Decision No. 153-C-A-2023

[1] Sonia Martel purchased a round-trip ticket to travel with Air Canada from Montréal, Quebec, to Lima, Peru, departing on January 18, 2020. Her outbound flight was delayed by 11 hours and 9 minutes.

[2] As set out in Decision LET-C-A-19-2023, this application was previously joined to Case 20-01590, wherein the Agency opened an inquiry on air passenger complaints alleging that carriers did not properly communicate the reasons for flight delays or cancellations.

[3] In Decision 122-C-A-2021, the Agency separated the 567 applications previously joined to Case 20-01590 and stayed the individual proceedings related to those applications to allow parties to attempt to resolve the issues raised in the applications in accordance with the Agency's established interpretations. Ms. Martel subsequently requested to continue the formal adjudication process, and the Agency relaunched the formal adjudication process.

[4] Pleadings opened on June 15, 2023. On July 10, 2023, Air Canada filed a motion requesting an extension to file its answer, and the Agency dismissed the request in Decision LET-C-A-32-2023. Air Canada filed its reply on September 6, 2023, and proceedings were closed on September 13, 2023.

[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 ticket that Ms. Martel 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. Air Canada's Tariff incorporates the Air Passenger Protection Regulations (APPR).

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

[7] Under the APPR, the air carrier must provide compensation for inconvenience only if the delay is for three hours or more, if the delay is within its control and if the delay is communicated to the passenger 14 days or less before the departure indicated on the original ticket. The air carrier does not need to provide compensation for inconvenience if the delay is within its control but required for safety purposes.

[8] Ms. Martel states that the flight was delayed several times while passengers waited at the boarding gate and while passengers waited on board the aircraft on the tarmac. She submits that the reasons for the delay given by crew included ventilation issues, fuel, the aircraft, cargo, food and weather conditions.

[9] Air Canada explains that the flight was initially delayed due to an unforeseen mechanical malfunction in the engine fuel pump. Air Canada changed aircraft to mitigate the delay caused by the mechanical malfunction. The second aircraft prepared for takeoff and went to de-icing, but during de-icing, the aircraft lost engine power. Following this incident, Air Canada proceeded to change aircraft a second time. Due to the loss of engine power of the second aircraft, the third aircraft was required to await the results of a mandatory fuel test imposed by the airport after an engine failure. Air Canada submits that the delay caused by the mechanical malfunctions was within its control but required for safety purposes. Consequently, it considers that it is not required to provide compensation for inconvenience to Ms. Martel.

[10] In this case, Air Canada submits that each situation that contributed to the delay was due to a mechanical malfunction and, therefore, the delay was required for safety purposes.

[11] Air Canada's explanations are supported by extracts from Netline reports. The extracts from the Netline reports contain notes taken at the time of the events, which demonstrate a fuel leak requiring a repair was discovered on the first aircraft and that an issue with de-icing took place while the second aircraft was being prepared for takeoff, which required a return to the hangar for an in-depth inspection. Air Canada submits that the mechanical malfunctions caused a delay required for safety purposes. To support its position, Air Canada provided a detailed written affidavit from its network's director of system operations control concerning safety requirements in cases of mechanical malfunctions. For these reasons, the Agency is of the opinion that the evidence provided by Air Canada demonstrates that the circumstances that led to the change of aircraft were required for safety purposes.

[12] Consequently, the Agency finds that the flight delay was within the carrier's control but required for safety purposes. Ms. Martel therefore is not entitled to compensation for inconvenience for the delay.

Standards of treatment

[13] Ms. Martel expressed dissatisfaction with the food and beverages provided during her wait. However, Ms. Martel does not seek compensation for meal expenses incurred. Therefore, no corrective measures can be ordered in this regard.

Communications

[14] Ms. Martel is not satisfied with the information that was provided to her. However, she does not seek compensation for expenses incurred due to poor communication. Therefore, no corrective measures can be ordered in this regard.

[15] Since this event, the Agency clarified in its APPR Interpretive Decision the regulatory requirements for carriers to provide clear, timely and accurate communications.

Conclusion

[16] In light of the above, the Agency finds that Air Canada properly applied its Tariff and that Ms. Martel is not entitled to compensation for the delay. Consequently, the Agency dismisses the application.