Decision No. 39-AT-C-A-2022
APPLICATION by Judith Perras and Norman Brown (applicants) against WestJet (respondent), pursuant to subsection 172(1) of the Canada Transportation Act, SC 1996, c 10 (CTA), concerning Ms. Perras’ disability-related needs, and subsection 110(4) of the Air Transportation Regulations, SOR/88-58 (ATR), regarding a schedule irregularity.
SUMMARY
[1] The applicants filed an application with the Canadian Transportation Agency (Agency) against the respondent concerning its alleged failure to provide wheelchair assistance to Ms. Perras, a schedule irregularity, carrier communications regarding delay, and standards of treatment.
[2] The applicants seek:
- compensation for delay pursuant to the APPRNote 1;
- CAD 200 for the reimbursement of meals and coffees; and
- compensation equivalent to the value of the return portion of their tickets from Kahului, Hawaii, to Winnipeg, Manitoba.
[3] In this decision, the Agency will address the following issues:
- Is Ms. Perras a person with a disability?
- Did Ms. Perras face a barrier to her mobility?
- Did the respondent properly apply the terms and conditions set out in its TariffNote 2, as required by subsection 110(4) of the ATR?
[4] For the reasons set out below, the Agency finds that:
- Ms. Perras is a person with a disability.
- Ms. Perras did not face a barrier to her mobility.
- The respondent properly applied the terms and conditions set out in Rule 100 of its Tariff; thus, the applicants are not entitled to compensation.
[5] Therefore, the Agency dismisses the application.
BACKGROUND
[6] On May 18, 2019, the applicants purchased round-trip tickets with the respondent for an itinerary that included the following flights:
- Flight WS1853 from Kahului to Vancouver, departing at 11:55 p.m. on February 29, 2020, and arriving at 7:37 a.m. on March 1, 2020; and
- Flight WS448 from Vancouver to Winnipeg, departing at 9:00 a.m. and arriving at 1:45 p.m. on March 1, 2020.
[7] Ms. Perras is unable to walk long distances without aid; therefore, before travelling, she requested wheelchair assistance.
[8] The applicants state that their inbound Flight WS1853 was slightly delayed before departure, and that they were informed it was due to refuelling and that they would make up for the time during the flight. However, the applicants arrived in Vancouver 54 minutes later than scheduled. They indicate that, upon arrival, there was no WestJet agent and no wheelchair assistance available at the gate.
[9] The applicants missed Flight WS448 and were rebooked on:
- Flight WS162 from Vancouver to Edmonton, Alberta, departing at 12:00 p.m. and arriving at 2:31 p.m., and
- Flight WS304 from Edmonton to Winnipeg, departing at 8:25 p.m. and arriving at 11:15 p.m.
[10] As a result of being rerouted, the applicants arrived at their final destination approximately nine hours later than originally scheduled. The applicants submit that wheelchair assistance was also not provided to Ms. Perras upon arrival in Edmonton and Winnipeg.
THE LAW AND RELEVANT TARIFF PROVISIONS
[11] The application raises issues related to both accessibility and the application of the Tariff.
Accessibility
[12] The application was filed pursuant to subsection 172(1) of the CTA, which reads as follows:
The Agency may, on application, inquire into a matter in relation to which a regulation could be made under subsection 170(1), regardless of whether such a regulation has been made, in order to determine whether there is an undue barrier to the mobility of persons with disabilities.
[13] As stated in Decision 33-AT-A-2019 (Interpretive Decision) regarding accessibility-related applications, the Agency determines whether there is an undue barrier to the mobility of a person with a disability using a two-part approach:
Part 1: The onus is on the applicant to demonstrate, on a balance of probabilities, that:
- they have a disability. A disability is any impairment, including a physical, mental, intellectual, cognitive, learning, communication or sensory impairment—or a functional limitation—whether permanent, temporary or episodic in nature, or evident or not, that, in interaction with a barrier, hinders a person’s full and equal participation in society;
and
- they faced a barrier. A barrier is anything—including anything physical, architectural, technological or attitudinal, anything that is based on information or communications or anything that is the result of a policy or a practice—that hinders the full and equal participation in society of persons with an impairment, including a physical, mental, intellectual, cognitive, learning, communication or sensory impairment or a functional limitation. There needs to be some connection between the applicant’s disability and the barrier.
