Decision No. 33-C-A-2018
APPLICATION by Syed Sohail Abbas against Pakistan International Airlines (PIA).
 Syed Sohail Abbasfiled an application with the Canadian Transportation Agency (Agency) against PIA regarding the loss of one of his checked baggage while travelling from Islamabad, Pakistan to Toronto, Ontario, Canada on January 19, 2017.
 Mr. Abbas is seeking compensation in the amount of CAN$2,500 for the contents of his lost suitcase, namely items of clothing, including a wedding dress, two carpets, and the cost to replace his suitcase.
 The Agency will address the following issue:
Did PIA properly apply the terms and conditions set out in its International Passenger Rules and Fares Tariff, NTA(A) No. 324 (Tariff) which incorporates by reference the Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules for International Carriage by Air - Montreal Convention (Montreal Convention), by not compensating Mr. Abbas as required by Article 17(2) of the Montreal Convention, thereby contravening subsection 110(4) of the Air Transportation Regulations, SOR/88-58, as amended (ATR)? If PIA did not properly apply its Tariff, what remedy, if any, is available to Mr. Abbas?
 For the reasons set out below, the Agency finds that PIA did not properly apply the terms and conditions set out in Rule 55(C)(5) of its Tariff and orders PIA to compensate Mr. Abbas in the amount of 1,131 Special Drawing Rights (SDR) [approximately CAN$2,040.26] as soon as possible and no later than May 28, 2018.
 Mr. Abbas purchased a one-way ticket from PIA to travel on Flight No. PK781 departing on January 19, 2017, from Islamabad to Toronto. Upon arrival at the Toronto Pearson International Airport (Pearson Airport) on January 19, 2017, Mr. Abbas was unable to locate one of his checked baggage. He subsequently filed a Baggage Claim Form with PIA on the same day, listing the contents that were in his missing baggage and the amount that he was claiming from PIA.
 Subsection 110(4) of the ATR requires that a carrier operating an international service apply the terms and conditions of carriage set out in its tariff.
 If the Agency finds that an air carrier has failed to properly apply its tariff, section 113.1 of the ATR empowers the Agency to direct the carrier to:
- take the corrective measures that the Agency considers appropriate; and
- pay compensation for any expense incurred by a person adversely affected by its failure to apply the fares, rates, charges, or terms and conditions set out in the tariff.
 Rule 55(C)(5) of PIA’s Tariff incorporates the Montreal Convention and provides as follows:
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 17(2) of the Montreal Convention, which sets out a carrier’s liability for lost and damaged baggage, provides in part that:
The carrier is liable for damage sustained in case of destruction or loss of, or of damage to, checked baggage upon condition only that the event which caused the destruction, loss or damage took place on board the aircraft or during any period within which the checked baggage was in the charge of the carrier. […]
 Article 22(2) of the Montreal Convention sets out the carrier’s limits of liability, in relation to loss, delay, destruction, or damage to baggage and cargo:
In the carriage of baggage, the liability of the carrier in the case of destruction, loss, damage or delay is limited to 1,131 Special Drawing Rights for each passenger unless the passenger has made, at the time when the checked baggage was handed over to the carrier, a special declaration of interest in delivery at destination and has paid a supplementary sum if the case so requires. In that case the carrier will be liable to pay a sum not exceeding the declared sum, unless it proves that the sum is greater than the passenger’s actual interest in delivery at destination.
POSITIONS OF THE PARTIES
Mr. Abbas’s position
 Mr. Abbas claims that upon arrival at the Pearson Airport on January 19, 2017, he was unable to locate one of his checked baggage and immediately informed PIA. Mr. Abbas filed a Baggage Claim Form.
 PIA acknowledges that Mr. Abbas travelled on Flight No. PK781 and that one of his checked baggage was missing when he arrived at the Pearson Airport on January 19, 2017. PIA also acknowledges that when it was unable to locateMr. Abbas’s baggage, it allowed Mr. Abbas to fill out a Baggage Claim Form. PIA states that Mr. Abbas filled out the form, listing the contents of his baggage and the amount that he was claiming, CAN$2,500.
 PIA argues that the amount that Mr. Abbas is seeking is unreasonable.
Findings of fact
 It is undisputed that Mr. Abbas’s baggage was lost while travelling on Flight No. PK781 on January 19, 2017, when it was in the care and control of PIA.
ANALYSIS AND DETERMINATIONS
 In accordance with a well-established principle on which the Agency relies when considering such applications, the onus is on the applicant to prove, on a balance of probabilities, that the carrier has failed to properly apply the terms and conditions set out in its tariff.
 Rule 55(C)(5) of PIA’s Tariff incorporates by reference the liability rules set out in the Montreal Convention, which governs a carrier’s liability for lost and damaged baggage if the event that caused the loss or damage took place on board the aircraft or during any period within which the checked baggage was in the charge of the carrier.
 Given thatMr. Abbas’s baggage was under the care and control of PIA when it was lost, the Agency finds that PIA is liable under Article 17(2) of the Montreal Convention for the loss of Mr. Abbas’s baggage.
 Mr. Abbas is seeking CAN$2,500 for the contents of his lost baggage and the cost to replace the lost baggage. PIA disputes the amount claimed byMr. Abbas.
 The Agency notes that a party, in endeavouring to prove a fact, must do so by presenting the best evidence available in light of the nature and circumstances of the case. While the production of original receipts of purchase will generally support proof of loss, circumstances may render it unreasonable to require this form of proof. Other methods such as a sworn affidavit or the inherent reasonableness of expenses claimed could, in some cases, be adequate.
 Mr. Abbas filed a list of all of the items contained in the lost baggage. Mr. Abbas also provided receipts totaling 175,000 Pakistani rupees for the two carpets contained therein. On January 19, 2017, the day on which PIA lost Mr. Abbas’s checked baggage, the Bank of Canada noon exchange rate converted Pakistani rupees (Rs) to Canadian dollars (CAN$) using a rate of Rs 1=CAN$0.01272. Using the same rate, Rs 175,000 equals CAN$2226 - that is, CAN$185.74 more than the maximum amount allowable under the Montreal Convention (CAN$2040.26).
 PIA argues that the amount that Mr. Abbas is seeking is unreasonable, but it did not file any information in support of its argument. Therefore,Mr. Abbas’s assertions are unchallenged and his evidence is uncontested.
 The Agency is satisfied that Mr. Abbas’s lost baggage contained clothing and two carpets that amount to CAN$2,500. However, Article 22(2) of the Montreal Convention limits the carrier’s liability, in case of destruction, loss of, damage to, or delay of baggage, to an amount of 1,131 SDR (approximately CAN$2,040.26) for each passenger.
 Based on the above, the Agency finds that PIA, in not compensating Mr. Abbas for his lost baggage, failed to properly apply the terms and conditions set out in Rule 55(C)(5) of its Tariff, which incorporates the Montreal Convention by reference, and has therefore contravened subsection 110(4) of the ATR.
 Pursuant to section 113.1 of the ATR, the Agency orders PIA to compensate Mr. Abbas in the amount of $2,040.26 as soon as possible and no later than May 28, 2018.