Decision No. 431-AT-A-2010

October 19, 2010

October 19, 2010

APPLICATIONS by Dr. Sophia Huyer and Rhonda Nugent, on behalf of her daughter Melanie Nugent, against Air Canada.

File No. U3570-15


Background

[1] In Decision No. 4-AT-A-2010 (Decision), the Canadian Transportation Agency (Agency) addressed applications by Dr. Sophia Huyer and Rhonda Nugent, on behalf of her daughter Melanie Nugent, regarding difficulties they experienced relating to peanut and nut allergies when travelling with Air Canada.

[2] In the Decision, the Agency made the following findings:

Disability

  • Dr. Huyer is a person with a disability for the purposes of Part V of the Canada Transportation Act, S.C., 1996, c. 10, as amended (CTA) as a result of her allergy to peanuts and nuts.
  • Melanie Nugent is a person with a disability for the purposes of Part V of the CTA as a result of her allergy to peanuts and her need to avoid nuts.

Obstacle

  • Dr. Huyer and Melanie Nugent did not encounter obstacles to their mobility with respect to the specific incidents that resulted in their applications being filed with the Agency.
  • The lack of a formal Air Canada policy to accommodate the needs of persons with allergies to peanuts or nuts, and the uncertainty this creates, constitutes an obstacle to the mobility of Dr. Huyer and Melanie Nugent and to persons whose allergy to peanuts or nuts results in a disability for the purposes of Part V of the CTA.

Appropriate Accommodation

[3] The Agency found that the appropriate accommodation for persons with disabilities due to their allergy to peanuts or nuts is to separate such persons from other passengers who may be eating peanuts or nuts or products that contain them. More specifically, the Agency found that the appropriate accommodation is an exclusion or buffer zone where passengers within that zone will be advised that they can only eat foods that are peanut-free and nut-free and that they will only be offered peanut-free and nut-free foods as part of Air Canada's onboard snack or meal service. While the Agency accepted the expert evidence that the greater risk of a serious allergic reaction is from ingestion due to accidental exposure, the Agency also found that such a buffer zone, in addition to the aircraft air filtration and circulation systems, would also address any risk of allergic reactions due to inhalational exposure.

[4] Additionally, the Agency recognized that, for operational reasons, it may not always be possible to provide a buffer zone when a passenger has not provided advance notice to Air Canada of their peanut or nut allergy. Therefore, the Agency found that when advance notice is not provided, the appropriate accommodation is for the carrier to make its best effort to provide the buffer zone and, if unable to do so, to place the passenger on the next practicable flight and provide a buffer zone at that time.

[5] In the Decision, the Agency directed Air Canada to provide a submission, including supporting rationale, on:

  • what constitutes adequate advance notification of a person's need for accommodation in the form of a buffer zone as a result of their peanut or nut allergies; and,
  • the recommended size of buffer zones for each of its aircraft types.

[6] Dr. Huyer and Ms. Nugent were provided with an opportunity to file their comments on Air Canada's submission, following which the Agency indicated that it would finalize its determination with respect to the appropriate accommodation. The Agency further indicated in the Decision that if Air Canada accepted to implement the appropriate accommodation as so determined, it would be required to submit a formal policy for review and approval by the Agency. However, in the event that Air Canada were not to accept to implement the appropriate accommodation, it would be provided with an opportunity to file its arguments on undueness.

Issue

[7] In this Decision, the Agency finalizes its findings with respect to the appropriate accommodation for persons with disabilities due to their allergy to peanuts or nuts in terms of the following:

  1. Advance notice of a person's need for accommodation in the form of a buffer zone
  2. Size of the buffer zone
  3. Precautions to be taken by persons with disabilities due to their allergy to peanuts or nuts
  4. Briefing to passengers seated within a buffer zone
  5. Meals and snacks served within a buffer zone

[8] These findings reflect a consideration of risk management as it is impossible in practice to create an allergen-free environment within an aircraft cabin. The measures also assume that persons with a disability due to their allergy to peanuts or nuts will, when travelling by air, take the precautions that they would normally take in their daily living in order to safeguard their health.

