Decision No. 10-C-A-2007

January 4, 2007

File No. M4120/06-08618

APPLICATION

On December 7, 2006, Ralph Olds filed with the Canadian Transportation Agency (hereinafter the Agency) the application set out in the title.

BACKGROUND

In its Decision No. 666-C-A-2006, the Agency made its determination with respect to a complaint filed by Ralph Olds against Air Canada concerning the carrier's refusal to transport him from Calgary, Alberta to Regina, Saskatchewan on May 19, 2006.

The Agency determined that Air Canada properly applied its terms and conditions of carriage as set out in Rule 35 of its tariff, when it refused to transport Mr. Olds from Calgary to Regina for acting in an unruly way. The Agency found that Mr. Olds did not raise any evidence in support of his claim or, alternatively, failed to demonstrate that Air Canada acted improperly in refusing to transport him on the basis that he had engaged in a prohibited conduct. Accordingly, the Agency dismissed the complaint.

JURISDICTION OF THE AGENCY

Pursuant to section 32 of the Canada Transportation Act (hereinafter the CTA), the Agency may review, rescind or vary any decision made by it if, in the opinion of the Agency, since the issuance of the Decision, there has been a change in the facts or circumstances pertaining to the decision.

It is important to stress at the outset that the review contemplated by section 32 of the CTA is not an open-ended authority for the Agency to review its decisions. The Agency's jurisdiction under this section is limited and only arises if there has been a change in the facts or circumstances pertaining to the decision since its issuance. The Agency must first determine whether there has been a change in the facts or circumstances pertaining to the decision and, if so, then determine whether such change is sufficient to warrant a review, rescission or variance of the decision.

ISSUE

The issue to be addressed is whether the information submitted by Mr. Olds in his application for review constitutes a change in facts or circumstances since Decision No. 666-C-A-2006 was issued.

ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS

Mr. Olds submits that he is dissatisfied with Decision No. 666-C-A-2006 because the Agency failed to question witnesses who could disprove Air Canada's contention that Mr. Olds acted in an unruly manner.

The Agency is of the opinion that Mr. Olds' submission does not present new facts or circumstances within the meaning of section 32 of the CTA. A party to an application cannot take advantage of section 32 of the CTA to reargue its case unless there has been a real change in the facts and circumstances since the original decision.

In light of the foregoing, the Agency finds that the information provided by Mr. Olds does not constitute new facts or circumstances, as contemplated by section 32 of the CTA, pertaining to Decision No. 666-C-A-2006 since it was issued.

CONCLUSION

Based on the above findings, the Agency hereby dismisses the application filed by Mr. Olds for review of Decision No. 666-C-A-2006.

Members

• Guy Delisle
• Baljinder Gill