Decision No. 13-C-A-2023

[1] Mr. Bartlett was scheduled to travel from Winnipeg, Manitoba, to Toronto, Ontario, on December 15, 2019. He was informed on the day of travel that his outbound flight was cancelled. WestJet rebooked Mr. Bartlett on an alternate flight that day, and he arrived in Toronto 10 hours and 1 minute later than originally scheduled.

[2] Mr. Bartlett seeks compensation for the delay that he experienced in arriving at Toronto, in the amount of CAD 1,000.

[3] In this decision, the role of the Canadian Transportation Agency (Agency) is to decide whether WestJet properly applied the terms and conditions that were applicable to the ticket that Mr. Bartlett purchased, as set out in its Tariff.

[4] If the Agency finds that WestJet failed to properly apply its Tariff, the Agency can direct it to take the corrective measures that the Agency considers appropriate or to pay compensation for any expense incurred by Mr. Bartlett as a result of WestJet’s failure.

Preliminary Matter

[5] Mr. Bartlett claims that he had to “make arrangements for travel as it was outside regular business hours” upon arrival in Toronto. However, the terms and conditions of carriage under the Tariff do not extend beyond the arrival of a passenger to their final destination indicated on the ticket. Accordingly, the Agency will not consider this aspect of the application.

Flight Cancellation

[6] Mr. Bartlett filed a claim with WestJet for compensation under the Air Passenger Protection Regulations (APPR) and was informed that his flight was cancelled because of unscheduled maintenance required for safety purposes. Mr. Bartlett submits that WestJet did not provide a reason for the unscheduled maintenance. He also argues that a WestJet agent encouraged him to file a claim for compensation under the APPR. However, the Tariff provides that no employee, agent or representative of the carrier is authorized to bind the carrier by any statement or representation regarding the operation of any flight.

[7] WestJet submits that an “uncommon issue” occurred when the aircraft scheduled to operate Mr. Bartlett’s flight landed in Winnipeg. WestJet claims that the aircraft was damaged as a result, and that unscheduled maintenance was required before it could safely operate the flight. WestJet states that, as Winnipeg is not a designated hub city for WestJet, there was no additional aircraft available to operate Mr. Bartlett’s flight. WestJet also states that it was not possible for another aircraft to be flown in and sufficiently prepared for Mr. Bartlett’s originally scheduled departure time. Accordingly, WestJet cancelled the flight, deemed the cancellation to be within its control but required for safety purposes, and provided Mr. Bartlett with an alternate flight and meal vouchers.

[8] According to the APPR, a delay or cancellation may be required for safety purposes if it is required by law in order to reduce risk to passenger safety, which includes safety decisions made within the authority of the pilot or in accordance with a safety management system. In this case, the relevant evidence provided by WestJet is the flight information document for Mr. Bartlett’s flight and the operational performance document for the aircraft scheduled to operate it. These documents indicate that Mr. Bartlett’s flight was cancelled due to unscheduled maintenance and “Aircraft Damage Taxi and In-Flight”. However, the documents do not indicate what exactly the issue, or the damage caused to the aircraft, was.

[9] The Agency finds that WestJet has not established that the damage to the aircraft was something that would have prevented the safe operation of the aircraft. Moreover, while WestJet claims that the incident was an unforeseen issue that could not have reasonably been prevented, WestJet did not provide any evidence to corroborate this claim.

[10] In light of the above, without any greater level of specificity about the required maintenance, the Agency finds that the evidence filed by WestJet does not establish that the cancellation was required by law in order to reduce risk to passenger safety or that it was unpreventable. Accordingly, the Agency finds that WestJet has not established its claim that the cancellation was required for safety purposes. Therefore, the Agency finds that the cancellation of Mr. Bartlett’s flight was within WestJet’s control.

[11] In the event of a flight cancellation within the carrier’s control, the APPR provides that a large carrier must pay minimum compensation for inconvenience in the amount of CAD 1,000 if a passenger is delayed to arrive at their destination by 9 hours or more. Mr. Bartlett’s arrival was delayed by more than 10 hours. Accordingly, the Agency finds that Mr. Bartlett is entitled to compensation in the amount of CAD 1,000.

Order

[12] The Agency orders WestJet to compensate Mr. Bartlett in the amount of CAD 1,000 as soon as possible and no later than March 10, 2023.