The British Columbia Civil Resolution Tribunal recently ruled on a dispute involving an air carrier which had refused to transport a disruptive passenger. This decision lays out the type of evidence which a carrier should be prepared to present to avoid liability and serves as a reminder to passengers that they have an obligation to be respectful while travelling.
Air carriers offering scheduled international services to or from Canada must, by virtue of the Canada Transportation Act, file proof of insurance each year as a condition of maintaining their licence. Historically, the Canadian Transportation Agency has, in some instances, allowed for leniency in the form of granting extra time for air carriers to file the proper certificates. However, a review of the agency's recent decisions demonstrates that such leniency is no longer being extended.
Even before the first tranche of Air Passenger Protection Regulations (APPRs) provisions came into effect, the International Air Transport Association, Airlines for America and numerous Canadian and foreign air carriers commenced a challenge to the legality of several provisions in the Federal Court of Appeal (FCA). The FCA recently issued a decision in a motion brought by the government to strike portions of two expert reports filed by the airlines in support of their position.
In March 2020 the Canadian Transportation Agency (CTA) issued public statements suggesting that it could be reasonable for airlines to provide travel vouchers for flights cancelled as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, rather than providing refunds. An advocacy group commenced an application for judicial review of the statements, asserting that they violated the CTA's Code of Conduct and misled passengers as to their rights. The Federal Court of Appeal recently dismissed the motion.
The Federal Court of Canada recently upheld a Transportation Appeal Tribunal of Canada (TATC) decision which had found that the TATC did not have jurisdiction to accept submissions regarding the legal costs of an air carrier's application for a review of an administrative monetary penalty issued by the Canadian Transportation Agency. The court held that as the penalty had been unilaterally withdrawn by the agency prior to the TATC hearing, the TATC did not have jurisdiction to deal with the question of costs.