Richardson et al. v. WestJet Airlines Ltd., 2023 NSSM 56

Does this apply to you?

This case applies if your first flight was cancelled for a reason outside the airline's control, like weather, and the replacement flight was then late for a reason the airline did control, like crew. The court treated the replacement flight as its own flight and awarded compensation for its delay.

What happened

Eliza Richardson and Benjamin Friedrich booked WestJet from Halifax to Toronto on 23 December 2022. That flight was cancelled because of weather in Toronto. WestJet rebooked them on the same flight number two days later, 25 December.

On the morning of 25 December, WestJet emailed that the flight was delayed 50 minutes "due to flight crew member availability". That afternoon it emailed a further delay with no reason given. The plane took off at about 11:28 pm and landed in Toronto about three and a half hours late.

The passengers claimed $400 each under the APPR. WestJet refused. Its email said "the most significant reason for your flight interruption was due to weather in your destination". The passengers took WestJet to the Small Claims Court of Nova Scotia and represented themselves.

What WestJet argued

WestJet agreed it is a large carrier and agreed that crew availability is within its control. But it said the court had to look at the whole trip. From the original 23 December arrival time to the actual arrival on 26 December, the passengers were 51.5 hours late. Weather caused 48 of those hours. Crew caused 3.5. So weather was the primary reason, and section 10 of the APPR gives no compensation for weather. WestJet relied on the Canadian Transportation Agency's Decision 122-C-A-2021, which says the "most significant contributing factor" decides the category when there are several disruptions.

What the court decided

The 25 December flight was its own flight. The adjudicator read the words of the APPR. Section 19(1)(a)(i) requires $400 when "the arrival of the passenger's flight" is three to six hours late and section 12(2)(d) applies. "Flight" means a scheduled trip on a set date and time. The flight in question was WS275 on 25 December, not the cancelled WS275 on 23 December. The passengers were told of the delay less than 14 days before departure, the delay was within WestJet's control, and it was over three hours. That was the end of the analysis.

The Agency's decision did not help WestJet. The court read Decision 122-C-A-2021 as directed at multi-leg itineraries and missed connections, not at a single rebooked flight. The court also pointed to a part of the same decision that WestJet did not cite: section 10(2) of the APPR. That section treats a later delay as outside the airline's control only if it was directly caused by the earlier disruption and the airline took all reasonable measures to limit the impact. The burden is on the airline. WestJet filed no evidence on either point.

WestJet's reading led to an absurd result. Other passengers on the same 25 December flight who had booked it as their original flight would get $400. The Richardsons, on the same plane with the same delay, would get nothing. The court said the APPR is remedial legislation and must be read to protect passengers, citing the Supreme Court's decision in Rizzo & Rizzo Shoes.

The court ordered WestJet to pay $800 in compensation and $99.70 in costs, a total of $899.70.

Why this matters

• A rebooked flight stands on its own. If it is late for a reason within the airline's control, the earlier weather cancellation does not cancel your claim.
• "Most significant contributing factor" applies to connections and multi-leg trips, not to a straight rebooking on one carrier.
• If the airline wants to link the later delay to the earlier weather, it must prove the link and prove it took all reasonable steps to limit the effect.
• Self-represented passengers won in a provincial small claims court, not only at the BC tribunal.

The details