Analysis and determinations

1) Advance notice of a person's need for accommodation in the form of a buffer zone

Positions of the parties

Air Canada

[9] Air Canada submits that advance notice of at least 48 hours of a person's need for accommodation in the form of a buffer zone should be provided to the carrier. However, Air Canada has indicated that it will attempt to accommodate passengers who provide less notice.

[10] Air Canada states that a person with a disability as a result of their peanut or nut allergies must submit a completed Fitness for Travel (FFT) form and that it will require advance notice of at least 48 hours to ensure that the FFT form is properly processed.

[11] Air Canada submits that 48-hour advance notice period would ensure that a special service code is correctly inputted in the reservation record. Air Canada explains that its reservation system is complex and can be populated through various sources, such as travel agents or customers booking on Internet. As Air Canada's system needs to be accessible to others in the industry, it must use pre-approved and standard codes and there is no existing code for allergies. Air Canada advises that it will be recommending that the International Air Transportation Association create a code specifically for allergies, but this will take time. In the interim, Air Canada proposes to use a temporary code which may create some inconvenience for persons with peanut or nut allergies, for example, the need for the passenger to call its MEDA desk to have the code placed on file.

[12] In addition, Air Canada explains that it requires time to notify the crew and, if required, reseat passengers and that advance notice would allow it to attempt to re-seat passengers and regroup passengers with nut allergies in the same area.

Applicants' comments

[13] Dr. Huyer submits that Air Canada's proposed notification process is more onerous and complicated than necessary. Dr. Huyer is of the opinion that if it is such a complicated procedure to provide a buffer zone for passengers with allergies, Air Canada should instead not serve nuts on flights in respect of which a passenger has indicated that they have an allergy.

[14] Dr. Huyer also asserts that while Air Canada seems to be saying that there is no means for including notifications of nut allergies in airline booking systems, this is false as she routinely has this information placed on her file with other carriers. Dr. Huyer notes that for a brief period of time a few years ago, Air Canada had a notification system "that worked." Dr. Huyer submits that when she travels with other carriers, 24-hour advance notice tends to be sufficient to ensure that she receives accommodation.

[15] Ms. Nugent questions how and whether the information regarding a person's allergy would be relayed to onboard staff. She notes Dr. Huyer's difficulties, which were set out in the Decision, with the flow of information which led to a flight delay.

Agency analysis

[16] As reflected in Decision No. 336-AT-A-2008 regarding applications filed against Air Canada and WestJet by or on behalf of persons who require oxygen when travelling by air, the Agency's requirements regarding reasonable advance notice for disability-related services on domestic flights are set out in the following provisions in Part VII of the Air Transportation Regulations, SOR/88-58, as amended (ATR):

151(2) where, at least 48 hours before the scheduled time of departure of a person's flight, the person requests an additional service that is set out in an air carrier's tariff, the air carrier shall provide the person with the service, in accordance with any conditions in respect of the service that are set out in the tariff.

151(3) Where a request for a service referred to in subsection [...] (2) is not made within the time limit provided thereunder, the air carrier shall make a reasonable effort to provide the service.

[17] Although providing a buffer zone is not an additional service set out in Air Canada's tariff, Air Canada's proposed policy with respect to 48-hour advance notice is consistent with subsection 151(2) of the ATR. As concerns advance notification, the Agency finds that Air Canada's proposal for 48‑hour advance notice period to allow it to provide accommodation, in the form of a buffer zone, for persons with disabilities due to their allergy to peanuts or nuts is reasonable.

[18] Air Canada submits that when a passenger with an allergy to peanuts or nuts provides less than 48‑hour advance notice of their need for accommodation in the form of a buffer zone, Air Canada will attempt to accommodate such passengers. As Air Canada's proposed policy in this regard reflects subsection 151(3) of the ATR, the Agency finds Air Canada's proposal to be reasonable.

