Decision No. 138-C-A-2023

[1] The applicants purchased round-trip tickets to travel with the respondent between Edmonton, Alberta, and Winnipeg, Manitoba, departing on January 10, 2020, and returning on January 17, 2020. The applicants’ outbound flight was delayed and arrived in Edmonton 6 hours and 40 minutes later than originally scheduled.

[2] The applicants seek a refund of the cost of their tickets, compensation for the cost of renting a car and compensation for inconvenience for their delay under the Air Passenger Protection Regulations (APPR).

[3] 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 its Tariff, which incorporates the APPR. The Tariff is a legal document that contains the terms, conditions and other rules that apply to the passenger’s ticket.

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

[5] The applicants seek a refund of the cost of their tickets; however, they completed their travel to their final destination. Therefore, the applicants are not entitled to a refund.

[6] The applicants claim compensation for car rental expenses because they arrived later than expected and their daughter was no longer able to pick them up at the airport. However, under the APPR, the applicants are not entitled to compensation for the car rental expenses. In addition, 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.

[7] Under the Tariff and the APPR, a passenger is entitled to compensation for inconvenience if they arrived at their destination three or more hours later than scheduled as a result of a flight disruption within the carrier’s control.

[8] The applicants requested compensation for inconvenience under the APPR; however, the respondent denied their claim on the basis that the flight was delayed because of weather, which it considered outside its control.

[9] The applicants dispute that the flight delay was solely attributable to weather. The applicants submit that passengers disembarking from the aircraft’s inbound flight told them that the aircraft encountered mechanical problems earlier in the day, specifically the inability to start one of the turbine engines.

[10] The respondent submits that the flight was initially delayed due to knock-on effects resulting from the delay of the inbound flight from Abbotsford, British Columbia. It states that the weather conditions in Abbotsford on the morning of January 10, 2020, required de-icing of the aircraft prior to departure. However, the Abbotsford Airport Authority’s de-icing trucks were broken down. Once the de-icing trucks were repaired and in use on the aircraft, the aircraft’s auxiliary power unit (APU) took in de-icing fluid and became inoperable. The respondent states that the aircraft can operate without a functioning APU, subject to inspection and Minimum Equipment List requirements, and that it requires airport ground power equipment to start the aircraft’s engines, a process known as an airstart. Around this time, passengers were allowed to disembark. Subsequently, passengers boarded the aircraft. The aircraft had to be de-iced again before it could depart at 2:56 pm Mountain Standard Time (MST).

[11] The flight departed Abbotsford for Edmonton 5 hours and 26 minutes later than scheduled. The respondent states that once the aircraft arrived in Edmonton, the applicants’ flight was delayed a further 56 minutes due to difficulties in obtaining an airstart at the Edmonton airport.

[12] In Decision 122-C-A-2021 (APPR Interpretative Decision), the Agency found that when a flight is delayed for multiple reasons, the primary reason, or the most significant contributing factor, of the disruption is the appropriate test to determine the categorization of the flight disruption. The relevant factors for identifying the primary reason include what caused the longest period of delay.

[13] In this case, the Agency finds that the most significant contributing factor to the applicants’ flight delay was the knock-on effect from the de-icing process of the aircraft in Abbotsford, the damage to the aircraft’s APU, the disembarkment and reboarding of the aircraft and a second de-icing, which contributed 5 hours and 26 minutes to the applicants’ overall delay of 6 hours and 40 minutes. The Agency finds that this delay was outside the respondent’s control.

[14] Under the APPR, a delay that is directly attributable to an earlier delay will be categorized the same way if the carrier took all reasonable measures to mitigate the impact of the earlier flight delay. The Agency finds that the applicants’ flight delay was directly attributable to the inbound flight’s delay and that the respondent took all reasonable measures in the circumstances to mitigate its impact. For example, the respondent was informed at 9:53 am MST that the de-icing trucks were fixed and by  10:10 am MST, the aircraft had been de-iced. While the aircraft had taken in fluid at that time, the operational notes indicate that the crew contacted the operational control centre immediately. Then, the respondent was communicating with airport authorities to obtain an airstart for the applicants’ flight in Edmonton to ensure its departure as soon as possible. Accordingly, the Agency finds that the respondent demonstrated that the applicants’ flight delay was outside the respondent’s control.

[15] In light of the above, the Agency dismisses the applicants’ request for compensation for inconvenience caused by delay.