Decision No. 492-AT-A-2006
With Decision No. 126-AT-A-2009
September 14, 2006
APPLICATION by Lina Di Carlo pursuant to subsection 172(1) of the Canada Transportation Act, S.C., 1996, c. 10, regarding the difficulties she encountered while travelling with Air Canada between Toronto, Ontario and Victoria, British Columbia on February 8, 2006.
File No. U3570/06-5
APPLICATION
[1] On February 23, 2006, Lina Di Carlo filed with the Canadian Transportation Agency (hereinafter the Agency) the application set out in the title.
[2] On March 31, 2006, Air Canada filed its answer to the application and included a copy of Ms. Di Carlo's Passenger Name Record (hereinafter PNR), and her permanent MEDA Desk file, as well as a copy of its policies and procedures regarding baggage and services involving mobility aids.
[3] On April 6, 2006, Air Canada filed additional comments as well as a copy of its policies and procedures regarding persons with disabilities that the MEDA Desk would follow. On April 7, 2006, Air Canada filed its position regarding confidentiality of its policies. On May 11, 2006, Air Canada withdrew its objection to the release of its policies and procedures.
[4] On April 19, 2006, Ms. Di Carlo filed her reply to Air Canada's answer, and on May 23, 2006 Ms. Di Carlo filed her comments on Air Canada's policies and procedures. Air Canada filed its comments on Ms. Di Carlo's May 23 submission on May 29, 2006 and on June 6, 2006, Ms. Di Carlo filed her comments on Air Canada's submission.
[5] Pursuant to subsection 29(1) of the Canada Transportation Act (hereinafter the CTA), the Agency is required to make its decision no later than 120 days after the application is received unless the parties agree to an extension. In this case, the parties have agreed to an extension of the deadline until October 11, 2006.
ISSUE
[6] The issue to be addressed is whether the following constituted undue obstacles to Ms. Di Carlo's mobility and, if so, what corrective measures should be taken:
-
the dissemination of information contained in Ms. Di Carlo's MEDA Desk file regarding two matters:
- her wheelchair specifications and
- her accessibility-related needs; and
- difficulties pertaining to Ms. Di Carlo's access to airport washrooms based on the unavailability of her personal wheelchair during connections and on her understanding that a suitable airport wheelchair may not be available.
FACTS
[7] Ms. Di Carlo uses an electric wheelchair powered by gel batteries. Ms. Di Carlo has a permanent file with Air Canada's MEDA Desk that contains information regarding her disability and disability-related needs. It includes the fact that she has been cleared as "approved WCHC". This code is defined, in part, in the International Air Transportation Association's Reservations Services Manual as: "Wheelchair – C for Cabin Seat. Passenger completely immobile. Requires wheelchair to/from aircraft/mobile lounge and must be carried up/down steps and to/from cabin seat." Her MEDA Desk file also indicates that Ms. Di Carlo has her own electrical dry cell and manual wheelchairs.
[8] On December 22, 2005, Ms. Di Carlo booked flights through BTI Canada for travel from Toronto to Victoria on February 8, 2006, with a connection in Vancouver. The PNR reflecting Ms. Di Carlo's reservation includes a special service request denoted by the code "WCHC". Further, the PNR contains a notation that her electric wheelchair weighs 280 pounds, is 30 inches wide, and is operated by a gel battery. According to Air Canada policy CIC 840/49, the reservation agent must ensure that the wheelchair is allowed on the aircraft when the customer advises the reservation agent that she will travel with her own wheelchair.
[9] Prior to departure, Ms. Di Carlo informed Air Canada about her need to have access to her wheelchair during her connection in Vancouver that would allow her to independently use the airport washroom facilities. Air Canada informed Ms. Di Carlo that according to its policy (CIC 70/6), it could not provide her with her personal wheelchair during her connection. The connecting time in Vancouver is 53 minutes.
[10] Ms. Di Carlo requested that a manual wheelchair with swing-away footrests be made available to her during her connection in Vancouver. Air Canada informed Ms. Di Carlo that it would try to accommodate her request, but was unable to guarantee that this would happen.
[11] Two days before the flight, on February 6, 2006, Ms. Di Carlo received three phone calls, within minutes of each other, from the Air Canada MEDA Desk to enquire about the weight of her wheelchair and whether it had gel batteries. She was also informed that Air Canada could not provide her with a manual wheelchair that met her specifications. Ms. Di Carlo asked Air Canada if she could take a later flight from Vancouver to Victoria to allow for more connecting time within which to have her personal wheelchair brought to her. Air Canada personnel replied that they would look into this option.
[12] Ms. Di Carlo received a call from Air Canada personnel the day before her flight informing her that she could not take a later flight and that her wheelchair could not be brought to her regardless of the amount of connecting time in Vancouver.
[13] Ms. Di Carlo subsequently made arrangements through Motion Specialties to rent a manual wheelchair in Vancouver to be brought to the airport for the ten minutes she needed it to be able to use the washroom facilities.
[14] Finally, Ms. Di Carlo spoke with an Air Canada employee in Montréal who informed her that there was a problem with her connecting flight from Vancouver to Victoria in that the cargo hold was not large enough to accommodate the crate that would contain her wheelchair. The PNR noted that Air Canada decided to offer Ms. Di Carlo a non-stop flight because the weight of the wheelchair might be a problem for the Vancouver-Victoria flight.
[15] Air Canada informed Ms. Di Carlo that there was an earlier flight that would connect to a larger aircraft in Vancouver and that it could accommodate her wheelchair. After accepting the earlier flight, Ms. Di Carlo contacted the wheelchair-accessible taxi in Toronto, Motion Specialties in Vancouver, and the wheelchair accessible bus in Victoria to arrange for earlier times. During her connection in Vancouver, Ms. Di Carlo used the wheelchair provided by Motion Specialties.
POSITIONS OF THE PARTIES
Dissemination of information - wheelchair specifications
[16] Ms. Di Carlo states that all of the information regarding her disability and her power chair, such as width, weight, type of batteries, etc., is on file with the MEDA Desk at Air Canada.
[17] Ms. Di Carlo submits that most of the obstacles she experienced could have been avoided as Air Canada had all the information concerning her electric wheelchair in December 2005, and yet she was booked on an aircraft that could not accommodate her wheelchair. Ms. Di Carlo finds it even more disturbing that Air Canada waited two months to inform her of the problem. Ms. Di Carlo submits that she was fortunate to be able to change her arrangements for the wheelchair-accessible taxi in Toronto, the wheelchair in Vancouver, and the wheelchair-accessible bus in Victoria, to accommodate her new flight times. She also submits that she was so stressed that at one point she considered cancelling her trip.
[18] Air Canada notes that Ms. Di Carlo was booked as an "approved WCHC" and that this code is set out in Ms. Di Carlo's PNR. Air Canada states that the MEDA Desk does not maintain a permanent medical file containing a customer's wheelchair size, dimensions or type of battery.
[19] Air Canada explains that there are limits to the number of wheelchairs it can carry on an aircraft and the size and type of wheelchair must be identified to ensure that it can be carried on certain types of aircraft. In this regard, Air Canada submits that the MEDA Desk file is not meant to manage wheelchair information or a customer's travel requirements. As such, Air Canada indicates that customers travelling with their own wheelchairs must advise Air Canada of their needs each time they make a booking, and this information is built into the PNR. Air Canada adds that once the customer completes his/her travel, the PNR is no longer active.
Dissemination of information - Ms. Di Carlo's accessibility-related needs
[20] Ms. Di Carlo states that there is a lack of communication and training among Air Canada personnel as four of the carrier's personnel in different airports asked her if she could walk, if her wheelchair had gel batteries, and how high her chair was. According to Ms. Di Carlo, one such incident occurred prior to boarding her connecting flight in Vancouver, during which she was told to wait until everyone else had boarded the aircraft and the person at the boarding counter said, "Oh! Do you need assistance? Can you walk?" Ms. Di Carlo questions how many times she should be required to answer these questions. Ms. Di Carlo notes that all of this information is contained in her MEDA Desk file which Air Canada insists people with disabilities have.
[21] Ms. Di Carlo suggests that the Air Canada personnel at the check-in counters should and must have access to information relevant to persons with disabilities to minimize the negative impact these difficulties have on passengers. Ms. Di Carlo suggests that in order to maintain confidentiality and due to time constraints during the check-in process, basic information should be retrieved, such as "wheelchair cleared, person unable to walk/stand, and requires physical assistance to board". She adds that this type of quick reference would have avoided the wait at the check-in counter in Vancouver.
[22] Air Canada explains that permanent MEDA Desk files are kept for customers who require medical clearance to travel, which would include a customer who requires an attendant to travel. Air Canada points out that Ms. Di Carlo's permanent file was created in 2002. Air Canada explains that the permanent files and the MEDA Desk records are confidential and are not shared openly with personnel.
[23] Air Canada states that the customer must advise the MEDA Desk of his/her travel needs at the time of booking as a customer's needs may change over time. Air Canada submits that the MEDA Desk cannot make assumptions about a passenger's needs.
[24] In response to Air Canada's comments on her MEDA Desk file, Ms. Di Carlo states that she understands the process and expresses her opinion that what happens to her file before and after a flight is irrelevant; her concern is with what happens with her file on the day of the flight. Ms. Di Carlo notes that all pertinent information at the time of travel is contained somewhere as she provided it at the time of booking. Ms. Di Carlo submits that this information should be provided to the agents involved in her flights to ensure that her trip is free of anxiety and as comfortable as possible. She submits that the information should be displayed on Air Canada's computer screens to avoid her having to discuss her personal situation at an airport filled with travellers and having her "confidential" information, as characterized by Air Canada, heard by other individuals.
[25] Air Canada states that its airport agents must make enquiries of customers who use wheelchairs to ensure that they can provide the appropriate service and notes that, in some cases, some customers who have requested WCHC assistance are able to walk a few steps from an onboard wheelchair to their seat.
Difficulties pertaining to access to airport washrooms
[26] Ms. Di Carlo submits that after Air Canada informed her that it could not provide her with her own wheelchair in Vancouver, she requested that a manual wheelchair with swing-away footrests be made available to her in Vancouver, in order for her to be able to get close enough to the toilet to transfer.
[27] Air Canada states that as Ms. Di Carlo was travelling with an electric wheelchair powered by a gel battery, there was not sufficient time to replace the batteries and then remove them again during the connection in Vancouver. With respect to Ms. Di Carlo's request to change her outbound flight to allow for more connection time in Vancouver, Air Canada submits that more connection time in Vancouver would not change its decision to not make her own wheelchair available to her during the connection. Air Canada refers to its policy noted in Air Canada CIC 70/6 which states:
Availability at connection point (manual wheelchairs only)
- procedure at connection points is only applicable to *manual wchrs* as connection times do not allow sufficient time for powered whcrs which require assembly/disassembly.
- same process applies as acceptance to acft door, except that the wheelchair should be short tagged to connection point only. Prior to loading at the connection point, wchr will have to be retagged to next connection point or final destination.
[28] Air Canada also makes reference to CIC 57/60 which states:
At the airport we will:
- arrange for use of customer's own wheelchair to/from aircraft door.
Reservations procedure**
- indicate in the PNR services that have been requested by the customer.
[29] Air Canada explains that the manual wheelchairs it uses at the Vancouver airport have either fold-up footrests or swing-away footrests. In its letter dated March 31, 2006, Air Canada acknowledges that Ms. Di Carlo requested the use of a wheelchair with swing-away footrests. Air Canada points out, however, that it could not guarantee that a wheelchair with swing-away footrests, as requested by Ms. Di Carlo, would be available. Air Canada submits that fold-up and swing-away footrests work very well and achieve similar results to removable footrests. In a subsequent letter dated April 6, 2006, Air Canada states that Ms. Di Carlo requested a wheelchair with removable footrests; a note added to Ms. Di Carlo's PNR on January 4, 2006 indicates that the passenger called, insisting that she needs a wheelchair with removable rests, which she requires to get as close as possible to the toilet when she needs to use the washroom. A subsequent note in the PNR dated February 6, 2006 sets out that the Product Manager was consulted and that all wheelchairs in the aircraft and at the airport have rests that "flip over". Air Canada further explains that the wheelchair footrests, both fold-up and swing-away, are not removable from the wheelchairs, nor are they meant to be removed. Air Canada states that it cannot provide a manual wheelchair with removable footrests, as this renders it unserviceable. Air Canada also notes that the footrests are affixed for health and safety reasons.
[30] In response, Ms. Di Carlo indicates that at no time did she request that the rests be removable; she simply needs rests that swing-away to allow the wheelchair to be positioned close to the toilet, at a maximum distance of three inches. Ms. Di Carlo explains that a wheelchair with fold-up rests does not provide sufficient safety as it prevents the wheelchair from being positioned close enough to the toilet. Ms. Di Carlo resents Air Canada's assumption that as that type of wheelchair works for some people with disabilities, it should work for all.
[31] Air Canada submits that Ms. Di Carlo did not experience an obstacle regarding her travel with Air Canada, nor at the Vancouver airport. Air Canada states that it has wheelchairs with fold-up and swing-away footrests and points out that Ms. Di Carlo chose to not use Air Canada's wheelchairs, but instead hired the services of a third party to provide a wheelchair with swing-away rests. Furthermore, an Air Canada agent stayed with her during her stop in Vancouver to "ensure everything went fine." Air Canada indicates that although it could not guarantee that a swing-away footrest wheelchair would be available on February 8, 2006, it would have provided Ms. Di Carlo with a wheelchair with either fold-up or swing-away rests, depending on availability, when she arrived in Vancouver. Air Canada therefore states that it did not deny, and would not have denied, Ms. Di Carlo wheelchair assistance.
[32] Ms. Di Carlo submits that she did not choose to hire a third party, but rather, she was forced to do so as Air Canada could not guarantee that a wheelchair with swing-away footrests would be available. Ms. Di Carlo states that she therefore found a solution by contacting a company that repairs, sells, and rents wheelchairs and by making arrangements with that company to rent a manual wheelchair in Vancouver at the airport for the ten minutes she needed it in order to use the washroom. Ms. Di Carlo notes that normally there is a one-hour rental charge, however, the company was sympathetic and appalled at the circumstances and provided her the use of a wheelchair at no charge.
[33] Air Canada states that as a gesture of goodwill, its agent at the Vancouver airport upgraded Ms. Di Carlo and her travelling companion to Executive Class on the Vancouver-Victoria flight on February 8, 2006, to which Ms. Di Carlo submits that it was the onboard personnel's decision to upgrade them to first class. Ms. Di Carlo adds that although this may have been a goodwill gesture, it was done more for the sake of convenience. She explains that after using the Vancouver airport washroom, she arrived at her connecting flight with two minutes to spare. As such, had Air Canada personnel brought her to her assigned seat, using the aisle wheelchair, Ms. Di Carlo states that her boarding process would have taken much longer and, therefore, delayed the flight's departure.
[34] Ms. Di Carlo points out that she has been travelling with Air Canada for more than 20 years, and that this trip was one of the most frustrating and stressful she has ever experienced as a person with a disability.
