Decision No. 106-C-A-2023

[1] The applicants were scheduled to travel with the respondent from the Kilimanjaro International Airport in Tanzania, to Toronto, Canada, via Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, on January 29, 2020. The respondent refused to transport Ms. Liu because she did not meet the requirements to show that she held an electronic travel authorization (eTA) required for travel to Canada. Mr. Lajeunesse, Ms. Liu’s husband, declined to travel without her.

[2] Ms. Liu obtained a new eTA and she and her husband were rebooked to travel the following day.

[3] The applicants seek reimbursement for the following expenses:

• taxi fare to the nearest hotel in the amount of USD 10;
• one night accommodation in the amount of USD 238; and
• food and drink purchased in the amount of USD 43.

[4] The applicants also seek compensation for denied boarding, in the amount of CAD 2,400 each, as set out under the Air Passenger Protection Regulations (APPR), as well as compensation for inconvenience and for stress.

[5] In this decision, the role of the Canadian Transportation Agency (Agency) is to decide whether the respondent properly applied the terms and conditions applicable to the tickets that the applicants purchased, as set out in the respondent’s Tariff.

[6] If the Agency finds that the respondent failed to properly apply its Tariff, it can direct the respondent to take corrective measures that it considers appropriate or to pay compensation for any expense incurred by a person adversely affected by the respondent’s failure.

Preliminary Matters

Compensation for Denied Boarding

[7] The APPR defines denial of boarding to be when a passenger is not permitted to occupy a seat on a flight because there are fewer seats than the number of passengers who have checked in. The respondent’s Tariff also relies on this definition.

[8] While the applicants claim that they were denied boarding, the evidence does not support this claim. Rather, Ms. Liu was refused transportation for not satisfying the respondent’s requirements to show that she held a valid eTA, not because the flight was oversold. Therefore, compensation for denial of boarding as set out under the APPR does not apply to this case.

Compensation for Inconvenience and Stress

[9] The Agency only has jurisdiction to award compensation for inconvenience in certain situations described in the APPR, including for delay, cancellation and denial of boarding when within the carrier’s control. There are no requirements under the APPR that apply to a situation of refusal to transport. Moreover, the Agency does not have the authority to award general damages in cases involving a carrier’s failure to apply its tariff.

[10] Accordingly, the Agency will not consider the applicants’ claims for compensation for inconvenience and stress.

Refusal to Transport

[11] The applicants submit that Ms. Liu, who holds a Taiwanese passport, had a valid eTA, which allows entry into Canada by air when she presented herself for check-in with the respondent on January 29, 2020. The applicants state that the eTA was electronically linked to Ms. Liu’s passport and that the respondent’s check-in staff should have been able to verify Ms. Liu’s eTA upon the presentation of her passport.

[12] The respondent states that when Ms. Liu presented for check-in, “the system denied to pick the API and gave direction to provide ETA or Visa as per the Travel Information Manual (TIM)”. In light of the direction from the TIM, the respondent asked Ms. Liu to provide proof that she had an eTA. When Ms. Liu was unable to present documentation in addition to her passport, the respondent provided Ms. Liu with computer and internet access to allow her to locate proof that she had a valid eTA. When Ms. Liu was unable to do so, the respondent submits that it properly refused to transport Ms. Liu for failing to produce the required documentation for entry into Canada.

[13] The Tariff provides that the respondent has the right to refuse transportation to any passenger if carrying the passenger would be in breach of the applicable laws, regulations or requirements of any country to be flown from, into or over.

[14] The applicants submitted documentation to the Agency demonstrating that the Government of Canada issued an eTA to Ms. Liu on June 11, 2017, which was linked to her passport number and was valid until June 10, 2022. The applicants state that after she was refused transportation on January 29, 2020, Ms. Liu applied for a second eTA, which was linked to the same passport number, with an expiry date of April 29, 2023. She used this second eTA to travel with the respondent on January 30, 2020.

[15] The documentation accompanying both eTAs, which was filed by the applicants, states that an eTA is electronically linked to the passport used to apply for the eTA, and that airline check-in staff and the Canada Border Services Agency have electronic access to the eTA status from the holder’s passport. They also filed an email from Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada dated February 3, 2020, in response to their inquiry regarding whether eTA documentation, other than a passport, is required for travel to Canada. In it, they were advised that because an eTA is electronically linked to the passport used to apply for it, the passport holder does not need to present a physical eTA document when travelling to Canada, only their passport.

[16] In light of the evidence before it, the Agency finds that Ms. Liu had a valid eTA when she presented herself for check-in with the respondent on January 29, 2020, which authorized her to travel to Canada. The Agency further finds that the valid eTA was electronically linked to a valid and unexpired passport, given that Ms. Liu used the same passport to apply for a second eTA, which enabled her to travel on January 30, 2020.

[17] The respondent submitted that “the system denied to pick the API”. This suggests that there was a system issue that prevented the respondent from accessing Ms. Liu’s Advanced Passenger Information (API), which is passenger data accessible from the machine-readable zone of a passport. However, the respondent failed to provide any evidence or explanation regarding why the system it used was unable to electronically access Ms. Liu’s eTA.

[18] Given that Ms. Liu had the proper authorization to travel to Canada, the Agency finds that the respondent failed to properly apply the terms and conditions of its Tariff when it refused to transport Ms. Liu. Therefore, Ms. Liu is entitled to compensation for the expenses she incurred due to the respondent’s failure to properly apply the terms and conditions of the Tariff.

[19] With respect to Mr. Lajeunesse, no evidence was submitted that he was refused transportation by the respondent or that there were any circumstances that required Mr. Lajeunesse and Ms. Liu to travel together. In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, the Agency finds that Mr. Lajeunesse was not refused transportation by the respondent but decided of his own accord to remain with his wife rather than travel to Canada without her. Mr. Lajeunesse is therefore not entitled to compensation as the respondent did not fail to properly apply the terms and conditions of the Tariff with respect to his carriage.

[20] In accordance with the Air Transportation Regulations, the Agency finds that Ms. Liu is entitled to compensation for the expenses she incurred for the hotel accommodation (USD 238), the taxi to the hotel (USD 10) and half of the food and drink expenses claimed by the applicants, given that Mr. Lajeunesse is not entitled to compensation (USD 21.50), in the total amount of USD 269.50. The historical Bank of Canada rate in effect on January 29, 2020, was CAD 1.3196 to USD 1. Using this rate, USD 269.50 is equivalent to CAD 355.63.

Order

[21] The Agency orders the respondent to compensate Ms. Liu in the amount of CAD 355.63 as soon as possible and no later than August 8, 2023.