The Canadian Transportation Agency (CTA) had a remarkable range of accomplishments during 2019–2020. While the period finished with the collapse of global air travel as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic—which, of course, immediately became a primary focus—that dramatic turn of events was preceded by 11 and a half months of activity and progress

One of our most important achievements was completion of the Regulatory Modernization Initiative (RMI). Launched in 2016, the RMI involved reviewing, consulting on, and updating all regulations made and administered by the CTA.

The RMI's most visible product was the Air Passenger Protection Regulations (APPR), which establish, for the first time, minimum airline obligations towards passengers flying to, from, or within Canada in a variety of areas, from denied boarding to baggage delays to the seating of families together. Passenger entitlements under the APPR will be there to protect Canadians as commercial air travel gradually recovers.

Alongside the APPR, we finalized the Accessible Transportation for Persons with Disabilities Regulations (ATPDR), which combine two older regulations and six voluntary codes of practice into a single, robust, binding regulation. The ATPDR are an important step towards realizing the CTA's vision of making Canada's national transportation system the most accessible in the world. Most ATPDR provisions come into force on June 25, 2020; the effective date for a handful was adjusted to January 1, 2021 in light of the pandemic.

Finally, 2019–2020 saw major updates to the Air Transportation Regulations and a number of rail-related regulations, as well as broad consultations on our approach to calculating rail interswitching rates. The input received during those consultations was considered in the context of the 2020 rate determination and will inform possible regulatory changes in the future.

As we largely completed the transformation of our regulatory suite, we turned our attention towards a comprehensive overhaul of our guidance material—resulting in the issuance of a series of new and updated plain language guides, with many more in the works—and the modernization of our compliance monitoring and enforcement program based on best practices across Canada and around the world. These projects will be key priorities for the CTA over the coming period.

So will resolving air travel and other complaints. With the entry-into-force of the APPR, we saw a big jump in the number of Canadians seeking the CTA's assistance to address disputes with transportation service providers. The number of complaints submitted to the CTA had already risen from about 800 in 2015–2016, to over 3,000 in 2016–2017, 5,500 in 2017–2018, and 7,650 in 2018–2019. In 2019–2020, that number leapt to almost 19,400. By drawing on temporary supplemental funding, emphasizing informal dispute resolution, and leveraging efficiencies wherever we can find them, we're working hard to deal in as timely a way as possible with that unprecedented wave of cases.

Of course, air travel was very much in the news during the final weeks of 2019–2020, when the pandemic resulted in mass flight disruptions across Canada and around the world. The CTA responded quickly, introducing short-term measures to give airlines increased flexibility to adjust flight times and combine flights as the situation rapidly unfolded, and temporarily pausing interactions with airlines in dispute resolution processes so they could concentrate on operational imperatives like repatriating Canadians stranded abroad.

The CTA's ability to advance ambitious modernization projects, respond to surging demand for its services, and pivot virtually overnight to across-the-board telework while continuing to deliver all its services is a testament to the resourcefulness, professionalism, and agility of its people. Those people include five regular Members (decision-makers appointed by the Governor in Council) and some 300 dedicated public servants. In addition, through the period covered by this report, the CTA benefited from the expertise and wisdom of two Temporary Members—Lenore Duff and Gerald Dickie—whose terms ended in May 2020. I want to thank Lenore and Gerry for their contributions, and express my appreciation to the entire CTA team, who work day in and day out to foster an efficient, competitive, accessible transportation system in the interests of all Canadians. It is a privilege to lead such a team.

Scott Streiner
Chair and Chief Executive Officer

What we do: Our three mandates

•  
  We help ensure that the national transportation system runs efficiently and smoothly in the interests of all Canadians: those who work and invest in it; the producers, shippers, travellers and businesses who rely on it; and the communities where it operates.
•  
  We protect the human right of persons with disabilities to an accessible transportation network.
•  
  We provide consumer protection for air passengers.

