Decision No. 266-AT-A-1999
May 25, 1999
APPLICATION by Georgina Sasvari pursuant to subsection 172(1) of the Canada Transportation Act, S.C., 1996 c. 10, concerning the refusal by Air Transat A.T. Inc. carrying on business as Air Transat to carry her service dog in the aircraft passenger cabin on a flight between Toronto, Ontario and St. Maarten, Dutch West Indies.
File No. U 3570/99-4
APPLICATION
Georgina Sasvari filed an application with the Canadian Transportation Agency (hereinafter the Agency) with respect to the matter set out in the title. The application was received on January 27, 1999. Air Transat A.T. Inc. carrying on business as Air Transat (hereinafter Air Transat) filed its answer on February 16, 1999 and Ms. Sasvari filed her reply on May 1, 1999.
ISSUE
The issue to be addressed is whether the refusal by Air Transat to carry Ms. Sasvari's service dog in the aircraft passenger cabin constituted an undue obstacle to her mobility and, if so, what corrective measures should be taken.
FACTS
Ms. Sasvari has a mobility impairment and uses a husky dog to assist her in various tasks. Her dog is not trained or certified by any recognized organization that specializes in such a service. On November 19, 1998 she booked a trip for travel on November 21, 1998 from Toronto to St. Maarten on Air Transat Flight No. 660. At check-in for her flight, and following discussion with Air Transat airport personnel, Ms. Sasvari was issued a boarding pass and allowed to board the aircraft with her dog. Ms. Sasvari was subsequently advised by the aircraft captain that the animal could not travel with her in the passenger cabin because it was not certified by a training school as a service animal and was not properly harnessed. She did not want her dog to travel in the aircraft baggage compartment and she therefore disembarked and did not travel to St. Maarten.
POSITIONS OF THE PARTIES
Ms. Sasvari advises that she trained her husky dog to perform tasks such as, but not limited to, pulling her wheelchair or scooter, picking up things, stabilizing her when she walks on stairs or uneven ground and occasionally opening doors. She only uses a regular leash or the dog collar to control the animal. Ms. Sasvari advises that training schools for hearing/seeing guide dogs cannot train service animals for her disability and that she would not be able to afford the training even if there were a specialized training school for her assisting dog.
Ms. Sasvari submits that in the month prior to booking, she contacted several travel agents as well as Air Transat directly to verify the policy relating to the carriage of domestic animals, as she wanted to travel with her dog and two cats. Ms. Sasvari submits that, when she called Air Transat prior to her trip, she was advised that there would be no problem to accommodate her dog in the passenger cabin and that the only requirement was a veterinarian certificate showing that the animal had received the proper shots for travelling to St. Maarten. Ms. Sasvari alleges that at no time, and although she told the carrier that her dog was a service animal, was she informed that the dog had to be certified as having been trained by a training school for service animals.
With respect to the carriage of her two cats, Ms. Sasvari advises that when calling Air Transat, she received conflicting information as to the carrier's policy concerning baggage allowance, rates for excess baggage and live animals or whether the cats could be carried in the passenger cabin or in the baggage compartment of the aircraft.
At the time of travel, Ms. Sasvari brought only one cat with her and the animal was in an approved cage. Ms. Sasvari submits that at check-in, she was advised by the airport agent that she would be allowed to carry only one animal, cat or dog, in the passenger cabin. According to Ms. Sasvari, a discussion with Air Transat staff and a supervisor failed to result in an agreement between the parties as to under what conditions her animals could be accepted for carriage. She had to pay for the carriage of her cat in the aircraft baggage compartment. With respect to her dog, Ms. Sasvari submits that although she provided a doctor's note saying that she needs the animal to assist her, the supervisor advised her that the dog would have to be carried in a cage in the baggage compartment because it was not certified by a training school.
Ten minutes prior to departure, Ms. Sasvari was issued a boarding pass and provided wheelchair assistance to board the aircraft. She maintains that although she had been promised a bulkhead seat, she was seated in the rear of the aircraft. She alleges that flight attendants and passengers complained about the space taken by the dog and the safety risk caused by the animal extending into the aisle. She states that the captain was called to assess the situation and advised Ms. Sasvari that she could not travel with her dog in the passenger cabin. She alleges that she was told that the aircraft would not depart unless she disembarked. While Ms. Sasvari expresses the opinion that service dogs are and can be of any size and may not have a harness, she advises that she was not given any choice and that, being humiliated, frustrated and exhausted by the ordeal, she left the aircraft and did not travel. She is of the opinion that she was forced to deplane and was denied travel.
Ms. Sasvari advises that following deplaning, she was mostly ignored by the carrier personnel and had to wait for some beverage she had asked for. While she contacted a friend to pick her up at the airport, she waited about 30 minutes to receive her suitcase, her scooter and her cat which were off loaded from the aircraft after she disembarked.
In her complaint, Ms. Sasvari states that she was the object of harassment on the part of the airport staff when she tried to justify her need for her dog to travel with her in the passenger cabin. She questions why, although both governments should have the same safety concerns, the Canadian government does not allow non-certified service animals to travel in aircraft passenger cabin while it is permitted by law in the United States of America. Ms. Sasvari states: "Canadian transport regulations are being unreasonable and discriminating towards me and my disabilities".
Air Transat advises that while it regrets the inconvenience experienced by Ms. Sasvari, it did not contravene regulations or terms and conditions of carriage, and that it is surprised by the issues raised in Ms. Sasvari's complaint. The carrier explains its policy with respect to the acceptance of domestic animals as baggage as well as with respect to service animals that travel with passengers with disabilities in the aircraft passenger cabin.
With respect to the carriage of service animals, Air Transat submits that bulkhead seating and acceptance of Ms. Sasvari's dog would have been arranged had she provided proof of her dog's training and necessary presence at her side. The carrier advises that Ms. Sasvari would have been contacted prior to departure to provide a copy of the certification for service animal. The document was never submitted. Air Transat confirms that given the persistence of Ms. Sasvari, check-in personnel did issue a boarding pass to access the aircraft, but only subject to the captain's assessment and decision as to whether her dog could safely be allowed in the passenger cabin. The captain did refuse to accept the dog in the passenger cabin because it was not properly harnessed and no certificate could be provided proving it had received the adequate training.
In Air Transat's opinion, Ms. Sasvari was informed of the carrier's policy with respect to carriage of domestic and service animals. Further, the carrier submits that when it was found out at the airport that the passenger's dog could not be accepted in the passenger cabin because of the lack of training certification and proper harness, its staff offered to obtain a cage from another carrier to allow the dog to travel in the baggage compartment. Air Transat advises that, because Ms. Sasvari did not accept this alternative, the passenger was assisted after disembarking and was offered ground transportation by limousine to her residence, which she refused. The carrier further advises that its customer service and in-flight personnel are adequately trained in providing service to passengers with special needs and to ensure that all customers are treated with respect and courtesy.
In her reply to Air Transat's comments, Ms. Sasvari alleges that Air Transat is misrepresenting the facts. In her view, she was mistreated by the carrier as well as being subjected to discrimination and harassment. She also indicates that the law states that service dogs are allowed everywhere and that she does not have to prove certification of training.
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
In making its findings, the Agency has considered all of the evidence submitted by the parties during the pleadings.
The Agency is of the opinion that there are three issues for review in Ms. Sasvari's complaint:
- general terms and conditions for carriage of domestic animals, except service animals;
- terms and conditions for carriage of service animals;
- communication of information
1) Carriage of Domestic Animals
The carriage of domestic animals in general is related to the conditions governing carriage of baggage and not to the transportation of persons with disabilities travelling with a service animal. Therefore, the Agency finds that this issue can not be reviewed under subsection 172(1) of the Canada Transportation Act.
Nevertheless, based on the information submitted during the pleadings, there is no evidence that Air Transat contravened the provisions of its international charter tariff with respect to terms and conditions of carriage of domestic animals.
2) Carriage of Service Animals
Section 149 of the Air Transportation Regulations, SOR/88-58, as amended (hereinafter the ATR) governs the carriage of service animals. This section provides that an air carrier shall accept a service animal for carriage without charge if the animal is required by a person for assistance and certified, in writing, as having been trained to assist a person by a professional service animal institution. The ATR also provide that where an air carrier accepts a training-certified service animal for carriage, the air carrier shall permit the animal, if properly harnessed in accordance with standards established by a professional service animal institution, to accompany the person on board the aircraft and to remain on the floor at the person's passenger seat.
While these provisions apply to domestic services, Air Transat applies the same policy to its international services, such as the Air Transat flight to St. Maarten. In this regard, Air Transat's International Charter Tariff NA (A) No. 03, Rule 14 states in part "...Guide dogs accompanying visually impaired passengers will be accepted in the cabin upon presentation of appropriate certification and if properly harnessed". (emphasis added).
The Agency's approach on the matter of acceptance of a service animal in aircraft passenger cabin is reflected in its Code of Practice on Aircraft Accessibility for Persons with Disabilities (hereinafter the Code). This Code, which requires that aircraft provide seats with sufficient floor space to accommodate a service animal, contains a definition of service animals that reflects the definition found in the ATR for domestic services. The Code, like the regulations on the carriage of service animals on domestic flights, was developed in consultation with, among others, persons with disabilities using a service animal. These persons did not oppose proper training certification for service animals.
In a precedent relating to the carriage of a service animal on an international flight without the proper training certification, the Agency determined that the refusal by the carrier to carry the animal in the aircraft passenger cabin did not constitute an undue obstacle (Zarry vs Canadi*n).
Transport Canada, the department responsible for the safety of air travel, provides in its Air Carrier Advisory Circular information to carriers to minimize the effect on passenger safety when service animals accompany their users in aircraft passenger cabin. This document sets out the requirement for the animal to be harnessed and under the control of the user and for the animal to be located in an area that would prevent obstruction or impediment. This training and certification of service animals is an important factor to passenger safety.
Ms. Sasvari refers to the United States of America's legislation which permits service animals to be carried in aircraft passenger cabins without training certification or harness and claims that the same policy should also apply for travel in, or from, Canada. She states that the Canadian regulations are unreasonable and discriminatory in that they do not allow her to travel with her dog in the passenger cabin. The Agency notes Ms. Sasvari's comments with respect to the unreasonableness of the Canadian regulations and her concern will be taken into consideration when these regulations are reviewed.
The Agency recognizes that there was an obstacle to Ms. Sasvari's mobility in that she was inconvenienced by the carrier's inability to accept the dog in the passenger cabin. However, the refusal by Air Transat to carry Ms. Sasvari's dog in the passenger cabin is consistent with current Canadian policies and regulations regarding the carriage of service animals. Consequently, the Agency finds that Air Transat's refusal to accept the dog in the passenger cabin did not constitute an undue obstacle to the passenger's mobility.
Regardless of the above, the Agency notes that the carrier did attempt to circumvent its own policy when its airport agent, in an effort to accommodate the passenger, issued a boarding pass and assisted the passenger to the boarding gate subject to a decision by the captain. In addition, the Agency notes that Air Transat was prepared to waive the fee for the carriage of the dog in the baggage compartment and would have obtained a cage from another carrier for the carriage of the dog thus allowing Ms. Sasvari to travel.
3) Communication of Information
The information provided during the pleadings indicates that there was miscommunication between Ms. Sasvari and Air Transat prior to check-in for the flight on November 21, 1998.
The Agency notes that Ms. Sasvari contacted several travel agents prior to making her booking with Book Me Travel and made direct calls to Air Transat in her planning process. It would appear that the many calls and varying documents required (vaccination certificates for her cats and training certificate for her dog) possibly led to the confusion and breakdown of communications which resulted in her presenting herself at the counter without the proper documentation for her dog. The Agency notes that this breakdown was further compounded by the fact that the booking was made on November 19 leaving only one day to sort out the necessary authorizations.
With respect to check-in at the airport, the Agency finds that Air Transat personnel communicated the proper information to the passenger when they found out that her dog did not meet the requirements for acceptance in the passenger cabin and advised her that the dog could travel in the baggage compartment of the aircraft.
While the Agency recognizes that the communication problem resulted in an embarrassing situation for Ms. Sasvari, it finds that, according to the information on file, there are too many assumptions and no sufficient evidence to determine that the information provided by the carrier created an undue obstacle to Ms. Sasvari's mobility.
With respect to Ms. Sasvari's allegations that she was the object of harassment, the Agency is of the opinion that the emotions experienced by Ms. Sasvari during check-in, on the aircraft and after deplaning resulted from the unfortunate circumstances surrounding the carrier's refusal to accept her dog for carriage in the passenger cabin and cannot be interpreted as being the result of the behaviour of Air Transat personnel. The Agency is aware that the carrier has a comprehensive training program for assistance to persons with disabilities and has been advised on several occasions that the carrier attaches great importance to this aspect of customer services.
CONCLUSION
Based on the above, the Agency finds that Air Transat's refusal to accept Ms. Sasvari's dog in the aircraft passenger cabin did not constitute an undue obstacle to her mobility and no further action is contemplated with respect to this matter.
- Date modified: