Decision No. 574-C-A-2006

October 20, 2006

File No. M4370/06-03144

COMPLAINT

On May 12, 2006, Hans van der Slagt filed with the Canadian Transportation Agency (hereinafter the Agency) the complaint set out in the title.

On July 21, 2006, the Agency requested that Air Canada address the complaint within the context of subsection 67.2(1) of the Canada Transportation Act, S.C., 1996, c. 10 (hereinafter the CTA).

On July 27, 2006, Air Canada filed its answer and on August 14, 2006, Mr. van der Slagt filed his reply.

ISSUE

The issue to be addressed is whether the terms or conditions related to the carriage of pets contained in Air Canada's tariff, namely its Canadian Domestic General Rules Tariff No. CDGR-1, are unreasonable or unduly discriminatory.

POSITIONS OF THE PARTIES

Mr. van der Slagt submits that the cost that would apply to transport his 80-pound Labrador dog from Toronto to Vancouver with Air Canada has increased from $60 each way in 2005 to $535 each way in 2006. Mr. van der Slagt alleges that this charge is unreasonable and unwarranted. He also objects to a procedural change by Air Canada that could result in a large pet being carried as cargo on a flight other than that on which the owner is a passenger.

Mr. van der Slagt states that he would like Air Canada to realign its present charges with those of 2005, plus a reasonable increase for fuel and other inflationary increases. As well, he would like Air Canada to reinstate its former procedures that allowed dogs to travel on the same aircraft as their owners.

In its reply, Air Canada cites the Agency decision regarding the complaint filed by Robert Black against Air Canada (Decision No. 746-C-A-2005) in which the Agency concluded that Air Canada's policy to limit checked luggage weight allowance to 50 pounds was not unreasonable nor discriminatory. Air Canada also cites the Agency decision regarding the complaint filed by Gordon W. Price against Air Canada (Decision No. 259-C-A-2006) in which the Agency concluded that Air Canada's limit of 70 pounds for the carriage of animals and their kennels as checked baggage was neither unreasonable nor discriminatory.

Air Canada submits that the substance of Mr. van der Slagt's complaint has been determined in the above-noted decisions, as the Agency has already decided that the terms and conditions that limit the weight of checked baggage, and that result in some dog owners not being able to transport their dogs as checked baggage, are neither unreasonable nor discriminatory.

Mr. van der Slagt advises that he accepts Air Canada's arguments respecting the weight limitation for checked baggage, but he continues to object to the fact that pets weighing over 70 pounds, which would be transported as cargo, could be carried on a flight other than that on which the owner is a passenger. He also maintains that the cost of shipping such pets is excessive and unjustified.

ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS

In making its findings, the Agency has considered all of the evidence submitted by the parties during the pleadings. The Agency has also examined Air Canada's terms and conditions pertaining to the carriage of animals as set out in the carrier's tariff.

The Agency notes that in Decision No. 259-C-A-2006, the Agency dismissed the complainant's allegation that Air Canada's reduction in the weight limit from 100 pounds to 70 pounds for the domestic carriage of animals and their kennels as checked baggage is unreasonable or unduly discriminatory within the meaning of subsection 67.2(1) of the CTA. In Decision No. 333-C-A-2006 (complaint filed by Wesley Burwash against Air Canada), the Agency dismissed the complainant's allegation that Air Canada's charge of $105 for one-way domestic carriage of animals in the passenger compartment of the aircraft is unreasonable or unduly discriminatory within the meaning of subsection 67.2(1) of the CTA.

For the reasons set out in Decision Nos. 259-C-A-2006 and 333-C-A-2006, the Agency is of the opinion that the present case should be dismissed as it raises the same questions already addressed by the Agency in those decisions.

Notwithstanding the above, with respect to passengers who want their pets to travel on the same aircraft as they do, Air Canada is expected to make its best effort to try to accommodate such requests. In situations where Air Canada cannot transport the pet on the same aircraft as the passenger, the Agency expects Air Canada to make its best effort to advise such passengers of any other flight availability, perhaps at a later time or date, on which Air Canada would be more likely able to accommodate both the passenger and the pet.

CONCLUSION

Based on the above findings, the Agency hereby dismisses the complaint.

Members

• Gilles Dufault
• Baljinder Gill
• Beaton Tulk