Decision No. 139-C-A-2023
Application by Dominic Senécal and Sharon Quenneville (applicants) against Air Canada (respondent) regarding a flight cancellation
[1] The applicants purchased two tickets for direct round-trip flights from the respondent to travel from Montréal, Quebec, to Orlando, Florida, departing on November 1, 2020, and returning on November 6, 2020. The applicants state that on November 3, 2020, the respondent advised them that their return flight had changed following a government travel advisory and that they were being rebooked on a connecting flight via Toronto, Ontario, departing Orlando at 1:05 pm, approximately one hour earlier than the time indicated on their original tickets. They state that the flight from Orlando to Toronto was also cancelled, this time because of crew restrictions, and that the respondent rebooked them on another flight departing at the same time.
[2] The applicants seek compensation in the amount of CAD 400 each for the delay of the flight, for a total of CAD 800, 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. 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 it considers appropriate or to pay compensation for any expense incurred by a person adversely affected by the respondent’s failure.
Preliminary matters
Respondent’s request to dismiss the application
[5] The respondent requests that the Agency dismisses the application under section 42 of the Canadian Transportation Agency Rules (Dispute Proceedings and Certain Rules Applicable to All Proceedings) [Rules]. The respondent argues that the applicants’ application contains a fundamental defect, as the compensation sought is not applicable or recoverable. In other words, the respondent argues that the application should be dismissed on the merits.
[6] Section 42 of the Rules allows the Agency to dismiss an application if it is of the view that:
a) the Agency does not have jurisdiction over the subject matter of the application;
b) the dispute proceeding would constitute an abuse of process; or
c) the application contains a fundamental defect.
[7] As indicated in previous Agency decisions, such as Decision 76‑C‑A‑2021 (McGuire v Air Canada), section 42 of the Rules is not meant to be a summary judgment provision. It allows the Agency to address defects in the application, as described above, without requiring the respondent to file an answer on its merits. However, it represents an additional step in the proceeding in the sense that applicants are required to justify why the Agency should not dismiss the application before addressing the merits of the case. This additional step is neither necessary nor desirable in cases where the respondent simply wishes to argue that the application should be dismissed on the merits. This question is best addressed in the pleadings on the main application, rather than by a separate request.
[8] Considering the extent of the information provided in the respondent’s submissions, the Agency finds that it has all the information needed to come to a decision on the merits of the application. Therefore, the Agency rejects the respondent’s request and finds that it is unnecessary to receive an additional answer from the respondent.
Communications
[9] The applicants first submit that the respondent did not provide them with information about their rights under the APPR after cancelling their flight and that the respondent provided them with various reasons for the cancellation. However, the applicants did not claim any expenses or request any corrective measures as a result of the respondent’s alleged failure to meet its communications obligations under the APPR. As a result, the Agency will not consider this aspect of the application.
Flight cancellation
[10] The respondent’s Tariff, which incorporates the provisions of the APPR, sets out that the respondent will provide passengers with alternate travel arrangements in accordance with its obligations under the APPR if the respondent cancels a flight for reasons within its control.
[11] The applicants submit that, after cancelling their original return flight, the respondent did not provide them with seats on the next available flight and instead rebooked them on a connecting flight scheduled to depart approximately one hour earlier than their original flight. The applicants suggest that this made the total travel time significantly longer, at over three hours. They conclude that the respondent failed to meet its obligations under the APPR and that they are entitled to compensation in accordance with the APPR.
[12] The respondent submits that the applicants are not entitled to any compensation under the APPR because they arrived at their destination less than three hours after the scheduled arrival time of their original flight. The evidence filed by the respondent confirms that, according to their original booking, the applicants were supposed to arrive in Montréal on November 6 at 5:14 pm but instead arrived at 7:03 pm on the same day. The respondent also submits that it cancelled the applicants’ return flight for reasons outside its control and that, in accordance with its Tariff, it rebooked the applicants on the flight from Orlando to Montréal via Toronto because this flight would allow them to arrive at their destination as quickly as possible. It further submits that the applicants did not indicate that they were dissatisfied with their new itinerary via Toronto at the time of rebooking.
[13] Even though the parties agree that the applicants’ arrival in Montréal was delayed by less than three hours, the applicants submit that the delay should instead be calculated based on total travel time. However, this is contrary to the APPR, which indicates that compensation due to inconvenience is based on the amount of time that the applicants are delayed in reaching their destination. Further, the Agency accepts the undisputed evidence submitted by the respondent that the new flight offered allowed the applicants to complete the scheduled itinerary as soon as possible and that the applicants accepted the new flight. Finally, the applicants do not dispute the respondent’s assertion that their return flight was cancelled due to circumstances outside the respondent’s control. Under the APPR, if a carrier delays or cancels a flight for reasons outside its control, it is not required to compensate affected passengers.
[14] In light of the above, the Agency finds that the respondent properly applied its Tariff and that the applicants are not entitled to compensation. Therefore, the Agency dismisses the application.
Legislation or Tariff referenced | Numeric identifier (section, subsection, rule, etc.) |
---|---|
Air Transportation Regulations, SOR/88-58 | 110(4) |
Air Passenger Protection Regulations, SOR/2019-150 | 10(3); 19(1)(a)(i) |
International Passenger Rules and Fares Tariff AC2 containing Local Rules, Fares and Charges on behalf of Air Canada Applicable to the Transportation of Passengers and Baggage between points in Canada/USA and points in Areas 1/2/3 and between the USA and Canada, CTA 458 | 5(C)(1); 80(B)(5) |
Member(s)
- Date modified: