Decision No. 99-C-A-2023

[1] The applicants purchased round-trip tickets with the respondent to travel from Québec, Quebec, to Samaná, Dominican Republic, departing on February 7, 2020, and returning on February 28, 2020.

[2] The applicants were originally scheduled to arrive in Samaná on February 7, 2020, at 9:30 pm. However, Flight TS604, that was to transport them to their destination, was delayed by more than six hours.

[3] The applicants state that the respondent provided them with several reasons to explain the delay. They submit that the delay was within the respondent’s control and seek compensation in the amount of CAD 400 each for inconvenience under the Air Passenger Protection Regulations (APPR).

[4] In this decision, the role of the Canadian Transportation Agency (Agency) is to decide whether the respondent properly applied the terms and conditions applicable to the tickets that the applicants purchased, as set out in its Tariff.

[5] If the Agency finds that the respondent failed to properly apply its Tariff, it may direct the respondent to take the corrective measures that it considers appropriate or to pay compensation for any expense incurred by a person adversely affected by the respondent’s failure.

[6] The respondent submits that the delay was attributable to a situation outside its control; therefore no compensation is owed. It states that the aircraft scheduled to operate Flight TS 604-605 was delayed by a previous rotation due to weather conditions. It also states that it replaced the aircraft to minimize the delay, but the replacement aircraft was also delayed for the same reason, namely poor weather conditions.

[7] The applicants challenge the respondent’s version and state that the flights resumed at the Quebec airport on February 7, 2020, after 4 pm, and that the respondent has not demonstrated that the delay was caused by weather conditions.

Analysis and determinations

[8] Under the Tariff and the APPR, compensation for inconvenience is owed only if the delay is within the respondent’s control, but it is not owed if the delay is attributable to situations outside its control, such as weather conditions. The onus is on the applicants to establish, on a balance of probabilities, that the respondent has failed to properly apply the terms and conditions applicable to their tickets as set out in its Tariff. However, when a carrier submits that a disruption is due to a situation outside its control, it must establish this claim. As the carrier holds the relevant information, it has the responsibility to provide evidence to support its categorization of a disruption.

[9] In this case, the only evidence that the respondent has provided regarding the weather conditions is a report entitled “Rapport METAR CYUL & CYQB 7 février 2020”.

[10] By way of explanation, METARs are aviation weather reports that are published regularly by NAV CANADA. While they are highly detailed, METARs are presented in alphanumeric codes and abbreviations that are not readily comprehensible to those who are not flight crew, meteorologists, or air navigation services staff.

[11] In addition, the respondent included two excerpts in English to its response documenting how the events unfolded but did not specify their origin. The first excerpt indicates that the aircraft was forced to return to the gate because of “ECAM” alarm signals. The respondent did not specify whether this was the aircraft originally scheduled to operate the flight in question or the replacement aircraft. The airport at which this incident took place also was not specified.

[12] The second excerpt indicates that the aircraft had to divert to the Toronto airport due to poor weather conditions. The respondent did not specify the origin of this excerpt, nor whether it referred to the original aircraft or replacement aircraft.

[13] The evidence filed by the respondent does not sufficiently establish the conclusion that the delay of the applicants’ flight was due to a situation outside the respondent’s control.

[14] Accordingly, the Agency finds that the delay of the applicants’ flight was within the respondent’s control. As the applicants arrived in Samaná with a delay of more than six hours, they are entitled to compensation for inconvenience in the amount of CAD 700 each, as set out in the APPR.

Order

[15] The Agency orders the respondent to compensate the applicants in the amount of CAD 700 each, for a total of CAD 1400, as soon as possible and no later than July 27, 2023.