From this case:
> I find that if Air Canada wanted to a raise a contractual defense, it needed to provide the relevant portions of the contract. It did not, so it has not proven a contractual defence. [...]
> In its boilerplate Dispute Response, Air Canada denies “each and every” one of Mr. Moffatt’s allegations generally. However, it did not provide any evidence to the contrary.
From https://decisions.civilresolutionbc.ca/crt/crtd/en/item/5254...
> Despite having the opportunity to provide documentary evidence, Air Canada did not do so.
From https://decisions.civilresolutionbc.ca/crt/crtd/en/item/5249... and https://decisions.civilresolutionbc.ca/crt/crtd/en/item/5188...
> Having reviewed the evidence, I am satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that [Air Canada] received the Dispute Notice and did not respond to it by the deadline set out in the CRT's rules.
From https://decisions.civilresolutionbc.ca/crt/crtd/en/item/5230...
> Based on the proof of notice form submitted by the applicant, I am satisfied that [Air Canada] received the Dispute Notice and did not respond to it by the deadline set out in the CRT's rules.
(I also found a fun one that hinges on an Air Canada employee's apparent inability to do basic arithmetic: https://decisions.civilresolutionbc.ca/crt/crtd/en/item/5225...)