Overview of your rights during a strike
A strike, lockout or threatened work stoppage does not automatically erase your rights under the Air Passenger Protection Regulations (APPR).
The first question is whether the disruption to your particular flight falls within section 10. That section treats a "labour disruption within the carrier or within an essential service provider such as an airport or an air navigation service provider" as a situation outside the airline's control.
Where section 10 applies, standardized compensation for inconvenience under section 19 is generally not payable. Other rights remain.
The airline must still provide the information required by section 13, including the reason for the disruption, applicable passenger rights and available recourse.
For a cancellation caused by a labour disruption outside the carrier's control, the airline must also provide alternate travel or refund rights under section 18. It cannot simply cancel the flight and leave the passenger to make new arrangements without assistance.
For qualifying international travel, the Montreal Convention may provide a separate claim for actual losses caused by delay. That is different from standardized APPR compensation and is subject to its own requirements and defences.
And if the airline rebooks you but the replacement flight later suffers a separate disruption for a different reason, that later disruption must be assessed on its own facts. An original strike-related cancellation does not automatically determine the legal classification of everything that happens afterwards.
Is a strike "outside the airline's control"?
A qualifying labour disruption is expressly listed in section 10(1)(j) as a situation outside the carrier's control.
The Regulation is broad enough to cover labour disruptions within the airline itself and within essential service providers such as airports and air-navigation service providers. That means a pilots' strike, an airport labour disruption or an air traffic control labour disruption can potentially fall within section 10.
The important word, however, is disruption.
There must still be a factual connection between the labour disruption and the delay or cancellation of the passenger's flight. The existence of collective bargaining, labour tension or a possible future strike does not necessarily answer that question by itself.
The meaning of "labour disruption" was considered directly in Air Passenger Rights v. WestJet Airlines Ltd., 2026 BCCA 357.
WestJet's pilots had issued a formal 72-hour strike notice in May 2023. WestJet began cancelling flights in anticipation of the threatened strike. A settlement was reached before the strike actually began, but passengers whose flights had already been cancelled sought standardized APPR compensation.
The Civil Resolution Tribunal concluded that the statutory strike-notice period itself amounted to a labour disruption within the meaning of section 10(1)(j). The British Columbia Court of Appeal ultimately upheld that result on the merits.
The significance of the decision is that a strike does not necessarily have to commence before section 10 can apply. A formal strike notice can itself constitute a labour disruption.
That does not mean that the words "strike notice" automatically defeat every claim. Section 10 still applies only where the delay or cancellation was due to the labour disruption. The connection between the particular flight and the labour event therefore remains important.
You have a right to a rebooking
Section 18 governs rebooking and refund rights where a cancellation is outside the airline's control, including a cancellation caused by a qualifying labour disruption.
The airline must first provide, free of charge, a confirmed reservation on the next available flight operated by it or by a carrier with which it has a commercial agreement. The flight must travel on a reasonable route to the destination shown on your original ticket and depart within 48 hours of the departure time on that ticket.
If the airline cannot provide that confirmed reservation within 48 hours, additional rights arise.
You may choose a refund of the unused portion of your ticket instead of continuing the trip.
If you still want to travel and the original airline is a large carrier, it must provide the next available flight operated by any carrier on a reasonable route from the airport where you are located. If necessary, that can include a flight from another airport within a reasonable distance, together with transportation to that airport.
A small carrier's further rebooking obligation is more limited and remains tied to flights operated by it or a carrier with which it has a commercial agreement.
If you choose a refund while already away from your point of origin, and continuing the trip no longer serves a purpose because of the cancellation, the airline must refund the ticket and provide a confirmed reservation back to your point of origin free of charge.
If you are considering buying your own replacement ticket, first ask the airline in writing to provide the alternate transportation required by section 18. Preserve its response or failure to respond.
Reimbursement of a self-booked replacement flight is not automatic under the APPR. The surrounding facts, the airline's failure to comply with its rebooking obligations and, for international travel, the Montreal Convention may all become relevant.
Refunds and out-of-pocket expenses
The refund. A refund required by the APPR must generally be returned to the person who purchased the ticket using the original payment method within 30 days after the airline becomes obligated to provide it.
The airline may offer a travel credit or other alternative, but only if the statutory conditions are satisfied. You must be informed in writing of the monetary value of the original refund and of your right to receive it by the original payment method. The alternative cannot expire, and you must choose it in writing.
You do not have to accept a voucher simply because the airline offers one.
Expenses on domestic trips. The APPR does not require the section 14 standards of treatment—such as meals and overnight accommodation—for a genuine outside-control labour disruption.
Travel insurance and credit-card insurance may provide separate protection. Check the policy wording carefully because labour disruptions may be covered, excluded or treated differently depending on the policy.
Keep every receipt even if the APPR itself does not require reimbursement. The classification of the disruption may later be disputed, and another legal regime may apply.
Expenses on international trips. Article 19 of the Montreal Convention can provide a separate basis for recovering proven damages caused by delay in international carriage.
The airline is not liable under Article 19 if it proves that it and its servants and agents took all measures that could reasonably be required to avoid the damage, or that it was impossible to take those measures.
This is different from APPR compensation. The Montreal Convention does not provide a fixed amount merely because a flight was late. The passenger must prove actual loss.
In Fairbotham v. WestJet Airlines Ltd., 2025 BCCRT 943, passengers affected by the 2023 WestJet strike-notice disruption pursued both APPR and Montreal Convention remedies. The tribunal treated the strike notice as a labour disruption for APPR purposes, but the case illustrates the separate analysis that applies to claims for actual expenses under the Montreal Convention.
The fact that standardized APPR compensation is unavailable therefore does not necessarily mean every financial loss is unrecoverable.
Flights departing from the EU or UK have more rights
Some Canadian airline strike disruptions can also fall under European or United Kingdom passenger-rights legislation.
EU Regulation 261 generally applies to flights departing from an EU airport regardless of the airline, and to certain flights arriving in the EU from outside the EU when operated by an EU carrier. Related rules apply in the European Economic Area and Switzerland. The United Kingdom has retained its own similar passenger-rights regime.
Those regimes treat airline strikes differently from the Canadian APPR.
Under EU passenger-rights law, a strike organized by an airline's own employees in support of worker demands is generally not treated as an extraordinary circumstance that automatically excuses the airline from standardized compensation. Strikes external to the airline, such as action by air traffic controllers or airport staff, may qualify as extraordinary circumstances.
EU standardized compensation can range from €250 to €600 depending on the journey and circumstances. UK legislation has its own fixed compensation amounts.
This creates an important difference from Canada. The same airline labour disruption may fall within the APPR's outside-control exception while still potentially attracting standardized compensation under an applicable European regime.
Passengers should also be aware of the rule against double recovery.
The APPR says an airline cannot refuse Canadian compensation merely because the passenger is also eligible for compensation under another passenger-rights regime. However, the Canada Transportation Act prevents a passenger from receiving APPR compensation for the same event after already receiving compensation under another passenger-rights regime.
Overlapping rights can therefore exist, but that does not mean a passenger can collect two standardized compensation awards for the same disruption.
The Montreal Convention
The Montreal Convention applies to qualifying international carriage and creates a different form of airline liability from the APPR.
Article 19 deals with damage occasioned by delay. Unlike section 19 of the APPR, it does not prescribe a fixed payment based solely on the length of the delay.
The passenger must prove actual damage.
Depending on the circumstances, that can include reasonable additional accommodation, meals, transportation or replacement-travel costs caused by the delay.
The airline has a statutory defence. It avoids liability if it proves that it and its servants and agents took all measures that could reasonably be required to avoid the damage or that taking those measures was impossible.
The current Montreal Convention liability limit for damage caused by delay in passenger transport is 6,303 Special Drawing Rights per passenger. The Canadian-dollar equivalent fluctuates with the SDR exchange rate. The limit is a ceiling on proven damages, not an automatic payment.
Passengers should therefore keep itemized receipts and evidence explaining why each expense was reasonably incurred.
If an airline refuses to rebook you during a strike, preserve the requests you made and the responses you received before purchasing alternative transportation. That evidence may become important to both causation and mitigation.
Montreal Convention claims can potentially be pursued through provincial civil proceedings where the court or tribunal has jurisdiction.
The Canadian Transportation Agency should not be described as categorically unable to deal with expenses. Under the current complaint regime, a complaint resolution officer can order compensation for certain expenses arising from a carrier's failure to apply its tariff. A Montreal Convention damages action, however, is legally distinct and may require a court or tribunal claim depending on the remedy being pursued.
What the courts say about labour disruptions
Two British Columbia proceedings are particularly important to understanding the current Canadian law on strike-related cancellations.
In Fairbotham v. WestJet Airlines Ltd., 2025 BCCRT 943, the Civil Resolution Tribunal considered claims arising from WestJet's 2023 pilots' strike notice. The tribunal concluded that the formal strike-notice period constituted a labour disruption within section 10(1)(j). As a result, standardized APPR compensation was not available on the facts before it. The case also considered separate claims for actual losses under the Montreal Convention.
In Air Passenger Rights v. WestJet Airlines Ltd., 2026 BCCA 357, the British Columbia Court of Appeal considered another CRT decision arising from the same labour dispute.
The Court ultimately upheld the CRT's conclusion that the 72-hour statutory strike-notice period could constitute a labour disruption within section 10. It also confirmed that the Civil Resolution Tribunal has jurisdiction to adjudicate APPR compensation disputes within its statutory jurisdiction.
The Court did not establish a general rule that every pre-emptive cancellation made before a strike begins is automatically outside the carrier's control. The statutory question remains whether the particular flight disruption was due to a labour disruption falling within section 10.
Nor should the decision be read as creating a special rule that flights scheduled to operate during a particular portion of the 72-hour notice period are automatically compensable or non-compensable. The facts and causal connection still matter.
For passengers, the practical lesson is straightforward: preserve the cancellation notice, the timing of the labour action or strike notice, the original flight schedule, every reason the airline provides, and the alternate transportation it offers.