This section highlights key developments and trends in the different transportation sectors between April 1, 2019, and March 31, 2020. While the global effects of the COVID-19 pandemic came to a head quite late in this period, the reaction of transportation sectors and the CTA feature prominently in this report, including sections below dedicated to COVID-19 impacts and related CTA measures. This recognizes how severe the impacts of this pandemic have been, for Canadians generally and in the transportation sector.

Transportation Modernization Act

In 2019–2020, the CTA continued to implement new provisions of the Canada Transportation Act (Act) introduced by the Transportation Modernization Act, which received Royal Assent on May 23, 2018. For example, the CTA issued new determinations related to interswitching and the calculation of the Maximum Revenue Entitlement, and developed new Air Passenger Protection Regulations. More information about the Transportation Modernization Act can be found in the 2018–2019 Annual Report.

Accessible Canada Act

The other new legislation that had an important impact on the CTA's activities was Bill C-81, the Accessible Canada Act (ACA), which came into force on July 11, 2019. The legislation provides the CTA with new tools to improve accessibility in the federal transportation network:

•  
  own motion powers to initiate investigations, with the approval of the Minister of Transport, regardless of whether a formal complaint has been made;
•  
  the ability to award compensation for lost wages, pain and suffering, and for willful or reckless practice, when the CTA finds that there was an undue barrier to the mobility of persons with disabilities. This power to award compensation aligns with that of the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal;
•  
  additional enforcement tools, including expanded inspection powers, compliance agreements and warnings for violations of accessibility provisions;
•  
  the ability for a designated enforcement officer to levy an administrative monetary penalty up to $250,000 for non-compliance with certain accessibility-related requirements;
•  
  the authority to order corrective measures after determining that there remains an undue barrier to a person's mobility even after a transportation service provider complies with regulations;
•  
  the ability to establish a participant funding program; and
•  
  a new mandate to make regulations on ACA-related planning and reporting obligations for industry.

The ACA mandates the CTA, Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission, Canadian Human Rights Commission, Federal Public Sector Labour Relations and Employment Board and Accessibility Commissioner (a new position) to work together on a "No Wrong Door" approach to make sure accessibility-related complaints are promptly and seamlessly referred to the right agency.

These organizations, together with the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal, established a Council of Federal Accessibility Agencies in August 2019. Among its roles, the Council will engage stakeholders to ensure that the voices of persons with disabilities and others inform its work.

This year, the CTA worked to implement its new authorities under the ACA, including the establishment of a participant funding program to support persons with disabilities in participating in oral hearings. The program covers travel and accommodation expenses for a person with a disability, their support person or an intervener with full participatory rights to attend a CTA public hearing on accessibility.

Air

Air licensing activities

The CTA issues licences to Canadian airlines to operate air services within Canada. The CTA also licences Canadian and foreign airlines to operate scheduled or non-scheduled international air services to and from Canada.

In 2019–2020, the CTA issued new licences for scheduled international services between Canada and the following countries.

Table 1: New scheduled international services

Canadian Airlines	Country
Pacific Coastal Airlines Limited	United States of America
Air Canada	Ecuador, Gambia
WestJet	Norway, Honduras (Temporary Licence - Extra Bilateral)

In 2019–2020, the CTA issued 24 licences to Canadian airlines and 39 licences to foreign airlines.

Canadian status requirement

The Canada Transportation Act requires that airlines holding domestic licences issued by the CTA be Canadian, as defined in subsection 55(1) of that Act. The requirement that licensees be owned and controlled-in-fact by Canadians must be complied with at all times. If the CTA determines that an existing licensee no longer meets that requirement, the licences are suspended or cancelled.

In December 2019, the CTA determined that WestJet and Swoop would continue to be Canadian following the proposal by Onex Corporation to acquire the two airlines. The determination is on the condition that Onex amend its by-laws to ensure that the majority of directors making decisions affecting WestJet and Swoop, are Canadian. Following the CTA's determination, the acquisition was completed.

Air navigation services charges

The International Air Transport Association (IATA) filed an appeal of NAV CANADA’s increased charges for air navigation services, which were based on its implementation of Space-Based Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast technology in its air traffic control operations. Revised charges for domestic airspace surveillance were imposed on September 1, 2019, and charges related to surveillance within the North Atlantic oceanic airspace came into effect on January 1, 2020.

Position statements in support of IATA’s appeal were submitted by various international airlines, including Air Canada, which requested and was granted intervener status in the matter.

IATA argued that NAV CANADA’s revised charges were not consistent with the Government of Canada’s international obligations and were not based on NAV CANADA’s reasonable and prudent financial requirements, as required under paragraphs 35(1)(h) and 35(1)(i) of the Civil Air Navigation Services Commercialization Act, S.C., 1996, c. 20 (CANSCA). Additionally, IATA claimed that NAV CANADA did not comply with the notice and disclosure requirements set out in section 36 of the CANSCA. IATA requested that the CTA, among other things, order NAV CANADA to cancel its revised charges and to refund the users who have paid them.

Having considered all of the submissions, the CTA determined (10-A-2020) that it was satisfied, on a preponderance of the evidence, that NAV CANADA observed the charging principles set out in paragraphs 35(1)(h) and 35(1)(i) of the CANSCA in establishing the revised charges and that it complied with the notice and disclosure requirements set out in section 36 of the CANSCA.

Rail

Rail dispute resolution

Part of the CTA's mandate is to help resolve disputes between railway companies and their customers or neighbours. One or both parties can ask the CTA for assistance.

The types of disputes include infrastructure construction and maintenance, service obligations, noise and vibration, and transfer and discontinuance provisions.

In total, 71 rail disputes were resolved in 2019–2020:

•  
  18 through facilitation,
•  
  41 through mediation,
•  
  10 through adjudication, and
•  
  2 through arbitration.

In 2019–2020, the CTA answered 146 inquiries through the Rail, Shipper and Community Help Line.

The CTA also administers two distinct arbitration processes for disputes between freight railway companies and shippers. These are level of service arbitration and Final Offer Arbitration.

In 2019–2020, there were no cases referred for level of service arbitration.

Final offer arbitration can be triggered by shippers to settle disputes about rates charged or services offered by a freight railway company for the movement of goods. For this type of arbitration, the parties choose an independent arbitrator from a roster established by the CTA. If the parties cannot agree on an arbitrator, the CTA will appoint one.

These arbitrations use the final offer selection model, where the arbitrator chooses either the proposal made by the shipper or the proposal made by the railway company. The timeline for doing so is 60 days for a regular process and 30 days for a summary process, which only applies to freight charges below $2 million. The arbitrated rate applies for up to two years, at the option of the shipper.

In 2019–2020, there were 2 cases referred for Final Offer Arbitration.

Vancouver freight rail service issues

On January 14, 2019, the CTA announced it was using its own-motion powers to initiate an investigation into possible freight rail service issues in the Vancouver area. This was permitted by amendments made to the Act in May 2018, provided the Minister of Transport agrees. The Minister provided his authorization on January 11. The CTA initiated the investigation based on information received from shipper associations and other parties. The matters covered by the investigation included whether certain commodities were receiving discriminatory treatment and how freight rail permits and/or embargoes were being used.

The investigation had two phases. The first was an information-gathering phase that included a public hearing in Vancouver on January 29 and 30, 2019. The hearing gave railway companies and shipper groups an opportunity to present evidence and respond to questions from the CTA.

The second phase focused on matters identified by the CTA as warranting further examination.

The CTA issued a Letter Decision (CONF-9-2019) in this matter on April 15, 2019. It found that CP and BNSF had met their service obligations, but CN had breached its obligation to provide the highest level of service reasonably possible in one respect: by announcing, months before congestion or other challenges emerged in the Vancouver-area rail network, its intention to issue embargoes against wood pulp shipments, and then imposing those embargoes. CN was ordered to develop and submit a plan to respond to future traffic surges in the Vancouver area; to only resort to embargoes on an exceptional basis; and to only implement embargoes that are temporary, targeted at specific and actual challenges, and designed to minimize impacts on traffic carriage and delivery.

City of Montréal v. Canadian Pacific Railway

The City of Montréal (Montréal) filed an application concerning the construction of five at-grade pedestrian and bicycle crossings on the Canadian Pacific Railway (CP) network. Montréal was seeking the CTA's authorization to construct and to apportion the costs of construction and maintenance. CP argued that the CTA should not authorize the crossings as they were not necessary or suitable within the Act.

In its determination (34-R-2019) of what constitutes a suitable crossing, the CTA considers the impact of a crossing on railway operations; the impact on the safety of persons and property transported by railway companies and the safety of other persons and other property. The CTA also considers the impact, if any, of changes in railway operations created by the new road crossing on people in the area, including changes in noise and vibration levels. It also considers any technical restrictions with respect to the construction of a particular type of road crossing (at-grade or separated, either passing over or under the railway), among other factors.

For three of the five crossings, the CTA authorized the construction of at-grade crossings, as requested by Montréal, because they were adequate and appropriate for the intended purposes. For the other two crossings, the CTA authorized the construction of grade separations at the proposed locations because the requested at-grade crossings would not be adequate or appropriate for the intended purposes.

The CTA determined that Montréal is responsible for the costs of construction and maintenance of all five crossings.

Young v. Canadian Pacific Railway

The applicant filed an application concerning noise and vibrations arising from Canadian Pacific Railway Company's (CP) operations in Port Moody, British Columbia. CP argued that it had fully met the requirements of section 95.1 of the Act and was only causing such noise and vibrations as is reasonable.

The CTA first determined that CP had caused noise and vibrations that constitute substantial interference with the ordinary comfort or convenience of living, according to the standards of the average person.

Although the CTA acknowledged that the applicant has been negatively impacted by the noise and vibration levels at their residence, the CTA determined that the noise and vibration produced by CP’s operations is reasonable, taking into account the unique features of the area, as well as CP’s level of service obligations and its operational requirements. The CTA therefore dismissed the application.

Canadian Pacific v. Municipality of McDougall

Canadian Pacific Railway Company (CP) filed an application concerning the maintenance costs that it incurred for work performed on an at-grade crossing. CP requested that the CTA determine that the Municipality of McDougall (Municipality) was legally obligated to pay these costs or that the CTA apportion the costs for the work performed. The Municipality disagreed with CP and submitted that a previous Order, made by the Canadian Transport Commission, established that the company was responsible for the maintenance costs of the road, within the 26-foot road allowance, across the right-of-way and the CP track.

With respect to the costs for the rail and related infrastructure work performed within and outside the limits of the crossing, the CTA found it appropriate to give more weight to the relative benefits that each party stood to gain and to the responsibility of each party for the maintenance of its own infrastructure.

The CTA determined that since CP is the only party that benefits from the replaced rail and related infrastructure, it should bear all the costs of the work. CP was ordered to revise its invoice to the Municipality to reflect this decision.

Greater Vancouver Water District v. British Columbia Railway Company

The Greater Vancouver Water District (GVWD) filed an application concerning the construction of a utility crossing, seeking the CTA's authorization for the construction and maintenance of a water main. British Columbia Railway Company (BCRC) agreed to the crossing location, design and method of construction; however, the parties were unsuccessful in negotiating terms and conditions for an agreement. The CTA has jurisdiction to adjudicate this dispute by virtue of an administrative agreement with the Province of British Columbia.

