Decision No. 452-AT-A-1999

July 29, 1999

Follow-up - Decision No. 35-AT-A-2006

July 29, 1999

APPLICATION by Rodney Carpenter pursuant to subsections 172(1) and (3) of the Canada Transportation Act, S.C., 1996, c. 10, concerning the difficulties he experienced as a result of the damage to his customized electric wheelchair during transportation on his return trip between Los Angeles, California, United States of America, and Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, with Air Canada.

File No. U3570/99-19


APPLICATION

On March 31, 1999, Rodney Carpenter filed an application with the Canadian Transportation Agency (hereinafter the Agency) with respect to the matter set out in the title.

Air Canada filed its answer to the application on May 7, 1999, and Mr. Carpenter filed his reply on May 18, 1999. Additional comments were subsequently filed by both parties.

ISSUE

The issue to be addressed is whether the damage to Mr. Carpenter's electric wheelchair and the information he was provided at the time of the incident constituted undue obstacles to his mobility, and, if so, what corrective measures should be taken.

FACTS

Mr. Carpenter is quadriplegic and uses a very sophisticated, customized electric wheelchair, valued at $28,000. At work, his wheelchair allows him to access an electronic system to operate his computer and to open secure doors. It also allows him to have full electronic access to his home, for example, to open the front door and to answer the telephone.

Mr. Carpenter travelled with Air Canada between Los Angeles and Ottawa, via Toronto on Sunday, March 21, 1999, on the return portion of his business trip.

When his electric wheelchair was returned to him at the Ottawa Macdonald-Cartier International Airport, it was severely damaged and required major repairs.

Mr. Carpenter was offered the option to have his wheelchair repaired at the repair outlet of his choice. He chose to have it repaired by the Ottawa Rehabilitation Centre; however, it was closed on the day of the incident.

Air Canada made the necessary arrangements for the damaged wheelchair to be delivered to the repair shop and offered Mr. Carpenter a manual wheelchair until the opening of the repair outlet the next day. However, Mr. Carpenter used it until the completion of the repairs to his wheelchair, five days later.

Air Canada assumed the full cost of the repairs to Mr. Carpenter's wheelchair and issued a $250.00 voucher to Mr. Carpenter for future travel, which he returned to the carrier.

POSITIONS OF THE PARTIES

Mr. Carpenter submits that his wheelchair allows him freedom of movement in all aspects of his daily living, both at work and at home, and he compares the loss of his wheelchair to having a broken neck, two broken arms and two broken legs. Mr. Carpenter submits that at work he had to rely on colleagues to move him around the office. He was also deprived of his mobility vehicle and independence at home. Mr. Carpenter found the whole experience completely unacceptable and humiliating.

Mr. Carpenter states that his wheelchair was damaged by Air Canada in the past and he questions why and how this is happening. According to Mr. Carpenter, the matter was not taken seriously by Air Canada. He states that the damage to his wheelchair demonstrates a complete lack of understanding, care and thoroughness by the carrier to take any sort of precaution when handling a very specialized piece of equipment. Mr. Carpenter adds that during the repair process, he did not receive a single phone call from anyone at Air Canada inquiring about his well-being or the progress of the repair work to his wheelchair.

Mr. Carpenter also submits that the repairs to his wheelchair performed by the Ottawa Rehabilitation Centre did not completely correct the structural damage. In this respect, Mr. Carpenter states that his wheelchair veers towards one side which is hazardous, especially when crossing roads.

Mr. Carpenter is requesting financial compensation for a new wheelchair and for the loss of his dignity, independence and productivity at work.

Air Canada states that had it known that the Ottawa Rehabilitation Centre did not provide substitute wheelchairs and had Mr. Carpenter contacted the carrier to let it know that he needed a more acceptable wheelchair during repair, the carrier would have made arrangements for a more suitable, replacement wheelchair with a different repair outlet. Mr. Carpenter maintains that he did not contact the carrier as, in his opinion, neither Air Canada nor the repair outlet could provide him with a suitable replacement.

Air Canada advises that wheelchair loading and unloading is performed by station attendants across its transportation network, and that the station attendants' five week initial training program is based on its ramp operation procedures manual and provides specific instructions on the loading of manual and electric wheelchairs. Its training program also stresses the importance of safe and careful handling of wheelchairs as such mobility aids are essential to customers with mobility impairments. Air Canada provided copies of the general procedures contained in the station attendants' training program, as well as copies of the loading and unloading instructions pertaining to Boeing 767 (aircraft operated on Mr. Carpenter's flight segment between Los Angeles and Toronto) and to DC-9 (aircraft operated on Mr. Carpenter's flight segment between Toronto and Ottawa).

Air Canada adds that its training department is in the process of redesigning the basic training program for station attendants, which will be more comprehensive with respect to sensitivity issues and will continue to emphasize that wheelchairs are "the legs" of customers with mobility impairments and, as such, must be handled with great care. The training program is expected to be updated and provided to new station attendants by the end of the summer 1999.

Air Canada extends its apologies for the inconvenience that occurred as a result of the damage to Mr. Carpenter's wheelchair and states that it is confident that the updated and improved training program will complement its constant efforts to prevent the recurrence of situations similar to the one experienced by Mr. Carpenter.

ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS

In making its findings, the Agency has reviewed all the material submitted by the parties during the pleadings.

With respect to the damage to Mr. Carpenter's wheelchair during transportation, the Agency's Personnel Training for the Assistance of Persons with Disabilities Regulations establish that every air carrier must ensure that all of its employees and contractors who handle mobility aids receive training appropriate to the requirements of their functions in, for example, the different types of mobility aids, and the requirements, the limitations, the procedures and the methods for securing, carrying and stowing mobility aids in the baggage compartment of aircraft, including the disassembling, packaging, unpackaging and assembling of mobility aids such as electric wheelchairs.

In this respect, the Agency is aware that Air Canada has a training program for providing services to persons with disabilities, which was designed by Kéroul, a Canadian nonprofit organization that promotes tourism for persons with restricted physical abilities. During the course of its investigation into a previous complaint, the Agency reviewed and assessed the carrier's training program entitled Serving Customers with Disabilities, and determined that the training material effectively and adequately addresses the loading, unloading and stowing of mobility aids, including electric wheelchairs, and that it conveys procedures that provide for proper and safe handling of these mobility devices. The Agency's review of the training documents provided by the carrier in this case supports that determination. The Agency is also aware that the carrier's training program is provided to employees of Air Canada responsible for the loading and unloading of aircraft as part of their initial training and that these same employees receive refresher training every two years.

The Agency finds that the damage to Mr. Carpenter's highly sophisticated and customized wheelchair constituted an obstacle to his mobility in that it deprived him of his wheelchair and independence for a period of five days, thereby affecting his mobility, reducing his productivity at work and preventing him from exercising normal daily activities both at work and at home.

The carrier has provided no evidence of abnormal operational conditions which could have led to the damage to Mr. Carpenter's mobility aid during handling. The Agency is of the opinion that the importance of mobility aids and the consequences of the loss of or damage to mobility aids to persons with disabilities should be given a much higher priority in terms of care and attention during transportation. The Agency notes that Air Canada has a policy and procedures in place for the carriage of mobility aids and that it provides training to its employees on the handling of mobility aids and on its policy and procedures. On balance, the Agency finds that the damage caused to Mr. Carpenter's wheelchair was likely the result of a human error and further finds the obstacle to be undue as the damage could have been avoided had the carrier's employees applied the established procedures and used proper techniques.

Based on the above, the Agency finds that Air Canada should provide it with copies of the training records of all of its employees who handle mobility aids at the Ottawa and Toronto International Airports, including the dates of initial and refresher training received, as well as a confirmation from the contractor that provides such services for Air Canada at the Los Angeles Airport that the employees involved have received appropriate training. The Agency also finds that Air Canada should issue a bulletin to all of these employees highlighting the incident experienced by Mr. Carpenter, including the consequences of the damaged wheelchair to him, and reminding them of the importance of adhering to the carrier's established procedures to ensure the safe handling of mobility aids during transportation.

With respect to wheelchair repair and replacement procedures, the Agency notes that Air Canada's policy provides various options for persons with disabilities. For example, Air Canada can make arrangements to have the damaged aid picked up and repaired at a specialized repair centre chosen by the carrier or by the person with a disability or the person may make his/her own arrangements. The Agency notes that the options listed below are included in the air carrier's repair policy:

  • the provision of a suitable temporary replacement mobility device, including an electric wheelchair, at the carrier's expense until the person's mobility aid is repaired and can be returned;
  • the provision of its own airport wheelchair for use until the outlet is open for business, when the damage occurs outside normal retail business hours;
  • making arrangements for another wheelchair with a different outlet if the temporary replacement wheelchair provided by an outlet is not satisfactory; and
  • the provision, upon request, of the services of an attendant if the person is unable to independently operate the temporary mobility device that is provided.

While these options exist, the Agency is concerned that they are not always clearly communicated to employees and to persons with disabilities, as seems to be the case in this instance. This determination was also made in the context of a previous complaint against Air Canada and, by Decision No. 120-AT-A-1998, the Agency required the carrier to produce a brochure to outline repair options for damaged or lost mobility aids, including provisions relating to replacement aids. Air Canada was also required to instruct its employees to inform persons with disabilities, within one hour of being notified that a wheelchair is damaged or lost, of the arrangements it is able to make concerning a replacement. A copy of the text for the proposed brochure has since been filed with the Agency and is presently under review. However, as a result of Mr. Carpenter's experience with Air Canada, the Agency concludes that there continues to be a lack of effective communication between the carrier and its employees, and between the carrier's employees and persons with disabilities, concerning the carrier's wheelchair repair and replacement policy and procedures.

