For clarity as to how this case came about, I would like to have been the fly on the wall for the exploratory discussions regarding this case, potentially fascinating:see where MacDuff was coming from initially and the influence of his highly principled, money grabbing attorney.
I have “a curious mind” as the National Inquirer put it, perfect for this high minded case, eh?..
From attorney Paquette’s website:
“M e Sébastien Paquette does not accept the terms of the Legal Aid”
and
“IMPORTANT: We do not respond to the small claims court case that is $ 7,000 or less. Also, make sure that you forward your request to the lawyer in your area of expertise who is in your area, otherwise the lawyer may not respond to your email.”
Well, gotta admit he is focused! What a human being. I feel slimy already from this distance. Will visine help-promise, I will use actual Visine and a kleenex, er, Kleenex.
I’m sure a court of law would agree with you…
p.s. Don’t let me sound like a defender of the legal leeches, arguably greater sleazeballs than the most devious and deceptive marketing professionals.
words matter. we lawyers know it, and until non lawyers know this, we’ll make them pay for not knowing it 
But later in the article, we have
Sunwing said the terms “champagne vacations” and “champagne service” were used “to denote a level of service in reference to the entire hospitality package” and not to describe the in-flight beverages.
That’s why I said it was not clear from the article what was actually promised.
I bet they didn’t actually get a toast either 
Oops - that wasn’t meant to be all legal people, but specifically the ‘ambulance chasing’ types who are using the mechanics of such cases to win big, where such cases ought to be handled in a much simpler / cost effective manner. The ones very strikingly working the system.
