|
CTA - Consumer (2). Westjet v. Lareau
In Westjet v. Lareau (Fed CA, 2025) the Federal Court of Appeal dismissed a Federal Court appeal, this where the "legal question before this Court is the scope of the safety category: when is a flight disruption "“within the carrier’s control but ... required for safety purposes”" under section 11 of the Regulations?"
Here the court summarizes this aviation consumer protection case:[1] A decade ago, a review of Canada’s transportation system and of the legal and regulatory frameworks which govern it reported that while Canada’s airlines were frequently ranked among the best in the world, Canadians were very concerned with the unsatisfactory treatment of airline passengers affected by delays, cancellations, and denials of boarding (each a disruption or flight disruption). The review concluded that legislative and regulatory reform was needed to ensure the fair and reasonable treatment of air travellers.
[2] In 2019, legislative amendments led to the promulgation of the Air Passenger Protection Regulations, S.O.R./2019-150 [the Regulations]. The amendments directed the Canadian Transportation Agency, after consulting with the Minister of Transport (the Minister), to make regulations in relation to flights to, from, and within Canada, that prescribed air carriers’ obligations towards passengers in the event of a flight disruption. Depending on which of three categories of flight disruptions applies in a particular case, carriers are required to (i) ensure that passengers complete their itinerary, (ii) meet minimum standards of treatment, and/or (iii) in some circumstances, pay passengers minimum compensation for inconvenience. Under the Regulations, a carrier owes its passengers compensation only for inconvenience caused by a disruption within its control (the "“within control”" category). It owes them no compensation in the case of a disruption within its control but required for safety purposes (the safety category) or where a disruption is due to situations outside its control (the "“outside control”" category).
[3] In the decision on appeal to this Court (the Decision), the Agency, also charged with investigating and adjudicating passenger complaints under the Regulations, stated that disruptions within the safety category should be limited to events that "“cannot be foreseen nor prevented or, in other words, that cannot be prevented by a prudent and diligent carrier.”" It held that a disruption resulting from a crew shortage should not be considered to fall within the safety category unless the carrier demonstrates that the disruption could not have been reasonably prevented, or was unavoidable, despite proper planning and did not result from the carrier’s own actions or inactions.
[4] The appellant, WestJet, submits that the Agency’s interpretation ignores the plain and ordinary meaning of the Regulations, which essentially define a flight disruption required for safety purposes as one that is "“required by law in order to reduce risk to passenger safety.”" It argues that passengers should receive no compensation for any flight disruption that arises in response to a safety issue, regardless of the circumstances that have led to the safety issue, including a carrier’s failure to take reasonable measures to develop and implement a reasonable contingency plan to mitigate the disruption. Moreover, in the appellant’s view, the Agency’s interpretation of the safety category cannot stand because it puts pressure on carriers and their personnel to choose to operate flights unsafely in order to avoid paying their passengers compensation.
[5] I disagree. The Agency did not err in interpreting and applying the Regulations. The appellant’s proposed interpretation of the safety category would effectively defeat the consumer protection scheme established by the Regulations to redress the acute imbalance in market power to which passengers have historically been subjected in relation to air carriers. It must be rejected.
[6] Applying the modern principle of statutory interpretation, a disruption is "“within a carrier’s control but required for safety purposes”" when the carrier incurs that disruption to reduce a risk to passenger safety despite having taken reasonable measures 1) to plan and conduct its day-to-day operations in such a manner as to avoid the occurrence of situations causing that risk and 2) to follow a reasonable contingency plan developed to effectively and expeditiously reduce the risk. . Westjet v. Lareau
In Westjet v. Lareau (Fed CA, 2025) the Federal Court of Appeal dismissed a Federal Court appeal, this where the "legal question before this Court is the scope of the safety category: when is a flight disruption "“within the carrier’s control but ... required for safety purposes”" under section 11 of the Regulations?"
Here the court summarizes the CTA Air Passenger Protection Regulations:C. The promulgation of the Air Passenger Protection Regulations
[24] Promulgated on May 21, 2019, the Regulations were implemented in two stages to give carriers the time to make the necessary systems and operational changes. Accordingly, while some of the provisions came into force on July 15, 2019, those relating to seating, delays, and cancellations only came into effect on December 15, 2019.
[25] The provisions of the Regulations relevant to this appeal are reproduced in an appendix to these reasons.
[26] Under the Regulations, minimum compensation for inconvenience is owed only in the case of disruptions that are within a carrier’s control (Regulations, s 12(1)) and, in the case of a delay or cancellation, where a passenger is informed of the disruption 14 days or less before the departure time indicated on the original ticket (Regulations, ss 12(2)(d) and 12(3)(d)). It is not owed for:. a disruption due to situations outside a carrier’s control described by subsection 10(1);
. a disruption that is within a carrier’s control but that is required for safety purposes under subsection 11(1);
a disruption that, under subsection 10(2), is a knock-on effect of a delay or cancellation due to situations that are outside the carrier’s control; or
. a disruption that, under subsection 11(2), is a knock-on effect of a delay or cancellation within a carrier’s control but required for safety purposes. [27] Subsection 19(1) of the Regulations sets out the minimum compensation amounts payable to passengers to whom compensation is owed under paragraphs 12(2)(d) (for delay) and 12(3)(d) (for cancellation). These amounts increase the more the arrival of the passenger’s flight at the destination is delayed, and are larger for "“large carriers,”" defined as carriers that have transported a worldwide total of two million passengers or more during each of the two preceding calendar years (Regulations, s 1(2)). To receive compensation for a flight delay or cancellation, passengers must file a request with the carrier within a year of the day the flight disruption occurred (Regulations, s 19(3)). Subsequently, upon receipt of the request, the carrier has 30 days to provide the compensation or an explanation as to why it is not payable (Regulations, s 19(4)). Similarly, subsection 20(1) of the Regulations sets out the minimum compensation amounts for a denial of boarding (Regulations, s 12(4)(d)).
[28] The compensation owed by carriers to passengers under subsections 19(1) and 20(1) of the Regulations is summarized in the following tables:**** SS: Charts here, see original. **** [29] Under subsection 86.11(4) of the CTA, the carriers’ obligations established under the Regulations are deemed to form part of the terms and conditions set out in the carriers’ tariffs, insofar as these do not provide more advantageous terms and conditions of carriage than those obligations.
[30] At the time of the events underlying this appeal, section 67.1 of the CTA provided that when a carrier failed to comply with these obligations, passengers could file a complaint with the Agency. If the Agency determined that the carrier had failed to apply its tariffs, contrary to subsection 67(3) of the CTA, it could order the carrier to take corrective measures, including payment of the required compensation. Detailed provisions governing the filing, mediation, and adjudication of complaints under the Regulations are now set out in sections 85.01 to 85.16 of the CTA. At paras 31-42 the court addresses CTA guidance on the interpretation of these regulations.
|
