The documented Air Canada AC033 case does not establish that all injured passengers were unrestrained, and it does not record a settlement or completed injury trial. The High Court of Australia later dismissed the passengers' appeal on a tariff issue without deciding whether Air Canada caused their alleged injuries. The incident involved severe turbulence during a Vancouver-to-Sydney flight in July 2019. The legal dispute focused on how the Montreal Convention affected Air Canada's potential liability, not on a final damages award.
Official resource:
- Read the official notice from Gov — Use this primary source to verify the official announcement.
Table of Contents
- What happened on Air Canada flight AC033?
- Does the evidence show an aircraft malfunction?
- What claims did the passengers bring?
- How can the Montreal Convention affect damages?
- What did the appeal decide?
- Frequently Asked Questions
What happened on Air Canada flight AC033?
Air Canada flight AC033 carried 269 passengers and 15 crew from Vancouver to Sydney on 11 July 2019. About 640 nautical miles southwest of Honolulu, the aircraft encountered 10 to 15 seconds of severe turbulence, according to the Transportation safety Board of Canada. Transportation Safety Board of Canada occurrence report Several passengers and crew were thrown into the cabin ceiling.
Thirty-one passengers and six crew reported sprains, strains, cuts, or bruises, and the aircraft diverted to Honolulu. The seatbelt sign was off when the turbulence occurred. However, the investigation does not identify which injured people were unrestrained. That distinction matters because the title's description cannot be treated as an established finding about every injured passenger.
Does the evidence show an aircraft malfunction?
The investigation found no significant turbulence immediately before or after the event on the flight-data recorder. It also found no faults after a severe-turbulence inspection, limiting claims that an aircraft defect caused the event. Transportation Safety Board of Canada occurrence report That finding does not automatically defeat an injury claim.
A passenger could still argue that crew warnings, seatbelt procedures, or other conduct contributed to the harm. But the available investigation does not support treating mechanical failure as an established cause. The evidence also separates three issues that are easy to combine incorrectly: The first issue is documented. The second and third remained matters for litigation.
- Whether severe turbulence occurred
- Whether a particular passenger was injured and how
- Whether Air Canada legally caused or must pay for that injury
What claims did the passengers bring?
Renae and Stephanie Evans sued Air Canada in 2021. They alleged spinal and psychological injuries arising from the turbulence, but the courts treated those injuries as allegations rather than adjudicated facts. Supreme Court of New South Wales Court of Appeal decision The reported proceedings concerned separate questions about the applicable tariff and the Montreal Convention before a trial of the underlying injury claims.
A tariff is the carrier's contractual set of passenger-transport terms. Accordingly, readers should not describe the case as a confirmed settlement or a completed personal-injury trial. The reported appellate decisions do not record a settlement, and they do not establish the amount or validity of damages.
How can the Montreal Convention affect damages?
The Montreal Convention is an international treaty governing certain claims for injuries during international air travel. Article 20 can reduce or eliminate a carrier's liability if the carrier proves that the passenger's own fault caused or contributed to the damage. Article 21 creates a further rule for damages above the applicable threshold. The carrier may limit responsibility for that additional damage if it proves the damage was not caused by its negligence or other wrongful act.
These rules make the evidence about each passenger important. Relevant questions can include whether the person was seated, whether a seatbelt was fastened, what warnings were given, the nature of the injury, and whether later symptoms came from the turbulence or another cause. Those questions are not answered by the flight's severe-turbulence finding alone. They require passenger-specific evidence and legal findings.
What did the appeal decide?
The High Court of Australia unanimously dismissed the passengers' appeal on 14 May 2025. It held that Air Canada's tariff phrase "no financial limits" did not waive the carrier's partial defence under Article 21(2). High Court of Australia judgment The ruling resolved the meaning and effect of that tariff language.
It did not decide whether Air Canada was negligent, whether the alleged injuries were caused by the turbulence, or how much compensation anyone should receive. For readers assessing similar claims, the practical lesson is to separate procedural victories from damages outcomes. An appeal about a liability limit or contractual term may influence a future award without proving the underlying injury case.
Frequently Asked Questions
Were all AC033 injuries caused by unrestrained passengers being thrown into the ceiling?
No. The investigation documented injuries and an inactive seatbelt sign, but it did not identify which injured people were unrestrained.
Did the passengers receive a settlement?
The reported appellate decisions do not record a settlement.
Did the High Court decide Air Canada caused the injuries?
No. It decided that "no financial limits" did not waive Air Canada's partial Article 21(2) defence.
You Might Also Like
- Severe Turbulence Causing Unrestrained Passenger Injuries: Which Economic and Non-Economic Damages Could Be Available?
- Severe Turbulence Causing Unrestrained Passenger Injuries: When Might Punitive Damages Be Available?
- Severe Turbulence Causing Unrestrained Passenger Injuries: What Evidence Could Prove—or Defeat—Liability?