The CTA determined (28-R-2019) that its authority is limited to authorizing the crossing and specifying who shall maintain it. The CTA concluded that it does not have jurisdiction to order terms and conditions in relation to a utility crossing other than the terms and conditions directly related to the suitability of the crossing, namely, that related to construction and maintenance.

The CTA authorized GVWD to construct and maintain, at its own expenses, the water main.

Milton Logistics Hub Project

On December 6, 2016, the Chair and CEO of the CTA entered into an agreement with the Minister of the Environment and Climate Change to undertake a joint review process on CN’s proposed Logistics Hub Project in Milton, Ontario. A Member of the CTA was assigned by the Chair and CEO to decide whether the proposed rail construction should be approved under section 98 of the Act. The Minister then cross-appointed that Member to a three-person review panel responsible for conducting an environmental assessment under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, 2012 (CEAA 2012).

The joint process, including public hearings, made it easier and more efficient for CN, Indigenous groups and community members to submit written and oral submissions related to both the environmental assessment and the determination under section 98 of the Act.

In January 2020, the review panel submitted its report under CEAA 2012 to the Minister of the Environment and Climate Change. For most of the factors reviewed, the review panel concluded that the Project would not have significant adverse environment effects. However, the review panel concluded that the Project is likely to cause significant adverse environmental effects with respect to air quality, human health, wildlife habitat, and the availability of agricultural land.

The next step in the process is for the Minister of the Environment and Climate Change to issue an environmental assessment decision statement, in consideration of the review panel's report, that will describe the Project's potential to cause significant adverse environmental effects. If the Project is likely to cause significant adverse environmental effects, the decision statement may also indicate whether the Governor in Council has determined that those environmental effects are justified in the circumstance. If the significant adverse effects are insignificant or justified, the CTA will make a determination on whether to issue a permit for construction under section 98 of the Act.

Essex Terminal Railway Company

In 2016, amendments to the Act established minimum third-party liability insurance requirements for freight railway companies. Parliament adopted these amendments in the wake of the Lac-Mégantic tragedy to ensure that railway companies would have sufficient insurance coverage in the event of a major railway accident in Canada.

The CTA initiated an inquiry to determine whether the Essex Terminal Railway Company (Essex) and RaiLink Canada Ltd. (RaiLink) met statutory insurance requirements related to the transportation of crude oil.

On January 6, 2020, the CTA determined (LET-R-2-2020) that Essex had not satisfied the CTA that it met the requirements of the Act to carry crude oil. The CTA ordered Essex to not carry crude oil until such time as it establishes, to the CTA’s satisfaction, that it meets these requirements. The CTA amended Essex's Certificate of Fitness accordingly. On the same day, the CTA determined that RaiLink is authorized to carry crude oil as it had demonstrated to the satisfaction of the CTA that it met the insurance requirements to carry crude oil.

Interswitching rate determination

On November 29, 2019, the CTA issued Determination No. R-2019-230 on regulated interswitching rates for 2020.

This was the CTA's second determination of the rates pursuant to amendments to the Act made by the Transportation Modernization Act in May 2018. Under these amendments, the CTA must:

•  
  determine the interswitching rates no later than December 1st of every year, and take into consideration any long-term investment needed in the railways;
•  
  publish the method followed for determining the rate; and
•  
  determine the interswitching rates no later than December 1st of every year, and take into publish the interswitching rate in the Canada Gazette no later than December 31st before the beginning of the calendar year for which the rate applies.

In 2019, following public consultations on a broad range of issues related to interswitching rates, the CTA published the methodology used to calculate the 2020 interswitching rates, explaining how it took into consideration any long-term investment needed in the railways. Alongside this, the CTA published a determination on the cost of common equity (an input used to set interswitching rates), following the most comprehensive review of this issue in almost a decade. The 2020 rates were published in the Canada Gazette on December 28, 2019.

Maximum Revenue Entitlement (MRE) program for transporting western grain by rail

Each year, the CTA is required by the Act to determine the maximum revenue entitlements of CN and CP, and to determine whether or not each railway company exceeded those entitlements.

In December 2019, the CTA determined (R-2019-245) that CN and CP were both within their respective maximum revenue entitlements for the 2018–2019 crop year.

Table 2: 2018–2019 Maximum Revenue Entitlements

Company	Entitlement	Grain revenue	Amount below ($)
CN	$933,728,826	$933,357,710	$371,116
CP	$863,499,066	$862,734,965	$764,101

The Act provides that if a prescribed railway company's revenue for the movement of grain in a given crop year exceeds the company's MRE for that crop year, the company shall pay out the excess amount and any penalty specified in the Railway Company Pay Out of Excess of Revenue for the Movement of Grain Regulations. Given that CN’s and CP’s revenues were below their respective MREs, no payments of excess revenue and associated penalty amounts had to be made for the 2018–2019 crop year.

Marine

Coasting trade applications

Under the Coasting Trade Act, only Canadian registered vessels can provide marine transportation between points in Canada, unless a coasting trade licence is issued by the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness.

The CTA plays a role in the coasting trade licensing process by determining whether suitable Canadian vessels are available when someone applies to use foreign vessels for domestic commercial marine activities.

In 2019–2020, the CTA processed 65 coasting trade applications where no offer to use a Canadian vessel was made, and 4 coasting trade applications that were contested (that is, where a party offered a Canadian vessel that it argued was suitable and available for the work).

Protecting the fundamental right of persons with disabilities to an accessible transportation network

Accessible transportation is a human right. It allows persons with disabilities to achieve full and equal participation in contemporary life.

Since 1988, the CTA has had a mandate to protect the fundamental right of persons with disabilities to an accessible federal transportation network. To implement this mandate, the CTA creates regulations for accessibility; promotes awareness of those regulations through proactive communications and outreach; monitors and enforces compliance through inspections, investigations, corrective actions and administrative monetary penalties; and resolves disputes about accessibility through facilitation, mediation and adjudication.

Highlights from 2019–2020

Accessibility applications and outcomes

In 2019–2020, the CTA received 227 accessibility complaints, which represents a significant increase from the two previous years (122 for 2017–2018 and 182 for 2018–2019). Of the cases that were resolved:

•  
  95 were resolved through facilitation,
•  
  33 were resolved through mediation, and
•  
  26 were resolved through adjudication.

In 2019–2020, the CTA answered 40 inquiries through the Accessible Transportation Complaints Help Line, which was established in September 2019.

Decisions of note

Interpretive decision

On June 21, 2019, the CTA issued an interpretive decision (33-AT-A-2019) to inform passengers, transportation service providers, organizations representing persons with disabilities, and Canadians in general of the CTA's updated approach to applications made pursuant to subsection 172(1) of the Act.

In the past, the CTA used a three-part approach with accessibility-related applications, consisting of a disability determination, an obstacle (now “barrier”) determination and an undueness determination. The CTA's interpretive decision recast its three-part approach as a two-part approach to better reflect the two-part analysis of human rights jurisprudence.

The interpretive decision establishes that during Part 1 of the proceedings, the applicant has the onus of demonstrating, on a balance of probabilities, that they have a disability and faced a disability-related barrier.

During Part 2 of the proceedings, the onus shifts to the respondent to:

•  
  explain, taking into account any proposals from the applicant, how the respondent proposes to remove the barrier through a general modification to a rule, policy, practice, technology, physical structure, or anything else constituting a barrier, or, if a general modification is not feasible, an individual accommodation measure; or
•  
  demonstrate, on a balance of probabilities, that it cannot remove the barrier without experiencing undue hardship.

The respondent must carefully consider all options for removing a barrier before making a claim that it cannot do so without experiencing undue hardship.

The interpretive decision also reflects the amendments to the Canada Transportation Act introduced by the Accessible Canada Act, which sets out that the CTA's new remedial powers include the authority to award compensation for lost wages, pain and suffering, and the authority to award compensation if the barrier was the result of a willful or reckless practice.

Finlay v. Sunwing Airlines

Rosalie Finlay filed an accessibility-related application against Sunwing regarding issues that arose during and after her vacation in Varadero, Cuba, including alleged damage to her custom wheelchair. The applicant sought compensation for the expenses associated with replacing the wheelchair, general damages and an order for legal costs.

At the request of the applicant, the CTA has proceeded to deal with the issue of damage to the wheelchair first. Sunwing argued that there was insufficient evidence to establish that the applicant’s wheelchair was damaged while in its care and control. The carrier also raised concerns regarding the credibility of the applicant’s claim that the wheelchair she travelled with was damaged during its carriage by Sunwing, suggesting that the applicant was attempting to recover for damage to a second wheelchair that was not carried by Sunwing.

The CTA held an oral hearing to gather evidence on whether the applicant’s wheelchair was damaged while in the care and control of Sunwing and whether, as a result, the applicant encountered an obstacle.

Ultimately, having considered the evidence, the CTA found that the applicant is a person with a disability and that her wheelchair was damaged while in the care and control of Sunwing. The CTA also found that the damage to the applicant’s wheelchair constituted an obstacle to her mobility.

Kormod v. Porter

On November 3, 2017, Suha Kormod was travelling with her Emotional Support Animal (ESA) from Montréal, Quebec, to Newark, New Jersey, via Toronto, Ontario. The applicant and her ESA, a German Shepherd, flew from Montréal to Toronto, but were told to disembark the aircraft for the flight segment from Toronto to Newark when Porter identified the ESA’s behaviour as posing a safety risk. Following that incident, the applicant filed an accessibility-related application against Porter. The CTA found that the applicant is a person with a disability and that she encountered an obstacle to her mobility when she was unable to complete her travel with her ESA.

The CTA found, however, that the safety requirements in Porter’s ESA policy are consistent with established rules and guidance and that they were adopted, and applied, in good faith to avoid obstacles for persons with disabilities while ensuring the safety and security of everyone travelling on their aircraft. Further, the CTA found that the safety risks involved in the additional accommodations sought by the applicant would have resulted in undue hardship for Porter.

The CTA therefore dismissed the application.

Rose v. Air Canada

Timothy Rose filed an accessibility-related application against Air Canada because the aircraft that Air Canada used to transport passengers from Toronto, Ontario, to Cleveland, Ohio, could not accommodate Mr. Rose’s power wheelchair. The CTA issued a decision on March 1, 2019, finding that the applicant is a person with a disability and that the following constituted obstacles to the mobility of Mr. Rose:

• Air Canada exclusively assigning aircraft that cannot accommodate Mr. Rose’s wheelchair to its flights between Toronto and Cleveland, thereby denying Mr. Rose access to this aspect of the federal transportation network.
• Air Canada’s decision to operate routes in its network that are only serviced by aircraft that cannot accommodate larger mobility aids that cannot be collapsed to a height of 31 or 32 inches or less creates an obstacle to the mobility of Mr. Rose and all persons who use mobility devices that cannot be carried on these aircraft.

On December 2-3, 2019, the CTA held an oral hearing to hear evidence on whether Air Canada can remove these obstacles without experiencing undue hardship. Further to the oral hearing, the parties filed undertakings and closing statements, and pleadings closed on February 7, 2020. The CTA is now deliberating on the matter.

Providing consumer protection for air passengers

The CTA mandate that generates the largest number of applications is consumer protection for air passengers.

The year 2019–2020 saw a major change in the CTA's role in this area as it finalized and implemented a new regulatory framework setting minimum airline obligations toward air passengers under the Air Passenger Protection Regulations.

The CTA also continues to enforce the application of tariffs and may hear complaints from passengers that a tariff provision is not being applied, or is unreasonable or unjust. Canadian tariff requirements are detailed in the Canada Transportation Act and the Air Transportation Regulations. The APPR minimum obligations are deemed to be included in airline tariffs.

In 2019–2020, the CTA received approximately 19,400 air travel complaints, of which over 12,700 were received following the coming into force of all provisions of the APPR. The CTA has seen a sharp year-over-year increase in air travel complaint volumes, starting from 826 complaints in 2015. Historically, the vast majority of complaints have been resolved by facilitation and mediation, with a small proportion (about 1%) proceeding to adjudication. Additional information on these complaints is reported in the Appendix: Reporting on Dispute Resolution Activities.

This year, the CTA worked to promote awareness of the APPR rights and obligations to members of the public and industry—complemented by monitoring and compliance efforts—to help ensure that the new regime is well understood by all. The CTA also continued to place emphasis on informal dispute resolution, which is in the interests of both passengers and airlines, as it is less time-consuming and less costly, and helps achieve a satisfactory outcome for all. The CTA provided "user friendly" tools (including on its new dedicated website, airpassengerprotection.ca) and complaint forms to make sure Canadians can readily access the CTA's services in this area.

Highlights from 2019–2020

Sunwing inquiry

The CTA launched an inquiry into delays, cancellations, tarmac delays and lost, delayed and damaged baggage affecting Sunwing flights. These were widespread service issues experienced by passengers on Sunwing flights to or from Toronto Pearson International Airport and Montréal Pierre Elliott Trudeau International Airport, between April 14 and 18, 2018. The inquiry was to determine whether Sunwing treated its passengers in a manner consistent with its terms and conditions of carriage for international flights, and whether those terms and conditions were reasonable.

The CTA issued its determination (A-2019-58) on April 8, 2019, ordering Sunwing to compensate passengers for out-of-pocket expenses incurred as a consequence of the airline's failure to properly apply the terms and conditions set out in its Scheduled International Tariff.

A CTA designated enforcement officer also issued a Notice of Violation against the airline, and imposed an administrative monetary penalty of $694,500. Sunwing has appealed the penalty to the Transportation Appeal Tribunal of Canada.

Reasonableness of WestJet's tariff

In August 2019, the CTA initiated an inquiry into whether WestJet’s international scheduled tariff provisions related to schedule delays, schedule irregularities, and denied boarding are just and reasonable, taking into consideration the requirement for airlines to apply the minimum obligations set out in the APPR.

In December 2019, the CTA found that WestJet’s tariff was unclear and that this lack of clarity precluded the CTA from making a final assessment regarding the reasonableness of the terms and conditions themselves. The CTA ordered WestJet to provide a proposed revised tariff containing terms and conditions that clearly articulate the specific obligations that WestJet undertakes toward its passengers, which must meet or exceed the minimal requirements of the APPR.

To allow WestJet to focus on immediate operational imperatives like repatriating Canadians stranded abroad, this proceeding was paused after the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic until June 30, 2020.

Inquiry into complaints regarding reasons for flight delays or cancellations

On February 13, 2020, the CTA opened an inquiry into complaints from air passengers alleging that airlines were not accurately communicating reasons for flight delays or cancellations, as required under the Air Passenger Protection Regulations. The CTA had received multiple complaints regarding flights operated since December 15, 2019, alleging that airlines had failed to accurately communicate the reasons for delays or cancellations.

The CTA's Chief Compliance Officer was appointed as inquiry officer. He is collecting and analyzing evidence on the delays and cancellations that are the subject of the complaints. Once evidence-gathering is completed, he will report his findings to the CTA panel conducting the inquiry. The inquiry focuses on 567 complaints involving flights operated by Air Canada, WestJet, Sunwing, Air Transat, Swoop and United Airlines.

To allow airlines to focus on immediate operational imperatives like repatriating Canadians stranded abroad, this proceeding was paused after the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic until June 30, 2020.