Part 2: If it is determined that an applicant has a disability and faced a barrier, the onus shifts to the respondent to either:
- explain, taking into account any proposals from the applicant, how it proposes to remove the barrier through a general modification to a rule, policy, practice, technology, physical structure, or anything else constituting a barrier, or, if a general modification is not feasible, an individual accommodation measure;
or
- demonstrate, on a balance of probabilities, that it cannot remove the barrier without experiencing undue hardship.
[14] The Agency will address the first part of the two-part approach in this decision.
Tariff
[15] In this decision, the Agency must decide whether the respondent properly applied its Tariff to the tickets the applicants purchased. If the respondent is found to have not applied its Tariff, the Agency may order it to take any appropriate corrective measures or pay compensation.
[16] In addition, when the respondent has obligations under the APPR, these are considered to form part of its Tariff, except when the terms of the Tariff are more advantageous to the passenger than the APPR.
[17] The relevant provisions of the ATR, the APPR, the Montreal Convention Note 3and the Tariff are set out in the Appendix.
1. IS MS. PERRAS A PERSON WITH A DISABILITY?
[18] Ms. Perras states that she has a permanent mobility issue and is unable to walk long distances without aid. She indicates that she has an accessible parking permit and receives a disability tax credit. She requested wheelchair assistance prior to travel.
[19] The respondent takes no position on whether Ms. Perras is a person with a disability, but it accepted Ms. Perras’ wheelchair assistance request.
[20] In light of the above, the Agency finds that Ms. Perras is a person with a disability.
2. DID MS. PERRAS FACE A BARRIER TO HER MOBILITY?
Positions of the parties
MS. PERRAS
[21] Ms. Perras states that wheelchair assistance was provided to her for her outbound flights and at the Kahului Airport before Flight WS1853. For her inbound flights, Ms. Perras submits that wheelchair assistance was not provided upon arrival in Vancouver, or on the rebooked itinerary between Vancouver, Edmonton and Winnipeg. Ms. Perras states that, in Vancouver, Mr. Brown found transport for her and although they rushed to the gate for their next flight, they missed Flight WS448 and were rebooked on new flights. She states that the incident had a physical and emotional impact on her.
THE RESPONDENT
[22] The respondent acknowledges that a request for wheelchair assistance for Ms. Perras was received for all segments of her trip and that this request was transferred to her rebooked itinerary following the delayed arrival of Flight WS1853 in Vancouver.
[23] The respondent states that there were WestJet agents at the gate following the arrival of Flight WS1853 in Vancouver, but that Ms. Perras did not wait for a reasonable amount of time for wheelchair assistance to be provided. The respondent confirms that the aircraft arrived at the gate at the Vancouver International Airport at 8:31 a.m. and that WestJet crew arrived at the gate at 8:35 a.m. to operate the next flight on that aircraft. The respondent indicates that, upon review of the Gate Events Tracker for the next scheduled flight for the aircraft, the first passenger disembarked from the flight at 8:33 a.m. and the last passenger disembarked at 8:53 a.m. The respondent indicates that the Gate Events Tracker also confirms there were 13 passengers with special service requests on the flight and nine boarded the next flight, all of which, according to the respondent, demonstrates that wheelchair assistance was provided. The respondent indicates that, while these events may not have taken place at the exact time that Ms. Perras disembarked from the aircraft, it shows that wheelchair assistance would have been available had Ms. Perras waited for the assistance.
[24] The respondent explains that there are several situations that can cause its agents to be delayed in arriving at the gate to provide wheelchair assistance (for example flight delays, assisting other aircraft arrivals, departures or passengers). The respondent submits that it would be reasonable to expect that its agents providing wheelchair assistance could be delayed up to 30 minutes. In the event that an agent is not at the gate to provide wheelchair assistance upon passengers’ arrival, the respondent requests that passengers wait for assistance and take a seat in the lounge area.
Analysis and determinations
[25] Transportation service providers have the duty to accommodate persons with disabilities. In order to establish that they faced a barrier to their mobility, a person with a disability must demonstrate, on the balance of probabilities, that they were not provided with an accommodation that meets their disability-related needs.
[26] It is undisputed that Ms. Perras requested wheelchair assistance prior to travel. The respondent indicates that the Special Service Request Code “WCHR” appears on all flight segments of Ms. Perras’ itinerary, including the rebooked flights.
