Brown v. WestJet Airlines Ltd., 2026 BCCRT 91

Does this apply to you?

This case applies if you booked your flight through a travel agent, a points program, or another third party, and then could not get the airline to change your booking. The tribunal said the airline was right to send the passenger back to her agent. It also shows what evidence you need if the agent and the airline each tell you to call the other.

What happened

Jo-Ann Brown booked return flights from Vancouver to Antigua on 3 April 2023. She booked through RBC Avion Rewards, a third party travel agent. The outbound flight was on 18 April and the return flight was on 30 April. She booked two seats for herself on each flight, which the tribunal presumed was for more space. She said the RBC online system would not let her book two seats under the same name. On the advice of an RBC representative, she booked one seat as "Jo-Ann Brown" and the other as "Jo-Ann Laureen Brown".

At check-in on 18 April, WestJet told her the agent had booked her incorrectly. She should have booked an extra seat under the same name. WestJet fixed the problem at the counter by creating a new booking reference, and she flew to Antigua.

In Antigua, Ms. Brown decided to fly home on 7 May instead of 30 April. WestJet's records show she called on 21 April to ask how to change or cancel the return flight. WestJet told her to contact her travel agent. She called again on 24 April and asked to move the flight to 7 May. WestJet said only one seat was available and again told her to contact her travel agent. On 28 April she asked what would happen if she did not show up on 30 April. WestJet said she would get no refund.

Ms. Brown said she called WestJet and RBC 10 times over two hours on 24 April. Each told her it could not change the reservation and to call the other. She said RBC told her it no longer had access to her ticket because WestJet "took it over" at check-in on 18 April.

She booked a flight home on another airline. It left Antigua on 8 May 2023 and arrived in Vancouver on 9 May, with a long layover in Miami. She claimed $3,741.54 at the Civil Resolution Tribunal (CRT) for the new flight, a Miami hotel, and general damages for loss of enjoyment of life and emotional distress. She represented herself. WestJet was represented by an employee.

What the passenger argued

Ms. Brown did not give a legal basis for her claim. The tribunal inferred that her position was that WestJet breached its contract or was negligent when it failed to change her return flight. Her main point was that WestJet took control of her reservation when it changed the booking reference at check-in. To support this she filed an email from RBC dated 26 July 2023. It said the original tickets RBC issued were "exchanged" directly with the airline and that RBC did not have access to the new tickets.

What WestJet argued

WestJet said Ms. Brown's contract for the purchase of the flights was with RBC, a third party travel agent, not with WestJet. It said it properly directed her to her travel agent to request changes. If she suffered any losses, WestJet said they were caused by her own negligence or her agent's negligence.

What the tribunal decided

The CRT could hear the case. The tribunal member noted the BC Supreme Court's decision in Air Passenger Rights v. WestJet Airlines Ltd., 2025 BCSC 2145, issued on 30 October 2025. That decision found that claims under the Air Passenger Protection Regulations (APPR) for flight delays, cancellations and denied boarding must go to the Canadian Transportation Agency, and that the CRT has no jurisdiction over them. This dispute was about a booking change, not a delay, cancellation or denied boarding. It did not engage the APPR at all. So the CRT could decide it under its small claims jurisdiction over debt and damages.

The contract was with RBC, not WestJet. The tribunal agreed with WestJet that the contract for the flights was between Ms. Brown and RBC. Any changes she wanted had to be arranged through RBC, because WestJet was not a party to that contract. WestJet's fix at the check-in counter let her travel, but it did not make WestJet a party to a contract for the tickets. WestJet acted reasonably when it referred her to RBC.

The evidence about RBC was missing. The tribunal accepted it was possible that RBC had some difficulty accessing the reservation after the check-in change. But Ms. Brown filed no supporting evidence of her calls with RBC on 24 April. She filed a partial recording of one call with WestJet that day, and nothing from RBC. The tribunal had no evidence of what she told RBC or of any steps RBC took to sort things out with WestJet.

The original booking error caused the problem. The tribunal found that Ms. Brown or RBC, or both, made the initial error of booking two seats under two names. Even if WestJet's new booking reference locked RBC out, that error was the cause. Ms. Brown first called about changing her flight on 21 April, nine days before the 30 April return. She gave no evidence that RBC could not have fixed the problem with WestJet in that time.

Claim dismissed. Ms. Brown had not proved that WestJet breached a contract or was negligent. The tribunal dismissed her claims. Because she was unsuccessful, she got no CRT fees back. WestJet paid no fees and neither side claimed dispute-related expenses, so the tribunal made no order.

Why this matters

• If you book through a travel agent or a rewards program, your contract is with them. The airline can send you back to the agent for changes, even after it has touched your booking at the airport.
• A booking error at the start can sink a later claim. The tribunal traced the access problem back to the two-name booking, not to WestJet's fix.
• Keep a record of every call. Ms. Brown had a partial recording of one WestJet call and nothing from RBC, and that gap was one of the reasons the claim failed.
• Time works against you. With nine days before the return flight, the tribunal expected proof that the agent could not have fixed the problem.
• A booking-change dispute is not an APPR claim. The CRT could hear it even though, at the time, the BC Supreme Court had said APPR delay and cancellation claims belong at the Canadian Transportation Agency.

The details