Decision No. 256-AT-A-2002

May 15, 2002

File No. U3570/00-68

---

APPLICATION

On November 3, 2000, Gail Sullivan filed with the Canadian Transportation Agency (hereinafter the Agency) the application set out in the title.

Mrs. Sullivan's application consists of a letter addressed to the Agency and a package of correspondence between herself and various others, including the carrier. At the request of Agency staff, additional clarifications were provided verbally by Mrs. Sullivan and a transcript of the telephone conversation that Mrs. Sullivan had with Agency staff was produced. A copy of the complete documentation was provided to Société Air France doing business as Air France (hereinafter Air France) for comments.

On December 18, 2000, Air France filed its answer to the application and on December 21, 2000, Mrs. Sullivan filed her reply to the answer.

Pursuant to subsection 29(1) of the Canada Transportation Act (hereinafter the CTA), the Agency is required to make its decision no later than 120 days after the application is received unless the parties agree to an extension. In this case, the parties have agreed to an indefinite extension of the deadline.

PRELIMINARY MATTER

Although Air France filed its answer after the prescribed deadline, the Agency, pursuant to section 6 of the National Transportation Agency General Rules, SOR/88-23, accepts the submission as being relevant and necessary to its consideration of the matter.

ISSUE

The issue to be addressed is whether the level of service provided by Air France to Mrs. Sullivan, that is her seating assignment in Business Class instead of First Class on the subject flights, her treatment by the carrier's staff in Toronto and in Paris and the manner in which her scooter was transported, constituted undue obstacles to her mobility and, if so, what corrective measures should be taken.

FACTS

Mrs. Sullivan has muscular dystrophy, uses a battery-operated scooter, and is unable to sit for long periods of time.

On May 19, 2000, tickets were purchased from Robert Q Travel Mart in Kincardine, Ontario, for Mrs. Sullivan to travel on Air France's Flight No. 359 operated from Toronto to Paris on May 27, 2000 and to return on Air France's Flight No. 358 operated on July 2, 2000. Her return was subsequently rescheduled on Air France's Flight No. 358 operated on July 15, 2000. The flight coupon indicates a total air fare of $4,298.00, plus applicable taxes. This fare represents Air France's full round-trip economy fare between Toronto and Paris. The code "D" appearing on the flight coupon indicates that Mrs. Sullivan's seats were assigned pursuant to an Air France promotion giving passengers paying the full economy fare access to Business Class seating. The receipt from Robert Q Travel Mart shows the following handwritten notation: First Class Airline Ticket.

When Mrs. Sullivan travelled from Toronto to Paris on May 27, 2000, she was seated in Business Class and, on her return flight on July 15, 2000, she was again seated in Business Class.

Mrs. Sullivan is identified in the Passenger Name Record (PNR) produced by Air France as a passenger with a disability who is self-reliant and travels with a battery-operated scooter. According to the PNR, Mrs. Sullivan was assigned the code "WCHS". This code, as defined in the International Air Transportation Association (IATA)'s Passenger Services Resolutions Manual, is used to describe a passenger who is able to move about alone on the ground as well as in the aircraft cabin, but is not able to climb or descend stairs and requires wheelchair assistance for boarding and deplaning. This is reflected in Air France's policy set out in its guidelines for passengers with disabilities.

Upon check-in at the Toronto-Lester B. Pearson International Airport (hereinafter the Toronto airport), Air France personnel initially refused to carry Mrs. Sullivan's scooter. Following a check by Air France personnel in the carrier's reservation system, Mrs. Sullivan's scooter was accepted for carriage but the personnel refused to disconnect the batteries. Mrs. Sullivan's son removed the batteries from the scooter and the batteries were then boxed by the carrier's personnel.

According to Air France's Tariff NTA(A) No. 313 and policy, as set out in section 3(8) of its guidelines for passengers with disabilities, batteries must be disconnected and taped.

POSITIONS OF THE PARTIES

Mrs. Sullivan submits that when the tickets were purchased, it was stressed to the travel agent that she could not sit for long periods of time as a result of her disability and that, as such, she needed fully reclining First Class seats on the aircraft. She adds that the ticket was brokered through Pan Express Consolidated Air Fare (hereinafter Pan Express) and that the travel agent advised her that Pan Express had a letter from Air France describing a promotional fare which priced First Class and Business Class seating at about $4,500.00. She was also assured by the travel agent that she had First Class seats for the price she paid.

Mrs. Sullivan states that on May 27, 2000, her son questioned the staff at the Air France's check-in counter at the Toronto airport and was assured that she had a First Class seat.

Mrs. Sullivan asserts that she was then taken to the First Class Lounge at the Toronto airport, where she was left alone for just under 2 hours, without any assistance or any staff checking on her.

Mrs. Sullivan indicates that, during the flight, she discovered that she had been seated in Business Class section and that she did not have a fully reclining seat. As a result of her sitting for the duration of the flight, Mrs. Sullivan says that she was bedridden with swollen legs and feet for the first two weeks of her visit in Paris.

Mrs. Sullivan states that, upon arrival at l'Aéroport Charles de Gaulle (hereinafter the Paris airport), Air France personnel were very rude to her and treated her roughly, causing her pain, when lifting her onto a vehicle for passengers with disabilities. Mrs. Sullivan states that she was then taken to the wrong terminal and was "passed from person to person" for approximately two hours before being taken to the unclaimed baggage area, at which time she was able to contact her daughter. Mrs. Sullivan asserts that until that time, Air France personnel refused to page or call her daughter who was at the Paris airport to meet her mother. Mrs. Sullivan indicates that she and her daughter completed a complaint form at the Paris airport, but when they tried to give it to Air France personnel, it was refused.

Mrs. Sullivan states that prior to her departure from Paris on July 15, 2000, her daughter checked with the carrier to ensure that she was assigned a First Class seat for the return flight and was assured that this was the case. On July 15, 2000 at the Paris airport, her daughter again questioned Air France personnel at the check-in counter whether Mrs. Sullivan had a First Class seat and she also offered to pay cash to ensure that she had a First Class seat. Air France personnel assured her that Mrs. Sullivan had a First Class seat.

Once again, when on the flight, Mrs. Sullivan discovered that she was seated in Business Class without a fully reclining seat. She stated that, as a result, she was ill for weeks and could not stand or walk for several days after that flight.

Mrs. Sullivan indicates that Air France personnel refused her offer of the manufacturer's instruction sheet on folding her scooter. However, she claims that when the scooter was returned to her at the Toronto airport, the battery hood was cracked. Mrs. Sullivan advises that Air France personnel are looking into this matter, but subsequent to the filing of her application, she had not heard back from them.

Mrs. Sullivan asserts that as she bought and paid for a First Class seat, she should have been assigned such seats on the flights. Mrs. Sullivan states that, on July 26, 2000, she contacted the travel agency and was advised that Pan Express had a directive from Air France regarding First Class and Business Class fares and that she had purchased a First Class ticket. Mrs. Sullivan also states that Pan Express has refused to provide proof of the "ticket sale" it said Air France had authorized.

Mrs. Sullivan believes that she should be compensated for the experience that she went through as the unavailability of fully reclining seats on the Air France flights left her unable to walk for two weeks after the first flight and for several days after the second flight due to severe swelling in her legs and feet as a result of having to remain in a sitting position for the duration of the flights.

Air France states that Mrs. Sullivan took advantage of a promotional fare where, upon the payment of the full round-trip economy fare of $4,298.00, passengers had access to Business Class seating normally priced at $5,568.00. This represented a savings of $1,270.00 for Mrs. Sullivan. Air France submits that the promotional fare did not give passengers access to First Class seating, which was priced at $8,346.00 for the round trip.

Air France states that airport personnel at the check-in counter use a computer reservation system, "Gaetan", and do not see all of the passenger information contained in the "Amadeus" computer reservation system. Air France indicates that this is why personnel at the Toronto airport initially refused the transportation of Mrs. Sullivan's scooter. Once personnel switched to the Amadeus system, they were able to find the information in Mrs. Sullivan's reservation file and they transported Mrs. Sullivan's scooter accordingly.

Regarding the refusal of its personnel to remove the batteries from Mrs. Sullivan's scooter, Air France states that "[f]or safety and professional reasons, our agents are not empowered to handle this kind of device".

Air France indicates that it cannot consider the issue of the damaged battery hood because no damage report was filed for this.

Air France states that it had not been able to reconstruct the events of the trip by Mrs. Sullivan but offered its apologies to Mrs. Sullivan for her treatment in Paris and provided her with a $500.00 travel voucher valid for one year.

Mrs. Sullivan rejects the $500.00 travel voucher as being inadequate in view of the fact that she must travel in a fully reclining First Class seat to accommodate her disability.

ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS

In making its findings, the Agency has considered all of the evidence submitted by the parties during the pleadings. The Agency has also reviewed the provisions of Air France's International Passenger Rules and Fares Tariff on file with the Agency that apply to transportation between points in Canada and points outside Canada.

An application must be filed by a person with a disability or on behalf of a person with a disability. Mrs. Sullivan has muscular dystrophy which affects her ability to walk distances and to sit for long periods of time and, as such, is a person with a disability for the purpose of applying the accessibility provisions of the CTA.

While recognizing the difficulties experienced by Mrs. Sullivan at the Paris airport upon deplaning on May 27, 2000, the Agency notes that these incidents took place outside of Canada, after completion of the flight from Canada, and involved a foreign carrier. As such, the Agency does not have jurisdiction over the level of assistance that she received at the Paris airport on May 27, 2000 and, thus, will render a decision only on the level of service provided to Mrs. Sullivan in Canada and on the two flights in question.

To determine whether there is an undue obstacle to the mobility of persons with disabilities within the meaning of subsection 172(1) of the CTA, the Agency must first determine whether the applicant's mobility was restricted or limited by an obstacle. If so, the Agency must then decide whether that obstacle was undue. In order to answer these questions, the Agency must take into consideration the particular facts of the case before it.

Whether the applicant's mobility was restricted or limited by an obstacle

The word "obstacle" is not defined in the CTA. This implies that Parliament did not want to restrict the Agency's jurisdiction in view of its mandate to eliminate undue obstacles in the federally-regulated transportation network. Furthermore, the word "obstacle" lends itself to a broad meaning as it is usually understood to mean something that impedes progress or achievement.

In determining whether or not a situation constituted an "obstacle" to the mobility of a person with a disability in a particular case, the Agency looks to the travel experience of that person as expressed in the application. There is a broad range of circumstances where the Agency has found obstacles in the past. For example, there are cases of obstacles where the person was prevented from travelling, where the person was injured in the course of his or her travels (such as where the lack of appropriate accommodation during travel affects the physical condition of the passenger), or where the person was deprived of his or her mobility aid after the trip as a result of damage caused to the aid while it was being transported. Also, the Agency has found obstacles in instances where the person was ultimately able to travel, but circumstances arising from the experience were such as to detract from the person's sense of confidence, dignity, safety, or security, recognizing that these feelings may be such as to disincline a person from future travel.

The present case

1. Seating assignment

Mrs. Sullivan claimed that her travel agent was asked to book the most accessible seat to meet her needs, specifically a First Class seat which fully reclines. She further stated that price was not an issue in the selection of the most accessible seat to meet her needs and that she made her needs clear to the travel agent upon booking. There is a note on the invoice from the travel agent which states "First Class Airline Ticket".

Mrs. Sullivan also asserted that she and/or family members confirmed with the carrier's personnel at various times, by telephone before the flights and upon check-in at both airports, that she had been assigned First Class seats.

Mrs. Sullivan was assigned seats in Business Class which did not fully recline. As a result of sitting for the duration of the flights, Mrs. Sullivan suffered severe swelling in her legs and feet and was unable to walk for two weeks after the first flight and for several days after the second flight.

Based on the foregoing, the Agency is of the opinion that the seating provided to Mrs. Sullivan in Business Class constituted an obstacle to her mobility. Mrs. Sullivan believed, from what her travel agent told her and from what Air France personnel confirmed to her and family members, that she was going to be seated in First Class on both flights, that is in seats that met her needs. However, Mrs. Sullivan did not receive the type of seating that she required and, as a result, her physical condition was affected after each flight and she was bedridden for part of her visit in Paris.

2. Carriage of Mrs. Sullivan's scooter

While Air France ultimately carried Mrs. Sullivan's battery-operated scooter, the Agency is concerned with the manner in which this was done and, specifically, with the three following aspects of carriage.

a) Air France personnel's initial refusal to carry the scooter

Mrs. Sullivan stated that both she and her travel agent notified Air France in advance that she would be travelling with her scooter and that Air France had confirmed that she could do so. In fact, the Air France PNR clearly indicated that Mrs. Sullivan would be travelling with an electric scooter equipped with two dry batteries. Despite this, upon check-in at the Toronto airport, the Air France agent initially refused to accept her scooter. The Agency notes Air France's explanation that there was a slight misunderstanding. However, the carrier's evidence was more general in nature and Air France did not address Mrs. Sullivan's assertion that it was only after a delay of about 20 to 30 minutes, and Mrs. Sullivan insisting to Air France personnel that arrangements had been made in advance for the carriage of the scooter, that the Air France agent checked a second computer reservation system to verify the information about the scooter.

Air France personnel created confusion and uncertainty for Mrs. Sullivan on check-in at the Toronto airport by initially refusing to carry her scooter despite the pre-arrangements made by Mrs. Sullivan and the appropriate notations reflected in her PNR, and the Agency finds that this constituted an obstacle to the mobility of Mrs. Sullivan.

b) Air France personnel's refusal to disconnect the batteries

The Agency is concerned with the refusal by Air France personnel to disconnect the batteries of the scooter. Fortunately for Mrs. Sullivan, her son was present and he was able to disconnect the batteries for her so that Air France personnel could box the batteries for transportation.

Air France's tariff and policy is silent on who has the responsibility to disconnect and tape the batteries. Air France personnel interpret this to mean that they do not have such a responsibility.

The Agency is of the view that Air France failed to provide what the Agency considers to be an essential service to passengers with disabilities; that being the preparation of their mobility aids for carriage, including the connecting and disconnecting of batteries. Given the nature of the mobility impairments that lead people to rely on mobility aids, it is likely that most of these people would be unable to perform the function themselves, whether because they are unable to move independently from their mobility aid and/or they are unable to bend or squat to access the battery case, which is often located below the seat level.

While, in this case, Mrs. Sullivan's son was at the airport with her and performed this function, the consequence of Air France's policy is that the majority of persons who use battery-operated mobility aids would be required to present themselves at the airport with an attendant or someone to assist them, representing a loss of independence for those persons with disabilities who are, otherwise, self-reliant. As such, the Agency finds that this policy and practice of Air France constitutes an obstacle to the mobility of persons with disabilities who rely on battery-operated mobility aids in general, and to Mrs. Sullivan in particular.

c) Damage caused to scooter during transportation

Mrs. Sullivan claims that her scooter was returned to her at the Toronto airport with a cracked battery hood. However, it appears from the evidence on the file that the first time this issue was raised by Mrs. Sullivan was in a telephone conversation with Agency staff on November 18, 2000, approximately four months after the trip. While Mrs. Sullivan asserts that Air France staff were aware of this issue, there is no evidence on file to support this.

While the Agency is of the view that mobility aids are critical to the mobility of persons with disabilities who rely on them and, as such, must be treated as priority baggage by carrier personnel, the Agency also recognizes that the carriage of mobility aids by air carriers does result in damage to those aids from time to time. As such, carriers must be given a reasonable opportunity to investigate circumstances where damage is caused to mobility aids and to address the situation with the passenger in a timely fashion. Furthermore, the Agency is of the opinion that persons with disabilities who use mobility aids have a responsibility to check their mobility aids carefully when they receive them back from the carrier to ascertain if any damage was caused during transportation and, if so, to bring it to the attention of the carrier promptly.

Having said this, the Agency recognizes that there may be circumstances when there is a delay between the delivery of the aid and the notification of damage to the carrier, but the Agency is of the view that the 4-month delay in this case was not reasonable. As such, based on the evidence before it, the Agency can not determine whether there was an obstacle to Mrs. Sullivan's mobility arising from Air France's carriage of the scooter.

3. Treatment at the Toronto airport

Mrs. Sullivan asserted that she was taken to the First Class Lounge to await the departure of her flight and to receive boarding assistance and that she was left there for just under two hours with no assistance and no one checking on her.

The Agency is of the view that when carrier personnel leave a passenger with a disability who normally relies on a mobility aid at a location without an independent means of mobility, the carrier personnel should inquire periodically about the needs of that person. However, the Agency also understands that the pre-flight check-in period is a very busy time for carrier personnel. The Agency notes that Mrs. Sullivan's correspondence, for the most part, reflects satisfaction with the service that she received from Air France personnel at the Toronto airport. For example, on July 26, 2000, she wrote the following to Air France Customer Service: "I also have to reiterate that the staff at Pearson in To were super for both my departure & arrival". In the circumstances and in absence of any evidence from Mrs. Sullivan about the affect of this incident on her, the question of whether this constituted an obstacle to her mobility will not be addressed.

Whether the obstacles were undue

As with the term "obstacle", the term "undue" is not defined in the CTA in order to allow the Agency to exercise its discretion to eliminate undue obstacles in the federally-regulated transportation network. The word "undue" also lends itself to a broad meaning; it is commonly understood to mean exceeding or violating propriety or fitness; excessive; inordinate; disproportionate. As something may be found disproportionate or excessive in one case and not in another, the Agency must take into account the context in which the allegation that an obstacle is undue is made. Under this contextual approach, the Agency must strike a balance between the rights of passengers with disabilities to use the federally-regulated transportation network without encountering undue obstacles and the carriers' commercial and operational considerations and responsibilities. This interpretation is in keeping with the national transportation policy set out in section 5 of the CTA and more particularly in subparagraph 5(g)(ii) of the CTA where it is stated inter alia that conditions under which carriers or modes of transportation operate must, so far as practicable, not constitute an undue obstacle to the mobility of persons with disabilities.

While the transportation industry designs its services to meet the needs of its users, the accessibility provisions of the CTA require transportation service providers in the federally-regulated transportation network to adapt their services, so far as practicable, to the needs of persons with disabilities. There are however some impediments that have to be taken into consideration, such as security measures carriers must adopt and apply, timetables or schedules that they must attempt to adhere to for commercial reasons, equipment design and the economic impact to adopt services. These impediments may have some impact on persons with disabilities as, for example, they may not be able to board a plane in their own wheelchair, they may have to arrive at a terminal earlier to allow time for boarding, and they may have to wait for a longer period of time for deplaning assistance than persons without disabilities. It is impossible to establish an exhaustive list of the obstacles a passenger with a disability may encounter and the impediments that transportation service providers will encounter in trying to meet the needs of persons with disabilities. A balance has to be struck between the responsibilities of transportation service providers and the rights of persons with disabilities to travel without encountering undue obstacles and it is in the weighing of this balance that the Agency applies the concept of undueness.

The present case

1. Seating Assignment

The fare shown on Mrs. Sullivan's flight coupon is $4,298.00 which, the Agency has confirmed, corresponds to the round-trip economy class fare contained in Air France's tariff. This supports Air France's assertion that the promotion in effect at the time of Mrs. Sullivan's trip provided that payment of the full economy class fare did not give passengers access to First Class seating; rather, it gave them access to Business Class seating which Mrs. Sullivan received.

The fact that Mrs. Sullivan was initially assigned seating in Business Class on the two flights between Toronto and Paris appears to be the result of a misunderstanding of the Air France promotion on the part of the travel agent and miscommunication between the travel agent and Air France at the time of booking. This is supported by the handwritten notation, "First Class Airline Ticket", on the travel agent's receipt given to Mrs. Sullivan. It appears that the travel agent believed that Mrs. Sullivan was entitled to and had been assigned seats in First Class, when, in fact, the Air France promotion only entitled Mrs. Sullivan to seats in Business Class.

This misunderstanding and miscommunication was further exacerbated when Mrs. Sullivan's requirement for a fully reclining seat to accommodate her disability was not entered in the carrier's PNR by her travel agent. As a result, Air France personnel at the check-in counters in both the Toronto airport and the Paris airport would not have known about this requirement from the PNR.

This problem was compounded by Air France personnel's verbal confirmation to Mrs. Sullivan and her family members on several different occasions that she had a First Class seat when her ticket clearly showed that she was entitled to Business Class seating only and that she had, in fact, been assigned seats in Business Class.

However, there is no indication that Air France personnel were ever told the reason why confirmation was sought as to whether Mrs. Sullivan had been assigned a First Class seat and, when combined with the lack of information contained in the PNR, the carrier was not provided with the information that it needed to understand Mrs. Sullivan's seating needs. The Agency is of the view that it is the responsibility of a person with a disability to clearly indicate his/her needs to the carrier so that the carrier will have an opportunity to meet the person's needs.

Under the circumstances, the Agency finds that the seating assignment provided by Air France to Mrs. Sullivan on the flights between Toronto and Paris did not constitute an undue obstacle to her mobility as it was largely the result of the travel agent's actions. Nonetheless, it should be noted that, in this case, the Agency does not have jurisdiction over travel agents.

2. Carriage of Mrs. Sullivan's scooter

As has been noted, air carriers have a responsibility to accommodate and meet the needs of passengers with disabilities. This means that air carriers must have procedures and policies in place that enable passengers with disabilities to use air transportation services without any undue obstacles to their mobility. The Agency has long recognized the importance of mobility aids to persons with disabilities who rely on them and has generally required carriers to adopt a higher standard of care in the handling of this critical equipment as priority baggage. Furthermore, the Agency is of the view that the proper handling and carriage of mobility aids is an important service that air carriers such as Air France must provide.

In this regard, the Agency has established regulations, applicable to air carriers operating domestic flights, to ensure that passengers with disabilities receive an essential service: the proper handling and carriage of their mobility aids. In particular, Part VII of the Air Transportation Regulations, SOR/88-58, as amended (hereinafter the ATR), which sets out the terms and conditions of carriage of persons with disabilities, came into effect in 1994. This Part requires, in most cases, air carriers that operate aircraft with 30 or more passenger seats to carry mobility aids and other devices free of charge as priority baggage. It also requires that, where mobility aids cannot be carried in the passenger cabin, carriers must disassemble them for carriage and promptly reassemble and return the aid at the person's destination. In addition, the Personnel Training for the Assistance of Person with Disabilities Regulations, SOR/94-42, which came in effect in 1995, require air carriers to ensure that employees and contractors who handle mobility aids receive training for securing, carrying and stowing mobility aids, in addition to the disassembling, packaging, unpackaging and assembling of these aids. This applies to battery-operated wheelchairs and scooters.

While Part VII of the ATR applies solely to Canadian air carriers, they reflect the Agency's view that the proper handling and carriage of mobility aids is crucial for persons with disabilities.

The Agency is also of the view that, with proper training, dry cell batteries, which are otherwise classified as dangerous goods, can be and are handled safely by transportation service providers.

a) Air France personnel's initial refusal to carry the scooter

The Agency found that the manner in which Air France personnel at the check-in counter at the Toronto airport initially refused to carry Mrs. Sullivan's scooter constituted an obstacle to Mrs. Sullivan's mobility as it created confusion and uncertainty for Mrs. Sullivan. Ultimately, the personnel were able to resolve the problem by checking the second computer reservation system which contained the information about Mrs. Sullivan's scooter and evidence of the pre-arrangements she had made to have the carrier transport her scooter. The Agency notes, however, that it took 20 to 30 minutes for staff to do this and some insistence on the part of Mrs. Sullivan that she had made all of the necessary arrangements. The Agency finds that this obstacle was undue as it was clearly unnecessary. Air France personnel should know that the second computer reservation contains information different from and/or in addition to that contained in the first system and, as a result, should have checked that system immediately. Had they done so, they would have known to accept Mrs. Sullivan's scooter right away and not create a difficult situation for her.

b) Air France personnel's refusal to disconnect the batteries

In Toronto, the Air France check-in agent refused to disconnect the batteries of Mrs. Sullivan's scooter. Air France stated that its employees are not "empowered" to provide this service.

The Agency has reviewed the provisions of Air France's policy as set out in its guidelines on passengers with disabilities and Tariff NTA(A) No. 313, Rule C21(E)(2), on file with the Agency. Air France is licensed by the Agency to operate flights to/from Canada. As a licensee, Air France is subject to the ATR. Thus, as a licensee, Air France must file a tariff with the Agency which includes provisions for the acceptance of carriage of persons with disabilities and their mobility aids. While it is specifically provided in both the policy and the tariff that the batteries must be disconnected and taped, the Agency notes that there is no indication that it is the responsibility of the passenger to disconnect wheelchair batteries.

The Agency is of the view that passengers should be able to expect a carrier, whose business includes the handling and transportation of different types of mobility aids, to be aware of the proper methods to disconnect and connect batteries. In this respect, it is generally acknowledged within the air transport industry that assembling and disassembling mobility aids is a service that is normally provided to passengers with disabilities and that employees who are required to provide this assistance receive appropriate training on how to handle this task. The Agency also notes that it is a common practice for air carriers operating international services to provide this type of assistance. In light of the foregoing, the Agency is of the opinion that the same should be provided by Air France.

The Agency is of the view that the obstacle created by Air France's refusal to disconnect the batteries was an undue obstacle to Mrs. Sullivan's mobility. Furthermore, Air France's policy creates an undue obstacle to all passengers with similar mobility aids travelling with this carrier, as it may force passengers with disabilities to have an attendant at check-in time at the airport. This, in the Agency's opinion, places an unacceptable burden and responsibility on the passenger with a disability and is a situation which could be easily rectified with appropriate training.

Compensation

Pursuant to subsection 172(3) of the CTA, the Agency, may on determining that there is an undue obstacle to the mobility of a person with a disability, direct that compensation be paid for any expense incurred by that person arising out of the undue obstacle. As the Agency's power to award compensation is limited to the reimbursement of expenses incurred by or on behalf of a person with a disability arising from an undue obstacle, the Agency has no jurisdiction to consider Mrs. Sullivan's request for compensation.

CONCLUSION

The Agency finds that the seating assignment provided by Air France to Mrs. Sullivan on the flights between Toronto and Paris did not constitute an undue obstacle to her mobility.

The Agency also finds that both the initial refusal by Air France personnel at the Toronto airport to carry Mrs. Sullivan's scooter and the refusal by the Air France check-in agent in Toronto to disconnect the batteries of Mrs. Sullivan's scooter constituted undue obstacles to her mobility.

The Agency hereby directs Air France to take the following measures:

1. within ninety (90) days from the date of this Decision,
   
   1. issue an advisory bulletin to its check-in personnel setting out the incident experienced by Mrs. Sullivan and highlighting the importance of checking both computer systems (Gaetan and Amadeus) to retrieve the applicable information in the reservation file on the needs of the person with a disability, thereby ensuring that its personnel have a complete understanding of the person's needs;
   2. amend its tariff on file with the Agency applicable for flights to and from Canada to clearly reflect in the tariff that it is the responsibility of the carrier to assemble and disassemble mobility aids.
2. within one year from the date of this Decision,
   
   1. implement a policy whereby Air France check-in agents at Canadian airports are required, as part of their regular duties, to disassemble, package, unpackage and assemble mobility aids, including battery-operated wheelchairs/scooters;
   2. establish a training program for Air France check-in agents at Canadian airports for disassembling, packaging, unpackaging and assembling mobility aids, including battery-operated wheelchairs/scooters;
   3. provide a training schedule on the handling of mobility aids for all Air France check-in agents at Canadian airports; and,
   4. provide training records for all Air France check-in agents at Canadian airports showing that they received the appropriate training on the handling of mobility aids.

Air France is hereby directed to report to the Agency, at three-month intervals from the date of this Decision, on the progress made with respect to implementing a new policy, establishing a training program and conducting employee training on the handling of mobility aids.

Following its review of the required material and information, the Agency will determine whether further action is required in this matter.