[27] The respondent provided evidence that its agents arrived at the gate for the arrival of Flight WS1853 a few minutes after the arrival of the aircraft and provided assistance to other passengers. The applicants acknowledge that they did not check their phones upon arrival and therefore were unaware that they had missed their connecting flight and had been rebooked on later flights. The applicants do not indicate whether they asked a respondent’s agent upon disembarking from the aircraft about the availability of wheelchair assistance; it appears that they rushed off the aircraft to try to make the connecting flight themselves. The Agency finds that wheelchair assistance was available at the gate for the arrival of this flight, but that Ms. Perras did not wait for the assistance and proceeded on her own to try to make her connection.
[28] While persons with disabilities are entitled to be provided with an accommodation measure that meets their disability-related needs, it is possible that, in some situations, they will have to wait a reasonable amount of time to receive the service they requested. Several factors can have an impact on the time required for the carrier to provide the service, including the number of requests received for the same time or flight, lack of equipment, lack of personnel, and flight delays. Furthermore, if the person does not immediately receive the requested service, they are expected to speak to a carrier’s agent about it before assuming that it is not available. As set out in Decision 211-AT-A-2012 (Ronald and Sandra Boyko, on behalf of Frances Bassarab, v Air Canada) [Boyko], in the event that wheelchair assistance is not forthcoming, the passengers should raise the matter with the carrier. Although in Boyko, Air Canada admitted that the lack of wheelchair assistance was the result of an error on its part, and in the present case, the Agency has found, based on the respondent’s evidence that wheelchair assistance was available, it does not change the fact that the applicants neither waited for wheelchair assistance nor inquired with a respondent agent about its availability. It is critical that disability-related needs are clearly conveyed to transportation service provider personnel and that assumptions are not made that the transportation service provider will not provide the required service.
[29] The Agency therefore finds that Ms. Perras’ did not face a barrier to her mobility caused by the respondent in relation to wheelchair assistance upon arrival in Vancouver.
[30] The respondent has not addressed specifically whether its agents were available upon arrival at the Edmonton and Winnipeg airports. Ms. Perras also did not provide any information in her application on whether she asked for assistance and, if so, from whom, or whether she waited for wheelchair assistance before leaving the arrival areas and, if so, where she waited and for how long. Therefore, the Agency is unable to assess whether she waited for a reasonable length of time for wheelchair assistance or asked an agent for the service at these airports; thus, it cannot conclude that she faced a barrier caused by the respondent. The Agency therefore finds that Ms. Perras did not meet her burden of proof to demonstrate that she faced a barrier to her mobility caused by the respondent in relation to wheelchair assistance in Edmonton and Winnipeg.
3. DID THE RESPONDENT PROPERLY APPLY THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS SET OUT IN ITS TARIFF, AS REQUIRED BY SUBSECTION 110(4) OF THE ATR?
Positions of the parties
THE APPLICANTS
[31] The applicants state that, upon arrival in Vancouver, Mr. Brown found transport for Ms. Perras and they cleared customs and rushed to the gate for Flight WS448, but upon arrival, there was no one at the gate. The applicants state that when they finally spoke to a respondent’s agent, they learned that they were rebooked on another itinerary. The applicants acknowledge that they received a message on their phone during Flight WS1853; however, they indicate that they were unable to receive it as their phones were in airplane mode. The applicants submit that the respondent did not make any attempt to communicate any information to them regarding their connecting flights either via an onboard message, at the gate or by airport announcement.
[32] There was a three-hour delay before their rescheduled Flight WS162 and another six‑hour delay before Flight WS304. The applicants argue that adding almost ten hours to their itinerary was “thoughtless” and reflective of the respondent’s intention to avoid financial responsibility. The applicants argue that they could have been rebooked on Flight WS244 from Vancouver to Winnipeg, departing at 7:00 p.m. or offered an overnight stay in Vancouver. The applicants also submit that they were not given any meal vouchers.
THE RESPONDENT
Flight delay
[33] The respondent states that Flight WS1853 was delayed arriving in Vancouver by 54 minutes. The respondent disagrees with the applicants’ claim that there was “a slight delay in boarding” and submits that the delay took place after the aircraft left the gate. The respondent has provided the Gates Event Tracker and Flight Information Summary in support of its position on this issue.
