Decision No. 139-AT-A-2022

Summary

[1] Krista Smith filed an application with the Canadian Transportation Agency (Agency) following WestJet’s refusal of her request for it to accommodate her post‑traumatic stress disorder by leaving the seat next to her and her daughter empty during their flight from Winnipeg, Manitoba, to Montego Bay, Jamaica, in 2017.

[2] Ms. Smith was approved to travel with an attendant as per WestJet’s One Person, One Fare (1P1F) domestic program and seeks expansion of that program to international travel, among other remedies.

[3] In Decision LET-AT-A-32-2022 (Show Cause Decision), issued on August 5, 2022, the Agency found, on a preliminary basis, that it would exercise its discretion under section 37 of the CTA by declining to hear the application and closing the file. The Agency gave Ms. Smith until September 6, 2022, to show cause why it should not finalize this preliminary finding.

[4] For the reasons set out below, the Agency finds that Ms. Smith did not demonstrate why the case should proceed despite the Agency’s preliminary finding that it will not consider the international application of 1P1F as a corrective measure. Therefore, the Agency exercises its discretion under section 37 of the CTA by declining to hear the application.

The law

[5] Section 37 of the CTA provides:

The Agency may inquire into, hear and determine a complaint concerning any act, matter or thing prohibited, sanctioned or required to be done under any Act of Parliament that is administered in whole or in part by the Agency.

[6] The Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) confirmed in Delta Air Lines Inc. v LukácsNote 1 that section 37 provides the Agency with the discretion to decide whether to hear a complaint. The SCC held that the Agency, in declining to hear an application, may consider whether the claim is in good faith, timely, vexatious or duplicative; whether the claim raises a serious issue to be tried; and whether the claim is based on sufficient evidence. The SCC also determined that the Agency could consider whether the claim is in line with the Agency’s workload and prioritization of cases.

Analysis and determination

[7] As stated in the Show Cause Decision, the Agency does not have the jurisdiction to award the apology, reimbursement of travel expenses and general damages sought by Ms. Smith and has decided, for the same reasons set out in Decision 95-AT-A-2022 (Yale v Air Canada), that it will not consider the application of 1P1F to international carriage. Therefore, a decision on Ms. Smith’s application would appear to have no practical effect.

[8] Ms. Smith did not file a response to the Show Cause Decision. Accordingly, the Agency finds that she did not demonstrate why hearing an application with no practical effects would be an efficient use of the Agency’s or the parties’ resources.

Conclusion

[9] The Agency confirms its preliminary finding and exercises its discretion under section 37 of the CTA by declining to hear the application.