The Agency is also of the opinion that the Air Canada policy and procedures in place concerning wheelchair repair and replacement were not properly applied. In this respect, while it is noted that Air Canada did provide Mr. Carpenter with a temporary replacement wheelchair, it was not suitable in that it did not provide him with an equivalent level of independent mobility. Due to the sophisticated nature of Mr. Carpenter's own wheelchair and the high level of independent mobility and accessibility that it provides, the Agency recognizes that there was little or no possibility for Mr. Carpenter to be provided with a suitable temporary wheelchair. However, Air Canada did not advise Mr. Carpenter that the services of an attendant could have been provided in order to compensate him for the loss of mobility, which it should have. Furthermore, the carrier cannot assess the needs of a person with a disability or determine the services required without discussing them with the person. This dialogue is an important component of the carrier's "sensitivity and awareness" training and, as such, its employees should recognize when they are dealing with a person with very particular mobility needs as opposed to a person who can be temporarily accommodated with a basic airport wheelchair.

Consequently, the Agency finds that the failure to provide adequate information to Mr. Carpenter regarding the options available to him at the time of the incident constituted an obstacle to his mobility. This obstacle is found to be undue in that it could have been easily avoided had Air Canada personnel clearly outlined all the options available to the passenger regarding a suitable temporary replacement wheelchair. The Agency finds that Air Canada should issue a bulletin to all of its airport employees who deal with passengers reporting damaged or lost mobility aids to remind them of the importance of informing persons with disabilities, within one hour of being notified that a wheelchair is damaged, of all arrangements that the carrier is able to make concerning a replacement.

With respect to Mr. Carpenter's request for compensation, subsection 172(3) of the Canada Transportation Act limits the Agency to direct the payment of a compensation to a person with a disability for the costs incurred as a result of an undue obstacle. In this respect, the Agency finds that the costs associated with the repairs to Mr. Carpenter's wheelchair constitute expenses incurred as a result of the undue obstacle to his mobility. As Air Canada has assumed all costs associated with the repairs, and no evidence was presented by Mr. Carpenter relating to any other expenses incurred as a result of the undue obstacle, no order for compensation can be made.

The Agency notes, however, that Mr. Carpenter indicated that his wheelchair has not been adequately repaired. According to him, the wheelchair veers to one side which results in dangerous conditions when operating his wheelchair. In this respect, and given that Air Canada has not addressed the matter, the Agency finds that Air Canada should have the condition of Mr. Carpenter's wheelchair reassessed and take appropriate measures, at its own expense, to have it repaired to Mr. Carpenter's satisfaction.

The Agency does not have jurisdiction to award damages for the loss of dignity and independence.

CONCLUSION

Based on the above findings, the Agency determines that the damage to Mr. Carpenter's wheelchair and the failure by Air Canada's personnel to provide information at the time of the incident regarding the options available to him in terms of finding him a suitable temporary replacement wheelchair while his was being repaired constituted undue obstacles to his mobility.

Air Canada has submitted to the Agency a copy of the text of its proposed brochure outlining repair options for damaged mobility aids, including provisions relating to replacement aids. Upon completion of its review of the proposed brochure, the Agency will determine whether further action is required in this respect.

The Agency hereby requires Air Canada to:

  • provide the Agency, within thirty (30) days from the date of this Decision, with copies of the training records of all of its employees who handle mobility aids at the Ottawa and Toronto International Airports, including the dates of the initial and refresher training received, as well as a confirmation from the contractor that provides such services for Air Canada at the Los Angeles Airport that the employees involved have received appropriate training;
  • issue a bulletin to its employees who handle mobility devices at the Ottawa and Toronto International Airports and those of its contractor at the Los Angeles Airport highlighting the incident experienced by Mr. Carpenter, including the consequences of the damaged wheelchair to him, and reminding them of the importance of adhering to the carrier's established procedures to ensure proper and safe handling of mobility aids during transportation; and to provide the Agency, within thirty (30) days from the date of this Decision, with a copy of this bulletin;
  • issue a bulletin to all of its airport employees who deal with passengers reporting damaged or lost mobility aids reminding them of the importance of informing persons with disabilities, within one hour of being notified that a wheelchair is damaged, of all of the arrangements that the carrier is able to make concerning a replacement; and to provide the Agency, within thirty (30) days from the date of this Decision, with a copy of this bulletin; and
  • reassess the condition of Mr. Carpenter's wheelchair and take appropriate measures, at its own expense, to have it repaired to Mr. Carpenter's satisfaction.

Following its review of the required information, the Agency will determine whether further action is required with respect to this matter.

Members

  • Michael Sutton, ing. - P. Eng.
  • Mary-Jane Bennett
Date modified: