Hmm, browsing through some of those cases, I'm starting to notice a pattern of Air Canada not taking these tribunal proceedings entirely seriously.
From this case:
> I find that if Air Canada wanted to a raise a contractual defense, it needed to provide the relevant portions of the contract. It did not, so it has not proven a contractual defence. [...]
> In its boilerplate Dispute Response, Air Canada denies “each and every” one of Mr. Moffatt’s allegations generally. However, it did not provide any evidence to the contrary.
> Having reviewed the evidence, I am satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that [Air Canada] received the Dispute Notice and did not respond to it by the deadline set out in the CRT's rules.
> Based on the proof of notice form submitted by the applicant, I am satisfied that [Air Canada] received the Dispute Notice and did not respond to it by the deadline set out in the CRT's rules.
> In his statement, Mr. Mackoff described distinct conversations he had with each employee, provided the supervisor’s name, and submitted the diagram he drew while trying to explain to the employees how to count the 10 calendar days. As Mr. Mackoff’s witness statement includes so much detail, and as Air Canada has produced no contrary statement, I accept that Air Canada refused to transport both Mr. and Mrs. Mackoff on February 15, 2022 and so breached its contract with them.
In the case at hand, it sounds like they decided they wouldn't spend over $800 to avoid losing another $800. Which is reasonable, I suppose.
(But another constraint of the CRT is that you can't bring representation -- so while it was an Air Canada employee involved, it wasn't their legal team.)
I see a lot of stuff like that in civil litigation in David v. Goliath situations.
Usually the large entity puts in little effort and relies on the fact that its (much more expensive) lawyers generally have more sway with the court (judge), are more persuasive even when their arguments are nonsense, and can just drag cases on for years until the smaller party is burned out.
From this case:
> I find that if Air Canada wanted to a raise a contractual defense, it needed to provide the relevant portions of the contract. It did not, so it has not proven a contractual defence. [...]
> In its boilerplate Dispute Response, Air Canada denies “each and every” one of Mr. Moffatt’s allegations generally. However, it did not provide any evidence to the contrary.
From https://decisions.civilresolutionbc.ca/crt/crtd/en/item/5254...
> Despite having the opportunity to provide documentary evidence, Air Canada did not do so.
From https://decisions.civilresolutionbc.ca/crt/crtd/en/item/5249... and https://decisions.civilresolutionbc.ca/crt/crtd/en/item/5188...
> Having reviewed the evidence, I am satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that [Air Canada] received the Dispute Notice and did not respond to it by the deadline set out in the CRT's rules.
From https://decisions.civilresolutionbc.ca/crt/crtd/en/item/5230...
> Based on the proof of notice form submitted by the applicant, I am satisfied that [Air Canada] received the Dispute Notice and did not respond to it by the deadline set out in the CRT's rules.
(I also found a fun one that hinges on an Air Canada employee's apparent inability to do basic arithmetic: https://decisions.civilresolutionbc.ca/crt/crtd/en/item/5225...)