Decision No. 256-C-A-2001

May 18, 2001

File No. M4370/A74/00-127

COMPLAINT

On July 24, 2000, Scott Thompson (hereinafter the complainant) filed with the Canadian Transportation Agency (hereinafter the Agency) the complaint set out in the title.

The complainant submits that he travelled on short notice from Vancouver, British Columbia to Whitehorse, Yukon on June 27, 2000 for the purpose of attending the funeral of a friend. The complaint refers to two separate matters:

• the complainant argues that the $1,663.85 fare charged by Air Canada for a round trip from Vancouver to Whitehorse was exorbitant and unfair, considering that each flight lasted only two hours and twenty minutes. The complainant mentions that he purchased his ticket and travelled from Vancouver to Whitehorse on June 27, 2000 and returned on June 29, 2000.
• the complainant was advised by Air Canada that he was not entitled to a refund because, as a friend of the deceased, he did not qualify for reduced fares offered by the carrier to individuals travelling for compassionate reasons. The complainant states that he paid an exorbitant passenger fare and that he was essentially penalized some $800 for simply being honest by not declaring, under false pretense, that he was the brother-in-law of the deceased.

ISSUES

The issues to be addressed in this complaint are:

1. whether Air Canada was the only person providing a domestic service between Vancouver and Whitehorse within the meaning of section 66 of the Canada Transportation Act, S.C., 1996, c. 10 (hereinafter the CTA) on June 27, 2000; and, if so,

   whether the fare which is the subject of the complaint was the basic fare, as defined in section 55 of the CTA, imposed by Air Canada in respect of its service between Vancouver and Whitehorse on June 27, 2000; and, if so,

   whether that fare was unreasonable.

2. whether the Agency has jurisdiction over a complaint which relates to an incident which occurred prior to July 5, 2000, the date on which subsection 67.2(1) of the CTA came into force.

ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS

1 fare offered by Air Canada on the Vancouver-Whitehorse route

The Agency's jurisdiction over complaints concerning fares applied by air carriers for domestic services is set out in section 66 of the CTA. As part of the recent restructuring of the Canadian air transportation industry, section 66 of the CTA was amended on July 5, 2000. Although the complaint was filed with the Agency on July 24, 2000, the fare which is the subject of the complaint was purchased on June 27, 2000. Accordingly, this part of the complaint will be dealt with in accordance with the provisions of section 66 of the CTA which were in force on June 27, 2000.

Pursuant to those provisions, the Agency may take certain remedial action following receipt of a complaint where the Agency finds that:

• the licensee against whom the complaint is made is the only person providing a domestic service;
• the fare which is the subject of the complaint is the "basic fare" as defined in section 55 of the CTA, imposed by that licensee in respect of its service; and
• the basic fare or increase thereto imposed by that licensee in respect of its service is unreasonable.

Section 55 of the CTA defines a "basic fare" as:

(a) the fare in the tariff of the holder of a domestic licence that has no restrictions and represents the lowest amount to be paid for one-way air transportation of an adult with reasonable baggage between two points in Canada, or

(b) where the licensee has more than one such fare between two points in Canada and the amount of any of those fares is dependent on the time of day or day of the week of travel, or both, the highest of those fares.

In making its findings, the Agency has carefully reviewed and considered the complaint as well as information available both publicly and within the Agency concerning air services provided between Vancouver and Whitehorse, including the Internet, the Official Airline Guide, and published flight schedules. Based on this information, the Agency has determined that, on June 27, 2000, in addition to being served by Air Canada, the Vancouver-Whitehorse route was served by Canada 3000 Airlines Limited. Thus, Air Canada was not the only person providing a domestic service on the route.

Accordingly, the complaint does not fall within the Agency's jurisdiction under the provisions of section 66 of the CTA which were in force on June 27, 2000.

2 fares applicable to domestic travel for compassionate reasons

Subsection 67.2(1) of the CTA sets out the Agency's jurisdiction over complaints concerning terms and conditions applicable to domestic travel. Pursuant to this subsection, the Agency may take certain remedial action following receipt of a complaint where the Agency finds that the holder of a domestic licence has applied terms and conditions of carriage applicable to the domestic service it offers that are unreasonable or unduly discriminatory and may suspend or disallow those terms or conditions and substitute other terms or conditions in their place. This provision came into force on July 5, 2000.

The Agency has carefully reviewed and considered the matter and has determined that, although the complaint was filed with the Agency on July 24, 2000, the complaint itself refers to the application of terms and conditions on June 27, 2000, a date preceding the coming into force of subsection 67.2(1) of the CTA.

As this provision does not have retroactive application, the complaint does not fall within the Agency's jurisdiction under the provisions of subsection 67.2(1) of the CTA.

CONCLUSION

Based on the above findings, the Agency hereby dismisses the complaint.