The Supreme Court of Canada has ruled against a francophone couple from Ontario who felt their right to be served in French was violated during several flights in 2009.

Michel and Lynda Thibodeau filed multiple complaints concerning flights they took on the Air Canada subsidiary, Jazz, from January 2009 to May 2009.

In 2011 a Federal court ruled that Air Canada had to apologize and pay the couple $12,000 because they could not be served in French while checking in, at the boarding gate, and on the flight.

Announcements made about luggage being moved to another carousel were also made only in English.

At the time Air Canada admitted the complaints were legitimate, but said the couple never suffered any damage and so it should not have to pay.

The Federal Court of Appeal agreed with Air Canada and reduced the amount of money the couple would receive, at which point the Official Languages Commissioner took up the case on behalf of the Thibodeaus.

The Supreme Court heard the case and has now issued its five-two ruling that the Thibodeaus were not entitled to receive any money as damages.

The Court agreed the Thibodeaus' rights were violated, but pointed out the 1999 Montreal Convention only permits damages in the case of a death, injury, loss of luggage or as the result of a delay -- none of which happened to the Thibodeaus.

Michel Thibodeau said he does not consider Tuesday’s judgment a defeat, adding that he and his wife took a stand for francophone rights in Canada.

“For my wife and I, it's been a long journey, 14 years, and… what we take away from this, my wife and I, is that we decided to stand up when our rights were violated. I think this is what every francophone needs to do, if they ever take a flight or are not being served in the language of their choice with Air Canada,” he said.

Supreme Court Justice Thomas Cromwell wrote for the majority.

"There is no dispute that the airline breached its obligations to supply services in French under s. 22 of the Official Languages Act," wrote Cromwell.

However the ruling points out that federal law is, essentially, superseded by an international treaty.

"The Montreal Convention’s uniform and exclusive scheme of damages liability for international air carriers does not permit an award of damages for breach of language rights during international carriage by air," Cromwell wrote.

"To hold otherwise would do violence to the text and purpose of the Montreal Convention, depart from Canada’s international obligations under it and put Canada off-side a strong international consensus concerning its scope and effect."

The airline said it will continue to make efforts to ensure it is in compliance with the Official Languages Act.

Air Canada has admitted to violations in the past but says Tuesday's judgment was about the right to claim damages for those violations.

“My interpretation of the judgment is that there is no systemic problem. There are occasional problems, and we are not perfect. We are a service company. We deal with humans and it’s humans that dispense the service,” said Air Canada legal counsel Louise-Helene Senecal.

The dissenting justices, Rosalie Silberman Abella and Richard Wagner, argued that because nothing in the Montreal Convention discusses language of service, nothing in the international regulations prevents Canadian law from applying.

"There is no evidence in the Parliamentary record or the legislative history of the Convention to suggest that Canada, as a state party, intended to extinguish domestic language rights protection by ratifying or implementing the Montreal Convention," Abella wrote.

"Given the significance of the rights protected by the Official Languages Act and their constitutional and historic antecedents, the Montreal Convention ought to be interpreted in a way that respects Canada’s express commitment to these fundamental rights, rather than as reflecting an intention to subvert them."

Abella's discussion said the Montreal Convention should not be regarded as a way to reduce responsibility.

"At no time was there ever any suggestion that the new Convention was designed to reduce the ability of passengers to sue carriers," Abella wrote.

The Thibodeaus have successfully sued airlines before -- notably in 2000, when Michel Thibodeau won another language case because a flight attendant could not understand enough French to bring him a can of 7-Up.
 

With files from CTV Montreal staff