[35] Ms. Di Carlo submits that every Canadian under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms is guaranteed the right to transportation regardless of disability and that she should have the right to travel on any flight, connecting or otherwise, at any time and receive the same services as any other passenger. Ms. Di Carlo states that the International Air Transport Association (IATA) and the Agency must enforce this right and ensure that travel for passengers with disabilities is not such a stressful event.
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
[36] In making its findings, the Agency has considered all of the evidence submitted by the parties during the pleadings.
[37] An application must be filed by a person with a disability or on behalf of a person with a disability. In the present case, Ms. Di Carlo uses a wheelchair and, as such, is a person with a disability for the purpose of applying the accessibility provisions of the CTA.
[38] To determine whether there is an undue obstacle to the mobility of persons with disabilities within the meaning of subsection 172(1) of the CTA, the Agency must first determine whether the applicant's mobility was restricted or limited by an obstacle. If so, the Agency must then decide whether that obstacle was undue. In order to answer these questions, the Agency must take into consideration the particular facts of the case before it.
Whether the applicant's mobility was restricted or limited by an obstacle
[39] The word "obstacle" is usually understood to mean something that impedes progress or achievement. As the word "obstacle" is not defined in the CTA, it must be read in its immediate legislative context which is, for the purposes of Part V of the CTA, the mobility of persons with disabilities, such mobility being achieved by having proper access to federal transportation services. In this way, the obstacle must be directly related to a person's disability such that an issue cannot be considered to be an obstacle simply because it is experienced by a person with a disability.
[40] In determining whether or not a situation constituted an "obstacle" to the mobility of a person with a disability in a particular case, the Agency looks to the travel experience of that person as expressed in the application. There is a broad range of circumstances where the Agency has found obstacles where the person was prevented from travelling, where the person was injured in the course of his or her travels (such as where the lack of appropriate accommodation during travel affects the physical condition of the passenger), or where the person was deprived of his or her mobility aid after the trip as a result of damage caused to the aid while it was being transported. Also, the Agency may find obstacles in instances where the person was ultimately able to travel, but circumstances arising from the experience call into question whether the person had proper access to effective transportation services.
The case at hand
The dissemination of information contained in Ms. Di Carlo's file - wheelchair specifications
[41] The Agency notes that Air Canada, at the time that Ms. Di Carlo provided the information regarding the weight and other specifications of her wheelchair to the carrier, did not provide Ms. Di Carlo with any indication that the aircraft she had been booked to travel on between Vancouver and Victoria, would be unable to accommodate her wheelchair. It is clear from the PNR that discussions only took place two days before Ms. Di Carlo was scheduled to travel, and that her flights were changed the day before her scheduled departure in order to allow her to travel on a flight that could accommodate her wheelchair. Due to Air Canada's failure to access the information regarding the size of her wheelchair as contained in Ms. Di Carlo's PNR until just prior to her scheduled travel, Ms. Di Carlo's reservation was only changed at the last minute.
[42] According to Air Canada policy, CIC 840/49, when the customer advises the reservation agent that he/she will travel with his/her own wheelchair, the agent "must consult CIC 70/6 to ensure dimensions of the wheelchair given by the customer are verified and that the wheelchair is allowed on specific aircraft types". In this case, Air Canada failed to verify and confirm, at the time of reservation, that it could not transport Ms. Di Carlo's wheelchair. Air Canada changed Ms. Di Carlo's flight reservation at the last minute in order for her wheelchair to be transported. The Agency notes that, in this regard, as in the case of changes to any travel arrangements, the closer to departure date these are attempted, the greater the risk that the alternative arrangements cause significant difficulties for the passenger. In this regard, Ms. Di Carlo ran the risk of losing her many travel arrangements. She considered herself "especially lucky" to have been able to rebook the wheelchair-accessible taxi in Toronto, Motions Specialties in Vancouver and the wheelchair accessible bus in Victoria which she risked losing because of the 14-day notice requirement for a guaranteed pick-up. The result was that she was so stressed that at one point she considered cancelling her trip.
[43] Furthermore, the Agency notes that Air Canada asserted that it "went over and above its obligations in offering to change Ms. Di Carlo's outbound itinerary, at no charge, to mirror her return itinerary which would eliminate a stop and connection in Vancouver." The Agency also notes that Ms. Di Carlo responded that Air Canada offered her an evening flight that would have landed in Victoria at midnight. As wheelchair transportation in Victoria ceases at midnight, Ms. Di Carlo reported that she would not have had means of transportation to get to her hotel. Similarly, she reported that an early morning flight was impossible for her to meet, given that accessible transportation in Toronto, Wheel-Trans, had its first pick-p at 6:45 a.m., and that she would be required to arrive at the airport two hours in advance.
[44] The Agency recognizes that persons with disabilities have the same needs as all people with respect to travel whether it be for business, pleasure or medical reasons and that persons with disabilities want to have the same travel options as are presented to all people, including the convenience of departure and arrival times, and the efficiency of the various travel options from both a time and an economic perspective.
[45] In light of the foregoing, the Agency finds that Air Canada's policy and procedures for assessing and confirming whether it can transport the mobility aids of persons with disabilities on its aircraft constitute an obstacle to Ms. Di Carlo's mobility.
The dissemination of information contained in Ms. Di Carlo's file - accessibility-related needs
[46] The Agency notes that Air Canada's policy with respect to special services in its CIC 840/49 indicates that to better understand the type of assistance required by a customer with a disability, its personnel should:
- initiate discussions;
- be attentive when customers communicate their needs;
- ask questions to ensure needs and abilities are clearly understood; and,
- be alert and proactive to their needs.
[47] The Agency accepts Air Canada's assertion that its agents at the airports must make enquiries of customers using wheelchairs to ensure they can provide the appropriate service needed, and that in the case of a WCHC code, some customers are able to walk a few steps from an onboard wheelchair to their seats and some cannot.
[48] The Agency finds it desirable that Air Canada personnel make such enquiries. In some cases, passengers' needs may have changed since the time of reservation, improper disability-related service codes may be entered into the PNR, or the codes may not provide enough specific information. The Agency also finds that when personnel make enquiries, the risk that the required service is not provided is reduced. Provided that such enquiries are made in an appropriate and sensitive manner, the Agency is of the opinion that their value outweighs the inconvenience and other possible negative implications for people with disabilities.
[49] In light of the foregoing, the Agency finds that the fact that Air Canada personnel at the airport made enquiries of Ms. Di Carlo regarding her abilities and needs, notwithstanding that this information had been provided to them prior to travel, did not constitute an obstacle to Ms. Di Carlo's mobility.
Access to airport washrooms
[50] The Agency notes that in order to be able to use the airport washroom during her connection in Vancouver, Ms. Di Carlo requested that her personal wheelchair be made available to her, and that once she was informed by Air Canada that it was unable to do so, she requested a wheelchair with swing-away footrests as this type of wheelchair would allow her to get close enough to the toilet to transfer.
[51] The Agency also notes that Air Canada has acknowledged that the wheelchairs it uses at the Vancouver airport have both fold-up and swing-away footrests and that Air Canada could not guarantee that a wheelchair with swing-away footrests would be available.
[52] The Agency recognizes that there may have been miscommunication as the PNR indicates that a wheelchair with removable rests was requested.
[53] In light of the fact that Air Canada could not guarantee that a wheelchair with swing-away footrests would be made available, the Agency accepts that Ms. Di Carlo felt compelled to make arrangements with an independent wheelchair supplier.
[54] In light of the foregoing, the Agency finds that Air Canada's inability to guarantee that a wheelchair with swing-away footrests would be available for Ms. Di Carlo's use at the Vancouver airport constituted an obstacle to her mobility.
