same form of notice in every international shipment.

Case 10. George Straith Ltd. v. Air Canada, [1991] B.C.J. 2688 (B.C. Supreme Court)

Subject: Who may sue for cargo loss?

This British Columbia decision considered whether the owner of cargo who was not named as the consignor or consignee in the air waybill could bring a claim against the carrier.

The dispute concerned the rights of the cargo owner under the applicable international air-carriage framework. The Court followed the reasoning in the English decision Gatewhite Ltd. v. Iberia Lineas Aereas de España, holding that the Convention's express rights for consignors and consignees did not necessarily exclude a cargo owner's ability to sue.

Legal significance:

Ownership of goods and the right to sue under a carriage contract are related but distinct questions.

The air waybill is important evidence, but the parties' legal rights may require further analysis.

Cargo owners, consignors, consignees, insurers, and freight forwarders should clarify who holds the relevant contractual and recovery rights.

The case is an older decision under an earlier air-carriage regime; its application must be assessed in light of the Montreal Convention and current Canadian legislation.

5. The governing legal framework for cargo aviation liability

A. Montreal Convention and Canadian law

For international carriage of cargo, the Montreal Convention 1999 is generally the principal legal framework where it applies. In Canada, it is implemented through the Carriage by Air Act.

Under the Convention:

Article 18 — Cargo loss or damage: The carrier is liable where the event causing destruction, loss, or damage occurred during carriage by air, subject to specified defences.

Article 19 — Delay: The carrier may be liable for damage caused by delay, unless it proves that all reasonably required measures were taken to avoid the damage or that taking those measures was impossible.

Article 22(3) — Liability limit: The ordinary limit for cargo loss, damage, or delay is 26 Special Drawing Rights (SDRs) per kilogram, effective December 28, 2024, subject to the applicable Convention rules.

Canadian Transportation Agency

+1

Article 29 — Exclusivity: Claims for damages within the Convention's scope generally must comply with its conditions and limits, regardless of whether they are pleaded in contract, tort, or another legal form.

Article 35 — Limitation period: The right to damages is extinguished if an action is not brought within two years, calculated according to the Convention.

The 26-SDR limit is not automatically the amount payable for every lost shipment. It is a ceiling calculated under the Convention, usually by reference to the weight of the affected cargo. The value of the goods, the relevant packages, any special declaration of interest, and the applicable contractual documents may all matter.

B. Defences available to a carrier

A carrier may argue that cargo loss or damage resulted from an inherent defect in the goods, inadequate packing by someone other than the carrier, an act of war or armed conflict, or an act of public authority connected with the cargo's entry, exit, or transit.

The carrier must establish the relevant defence under the Convention. A shipper may respond with evidence of improper handling, inadequate temperature control, mishandling during loading, or failure to follow special cargo instructions.

C. Liability of freight forwarders and ground handlers

The airline may not be the only potential defendant. Depending on the contracts and applicable law, a claim may also concern a freight forwarder, warehouse operator, ground handler, customs agent, or specialist carrier.

A claimant must identify each party's role and the legal basis for liability. The Montreal Convention does not make every participant in an air-freight chain automatically liable as an air carrier.

6. Evidence required in a cargo aviation claim

A successful claim commonly depends on:

The air waybill, booking documents, and applicable conditions of carriage.

Commercial invoices and proof of cargo value.

Packing records, photographs, and cargo-condition reports.

Temperature logs and handling records for perishable or pharmaceutical cargo.

Flight, warehouse, and delivery records establishing when the loss occurred.

Written notice of damage and proof of compliance with any applicable deadlines.

Records of mitigation, replacement purchases, insurance payments, and other losses.

For a cargo owner, it is especially important to determine whether the claim is for physical damage, total loss, delay, or consequential commercial loss. The legal test and recoverable damages may differ.

7. Remedies and practical steps

Potential remedies include compensation for proven cargo loss or damage, recovery for legally compensable delay losses, enforcement of contractual obligations, and claims against other responsible parties where permitted.

A claimant should promptly preserve the cargo and packaging where possible, notify the carrier in writing, retain the air waybill and invoice, and obtain a survey or expert report. The applicable Convention deadlines should be checked immediately; ordinary correspondence with a carrier should not be assumed to stop the two-year period for commencing an action.

8. Conclusion

Cargo aviation liability is governed by a combination of international air-carriage conventions, domestic legislation, contracts, and general civil-liability principles. The Montreal Convention supplies the central rules for international cargo loss, damage, and delay, while decisions such as Durunna v. Air Canada and George Straith Ltd. v. Air Canada illustrate important disputes concerning liability limits and the right to sue.

The essential questions are who had legal responsibility for the cargo, when and how the loss occurred, which legal regime applies, whether a defence is established, and how the recoverable amount is calculated. Those issues should be addressed before determining whether the carrier or another party must compensate the cargo owner.