Bruce v. Air Canada, 2025 BCCRT 1357

Does this apply to you?

This case applies if an airline cancelled your flight because of a mechanical problem with the plane and calls it a safety issue. It matters most if the plane that was meant to fly you was the same plane that had the problem on the way in, and you were flying from a smaller airport where the airline had no spare aircraft. The tribunal accepted the airline's evidence and awarded nothing.

What happened

David Glenn Bruce booked Air Canada flights from Kelowna to Montreal, with a stop in Vancouver. He was due to leave Kelowna on 10 October 2023 at 7:45 pm on flight AC 8281 and land in Vancouver at 8:43 pm. He was then due to leave Vancouver at 11:20 pm on flight AC 314 and land in Montreal at 7:10 am on 11 October.

AC 8281 was delayed and then cancelled. Air Canada rebooked Mr. Bruce on new flights the next day. He landed in Montreal at 7:29 am on 12 October, 24 hours and 19 minutes late.

Mr. Bruce claimed $1,000 in compensation under the Air Passenger Protection Regulations (APPR) at the Civil Resolution Tribunal (CRT). He represented himself. Air Canada was represented by an employee. The tribunal decided the case on written submissions.

What the passenger argued

Mr. Bruce claimed $1,000 in APPR compensation for the delay. He also said that when Air Canada denied his claim, it did not give him an adequate and full explanation for the cancellation. He said this was a breach of the APPR. He did not ask for a specific remedy for that breach.

What Air Canada argued

Air Canada agreed that Mr. Bruce arrived later than scheduled. But it said the cancellation was required for safety. The incoming plane, flight AC 8280, was boarded and ready to fly when the crew noticed the nose oleo was low. The oleo strut is a critical part of the landing gear. It is an air-oil hydraulic shock absorber that softens the landing and cushions the plane while it taxis.

Maintenance took action, but the plane was grounded until 16 October 2023, when the problem was fixed. Both AC 8280 and AC 8281 were cancelled. Air Canada also said Kelowna is not one of its bases, so it had no other plane there to fly AC 8281.

Air Canada filed the defect report for AC 8280, flight information for both flights, and an affidavit from Phil Majerle, its Director of System Operations Control.

What the tribunal decided

The cancellation was required for safety. APPR section 19(1)(a)(iii) requires a large carrier like Air Canada to pay $1,000 when a delay or cancellation puts a passenger's arrival more than nine hours late. But section 11(1) says that rule only applies if the disruption is within the carrier's control and not required for safety purposes. The Vice Chair reviewed the defect report, the flight records and the affidavit, and found they supported Air Canada's account. AC 8280 was cancelled for safety.

The knock-on cancellation counted as safety too. Section 11(2) of the APPR says a delay caused by an earlier delay or cancellation that was within the airline's control but required for safety is treated the same way, if the airline took all reasonable measures to limit the impact of the earlier disruption. Air Canada said Kelowna is not a base for its operations and no other plane was available. The Vice Chair accepted this given the size of Kelowna's airport, and said it was consistent with earlier CRT decisions. So the cancellation of AC 8281 was also required for safety, and Mr. Bruce was not entitled to compensation.

The CRT cannot punish an airline for a poor explanation. The Vice Chair took Mr. Bruce's complaint to refer to APPR section 19(4), which requires an airline that denies compensation to explain why it is not payable. But nothing in the APPR or the Canada Transportation Act gives a passenger money when an airline fails to comply with the APPR. Sections 32 and 33 and the Schedule to the APPR set out administrative monetary penalties instead, including for section 19(4), and the CRT has no jurisdiction to administer them. The tribunal made no finding on whether Air Canada breached section 19(4).

No fees for either side. Mr. Bruce lost, so his claim for CRT fees was dismissed. Air Canada had paid no fees and claimed no specific expenses, so it got nothing either.

Mr. Bruce's claims were dismissed.

Why this matters

• A mechanical fault found by the crew before departure can be a safety cancellation. Here the airline filed a defect report, flight records and a sworn statement from a senior operations manager, and the tribunal accepted them.
• A cancellation caused by an earlier safety problem is treated as a safety cancellation too, as long as the airline took all reasonable measures to limit the impact. Section 11(2) of the APPR carries the safety label through to the next flight.
• Flying from a smaller airport hurts your claim. The tribunal accepted that Air Canada had no spare plane in Kelowna because Kelowna is not one of its bases.
• A thin explanation for a denied claim is not worth money at the CRT. The APPR treats it as a contravention subject to an administrative penalty, and the tribunal said it cannot administer those penalties.
• The passenger must prove the claim on a balance of probabilities. Here the airline's documents settled the question.

The details