2) Size of the buffer zone

Positions of the parties

Air Canada

[19] Air Canada proposes the following with respect to the appropriate size of the buffer zone relative to classes of cabin seating in its various aircraft:

(i) International wide-body aircraft executive first class

[20] Air Canada explains the seats in its international wide-body aircraft executive first class cabins, which are pod-like in design, are positioned in a herringbone fashion. Air Canada submits that the configuration of these seats provides sufficient isolation to reduce the risk of contact with peanut and nut allergens to nil.

(ii) North American business class

[21] Air Canada submits that the single bank of seats in which the person with the allergy is seated would be appropriate due to seatbacks that are higher and wider. Air Canada submits that these seatbacks considerably reduce the risk of contact.

(iii) Economy class

[22] Air Canada suggests that the appropriate buffer zone for economy class seating in its aircraft cabins should be the bank of seats in which the passenger with the allergy is seated as well as the banks of seats immediately in front of and immediately behind the passenger's bank of seats. Air Canada submits that when the passenger with an allergy is seated either in front of or behind a bulkhead, the bulkhead, together with the bank of seats in which the person with the allergy is sitting and a second row either immediately in front of or behind the person (depending on the location of the bulkhead), provides a sufficient buffer zone as the bulkhead acts as a substitute for one row of seats.

[23] Air Canada further submits that the aisle would provide a sufficient buffer between the bank of seats that the allergic passenger is seated in and the bank of seats across the aisle. Air Canada sees very little risk, if any, of a person seated in a bank of seats across a row touching the immediate vicinity of a passenger who is allergic to peanuts or nuts. Consequently, Air Canada is of the opinion that passengers with allergies who are separated by an aisle from other passengers who may eat peanuts or nuts would be exposed to minimal to no risk of contact.

[24] For these reasons, Air Canada has excluded the bank of seats across the aisle from the buffer zone. Air Canada indicates that by an abundance of caution, it has included the row behind and the row in front of a passenger with an allergy to peanuts or nuts in case any of these passengers would touch the back or top of the headrest of the allergic passenger's seat.

Applicants' comments

[25] Dr. Huyer and Ms. Nugent do not agree that buffer zones will assist in limiting contact with peanut and nut allergens on board aircraft. Dr. Huyer submits that a buffer zone provides no protection against coming into contact with nut oil or nut dust through skin contact with a flight attendant who may have just served nuts, or from other passengers walking down the aisles or using the washroom or other facilities immediately before the person with the allergy. Ms. Nugent also raises concerns related to washroom use. She explains that passengers with peanut or nut allergies will need to leave the buffer zone, passing potential hazards, to use the washroom and that washroom surfaces may be contaminated by peanut residue left by others passengers who have eaten peanuts.

[26] With respect to the size of the buffer zones, Dr. Huyer is of the opinion that one row on either side of the passenger with the allergy is insufficient and does not address accidental contact from passengers across the aisle who might "reach over when they stand up, stumble, etc." Dr. Huyer submits that the aisles on aircraft are extremely narrow and it is commonplace for passengers to bump against seats when they are in the aisle. Dr. Huyer explains that if there is turbulence, a person can easily be bumped into the seat and, if a child is seated across the aisle from the buffer zone, they cannot be expected to understand that they are not to touch the person or the seat across the aisle if they have been in contact with nuts.

[27] Dr. Huyer raises concerns regarding the proposal to provide no buffer zone in business and executive classes. She states that while the seats may provide a barrier or be slightly higher, they are not high enough nor do they separate the passengers enough to sufficiently remove the possibility of accidental contact. Dr. Huyer adds that the proposed solution does not provide enough distance for the air exchanger to filter nut oil or dust before it reaches the allergic passenger.

[28] Ms. Nugent wants Air Canada's policy to include a general announcement to all passengers to make them aware that there is a person with an allergy on board and to ask the other passengers to refrain from eating peanuts and nuts. Ms. Nugent submits that without a general announcement, other passengers will think that it is acceptable to eat nuts and peanuts thus increasing the risk of contact. Ms. Nugent also expresses the opinion that buffer zones create segregation which should not be acceptable.

Agency analysis

[29] Neither Dr. Huyer nor Ms. Nugent agree that a buffer zone will assist in limiting contact with peanut and nut allergens. They discuss the potential for persons outside the buffer zone to come into or make contact with the buffer zone area and the potential for persons with allergies seated within the buffer zone to come into contact with allergens when they are outside the buffer zone. However, as set out in the Decision, both the expert on allergies hired by the Agency and Air Canada's expert on the matter advise that it is impossible to create an allergen‑free environment in the aircraft cabin. Moreover, the Agency's expert noted that even with such a guideline in place, some allergic individuals may still be at risk of an allergic event, for example due to other passengers inadvertently bringing products containing peanuts and tree nuts or other allergens on board. The Decision also sets out that the service needed to mitigate the risk of exposure to peanut or nut allergens - that is, the appropriate accommodation - is to separate persons who are allergic to peanuts or nuts from other passengers who may be eating peanuts or nuts or products that contain them. The Agency continues to be of the opinion that it is impossible to create an allergen-free environment in an aircraft cabin and, in light of that, a buffer zone represents the appropriate accommodation to reduce the risk of exposure to peanut and nut allergens.

[30] Simply put, it is neither practical nor possible to ban all substances to which any person may be allergic in a mass transportation system, nor is it feasible to eliminate all risks. Taking this into account, the nature of reasonable accommodation is that the carrier, recognizing the severity of allergy, must take such measures as are effective to reduce the probability of contact with an allergen.

Segregation

[31] Ms. Nugent submits that buffer zones create segregation. While the objective of buffer zones is to reduce the risk of exposure to an allergen by separating persons who are allergic to peanuts or nuts from other passengers who may be eating peanuts or nuts or products that contain them, the Agency does not agree that buffer zones would segregate persons with disabilities due to their allergy to peanuts or nuts as they will still be seated with other passengers in the aircraft. The Agency is of the opinion that there is no need for the appropriate accommodation to address Ms. Nugent's concern regarding segregation.

Potential contact with peanut and nut allergens outside the buffer zones

[32] With respect to the concerns raised by the applicants regarding the risk of contact with peanut and nut allergens while making their way to the washroom and using the facilities in the washroom, given that it is impossible to create an allergen-free environment in an aircraft cabin, it is reasonable to expect that persons with allergies to peanuts or nuts will take the same precautions that they would take in their daily living when in public areas, including washrooms. Consequently, the Agency is of the opinion that there is no need for the appropriate accommodation to address the applicants' concerns regarding potential contact with peanut and nut allergens outside the buffer zones.

Announcements

[33] Although Ms. Nugent expresses the opinion that a general announcement should be made, this matter was already addressed in the Decision. Specifically, the Agency found that a buffer zone is the appropriate accommodation for persons with disabilities due to their allergy to peanuts or nuts. The Agency also determined that passengers within that zone must be advised that there is a passenger with a peanut or nut allergy and be required to refrain from eating peanuts or nuts and products that contain them. There is therefore no need to make a general announcement to all passengers within the aircraft.

Size of the buffer zone

[34] The Agency notes the concerns raised by Dr. Huyer with respect to Air Canada's proposal for its business class and executive first class cabins as they relate to the adequacy of the distance (between the passenger with the allergy and other passengers) for the air exchanger to filter nut oil or dust before it reaches the allergic passenger. As noted above, the Agency has accepted the expert evidence that the greater risk of a serious allergic reaction is from ingestion due to accidental exposure. The Agency also found that, based on the air filtration and circulation evidence, the risk of an allergic reaction due to inhalation was significantly reduced on modern generation aircraft. As inhalational risk is minimal, the risk of an allergic reaction due to ingestion is the principal risk addressed by the buffer zones.

i) International wide-body aircraft executive first class seating

[35] With respect to the proposed buffer zone for its international wide-body aircraft executive first class seats, Air Canada submits that the configuration of these seats provides sufficient isolation to reduce the risk of contact with peanut or nut allergens to nil. Dr. Huyer, on the other hand, suggests that, while the seats may provide a barrier or be slightly higher, they are not high enough nor do they separate the passengers enough to sufficiently remove the possibility of accidental contact. The Agency is of the opinion that the design of these seats, which Air Canada describes as pod-like, combined with the positioning of the seats in a herringbone fashion, creates an individual area for the passenger such that there is very little likelihood that an individual occupying another seat would enter the seating area of the passenger with the allergy. The Agency accepts that the proposed size of the buffer zone will sufficiently reduce the potential for accidental ingestion. Consequently, the Agency accepts Air Canada's proposal and finds that the buffer zone for international wide-body aircraft executive class seating will consist of the pod-seat occupied by the person with a disability due to their allergy to peanuts or nuts.

ii) North American business class seating

[36] For its North American business class seating, Air Canada proposes that the single bank of seats, in which the person with the allergy is seated, would provide an appropriate buffer zone due to seatbacks that are higher and wider. As set out above, Dr. Huyer suggests that these seats do not separate the passengers enough to sufficiently remove the possibility of accidental contact. The Agency accepts that these seatbacks will considerably reduce the risk of contact with peanut and nut allergens and, as such, sufficiently reduce the potential for accidental ingestion.

[37] The Agency, therefore, accepts Air Canada's proposal and finds that the buffer zone for North American business class seating will consist of the bank of seats in which the person with a disability due to their allergy to peanuts or nuts is seated.

iii) Economy class seating

[38] The seats in economy class are narrower and have lower seatbacks than those in North American business class. Air Canada has proposed that the bank of seats in which the person with the allergy is seated be included in the buffer zone. In addition, Air Canada has proposed, out of an abundance of precaution in case passengers moving into and out of seats may touch the back or top of headrests in proximity to the seat of the passenger with the allergy, the banks of seats immediately in front of and behind the passenger with the allergy also be included in the buffer zone. The Agency agrees with Air Canada that the buffer zone in economy class seating should be larger than the bank of seats in which the passenger with the allergy is seated.

[39] Given that the greater risk of an allergic reaction is from accidental ingestion, the Agency accepts Air Canada's proposal and finds that the buffer zone for economy class seating should consist of the bank of seats in which the person with a disability due their allergy to peanuts or nuts is seated, as well as the banks of seats directly in front of and behind the passenger. With respect to seats across the aisle from the bank of seats in which the passenger with the allergy is seated, the Agency accepts Air Canada's argument that there is "very little risk, if any," of passengers in those seats coming in contact with the immediate vicinity of the passenger with the allergy. In areas where a bulkhead is either directly in front of or behind the bank of seats in which the passenger with the allergy is seated, Air Canada has proposed, and the Agency agrees and finds, that the bulkhead acts as a substitute for one row of seats. Accordingly, the bulkhead together with the bank of seats in which the person is sitting and a second row either immediately in front of or behind the person (depending on the location of the bulkhead) provides adequate protection for persons with disabilities due to their allergy to peanuts or nuts against the risk of accidental ingestion.

Conclusion

[40] In light of the above, the Agency finds that the appropriate size of the buffer zone is as follows:

  • In Air Canada's international wide-body aircraft executive first class seating, the buffer zone will consist of the pod-seat occupied by the person with a disability due to their allergy to peanuts or nuts.
  • In Air Canada's North American business class seating, the buffer zone will consist of the bank of seats in which the person with a disability due to their allergy to peanuts or nuts is seated.
  • In Air Canada's economy class seating, the buffer zone will consist of the bank of seats in which the person with a disability due to their allergy to peanuts or nuts is seated and the banks of seats directly in front of and behind the person. In areas where a bulkhead is either directly in front of or behind the bank of seats in which the person is seated, the buffer zone will consist of the bulkhead, together with the bank of seats in which the person is sitting and the bank of seats directly in front of or behind the person (depending on the location of the bulkhead).

3) Precautions to be taken by persons with disabilities due to their allergy to peanuts or nuts

[41] Air Canada submits that the buffer zones it proposes would provide appropriate accommodation when considered in conjunction with the precautions that persons with severe allergies to peanuts and nuts would be expected to take, namely: packing their own snacks, bringing "wet wipes" to wipe down the area in their vicinity and carrying hand sanitizer(s) and Epi-pens.

[42] The Agency accepts that it is consistent with the Decision for Air Canada to assume that precautions are taken in their daily lives by persons with disabilities due to their allergies to mitigate the risks of accidental exposure to allergens. As such, the Agency agrees, for example, that carrying and having available wet wipes, sanitizer(s) and Epi-pens (the latter where prescribed by the person's physician) would complement the effective accommodation provided by the buffer zone.

[43] However, the Agency disagrees with Air Canada's position that persons with disabilities due to their allergies to peanuts or nuts should be required to bring their own snacks. As the Agency's determination of appropriate accommodation includes Air Canada offering peanut-free and nut‑free foods as part of its onboard snack or meal service to the passengers seated in the buffer zone, persons with disabilities due to their allergies to peanuts or nuts should not be required to bring their own snacks, although it is anticipated they may wish to do so.

4) Briefing to passengers seated within a buffer zone

Air Canada

[44] Air Canada states that a briefing related to peanut and nut allergies will be made to passengers seated within the buffer zone in the same manner that individual briefings and instructions are given to passengers seated by an emergency exit. Air Canada further submits that the briefing will inform the passengers seated in the buffer zone that a passenger(s) is allergic to peanuts or nuts and invite them to refrain from consuming these products. Air Canada indicates that if there is an objection, it will try to reseat the objecting passenger(s).

[45] In Decision No. LET-AT-A-93-2010, the Agency informed Air Canada that simply attempting to reseat passengers who object to the conditions of the buffer zone does not meet the requirements of the appropriate accommodation. Air Canada was reminded that the Decision set out that the appropriate accommodation is to separate persons who are allergic to peanuts or nuts from other passengers who may be eating peanuts or nuts or products that contain them. More specifically, the Agency found that the appropriate accommodation is an exclusion or buffer zone where passengers within that zone will be advised that they can only eat foods that are peanut-free and nut-free and that they will only be offered peanut-free and nut-free foods as part of Air Canada's onboard snack or meal service.

[46] In response to Decision No. LET-AT-A-93-2010, Air Canada submits that some passengers may not want to adhere to the conditions of the buffer zone or may refuse to be reseated. However, Air Canada also submits that a request to comply with buffer zone rules or to be reseated would be an instruction from the crew and that failure to abide by these instructions would fall within the definition of disruptive behaviour as per its applicable tariffs and could entail the non‑obliging passenger being removed from the flight.

[47] In case of potential disruption and refusal by passengers to be reseated, Air Canada requests the flexibility to move the buffer zone and the passenger with the allergy. Air Canada explains that its flight attendants are trained to diffuse potentially volatile situations. Air Canada suggests that instead of getting into an argument with a passenger that could result in that passenger being deplaned and their luggage removed, thus causing a delay to all passengers, a solution could be to move the allergic passenger and recreate the buffer zone around more accepting passengers.

Dr. Huyer's comments

[48] Dr. Huyer submits that if nut allergies have been ruled to be a disability, any person who refuses to accommodate that disability should be moved either to another seat or off the aircraft. Dr. Huyer states that she understands that air carriers are required by law to accommodate passengers with disabilities, so the issue of persuading other passengers to comply should not have any relevance.

Agency analysis

[49] Through its proposal, Air Canada intends to reseat passengers who refuse to comply with the conditions of the buffer zone. Although Dr. Huyer expresses the opinion that persuading other passengers to comply shouldn't have any relevance, the Agency recognizes that there may be some individuals who choose not to co-operate. The Agency finds it reasonable that Air Canada have an alternate plan in place to address such a situation. The objective of the buffer zones is to separate persons who are allergic to peanuts or nuts from other passengers who may be eating peanuts or nuts or products that contain them. If, under the circumstances, Air Canada is best able to achieve this objective by moving the buffer zone in a manner that addresses the needs of the person with a disability due to their allergy to peanuts or nuts, the Agency accepts this as reasonable.

[50] Furthermore, the Agency notes that Air Canada has stated that a failure to abide by instructions from the crew would fall within the definition of disruptive behaviour as per its applicable tariffs, and could entail the non-obliging person to be removed from the flight.

[51] The Agency is satisfied that the procedures proposed by Air Canada to brief the passengers in the buffer zone about the requirement to refrain from eating peanuts and nuts and to address situations where passengers refuse to comply with this requirement will adequately meet the disability-related needs of persons with disabilities due to their allergy to peanuts or nuts.

5) Meals and snacks served within a buffer zone

[52] Air Canada also provided information about limitations with respect to its meal and snack service in its submission on advance notice.

[53] In Decision No. LET-AT-A-93-2010, the Agency reminded Air Canada that the appropriate accommodation is a buffer zone wherein passengers will be advised that they can only eat foods that are peanut-free and nut-free and that they will only be offered peanut-free and nut-free foods as part of Air Canada's onboard snack or meal service. The Agency informed Air Canada that to serve foods which contain nuts or nut products to passengers seated in the buffer zone would not meet the requirements of the Decision. Air Canada was also informed that if it does not accept to implement the appropriate accommodation, it will be provided with the opportunity to file its arguments on undueness.

Conclusion

[54] The Agency finalizes its findings of appropriate accommodation for persons with disabilities due to their allergy to peanuts or nuts, when at least 48-hour advance notice is provided by such person to Air Canada, as follows:

  1. Air Canada will create a buffer zone as follows for the passenger with a disability due to allergy to peanuts or nuts:

    1. for international wide-body aircraft executive class seating, the buffer zone will consist of the pod-seat occupied by the person with a disability due to their allergy to peanuts or nuts.

    2. for North American business class seating, the buffer zone will consist of the bank of seats in which the person with a disability due to their allergy to peanuts or nuts is seated.

    3. for economy class seating, the buffer zone will consist of the bank of seats in which the person with a disability due to their allergy to peanuts or nuts is seated, and the banks of seats directly in front of and behind the person. In areas where a bulkhead is either directly in front of or behind the bank of seats in which the person with a disability due to their allergy to peanuts or nuts is seated, the buffer zone will consist of the bulkhead, together with the bank of seats in which the person is sitting and the bank of seats directly in front of or behind the person (depending on the location of the bulkhead).

  2. only peanut-free and nut-free foods will be served by Air Canada as part of its onboard snack or meal service within the buffer zone.

  3. a briefing will be given by Air Canada personnel to passengers within the buffer zone that they can only eat foods that are peanut-free and nut-free and that they will only be offered peanut-free and nut-free foods as part of Air Canada's onboard snack or meal service. In addition, Air Canada personnel is to address situations where a passenger refuses to comply with this requirement by moving the non-obliging passenger or, if necessary due to that passenger's refusal to move, moving the person with the disability due to their allergy to peanuts or nuts to a seat where the buffer zone can be established.

Order

[55] Air Canada is required to advise the Agency within 10 days from the date of this Decision whether it intends to implement the appropriate accommodation described above. As set out in the Decision, if Air Canada accepts to implement the appropriate accommodation, it is required to submit a formal policy for the Agency's review and approval. This shall include a clear description of the process Air Canada would implement to ensure that the appropriate accommodation will be provided to persons with disabilities due to their allergy to peanuts or nuts. Air Canada must submit its formal policy within 30 days from the date of this Decision.

[56] In the event that Air Canada does not accept to implement the appropriate accommodation or any part(s) of it, it must file, within 30 days from the date of this Decision, its arguments on undueness to demonstrate that to provide the unaccepted measure(s) would result in undue hardship or its proposal for a reasonable alternative that is equally responsive to meet the needs of persons with disabilities due to their allergies to peanuts or nuts.

[57] Following Air Canada's submission of a formal policy or its undueness arguments or proposed reasonable alternative that is equally responsive to meet the needs of persons with disabilities due to their allergies to peanuts or nuts, Dr. Huyer and Ms. Nugent will have 10 days to provide their comments.

[58] Parties are required to provide copies of their submissions to the other parties at the same time that they are filed with the Agency.

Members

  • John Scott
  • Raymon J. Kaduck
  • J. Mark MacKeigan

Member(s)

Raymon J. Kaduck
Date modified: