Canada largest airline has been ordered to pay a family of five who were separated on what’s being described as a “traumatizing” flight last year.
Last month, the Small Claims Court of Nova Scotia found the family was entitled to $4,199.35 in compensation from Air Canada for their extended visit to India. The Halifax family was seeking a full refund, flight delay compensation and damages worth a total of $20,000.
In 2023, the family — a man, woman and three young daughters, one of whom was just one year old — had gone on an extended visit to India, and while there booked a flight home to Halifax leaving July 8, 2023, and arriving there a day later.
They booked on the Air Canada website, leaving from Hyderbad in southern India to New Delhi, New Delhi to Toronto on AC042, and Toronto to Halifax. According to the court ruling, they paid extra for a Latitude fare, which offered them priority boarding, free baggage and fully refundable tickets.
“The family arrived at Hyderbad airport having received text and email messages from Air Canada — first that there was a flight delay on the Delhi to Toronto flight, and then that this flight had been cancelled due to mechanical issues. Several proposed itineraries were communicated,” stated the ruling by Adjudicator Eric K. Slone.
“Ultimately, Air Canada notified the Claimants that they had been booked on an alternate itinerary from Hyderbad to Mumbai, Mumbai to Newark, N.J., and Newark to Halifax. They arrived home in Halifax slightly less than five hours later than originally planned. However, the flight experience was difficult and unpleasant, perhaps even traumatizing.”
Mechanical issues were ‘relatively minor’: ruling
Slone’s ruling stated the family had chosen their itinerary carefully. By flying through New Delhi to Toronto, they avoided the United States entirely and had preferred boarding in New Delhi as a benefit of their Latitude fare.
When they landed in Mumbai, they had to wait two hours in line to get their boarding passes, and ended up separated on the plane. Once they landed in Newark, they had to collect their 12 bags and load them on three trolleys and push them between the terminals that had flights to Canada. Had they been flying through New Delhi, their baggage would have been checked right through to Canada.
This new itinerary meant they had to contend with U.S. Customs and Immigration. The ruling said the father described how difficult it was to keep the children in line while moving through the airport. At one point, the family got separated on a train that connected the two terminals.
“The best that can be said is that they got back safely, though somewhat the worse for wear,” the ruling said.
“The facts underlying the flight cancellation in Toronto that caused the ripple effect of disrupting their itinerary, would have been mostly unknown to the Claimants at the time they were occurring.”
According to Slone, the mechanical issues the family were told about was “not the whole story.”
In his ruling, he stated that issue was “relatively minor” that took an hour to fix. However, by the time the plane was cleared for service — about three hours after the problem was identified — Air Canada did not have any crew eligible to embark on the lengthy flight because they had already accumulated too many hours under the Canadian Aviation Regulations.
“In theory, had a crew been available, flight AC042 could have left Toronto for New Delhi less than three hours late and it would not have been necessary to cancel both legs of the flight entirely, including AC043, with the consequence that the Claimants were forced to fly a totally different itinerary,” the ruling stated.
“It was also Air Canada’s evidence that there were no spare planes available to take the place of the one that was scheduled for the flights. The AC042 passengers eventually left Toronto for New Delhi about 24 hours later on a special flight, which had no impact on the Claimants who were already flying their different itinerary.”
Was the delay within Air Canada’s control?
The entitlement of passengers, and conversely the obligations of an airline, are quite different depending on whether the delay can be said to be within, or outside the carrier’s control, Slone said.
The regulatory regime, consisting of the Air Passenger Protection Regulations (APPR) and Montreal Convention, is complex and technical.
When outside the carrier’s control, the main extent of the obligation under the APPR is to re-book on the next available flight. When the delay is within the carrier’s control, there are more onerous obligations, including compensation.
In this case, the ruling stated Air Canada offered no explanation as to what efforts were made to bring in a different crew or different aircraft in Toronto, which is a major hub, if not New Delhi, which is not an Air Canada hub.
“Delays for mechanical or safety issues are fully predictable. Airlines have to plan accordingly. It is within their control how much slack they build into their inventory of available equipment and crews,” Slone said.
“I believe that Air Canada had it within its control to avoid having to cancel flights AC042 and AC043.”
Slone did not see a basis for the family to collect a full refund of their tickets as they were delivered safely to their destination. Slone also said general and punitive damages are unavailable by virtue of the Montreal Convention.
However, given they did not receive the benefits of their Latitude fare and the fact they arrived to their final destination more than three hours late, Slone found Air Canada liable to pay each family member $400 each for the delay, $2,000 for the Latitude fare and $199.35 for the family’s additional costs.
