Decision No. 593-AT-A-2004
November 1, 2004
File No. U3570/02-5
 On February 8, 2002, Dorothy McGillan on behalf of her son Scott McGillan filed with the Canadian Transportation Agency (hereinafter the Agency) the application set out in the title.
 In its Decision No. LET-AT-A-61-2002 dated February 28, 2002, the Agency required Mrs. McGillan to file further information to complete the application. Information was filed by Mrs. McGillan on March 14, 2002, including copies of Mr. McGillan's flight coupons and boarding passes and copy of the trip itinerary prepared by Wood Travel.
 In its Decision No. LET-AT-A-97-2002 dated April 3, 2002, the Agency accepted the application as complete and forwarded it to Air Canada for its comments. On April 12, 2002, Air Canada filed its answer to the application and provided copies of Mr. McGillan's Passenger Name Record and copies of its policies and procedures with respect to the services that it offers to persons with disabilities, including services to passengers with intellectual disabilities and services to passengers with disabilities who must stay overnight at a connection city as a result of irregular operations. On May 9, 2002, Mrs. McGillan filed a reply to the carrier's answer.
 By Decision No. LET-AT-A-204-2002 dated July 23, 2002, the Agency advised the parties of its intention to schedule an informal hearing for the purpose of gathering further information and clarifying the facts in the case. In a letter dated July 26, 2002, Air Canada expressed its concerns regarding the Agency's intention to hold an informal hearing. Following a review of the comments made by Air Canada, the Agency, by Decision No. LET-AT-A-240-2002 dated August 23, 2002, determined that additional information could be obtained from the parties in writing. The Agency also found it appropriate to gather information from the travel agency, Wood Travel, as there were a number of outstanding issues surrounding the booking of Mr. McGillan's trip.
 By Decision Nos. LET-AT-A-241-2002 and LET-AT-A-242-2002 dated August 23, 2002, the Agency required the parties and Wood Travel to provide answers to written interrogatories. On August 29, 2002, Wood Travel responded to the written interrogatories; on September 4, 2002, Mrs. McGillan and Mr. McGillan provided their responses; and on September 6, 2002, Air Canada provided its response. Although Mrs. McGillan, Air Canada and Wood Travel were given an opportunity to provide comments on these responses, only Mrs. McGillan did so. Her reply was filed on October 1, 2002.
 By Decision No. LET-AT-A-345-2002 dated November 26, 2002, the Agency determined that it required further information from Air Canada regarding what transpired in Vancouver after Mr. McGillan deplaned on December 14, 2001, and set out further questions to be answered by Air Canada. On December 16, 2002, Air Canada requested an extension until January 16, 2003 to respond and the Agency, by Decision No. LET-AT-A-366-2002 dated December 23, 2002, granted Air Canada the requested extension. On January 10, 2003, Air Canada filed its response and on January 20, 2003, Mrs. McGillan filed a reply to the carrier's response.
 Pursuant to subsection 29(1) of the Canada Transportation Act (hereinafter the CTA), the Agency is required to make its decision no later than 120 days after the application is received unless the parties agree to an extension. In this case, the parties have agreed to an indefinite extension of the deadline.
 The issue to be addressed is whether the level of assistance provided by Air Canada to Mr. McGillan while he was travelling from Williams Lake to Lethbridge on December 14 and 15, 2001 constituted an undue obstacle to his mobility, and, if so, what corrective measures should be taken.
 Mr. McGillan has an intellectual disability and requires assistance when travelling alone. Mr. McGillan's mother, Dorothy McGillan, made arrangements through a travel agent at Wood Travel in Blairmore, Alberta for a return trip from Mr. McGillan's home in Williams Lake to Lethbridge, via Vancouver and Calgary, for a Christmas visit with his parents. When booking Mr. McGillan's trip, Mrs. McGillan advised the travel agent of his disability and, on the advice of the travel agent, made arrangements for him to be met with a wheelchair and escorted between the airport gates for his connecting flights. While Mrs. McGillan never contacted Air Canada directly regarding Mr. McGillan's travel arrangements, she was advised by a representative of Wood Travel that the pre-requested services had been confirmed.
 Air Canada provides a number of services designed to meet the needs of passengers with disabilities, including "Meet and Assist" service, wheelchair assistance and "Adult Unaccompanied Minor" service (hereinafter Adult UM service). The Adult UM service ensures that a representative of the air carrier is responsible for the passenger during flights, at connection points and during prolonged en route delays. This service is provided free of charge upon medical approval by Air Canada's Meda Desk.
 Air Canada has a computer system that generates a Passenger Name Record (hereinafter PNR) which contains information about passengers, including passengers with specific needs. The PNR for Mr. McGillan reflects the code WCHR which is defined in the International Air Transportation Association (IATA) Passenger Services Conference Resolutions Manual as a passenger who can ascend/descend steps and make his/her own way to/from the cabin seat but requires wheelchair assistance for the distance to/from the aircraft.
 According to Mr. McGillan's travel itinerary, his outbound flights on December 14, 2001, were as follows:
- Air Canada Flight 1640 - Depart Williams Lake 10:55 - Arrive Vancouver 12:00
- Air Canada Flight 22 - Depart Vancouver 13:30 - Arrive Calgary 15:51
- Air Canada Flight 1719 - Depart Calgary 18:05 - Arrive Lethbridge 18:55
 Upon the arrival of his flight in Vancouver Mr. McGillan did not remain seated on the aircraft to wait for wheelchair assistance, but deplaned with the other passengers and proceeded into the airport. The scheduled flight from Vancouver to Calgary was grounded due to adverse weather conditions. Air Canada made a general announcement to the effect that all outbound flights were grounded and that hotel and meal vouchers would be provided to connecting passengers. As Mr. McGillan did not stay with the other passengers, he was not provided with the vouchers. Mrs. McGillan was advised by an Air Canada agent in Vancouver the following morning that Mr. McGillan was found sleeping on a bench at the Vancouver airport and would be booked on the next flight out of Vancouver.
 While it was intended that Mr. McGillan would take the 11:00 flight from Vancouver, he was not able to take this flight and he ultimately arrived on a later flight.
POSITIONS OF THE PARTIES
 Mrs. McGillan states that when she made Mr. McGillan's travel arrangements with a travel agent at Wood Travel, she mentioned his intellectual disability and expressed concern about his travelling through major airports alone. According to Mrs. McGillan, she was advised by the travel agent that wheelchair assistance was the best option for her son.
 Mrs. McGillan's travel agent confirms that while he was to some extent made aware of Mr. McGillan's disability, he was not aware of the Adult UM service provided by Air Canada to passengers with disabilities and he, therefore, suggested wheelchair assistance for Mr. McGillan. Mrs. McGillan comments that had she been advised of Air Canada's Adult UM service when she booked Mr. McGillan's trip, she would have requested it for him.
 Mrs. McGillan advises that when Mr. McGillan did not arrive in Lethbridge on his scheduled flight on December 14, 2001, she questioned an Air Canada agent as to what had happened and was advised that no flights were leaving Vancouver due to weather conditions, but that Mr. McGillan would be provided with accommodation and meals as he was between connecting flights. Mrs. McGillan states that she then advised the agent that Mr. McGillan had an intellectual disability and notes that, while she was very concerned, she and her husband returned to their home in Coleman with plans to return to Lethbridge in the morning to meet Mr. McGillan.
 Mr. McGillan states that although Air Canada mentioned that passengers requesting wheelchair assistance should remain on the plane when it arrived in Vancouver, the announcement was not made to him specifically, and he therefore got off the plane, looked for a wheelchair and, not seeing any, proceeded into the airport. Mr. McGillan states that he did not speak to any representative of the carrier and points out that the airport was full and he just wandered around. Mrs. McGillan states that Mr. McGillan's attempt to contact her from Vancouver on December 14, 2001 was unsuccessful as she and her husband were in Lethbridge waiting to meet him.
 According to Mr. McGillan, he approached an Air Canada agent at the Vancouver airport the next morning and they contacted his mother. Mrs. McGillan states that when she received a telephone call from the Vancouver airport on the morning of December 15, 2001, she was extremely upset to find out that Mr. McGillan had spent the night sleeping on a bench in the airport and had not eaten since leaving Williams Lake the previous morning. Mrs. McGillan notes that Mr. McGillan was carrying only enough money for the airport service charge and expresses her concern that Air Canada did not ensure that he was provided with meals and lodging during its service interruption in Vancouver. Mrs. McGillan further notes that she was told by the Air Canada agent in Vancouver that the problems which Mr. McGillan had encountered were her fault, and not Air Canada's, because he should have had a companion to assist him. Mrs. McGillan expresses her opinion that the situation would never have occurred had Mr. McGillan been provided with the assistance she had requested for him.
 Mrs. McGillan states that the Air Canada agent in Vancouver, with whom she spoke on the morning of December 15, 2001, advised her that Mr. McGillan had lost his ticket, but assured her that he would be reissued a ticket for a flight out of Vancouver at 11:00. When Mr. and Mrs. McGillan arrived at the Lethbridge airport to meet their son, Mrs. McGillan and her husband were advised that he was not on the 11:00 flight, but had departed Vancouver on Flight No. 215, at noon, to complete the final segment of his trip. According to Mrs. McGillan, Mr. McGillan boarded the 11:00 flight, but was forced to deplane. She questions whether this happened because he has an intellectual disability and did not protest. Mrs. McGillan notes that Air Canada's explanation for the missed flight was that Mr. McGillan had lost his ticket, but comments that Mr. McGillan was wearing the jacket in which his ticket had been placed and that he never throws anything out. Mr. McGillan states that he does not remember what happened to the ticket after giving it to someone upon boarding in Williams Lake. Mrs. McGillan notes that Mr. McGillan's attempt to contact her on December 15, 2001, when he missed the morning flight, was unsuccessful because she and her husband were again on their way to Lethbridge to meet him.
 Mrs. McGillan states that when her son arrived in Lethbridge, he was afraid, upset and hungry. She advises that he will no longer travel alone as a result of his experiences on December 14 and 15, 2001, and that he even refuses to get on a bus to travel on his own because he is afraid of getting lost. Mrs. McGillan states that she and her husband drove their son back to his home in Williams Lake because he refused to return home by plane, and she advises that the events affected their Christmas celebration.
 Mrs. McGillan acknowledges that Air Canada responded to her complaint with a $150.00 cheque and a travel voucher for $150.00, and that neither one has been used or cashed. Mrs. McGillan states that she remains concerned that the carrier did not accept responsibility for the situation. Mrs. McGillan feels that she should be compensated by Air Canada for the cost of the return portion of Mr. McGillan's ticket and for the related costs of the fuel, meals and lodging that the family incurred when driving Mr. McGillan home because of his refusal to return home by plane.
 In commenting on the events that took place in this case, Air Canada notes that it has various processes in place to provide service to passengers with disabilities and that its team in Vancouver is fully trained in all aspects of dealing with the needs of passengers with disabilities.
 Air Canada states that when wheelchair assistance is requested, the passenger is asked to remain seated until all other passengers have deplaned to allow its personnel to assist them in an efficient manner. Air Canada suggests that its responsibility ends if the passenger is not on the aircraft when the attendant arrives with the wheelchair as it is impossible to locate a passenger after he/she has deplaned unless the passenger identifies himself/herself to an agent as requiring assistance. Air Canada notes that wheelchair assistance between the gate and the aircraft was requested for Mr. McGillan by the travel agent and asserts that this type of special service request was inappropriate for Mr. McGillan as it did not provide information regarding his intellectual disability, which was necessary to ensure that he received the assistance he required to meet his particular needs.
 Air Canada asserts that Adult UM service should have been requested for Mr. McGillan, which would have ensured that Mr. McGillan could travel unaccompanied and receive the type of attention he requires. Air Canada also advises that it has implemented a new program at selected airports whereby a specialized agency, Comcare, provides assistance to passengers with special needs during irregular operations requiring them to stay overnight in a connecting city. Air Canada notes that all travel agents have access to its computerized information database containing information regarding these services.
 Air Canada states that it only became aware of Mr. McGillan's requirement for Adult UM service on December 15, 2001, after completion of the outbound portion of his travel, and that changes were made immediately to his reservation file to incorporate an Adult UM service request for the return portion of his trip on January 7, 2002, and adds that his parents were advised accordingly.
 Air Canada states that because the annotations to Mr. McGillan's reservation file regarding his requirement for Adult UM service were made only on December 15, 2001, it was unaware of Mr. McGillan's situation during the irregular operations at the Vancouver airport on December 14, 2001, and was therefore unable to provide him with the service that he required. According to Air Canada, its agent in Lethbridge was not informed by Mrs. McGillan of the full extent of Mr. McGillan's disability and no specific request for particular services was made for him. Air Canada adds that as the agent in Lethbridge was not made aware of Mr. McGillan's intellectual disability when he spoke to Mrs. McGillan on December 14, 2001, no remarks were added to Mr. McGillan's reservation file regarding his requirement for Adult UM service at that time.
 According to Air Canada, Mr. McGillan was not permitted to travel on the morning flight to Calgary on December 15, 2001, because he was not holding the required portion of his ticket and a new ticket had to be issued, and Air Canada asserts that it is a passenger's responsibility to provide all travelling documents. Air Canada further states that after reissuing Mr. McGillan's ticket, he was booked on the next available flight departing at noon and provided with a boarding pass. Air Canada notes that because the connecting flight to Lethbridge was scheduled to depart Calgary later in the day, changing the time of his flight out of Vancouver did not alter his connection, but only meant that he waited in the Vancouver airport instead of the Calgary airport. In response to Mrs. McGillan's assertion that Mr. McGillan was bumped from the morning flight, Air Canada states that changes made to Mr. McGillan's reservation file on December 15, 2001 indicate that he was to travel on Flight No. 216 departing at noon for Calgary and that it contains no indication that he was to travel on any other flight or that he was offloaded from any flight. Air Canada concludes that Mr. McGillan travelled as planned on Flight No. 216 to Calgary on December 15, 2001.
 Air Canada refers to a letter of apology sent to Mrs. McGillan, a copy of which was provided to the Agency, containing detailed information on the type of service which would be appropriate for Mr. McGillan, a reimbursement cheque in the amount of $150.00, representing the unused portion of Mr. McGillan's $294.00 ticket, and a travel voucher for $150.00 redeemable within twelve months, which the carrier notes has been provided as a gesture of goodwill and concern.
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
 In making its findings, the Agency has considered all of the evidence submitted by the parties during the pleadings.
 An application must be filed by a person with a disability or on behalf of a person with a disability. Mr. McGillan has an intellectual disability and requires assistance when travelling. As such, he is a person with a disability for the purpose of applying the accessibility provisions of the CTA.
 To determine whether there is an undue obstacle to the mobility of persons with disabilities within the meaning of subsection 172(1) of the CTA, the Agency must first determine whether the applicant's mobility was restricted or limited by an obstacle. If so, the Agency must then decide whether that obstacle was undue. In order to answer these questions, the Agency must take into consideration the particular facts of the case before it.
Whether the applicant's mobility was restricted or limited by an obstacle
 The word "obstacle" is not defined in the CTA. This implies that Parliament did not want to restrict the Agency's jurisdiction in view of its mandate to eliminate undue obstacles in the federal transportation network. Furthermore, the word "obstacle" lends itself to a broad meaning as it is usually understood to mean something that impedes progress or achievement.
 In determining whether or not a situation constituted an "obstacle" to the mobility of a person with a disability in a particular case, the Agency looks to the travel experience of that person as expressed in the application. There is a broad range of circumstances where the Agency has found obstacles in the past. For example, there are cases of obstacles where the person was prevented from travelling, where the person was injured in the course of his or her travels (such as where the lack of appropriate accommodation during travel affects the physical condition of the passenger), or where the person was deprived of his or her mobility aid after the trip as a result of damage caused to the aid while it was being transported. Also, the Agency has found obstacles in instances where the person was ultimately able to travel, but circumstances arising from the experience were such as to detract from the person's sense of confidence, dignity, safety, or security, recognizing that these feelings may be such as to disincline a person from future travel.
The case at hand
 The Agency accepts that Mrs. McGillan mentioned Mr. McGillan's intellectual disability and expressed her concern about Mr. McGillan travelling through major airports unaccompanied when she made his travel arrangements with her travel agent. The Agency has reviewed Mr. McGillan's PNR and notes the lack of information regarding his disability or the nature of the assistance he required. The Agency accepts Air Canada's evidence that wheelchair assistance and nothing more was requested for Mr. McGillan by the travel agent. The Agency is of the opinion that specific information regarding Mr. McGillan's disability and the assistance he required was crucial to Air Canada for it to be able to provide the appropriate services.
 The Agency notes that Mr. McGillan's unfortunate travel experience was quite frightening for him. Because he did not receive the services he required to accommodate his disability, he spent the night on a bench in the Vancouver airport and arrived in Lethbridge the next day, afraid, upset and hungry. A great deal of stress and anxiety was also experienced by his parents when they learned that Mr. McGillan had spent the night on a bench in the airport and had not eaten. The Agency further notes that Mr. McGillan will no longer travel alone as a result of his experience and that his parents had to drive him home because of his refusal to return home by plane.
 The Agency is of the opinion that air carriers have a responsibility to accommodate and meet the needs of passengers with disabilities; however, they must be aware of the specific needs of their passengers in order to ensure that the appropriate policies and procedures are applied. In this case, it is clear that there was a miscommunication of information at the reservation level when the travel agent failed to advise Air Canada of critical information regarding Mr. McGillan's intellectual disability. Furthermore, the Agency accepts that the travel agent was unaware of the services which Air Canada provides to passengers with intellectual disabilities, including the Adult UM service.
 The Agency recognizes the importance of travel agents to the accessibility of the federal transportation network as the intermediaries who relay information between passengers with disabilities and transportation service providers. They must be aware of carriers' policies and procedures with respect to the carriage of persons with disabilities and ensure that the information is conveyed accurately in order that appropriate decisions can be made about the services that the person requires in order to accommodate his/her disability.
 The Agency accepts Mrs. McGillan's assertion that she was never informed of the availability of the Adult UM service for Mr. McGillan. The Agency is of the opinion that, had Mrs. McGillan been informed by her travel agent of all of the services which Air Canada offers to meet the needs of persons with disabilities, including the Adult UM service, she would have been in a better position to evaluate whether the travel arrangements made on Mr. McGillan's behalf were in fact the best to respond to his specific needs.
 The Agency thus finds that the lack of awareness by the travel agent of Air Canada's Adult UM service and the consequent failure by the travel agent to advise Mrs. McGillan of this service directly resulted in the very unfortunate travel problems experienced by Mr. McGillan. The Agency's jurisdiction does not, however, extend to travel agents.
 The Agency has also considered Mrs. McGillan's evidence that Mr. McGillan was "bumped" from the morning flight departing Vancouver on December 15, 2001, as well as Air Canada's evidence that Mr. McGillan was never booked on that flight because he was not holding the required portion of his ticket and that a new ticket had to be issued before he was permitted to travel. In view of the contradictory evidence, the Agency is unable to determine with any degree of certainty what actually occurred on December 15, 2001 with respect to this issue.
 The Agency is concerned by the events that took place on December 14, 2001, when Mr. McGillan's flight from Vancouver was grounded due to weather conditions. The Agency acknowledges that Mrs. McGillan spoke to an Air Canada agent in Lethbridge regarding the fact that Mr. McGillan gets confused easily. The Agency notes that the agent in Lethbridge missed an opportunity to rectify the situation at that time when he failed to seek clarification regarding Mr. McGillan's disability and the services he required. Proper identification of Mr. McGillan's specific travel needs by the agent in Lethbridge could have eliminated much of the anxiety and stress experienced by Mr. McGillan and his parents.
 In light of the foregoing, the Agency therefore finds that the failure by the Air Canada agent in Lethbridge to seek clarification regarding Mr. McGillan's disability and recognize his requirement for the Adult UM service contributed to the very unfortunate travel problems experienced by Mr. McGillan and, therefore, constituted an obstacle to his mobility.
Whether the obstacle was undue
 As with the term "obstacle", the term "undue" is not defined in the CTA in order to allow the Agency to exercise its discretion to eliminate undue obstacles in the federal transportation network. The word "undue" also lends itself to a broad meaning; it is commonly understood to mean exceeding or violating propriety or fitness; excessive; inordinate; disproportionate. As something may be found disproportionate or excessive in one case and not in another, the Agency must take into account the context in which the allegation that an obstacle is undue is made. Under this contextual approach, the Agency must strike a balance between the rights of passengers with disabilities to use the federal transportation network without encountering undue obstacles and the carriers' commercial and operational considerations and responsibilities. This interpretation is in keeping with the national transportation policy set out in section 5 of the CTA and more particularly in subparagraph 5(g)(ii) of the CTA where it is stated inter alia that conditions under which carriers or modes of transportation operate must, as far as is practicable, not constitute an undue obstacle to the mobility of persons with disabilities.
 While the transportation industry designs its services to meet the needs of its users, the accessibility provisions of the CTA require transportation service providers in the federal transportation network to adapt their services, as far as is practicable, to the needs of persons with disabilities. There are however some impediments that have to be taken into consideration, such as security measures carriers must adopt and apply, timetables or schedules that they must attempt to adhere to for commercial reasons, equipment design and the economic impact of adapting services. These impediments may have some impact on persons with disabilities as, for example, they may not be able to board in their own wheelchair, they may have to arrive at a terminal earlier to allow time for boarding, and they may have to wait for a longer period of time for deboarding assistance than persons without disabilities. It is impossible to establish an exhaustive list of the obstacles a passenger with a disability may encounter and the impediments that transportation service providers will encounter in trying to meet the needs of persons with disabilities. A balance has to be struck between the various responsibilities of transportation service providers and the rights of persons with disabilities to travel without encountering undue obstacles and it is in the weighing of this balance that the Agency applies the concept of undueness.
The case at hand
 Having found that the failure of the Air Canada agent in Lethbridge to seek clarification regarding Mr. McGillan's disability and recognize his requirement for the Adult UM service constituted an obstacle to Mr. McGillan's mobility, the Agency must now determine whether that obstacle is undue.
 The Agency is of the opinion that the agent in Lethbridge missed an opportunity to discuss and evaluate Mr. McGillan's travel needs when Mrs. McGillan mentioned his intellectual disability and, further, that the difficulties experienced by Mr. McGillan could have been prevented had the agent sought clarification from Mrs. McGillan regarding the services he required. The Agency is, however, of the opinion that the difficulties experienced by Mr. McGillan were predominantly the result of a lack of communication between Wood Travel and Air Canada and lack of information provided at the time of reservation regarding the nature of Mr. McGillan's disability and the type of service he required. In this regard, the Agency notes Air Canada's assertion that when it became aware of Mr. McGillan's requirement for the Adult UM service on December 15, 2001, after completion of the outbound portion of his travel, changes were made immediately to his reservation file to incorporate an Adult UM service request for the return portion of his trip on January 7, 2002, and that his parents were advised accordingly.
 In light of the foregoing, the Agency finds that the failure of the Air Canada agent in Lethbridge to seek clarification regarding Mr. McGillan's disability and recognize his requirement for the Adult UM service did not constitute an undue obstacle to Mr. McGillan's mobility.
 In her application, Mrs. McGillan requested reimbursement for the cost of the return portion of Mr. McGillan's ticket and for the cost of fuel, meals and lodging incurred when driving Mr. McGillan home because of his refusal to return home by plane. Pursuant to subsection 172(3) of the CTA, the Agency may, on determining that there is an undue obstacle to the mobility of a person with a disability, direct that compensation be paid for any expense incurred by that person arising out of the undue obstacle. In view of the Agency's determination that Mr. McGillan did not encounter an undue obstacle to his mobility, it is not necessary to consider whether compensation should be paid to Mrs. McGillan.
 In any event, as a result of Air Canada's recent reorganization, all claims of a financial nature arising from incidents that occurred on or before April 1, 2003 have been extinguished for purposes of the Agency as well as other courts of law.
 The Agency notes, however, that Air Canada has apologized to Mrs. McGillan for the difficulties experienced by Mr. McGillan and provided a reimbursement cheque in the amount of $150.00, representing the unused portion of Mr. McGillan's $294.00 ticket, and a travel voucher for $150.00 redeemable within twelve months as a gesture of goodwill and concern. The Agency notes as well that Mrs. McGillan has neither cashed the cheque nor used the travel voucher and that the time for doing so has expired. Air Canada has indicated its willingness to reissue the cheque and travel voucher to Mrs. McGillan and the Agency recognizes Air Canada's gesture in this regard.
 The Agency has found that the difficulties experienced by Mr. McGillan were predominantly the result of a lack of communication by the travel agent at the time of reservation regarding the nature of Mr. McGillan's disability, the type of service he required, as well as a lack of knowledge of Air Canada's Adult UM service. While recognizing that this lack of communication contributed to an extremely unfortunate travel experience for Mr. McGillan, the Agency does not have jurisdiction over travel agents. Accordingly, the Agency has determined that Mr. McGillan did not encounter an undue obstacle to his mobility. The Agency, therefore, contemplates no action in this matter.
 Notwithstanding this finding, the Agency urges Air Canada to issue a general reminder to travel agents and tour operators with which it deals, which sets out the disability-related services that Air Canada offers, highlighting the Adult UM service for passengers with intellectual disabilities and distinguishing it from wheelchair assistance and "Meet and Assist" services, in order to prevent a recurrence of incidents similar to that experienced by Mr. McGillan. This is consistent with the goal of improving services by travel agents to persons with disabilities. For example, a letter signed by the Chairman of the Agency was sent to all travel agencies and air carriers operating in Canada on June 30, 2003 to raise the awareness of travel professionals regarding some of the problems encountered by travellers with disabilities during trips arranged for them by the travel industry. The letter outlines a number of steps that travel agents and air carriers should undertake to ensure that the most accessible service possible is provided to travellers.