Court Overturns Decision to Strike Airline Claim: Why Appeals Matter

When a Lower Court Gets It Wrong

Not every court decision is correct. Trial judges and motion judges can make legal errors — misinterpreting statutes, applying the wrong legal test, or failing to consider relevant evidence. When that happens, an appeal may be the only way to set things right.

In a recent case handled by Ken Wise, Singh v. Air Canada, 2026 ONSC 2983, the Ontario Divisional Court found that a Small Claims Court motion judge had committed not just one, but multiple legal errors in striking a passenger's claim against Air Canada. The appeal was allowed, the lower court's order was set aside, and the case was sent back for a proper hearing on its merits.

What Went Wrong at the Lower Court

The original claim involved airline tickets purchased by Alka Singh for her sister and niece. When Air Canada rerouted their flight and denied compensation, the family members assigned their claims to Ms. Singh — who had paid for the tickets — so she could pursue a single action in Small Claims Court.

The motion judge struck the entire claim, finding that the assignment was invalid, that the lawsuit amounted to champerty and maintenance, and that it was an abuse of process. The judge also refused Ms. Singh's request to amend her pleadings to cure any deficiencies.

How the Divisional Court Corrected the Errors

On appeal, the Divisional Court identified several significant errors in the lower court's reasoning.

The motion judge had incorrectly concluded that Ontario's Conveyancing and Law of Property Act only applied to real property. In fact, the statute applies to "any property," including contractual claims like airline ticket disputes. Air Canada's own lawyer conceded this point at the appeal hearing.

The motion judge had also wrongly found champerty and maintenance. The Divisional Court explained that when a person who paid for airline tickets seeks to recover their own losses through an assigned claim, there is no improper motive. Ms. Singh had a clear financial stake in the outcome, and the familial relationship between the parties was a legitimate reason for the assignment — not evidence of wrongdoing.

Perhaps most critically, the motion judge had refused to consider whether the pleadings could be amended before deciding to strike them. Ontario law is clear: pleadings should be read generously, and leave to amend should be denied only in the clearest of cases.

The Outcome

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, restored the claim, granted leave to amend, and ordered Air Canada to pay $7,000 in costs. The court specifically noted Air Canada's aggressive approach to costs at the lower court level.

Why You Should Consider an Appeal

Many people accept an unfavourable court decision because they assume it must be correct, or because they believe appealing is too expensive or complicated. But as this case shows, lower courts do make mistakes — and appellate courts exist to correct them.

If your claim was struck or dismissed and you believe the judge got the law wrong, you may have strong grounds for an appeal. Key signs that an appeal may be warranted include situations where the judge misinterpreted a statute, applied the wrong legal test, ignored relevant evidence, or refused to allow you to fix problems with your case.

Ken Wise and Associates handles appeals from Small Claims Court, the Ontario Court of Justice, and the Superior Court of Justice. Contact us for a free appeal assessment. Call (647) 288-5531 or visit kenwiseandassociates.ca.