Decision No. 55-C-A-2017
 Aymen Zammel filed an application with the Canadian Transportation Agency (Agency) against Air Algérie concerning numerous flight delays. Mr. Zammel states that as a result of these delays, he incurred personal expenses. In addition, he alleges that he was treated in a disrespectful manner. Consequently, he is requesting compensation.
 Mr. Zammel is requesting full reimbursement of the cost of his ticket, or half the cost will also be accepted (the cost of the ticket was 594.80 GBP or CAD$1,097.75). In addition, Mr. Zammel maintains that he incurred taxi fares, but did not specify the amount.
 The Agency will address the following issues:
- Did Air Algérie properly apply the terms and conditions set out in Rule 55 of its International Passenger Rules and Fares Tariff, NTA(A) No. 520 (Tariff), as required under subsection 110(4) of the Air Transportation Regulations,SOR/88-58, as amended (ATR)?
- If Air Algérie did not properly apply the terms and conditions set out in Rule 55 of its Tariff, what remedy, if any, is available to Mr. Zammel?
 For the reasons set out below, the Agency finds that Mr. Zammel has failed to demonstrate that he suffered damage as a result of Air Algérie’s flight delays. Therefore, the Agency dismisses the application.
 Mr. Zammel travelled round trip with Air Algérie between Montréal, Quebec, Canada and Tunis, Tunisia via Algiers, Algeria. The outbound flight was scheduled on March 18, 2016 and the inbound flight was scheduled on March 28, 2016. Mr. Zammel states that he was subjected to three flight delays on the outbound and inbound flights. The first delay allegedly occurred on March 18 (Flight No. AH2701 from Montréal to Algiers), the second on March 19 (Flight No. AH4000 from Algiers to Tunis), and the third on March 29 (Flight No. AH2700 from Algiers to Montréal).
 Mr. Zammel describes a number of difficulties he allegedly experienced during transit between the airport and the hotel. He submits that he received poor service from some of Air Algérie’s employees, although he does not name them.
 The Agency does not have the jurisdiction to order payment of compensation for pain and suffering, loss of enjoyment, or the quality of service, as consistently stated in previous decisions, such as Decision No. 18-C-A-2015 (Enisz v. Air Canada) and Decision No. 55‑C‑A‑2014 (Brines v. Air Canada).
 Therefore, the Agency will not consider this issue.
POSITIONS OF THE PARTIES
 Mr. Zammel states that Flight No. AH2701 was scheduled to depart at 6:20 p.m., but that instead it left at 7:40 p.m. He contends that he was subjected to another delay with respect to Flight No. AH4000. The flight was scheduled to depart at 4:00 p.m., but allegedly left at approximately 6:00 p.m. Lastly, Mr. Zammel states that he was subjected to a delay on inbound Flight No. AH2700, for which departure was scheduled for 12:40 p.m., but that allegedly left at approximately 4:40 p.m.
 Air Algérie admits that there was a three‑hour delay with respect to Flight No. AH2700. It states that the delay was due to operational reasons, but it does not provide additional information.
 Air Algérie states that it asked Mr. Zammel to provide invoices for the expenses he incurred, but that he did not provide any.
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
 When an application is filed with the Agency, the applicant must, on a balance of probabilities, establish that the air carrier has failed to apply, or has inconsistently applied, terms and conditions of carriage appearing in the applicable tariff. It is also incumbent upon the applicant to demonstrate that they suffered damage and to justify the amounts claimed.
 This application pertains to limits of liability respecting passengers. The applicable Tariff provision is Rule 55(B)(1) entitled Limitation of Liability – Passengers, which provides that:
For travel governed by the Montreal Convention. For the purpose of international carriage governed by the Montreal Convention, the liability rules set out in the Montreal Convention are fully incorporated herein and shall supersede and prevail over any provisions of this tariff which may be inconsistent with those rules.
 Article 19 entitled Delay of the Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules for International Carriage by Air – Montreal Convention (Montreal Convention) states that:
The carrier is liable for damage occasioned by delay in the carriage by air of passengers, baggage or cargo. Nevertheless, the carrier shall not be liable for damage occasioned by delay if it proves that it and its servants and agents took all measures that could reasonably be required to avoid the damage or that it was impossible for it or them to take such measures.
 The Tariff is subject to the Montreal Convention, which provides that the carrier is liable for damage occasioned by delay.
 Although the versions of events submitted by the parties differ with respect to the flight delays, Mr. Zammel has not demonstrated that he suffered damage as a result of the alleged delays. He only states that he seeks reimbursement of the cost of his ticket, or half the cost of the ticket, and of the taxi fares, without providing supporting documentation or specific amounts.
 The Agency therefore finds that Mr. Zammel has failed to discharge his burden of demonstrating the merits of his claim and the alleged damage. Consequently, the Agency does not have to address the issue of whether Air Algérie took all measures that were required to avoid the damage pursuant to Article 19 of the Montreal Convention, nor to determine whether Air Algérie properly applied the terms and conditions set out in Rule 55 of its Tariff.
 The Agency dismisses the application.