Rebooking
[34] The respondent states that the minimum connection time required at the Vancouver International Airport for an international flight to connect with a domestic flight is 1 hour and 45 minutes. The respondent submits that Flight WS1853 arrived at 8:31 a.m. and the applicants’ connecting flight was to depart at 9:00 a.m. Therefore, the applicants had less than 30 minutes to clear customs and get to the boarding gate of Flight WS448, and this is not enough time to make the connection. The respondent indicates that it rebooked all impacted passengers on the next available flight, according to its policy, and a number of these passengers were rebooked on the same flights as the applicants. The respondent submits that the applicants were rebooked on a flight departing within three hours of their original departure time.
[35] The respondent disagrees that it could have rebooked the applicants on Flight WS244 to Winnipeg at 7:00 p.m. or offered the choice of an overnight stay in Vancouver. The respondent states that it is required under its policy, the Tariff and the APPR “to ensure that passengers complete their itinerary as soon as feasible”.
Communication
[36] The respondent disagrees that an audible announcement at the airport was required. It argues that it would not have been appropriate as the applicants were onboard the aircraft when the delay occurred. The respondent submits that the applicants were aware that they were delayed in arriving and that connecting flights may have been impacted. The respondent states that as per the Irregular Operations Notification report, it sent two emails to and left two voicemail messages for the applicants, using the contact information they provided, in an attempt to notify them of the change to their itinerary, which is the requirement in its policy. It argues that it is not liable if the applicants do not check their emails or voicemail messages, as they provided this contact information to the respondent to be used in the event of unplanned circumstances.
[37] The respondent adds that at any point, the applicants could have contacted its call centre or reached out to one of its agents at the airport to obtain information. Furthermore, it argues that the applicants could have contacted its call centre to inform it that their rebooked flights did not meet their needs and ask for a refund of the unused segments. The respondent submits that it complied with paragraphs 10(3)(a) and (b) of the APPR in regard to situations outside a carrier’s control, by providing the applicants with both information under section 13 of the APPR and alternate travel arrangements under section 18 of the APPR.
Compensation
[38] The respondent submits that it did not have a financial obligation to provide compensation to the applicants because the cause of the delay of Flight WS1853, and the subsequent impact on the minimum connection time requirements, was from a root cause that was outside its control. The respondent indicates that no compensation is payable under the APPR for this delay, even if the arrival to final destination for the applicants was delayed by approximately nine hours.
Analysis and determinations
[39] The onus is on the applicants to establish, on the balance of probabilities, that the carrier has failed to properly apply the terms and conditions set out in its tariff.
CAUSE OF THE FLIGHT DELAY
[40] Flight WS1853 was delayed by 54 minutes resulting in the applicants not having enough time to board their connecting flight and being rebooked on other flights that arrived approximately nine hours later than their original flight. Under the APPR, passenger entitlements in cases of flight delay differ based on the cause of the delay. Accordingly, the Agency must determine whether the flight delay in this case was within the respondent’s control, outside its control or within the its control but required for safety reasons.
[41] The respondent submits that the Gate Events Tracker for Flight WS1853 shows that the flight milestones were met on time. The respondent indicates that the aircraft left the gate at the planned departure time of 11:55 p.m. and that the delay occurred after the aircraft left the gate, as confirmed on the Flight Information Summary. The respondent states that the Flight Information Summary reflects the code “NAS”, which means that the delay was outside its control and either related to airport facilities or weather delays en route. The respondent subsequently confirmed that the delay was due to weather. Accordingly, the Agency finds that the delay of Flight WS1853 was caused by weather and, based on paragraph 10(1)(c) of the APPR, was outside the control of the respondent.
PASSENGER ENTITLEMENTS UNDER THE APPR
[42] Subsection 10(3) of the APPR states the carrier’s obligations, in the event of a delay that is outside its control, are to communicate information to passengers, as set out in section 13 of the APPR; and provide alternate travel arrangements, as set out in section 18, in the event of a delay of three hours or more.
[43] Under the terms of the APPR, because the delay in this case was outside the respondent’s control, the applicants are not entitled to compensation under subsection 19(1) of the APPR nor are they entitled to standards of treatment, such as hotel and meal vouchers, under section 14.
Communication
[44] Subsection 13(1) of the APPR requires the carrier to communicate specific information to passengers, including the reason for a flight delay. Subsection 13(4) of the APPR requires the carrier to provide this information using audible announcements, and subsection 13(5) of the APPR requires the carrier to also provide this information to passengers by the method of communication that they have indicated that they prefer.
[45] While subsection 13(2) of the APPR requires the carrier to communicate status updates to passengers every 30 minutes during the delay, until a new departure time for the flight is set or alternate travel arrangements have been made, and subsection 13(3) of the APPR requires the carrier to communicate any new information as soon as feasible, neither subsection 13(4) nor subsection 13(5) specify that this information must be provided to passengers by means of audible announcements or by the method of communication that they have indicated that they prefer.
[46] Similarly, Rule 100(a)4 of the Tariff states that the respondent will make all reasonable efforts to inform passengers of delays and schedule changes and, to the extent possible, the reason for the delay or change. Furthermore, Rule 100(b)1 of the Tariff provides that, in order to ensure timely receipt of communications, passengers must ensure that they, or their travel arranger, have provided the respondent with their WestJet Rewards ID, a current email address, and/or a current telephone number. It states that passengers will also be able to receive delay or cancellation information via the respondent’s website(s), at the airport during check-in, at the airport by departure and arrival screens, at the airport by carrier announcements, and on the aircraft. Rule 100(d) of the Tariff relates to the respondent’s communications obligations in the event of a delay outside its control and sets out the same obligations as section 13 of the APPR.
[47] It is undisputed that emails and voicemails were sent to the applicants about their alternate travel arrangements. The Agency recognizes that passengers need to be made aware about alternate travel arrangements that are made for them and that the respondent fulfilled this requirement by sending the information to the applicants via the contact information that the applicants provided to the respondent for this purpose. While an audible announcement, or other communication, to the affected passengers on board the flight regarding rebooking might have been helpful from a customer service perspective, it was not required under either the Tariff or under the APPR as information about alternate travel arrangements falls outside the scope of what is required to be audibly announced under section 13 of the APPR. Therefore, the Agency finds that the applicants have not established that the respondent did not properly apply the terms and conditions set out in Rule 100 of the Tariff and section 13 of the APPR.
Alternate travel arrangements
[48] Section 18 of the APPR requires a carrier to, free of charge, rebook an affected passenger on the next available flight departing within 48 hours of the end of the event that caused the delay operated by that carrier or a carrier with which it has a commercial agreement.
[49] Similarly, Rule 75 of the Tariff addresses schedule irregularities, and Rule 100 of the Tariff addresses the APPR. Rules 75(A) and 100(a)3 of the Tariff state that schedules are not guaranteed. In particular, they specify that flight schedules are subject to change without notice and that the times shown on the respondent’s published schedules, tickets, timetable and advertising are not guaranteed and form no part of the contract. Furthermore, Rules 75(A) and 100(a)3 state that the respondent will not be held liable for cancellations or changes to flight times that appear on passengers’ tickets due to an uncontrollable event.
[50] Rule 100(g)1 of the Tariff states that, in the event of a delay of three hours or more due to situations outside the respondent’s control, the respondent will provide alternate travel arrangements free of charge to ensure that passengers complete their itinerary as soon as possible. The respondent will provide a confirmed reservation on its next available flight or on a flight operated by another carrier with which it has a commercial agreement.
[51] The applicants were rebooked on what the respondent claims was the “next available flight”, which departed three hours later than their original flight. Although the applicants would have preferred taking the next direct flight, which departed seven hours later, the respondent states that this was not possible. In any event, the direct flight arrived at destination an hour later than the rebooked itinerary, so it was neither the next available flight nor the itinerary that would be completed as soon as possible, as required under the APPR and the Tariff.
[52] In this case, being rebooked on the next available flight, which involved a connecting flight, rather than a later but direct flight, was an inconvenience to Ms. Perras. However, there is no evidence suggesting that this additional connection constituted a barrier to her mobility and, as the respondent points out, she could have contacted the respondent if the alternate travel arrangements presented a problem for her from an accessibility perspective, but she did not.
[53] In light of the above, the Agency finds that in rebooking the applicants onto Flights WS162 and WS304, the respondent properly applied Rule 100 of its Tariff and section 18 of the APPR.
MONTREAL CONVENTION
[54] Rule 55(A) of the Tariff incorporates by reference the liability rules set out in the Montreal Convention. Article 19 of the Montreal Convention provides that the carrier is liable for damages related to a delay unless it proves that it or its agents took all measures that could reasonably be required to avoid those damages or that it was impossible for them to have taken such measures. In this instance, as the respondent took all reasonable measures to avoid the damage caused by the delay by rebooking the applicants on the next available flight, the Agency finds that the applicants are not entitled to compensation for the expenses they incurred as a result of the delay.
CONCLUSION
[55] The Agency finds that:
- Ms. Perras is a person with a disability.
- Ms. Perras did not face a barrier to her mobility.
- The respondent properly applied the terms and conditions set out in Rule 100 of its Tariff , including the applicable requirements of the APPR; thus, the applicants are not entitled to compensation.
[56] Therefore, the Agency dismisses the application.
APPENDIX TO DECISION NO. 39-AT-C-A-2022
Air Transportation Regulations, SOR/88-58
110(4) Where a tariff is filed containing the date of publication and the effective date and is consistent with these Regulations and any orders of the Agency, the tolls and terms and conditions of carriage in the tariff shall, unless they are rejected, disallowed or suspended by the Agency or unless they are replaced by a new tariff, take effect on the date stated in the tariff, and the air carrier shall on and after that date charge the tolls and apply the terms and conditions of carriage specified in the tariff.
….
113.1(1) If an air carrier that offers an international service fails to apply the fares, rates, charges or terms and conditions of carriage set out in the tariff that applies to that service, the Agency may, if it receives a written complaint, direct the air carrier to
(a) take the corrective measures that the Agency considers appropriate; and
(b) pay compensation for any expense incurred by a person adversely affected by its failure to apply the fares, rates, charges or terms and conditions that are applicable to the service it offers and that were set out in the tariff.
Air Passenger Protection Regulations, SOR/2019-150
Obligations – situations outside carrier’s control
10(1) This section applies to a carrier when there is delay, cancellation or denial of boarding due to situations outside the carrier’s control, including but not limited to the following:
….
(c) meteorological conditions or natural disasters that make the safe operation of the aircraft impossible;
….
Obligations
10(3) When there is delay, cancellation or denial of boarding due to situations outside the carrier’s control, it must
(a) provide passengers with the information set out in section 13;
(b) in the case of a delay of three hours or more, provide alternate travel arrangements, in the manner set out in section 18, to a passenger
who desires such arrangements; and
(c) in the case of a cancellation or a denial of boarding, provide alternate travel arrangements in the manner set out in section 18.
….
Information — cancellation, delay, denial of boarding
13(1) A carrier must provide the following information to the passengers who are affected by a cancellation, delay or a denial of boarding:
(a) the reason for the delay, cancellation or denial of boarding;
(b) the compensation to which the passenger may be entitled for the inconvenience;
(c) the standard of treatment for passengers, if any; and
(d) the recourse available against the carrier, including their recourse to the Agency.
Communication every 30 minutes
13(2) In the case of a delay, the carrier must communicate status updates to passengers every 30 minutes until a new departure time for the flight is set or alternate travel arrangements have been made for the affected passenger.
New information
13(3) The carrier must communicate to passengers any new information as soon as feasible.
Audible and visible announcement
13(4) The information referred to in subsection (1) must be provided by means of audible announcements and, upon request, by means of visible announcements.
Method of communication
13(5) The information referred to in subsection (1) must also be provided to the passenger using the available communication method that they have indicated that they prefer, including a method that is compatible with adaptive technologies intended to assist persons with disabilities.
Standards of treatment
14(1) If paragraph 11(3)(b) or (4)(b) or 12(2)(b) or (3)(b) applies to a carrier, and a passenger has waited two hours after the departure time that is indicated on their original ticket, the carrier must provide the passenger with the following treatment free of charge:
(a) food and drink in reasonable quantities, taking into account the length of the wait, the time of day and the location of the passenger; and
(b) access to a means of communication.
Accommodations
14(2) If paragraph 11(3)(b) or (4)(b) or 12(2)(b) or (3)(b) applies to a carrier and the carrier expects that the passenger will be required to wait overnight for their original flight or for a flight reserved as part of alternate travel arrangements, the air carrier must offer, free of charge, hotel or other comparable accommodation that is reasonable in relation to the location of the passenger, as well as transportation to the hotel or other accommodation and back to the airport.
….
Alternate arrangements — outside carrier’s control
18(1) If paragraph 10(3)(b) or (c) applies to a carrier, it must provide the following alternate travel arrangements free of charge to ensure that passengers complete their itinerary as soon as feasible:
(a) in the case of a large carrier,
(i) a confirmed reservation for the next available flight that is operated by the original carrier, or a carrier with which the original carrier has a commercial agreement, is travelling on any reasonable air route from the airport at which the passenger is located to the destination that is indicated on the passenger’s original ticket and departs within 48 hours of the end of the event that caused the delay, cancellation or denial of boarding,
….
Compensation for delay or cancellation
19(1) If paragraph 12(2)(d) or 3(d) applies to a carrier, it must provide the following compensation:
….
Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules for International Carriage by Air –Montreal Convention
Article 19 – Delay
The carrier is liable for damage occasioned by delay in the carriage by air of passengers, baggage or cargo. Nevertheless, the carrier shall not be liable for damage occasioned by delay if it proves that it and its servants and agents took all measures that could reasonably be required to avoid the damage or that it was impossible for it or them to take such measures.
International Passenger Rules and Fares Tariff No. WS-1 Containing Local Rules, Fares and Charges on behalf of WestJet applicable to the Transportation of passengers and baggage between points in United States/Canada and points in Area 1/2/3 and between points in the US and points in Canada, CTA No. 518
Rule 55 Limitation of Liability – Passengers
(A) For travel governed by the Montreal Convention.
For the purpose of international carriage governed by the Montreal Convention, the liability rules set out in the Montreal Convention are
fully incorporated herein and shall supersede and prevail over any provisions of this tariff which may be inconsistent with those rules.
….
Rule 75 Schedule Irregularities
(A) General
Schedule are not guaranteed. Flight schedules are subject to change without notice, and the times shown on WestJet’s published schedules, tickets, timetable and advertising are not guaranteed and form no part of this contract. The carrier will not be responsible for errors or omissions either in timetables or other representation of schedules. No employee, agent or representative of the carrier is authorized to bind the carrier by any statement of representation regarding the dates or times of departure or arrival, or of the operation of any flight.
(B) Definitions
(1) “Schedule irregularities” means the following:
(a) Change in the scheduled departure or arrival of the carrier’s flight;
(b) Cancellation of flight, or omission of a scheduled stop, or;
(c) Change of schedule itinerary which require rerouting of a passenger at departure time of his or her original flight.
(d) Schedule change;
….
Rule 100 APPR Provisions
(a) General
….
3. The carrier will not guarantee and will not be held liable for cancellations or changes to flight times that appear on passengers’ tickets due to an uncontrollable event or event of force majeure.
4. The carrier will make all reasonable efforts to inform passengers of delays and schedule changes and, to the extent possible, the reason for the delay or change.
….
(b) Communications
- In order to ensure timely receipt of communications, passengers must make best efforts to ensure that they, or their travel arranger, have provided WestJet with their WestJet rewards id, a current email address, and/or a current telephone number. passengers will be contacted via email or phone if no email address is provided.
Passengers will also be able to receive delay or cancellation information:
a. via the carrier websites;
b. at the airport during check-in;
c. at the airport by departure and arrival screens;
d. at the airport by carrier announcements; and
e. on the aircraft.
….
(d) Delays, cancellations or denial of boarding outside of the control of the carrier
- A delay, cancellation or denial of boarding is deemed outside of the control of the carrier if it is caused by an event of force majeure.
- When a delay, cancellation or denial of boarding has occurred and is due to situations outside of the carrier’s control, the carrier will provide passengers with the reason for the delay, cancellation or denial of boarding, provide information related to compensation to which passengers may be entitled to, provide information regarding the standard of treatment for passengers, if any, and provide information regarding the recourse available against the carrier, including recourse to the Canadian Transportation Agency, if applicable.
- The carrier will communicate new information to passengers as soon as feasible and will provide updates to passengers every 30 minutes until a new departure time is set or alternative travel arrangements have been made. The method of communication will be provided in the method preferred by a passenger, if indicated, and in a method that is compatible with adaptive technologies intended to assist persons with disabilities, if applicable.
….
(g) Passenger options – re-routing or refund
- In the event of a delay due to situations outside the carrier’s control that results in a delay of 3 hours or more, the carrier will provide the following:
a. upon request by a passenger, the carrier will provide alternative travel arrangements free of charge to ensure that passengers complete their itinerary as soon as feasible. the carrier will provide a confirmed reservation on the next available flight operated by the carrier or on a flight operated by a carrier with which the original carrier has a commercial agreement, if the next available flight is travelling on a reasonable air route from the airport at which the passenger is located to the destination that is indicated on the passenger’s original ticket, and departs within 48 hours of the event that caused the delay.
….
Member(s)
- Date modified: