Decision No. 126-C-A-2022

[1] The applicant was scheduled to travel from Cairo, Egypt, to Montréal, Quebec, via Rome, Italy, and Toronto, Ontario, on August 10, 2020. They were refused transportation from Toronto to Montréal for alleged unruly behaviour. The applicant travelled to Montréal, by bus, the following day.

[2] The applicant seeks compensation for the following:

• the unused portion of their ticket;
• transportation from the Toronto Pearson International Airport to downtown Toronto in the amount of CAD 12.35;
• one night’s stay in Toronto in the amount of CAD 100;
• the bus ticket from Toronto to Montréal in the amount of CAD 82.48;
• food and drink in Toronto and Kingston, Ontario in the amount of CAD 14; and
• transportation to the Montréal Pierre Elliott Trudeau International Airport to pick up their checked baggage in the amount of CAD 10.

[3] The applicant also seeks compensation for their delay in arriving to Montréal and the pain and suffering caused, in the amount of CAD 500.

[4] In this decision, the role of the Canadian Transportation Agency (Agency) is to decide whether the respondent properly applied its Tariff^{Note 1} to the ticket that the applicant purchased. If the Agency finds that the respondent failed to properly apply its Tariff, it can direct the respondent to pay compensation for any expense incurred by a person adversely affected by the respondent’s failure. The Agency does not have the authority to award compensation for pain and suffering, and will therefore not consider this aspect of the application. The relevant provisions of the ATR and the Tariff are set out in the Appendix.

[5] The applicant claims that upon boarding their flight from Toronto to Montréal they were informed by a crew member that they had to check their carry-on baggage. The applicant claims that the flight was almost empty due to COVID-19 and therefore, there was plenty of space under the seats and in the overhead compartment. The applicant refused to check their baggage as they claim the crew would not accept liability if it were to be lost or damaged.

[6] The respondent submits that when the passenger was boarding the aircraft, it was already requesting that passengers check their carry-on baggage as there was no overhead compartment space available. The respondent states that the applicant was offered the option to put their baggage under the seat; however, it did not fit as the baggage blocked part of the aisle, and therefore, posed a flight safety risk and would prevent proper service onboard. Furthermore, the respondent claims to have offered the applicant the options to remove the laptops from the baggage and stow them under their seat, or to rebook the applicant on the next available flight, that evening. The respondent claims that the applicant refused these options, displaying “argumentative and hostile behaviour”.

[7] The applicant was removed from the aircraft for not complying with crew instructions. The respondent claims that once removed, the applicant continued to display hostile behaviour when interacting with the customer service manager. In light of this continued behaviour, the respondent suspended the applicant’s right to travel for 24 hours.

[8] The respondent argues that it was justified in refusing to transport the applicant as the applicant failed to uphold their obligations, per the terms and conditions of carriage.

[9] The respondent provided a copy of the Disruptive Passenger Report compiled following the incident and two signed statements from crew members directly involved in the incident onboard. These documents corroborate the respondent’s claims regarding the options presented to the applicant when they refused to check in the baggage, the delay of the flight resulting from the incident and the applicant’s behaviour. The respondent also provided a Netline Report for the flight which indicates that the flight was delayed to depart for 32 minutes due to the required offload of a “NON COMPLIANT IRATE” passenger onboard.

[10] The applicant argues that the crew did not give them the option to remove their laptops from the baggage or allow them to try placing the baggage under their seat. The applicant also disputes the respondent’s claim that they were displaying disruptive and hostile behaviour posing a safety risk.

[11] Rule 75(II) of the Tariff provides that the carrier has the right to remove a passenger at any point and refuse to transport the passenger for a range of a one-time ban up to a lifetime ban when, in the exercise of the carrier’s reasonable discretion, it is deemed necessary to take such action in order to ensure the comfort and safety of passengers and carrier employees as well as safe flight operations and the unhindered performance of crew in their duties onboard the aircraft. Rule 75(II) also provides that such action may be warranted if the passenger fails to observe the instructions of the carrier and its employees.

[12] In this case, the description of the incident is challenged by the applicant. When contradictory versions of events are presented by parties, the Agency must determine which of the different versions is more probable, based on the evidence.

[13] In light of the reports and the statements filed by the respondent, the Agency accepts the respondent’s version of events and finds that it exercised reasonable discretion, as required by Rule 75(II)(A) and 75(II)(B) of its Tariff when it refused to transport the applicant on the flight from Toronto to Montréal. Accordingly, the applicant is not entitled to compensation for their expenses.

[14] Rule 75(III) of the Tariff provides that the sole recourse available to a passenger who has been refused transportation is limited to a refund of any unused value of the ticket in accordance with the Tariff and applicable fare rules. The evidence demonstrates that the respondent refunded the applicant’s credit card on October 30, 2020, for the unused portion of the ticket. The Agency therefore finds that the respondent properly applied the terms and conditions set out in Rule 75(III) of the Tariff by providing the applicant with a refund of the unused value of their ticket.

[15] In light of the above, the Agency dismisses the application.
 

---

Appendix to Decision 126-C-A-2022

Air Transportation Regulations, SOR/88-58

110(4) Where a tariff is filed containing the date of publication and the effective date and is consistent with these Regulations and any orders of the Agency, the tolls and terms and conditions of carriage in the tariff shall, unless they are rejected, disallowed or suspended by the Agency or unless they are replaced by a new tariff, take effect on the date stated in the tariff, and the air carrier shall on and after that date charge the tolls and apply the terms and conditions of carriage specified in the tariff.

113.1(1) If an air carrier that offers an international service fails to apply the fares, rates, charges or terms and conditions of carriage set out in the tariff that applies to that service, the Agency may, if it receives a written complaint, direct the air carrier to

(a) take the corrective measures that the Agency considers appropriate; and

(b) pay compensation for any expense incurred by a person adversely affected by its failure to apply the fares, rates, charges or terms and conditions that are applicable to the service it offers and that were set out in the tariff.

International Passenger Rules and Fares Tariff AC2 containing Local Rules, Fares & Charges on behalf of Air Canada Applicable to the Transportation of Passengers and Baggage between points in Canada/USA and points in Areas 1/2/3 and between the USA and Canada, CTA 458

Rule 75 Refusal to Transport

…

II. Passenger's conduct – refusal to transport prohibited conduct & sanctions

(A)  Prohibited conduct

Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, the following constitutes prohibited conduct where it may be necessary, in the reasonable discretion of the carrier, to take action to ensure the physical comfort or safety of the person, other passengers (in the future and present) and/or the carrier employees; the safety of the aircraft; the unhindered performance of the crew members in their duty aboard the aircraft; or the safe and adequate flight operations:

…

(2) The person's conduct, or condition is or has been known to be abusive, offensive, threatening, intimidating, violent, or otherwise disorderly, and in reasonable judgment of a responsible carrier employee there is a possibility that such passenger would cause disruption or serious impairment to the physical comfort or safety of other passengers or carrier's employees, interfere with crew member in the performance of his/her duties aboard carrier's aircraft, or otherwise jeopardize safe and adequate flight operations;

…

(4) The person fails to observe the instructions of carrier and its employees, including instructions to cease prohibited conduct;

…

(B)  Sanctions:

Where, in the exercise of its reasonable discretion, the carrier decides that the passenger has engaged in prohibited conduct described above, the carrier may impose any combination of the following sanctions:

(1) Removal of the passenger at any point;

…

(3) Refuse to transport the passenger. The length of such refusals to transport may range from a one-time to an indefinite up to lifetime ban. The length of the refusal period will be in the carrier's reasonable discretion, and will be for a period commensurate with the nature of the prohibited conduct and until the carrier is satisfied that the passenger no longer constitutes a threat to the safety of other passengers, crew or the aircraft or to the comfort of the other passengers or crew; the unhindered performance of the crew members in their duty aboard the aircraft; or the safe and adequate flight operations. …

III. Recourse of the passenger/limitation of liability

Carrier's liability in case of refusal to carry a passenger for a specific flight or removal of a passenger en route for any reason specified in the foregoing paragraphs or in rule 40 or 75 shall be limited to the recovery of the refund value of the unused portion of passenger's ticket from the carrier so refusing or removing, if any and subject to applicable fare rule, as provided in the General Refund section of rule 100 (refunds).

 

---