Whether the obstacle was undue
[55] As with the term "obstacle", the term "undue" is not defined in the CTA in order to allow the Agency to exercise its discretion to eliminate undue obstacles in the federal transportation network. The word "undue" lends itself to a broad meaning; it is commonly understood to mean exceeding or violating propriety or fitness; excessive; inordinate; disproportionate. As something may be found disproportionate or excessive in one case and not in another, the Agency must take into account the context in which the allegation that an obstacle is undue is made. Under this contextual approach, the Agency must strike a balance between the rights of passengers with disabilities to use the federal transportation network without encountering undue obstacles and the carriers' commercial and operational considerations and responsibilities. This interpretation is in keeping with the national transportation policy set out in section 5 of the CTA and more particularly in subparagraph 5(g)(ii) of the CTA where it is stated inter alia that conditions under which carriers or modes of transportation operate must, as far as is practicable, not constitute an undue obstacle to the mobility of persons with disabilities.
[56] While the transportation industry designs its services to meet the needs of its users, the accessibility provisions of the CTA require transportation service providers in the federal transportation network to adapt their services, as far as is practicable, to the needs of persons with disabilities. There are however some impediments that have to be taken into consideration, such as security measures carriers must adopt and apply, timetables or schedules that they must attempt to adhere to for commercial reasons, equipment design and the economic impact of adapting services. These impediments may have some impact on persons with disabilities as, for example, they may not be able to board in their own wheelchair, they may have to arrive at a terminal earlier to allow time for boarding, and they may have to wait for a longer period of time for deboarding assistance than persons without disabilities. It is impossible to establish an exhaustive list of the obstacles a passenger with a disability may encounter and the impediments that transportation service providers will encounter in trying to meet the needs of persons with disabilities. A balance has to be struck between the various responsibilities of transportation service providers and the rights of persons with disabilities to travel without encountering undue obstacles and it is in the weighing of this balance that the Agency applies the concept of undueness.
The case at hand
The dissemination of information contained in Ms. Di Carlo's file - wheelchair specifications
[57] Having found that Air Canada's policy and procedures for assessing and confirming whether it can transport the mobility aids of persons with disabilities on its aircraft constitute an obstacle to Ms. Di Carlo's mobility, the Agency must now determine whether that obstacle is undue.
[58] Air Canada was aware in advance of Ms. Di Carlo's wheelchair size, including its weight. It has policies in place dealing with the provision of services to persons with disabilities. In particular, it has a policy directing its reservation agents, when advised by a customer that he/she will be travelling with his/her own wheelchair, to consult its CIC 70/6 to ensure the dimensions of the wheelchair given by the customer are verified and that the wheelchair is allowed on specific aircraft types.
[59] However, the policy does not go far enough to ensure that passengers are notified whether their personal wheelchair can be carried at the time they provide the wheelchair information to Air Canada. The Agency is concerned when a carrier's personnel fails to respond to the needs of persons with disabilities in a timely manner, as was the case with respect to Ms. Di Carlo's reservation whereby Air Canada's personnel did not inform her that her wheelchair could not be carried on the flight between Vancouver and Victoria at the time of reservation. As a result, Ms. Di Carlo was only advised two days prior to the scheduled departure of her flight that Air Canada could not accommodate her wheelchair.
[60] The Agency notes that there is no evidence on file to explain why Air Canada's personnel can not inform persons at the time of reservation whether their mobility aid can be carried.
[61] In light of the foregoing, the Agency finds that Air Canada's policy and procedures for assessing and confirming whether it can transport the mobility aids of persons with disabilities on its aircraft constitute an undue obstacle to Ms. Di Carlo's mobility.
Access to airport washrooms
[62] Having found that Air Canada's inability to guarantee that a wheelchair with swing-away footrests would be made available for Ms. Di Carlo's use at the Vancouver airport constituted an obstacle to her mobility, the Agency must now determine whether the obstacle was undue.
[63] The Agency notes that Air Canada's policy pertaining to baggage procedures in its CIC 70/6 indicates that the availability of a passenger's personal wheelchair at connection points is only applicable to manual wheelchairs. The Agency also notes that Air Canada has acknowledged that the wheelchairs it uses at the Vancouver airport have fold-up and swing-away footrests.
[64] Air Canada was aware in advance of Ms. Di Carlo's need for a specific type of wheelchair and the reason for it. The Agency is concerned with the fact that although Air Canada has the specific type of wheelchair Ms. Di Carlo required, it would not guarantee that it would be made available to her.
[65] The Agency is of the opinion that Air Canada could have provided Ms. Di Carlo with the specific type of wheelchair she required as it was aware of her needs in advance of her travel and has that type of wheelchair at the Vancouver airport. Moreover, the Agency notes that Air Canada has not provided an explanation as to why it was unable to guarantee a wheelchair with swing-away footrests for Ms. Di Carlo at the Vancouver airport.
[66] In light of the foregoing, the Agency finds that Air Canada's inability to guarantee that a wheelchair with swing-away footrests would be made available to Ms. Di Carlo during her connection at the Vancouver airport constituted an undue obstacle to her mobility.
Other matters
[67] The Agency is of the opinion that there are other important matters on which it should comment.
[68] The Agency recognizes the fact that the miscommunication of requests for particular services continues to contribute to difficulties experienced by persons with disabilities. The Agency finds that it is important for air carriers to obtain a clear understanding of the travel-related needs of persons with disabilities and the accessibility features and services that they require through open and clear communication.
[69] The Agency also finds that it is important that an air carrier confirms a passenger's disability-related service requests with the passenger in writing. In this way, the air carrier provides the passenger with an opportunity to ensure his or her particular needs have been properly reflected, thereby enabling the person with the disability to verify that the information on file accurately reflects his or her needs and, in the event that there is any discrepancy, to contact the carrier.
[70] In the case at hand, the Agency is of the opinion that had Ms. Di Carlo been provided with a copy of her PNR or other document reflecting her disability-related service requests, there would have been an opportunity to ensure that her accessibility-related needs would have been met on a more timely basis and in a more positive manner. The Agency recommends that Air Canada create a confirmation system to communicate in a timely fashion with persons with disabilities in order to enable them to verify whether the information on their files accurately reflects their needs.
CONCLUSION
[71] The Agency has determined the following:
- Air Canada's policy and procedures for assessing and confirming whether it can transport the mobility aids of persons with disabilities on its aircraft constitute an undue obstacle to Ms. Di Carlo's mobility.
- the fact that Air Canada personnel at the airport made enquiries of Ms. Di Carlo regarding her abilities and needs, notwithstanding that this information had been provided to them prior to travel, did not constitute an obstacle to Ms. Di Carlo's mobility.
- Air Canada's inability to guarantee that a wheelchair with swing-away footrests would be made available to Ms. Di Carlo during her connection at the Vancouver airport constituted an undue obstacle to her mobility.
[72] Consequently, the Agency hereby directs Air Canada to take the following measures within sixty (60) days from the date of this Decision:
- Revise Air Canada's existing policy and procedures and related training material for assessing and confirming that a person's mobility aid can be carried on the aircraft of the flight reserved, to clearly and specifically require agents to perform the verification and confirmation at the time of reservation and to inform the passenger immediately. In the case of an aircraft change where the new aircraft cannot accommodate the passenger's mobility aid, ensure that the passenger is informed immediately of the fact and that alternate arrangements are made in a timely manner. Provide the Agency with a copy of these changes and a statement as to how they have been communicated to relevant personnel.
- Establish procedures to ensure that where passengers request a specific type of airport wheelchair to accommodate a disability, they are provided with the specific type of wheelchair when available at the particular airport, and to clearly and specifically require agents to perform the verification and confirmation at the time the request is made. Provide the Agency with a copy of these procedures, and a statement as to how they have been communicated to relevant personnel.
Members
- Guy Delisle
- Beaton Tulk
- Date modified: