Decision No. 327-AT-A-2006
June 6, 2006
IN THE MATTER OF Decision No. 60-AT-A-2003 dated February 6, 2003 - Kerstin Pedersen vs Air Canada.
File No. U3570/01-69
BACKGROUND
In its Decision No. 60-AT-A-2003 dated February 6, 2003 (hereinafter the Decision), the Canadian Transportation Agency (hereinafter the Agency) made a determination with respect to an application filed by Axel Pedersen on behalf of his wife Kerstin Pedersen. The application pertained to the failure by Air Canada personnel to provide Mrs. Pedersen with wheelchair assistance at the airport in Calgary, Alberta, on January 3, 2001.
The Agency determined that the failure by Air Canada personnel to provide wheelchair assistance to Mrs. Pedersen at the Calgary airport constituted an undue obstacle to her mobility. The Agency also concluded that Air Canada had contravened paragraphs 147(1)(b) and (c) and subsection 151(1) of the Air Transportation Regulations, SOR/88-58, as amended (hereinafter the ATR), which are applicable to Air Canada on domestic routes.
Pursuant to the Decision, Air Canada was directed by the Agency to: 1) issue a bulletin to its Calgary personnel highlighting the incident and emphasizing the importance of delivering pre-requested services, and provide a copy of the bulletin to the Agency within thirty (30) days from the date of the Decision; and 2) review with its Calgary employees Air Canada's internal policy with respect to assistance provided to persons with disabilities and provide a confirmation to the Agency of how and when it was done.
On April 1, 2003, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice issued a stay order in respect of Air Canada and certain of its subsidiaries (collectively referred to as Air Canada) under subsection 11(3) of the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. C-36 (hereinafter the CCAA). The order had the effect of staying all proceedings against or in respect of Air Canada before the Agency, including the present application.
On August 23, 2004, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice issued an Order pursuant to the CCAA (hereinafter the Sanction Order) which governed Air Canada's emergence from bankruptcy protection and lifted the stay order as of October 1, 2004.
On October 4, 2004, Mr. Pedersen was advised that the stay order issued by the Ontario Superior Court of Justice had been lifted and that the Agency was able to process applications or pursue its investigations with respect to Air Canada.
In January 2005, Air Canada took the position that all applications before the Agency against Air Canada and its subsidiaries in relation to incidents that occurred on or before April 1, 2003 (hereinafter the affected applications), including this application, were extinguished by the Sanction Order.
The Agency was of the opinion that Air Canada's position was incorrect and indicated that the Agency had taken action to have the issue resolved by the Ontario Superior Court of Justice as expeditiously as possible by seeking an interpretation of the Sanction Order as to whether the affected applications were extinguished, as argued by Air Canada. As a result, the affected applications were subsequently stayed for a second period of time pending the Ontario Superior Court of Justice's decision on the matter.
The Agency subsequently decided that the best way to deal with the affected applications was for the Agency to proceed with its consideration of the applications and, as such, on June 30, 2005, the Agency withdrew its motion before the Ontario Superior Court of Justice for an interpretation of the Sanction Order. As such, the Agency has determined that it will proceed with its monitoring of the affected applications, including the present one.
ISSUE
The issue to be addressed is whether the Agency is satisfied with the measures taken by Air Canada in response to Decision No. 60-AT-A-2003.
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
The Agency has reviewed the information filed by Air Canada on December 13, 2005 in response to Decision No. 60-AT-A-2003.
Air Canada filed a copy of its bulletin entitled "Customers with Disabilities Awareness". In that bulletin, Air Canada notes that a customer travelling with Air Canada was not provided with wheelchair assistance, and it reminds its agents of the importance of asking questions to determine customers' needs and the importance of delivering the service or assistance as requested.
With respect to the requirement that Air Canada review its internal policy with its Calgary employees concerning assistance provided to persons with disabilities, Air Canada advised that training under the name of The Way to Go is provided to employees every two years on an ongoing basis.
In light of the foregoing, the Agency is satisfied that the measures undertaken by the carrier should assist in preventing the recurrence of situations similar to the one experienced by Mrs. Pedersen.
CONCLUSION
The Agency is satisfied with the measures taken by Air Canada in response to Decision No. 60-AT-A-2003. Accordingly, the Agency does not contemplate any further action in this matter.
Members
- Beaton Tulk
- Baljinder Gill
- Date modified: