Decision No. 49-C-A-2018

SUMMARY

[1] On April 12, 2018, Glen Bedjanian filed an application with the Canadian Transportation Agency (Agency), requesting that the Agency review and vary Decision No. 21-C-A-2018, issued on March 13, 2018 (Decision).

[2] Mr. Bedjanian submits that there has been a change in the information available to the Agency since the issuance of the Decision. He requests that the Agency order American Airlines, Inc. (American Airlines) to compensate him for the expenses he incurred because American Airlines did not properly apply its International Passenger Rules and Fares Tariff, NTA(A) No. 273 (Tariff).

[3] The Agency will address the following issue:

Has there been a change in the facts or circumstances pertaining to the Decision sufficient to warrant a review of the Decision?

[4] For the reasons set out below, the Agency finds that there has not been a change in the facts or circumstances and dismisses the application.

BACKGROUND

[5] On May 17, 2017, Mr. Bedjanian filed an air consumer application with the Agency against American Airlines regarding the cancellation of his ticket for return travel between Jakarta, Indonesia, and Montréal, Quebec. Pleadings originally closed on Mr. Bedjanian’s application on August 7, 2017. However, on October 3, 2017, Mr. Bedjanian submitted a request to file additional information, pursuant to section 34 of the Canadian Transportation Agency Rules (Dispute Proceedings and Certain Rules Applicable to All Proceedings) (SOR/2014-104), which allows a party to request to file a document whose filing is not otherwise provided for in these Rules. On November 9, 2017, the Agency granted Mr. Bedjanian’s request.

[6] In the Decision, the Agency found that American Airlines did not properly apply Rule 5(K) of its Tariff. Specifically, the Agency found that American Airlines failed to notify Mr. Bedjanian of a pricing error that was part of his round-the-world First Class ticket for flights from July 6 to July 27, 2017 (original ticket) within 72 hours of becoming aware of the erroneous fare publication, as is provided for in its Tariff.

[7] Notwithstanding, the Agency noted that American Airlines had refunded Mr. Bedjanian the full cost of his original ticket. The Agency further noted that Mr. Bedjanian had not provided any evidence of expenses incurred as a result of American Airlines’ failure to apply its Tariff. As such, no compensation was ordered.

THE LAW

[8] Section 32 of the CTA addresses the Agency’s authority to review its decisions and states:

The Agency may review, rescind or vary any decision or order made by it or may re‑hear any application before deciding it if, in the opinion of the Agency, since the decision or order or the hearing of the application, there has been a change in the facts or circumstances pertaining to the decision, order or hearing.

MR. BEDJANIAN’S POSITION

[9] With respect to his air consumer application, Mr. Bedjanian claims that he did not file a request for compensation because, when he filed his initial application, he was still hoping for a “favourable resolution” that would result in his original ticket being reissued to him. Mr. Bedjanian submits that, as the Decision was issued after his original itinerary was scheduled to take place, he was required to book replacement flights.

[10] Mr. Bedjanian claims that when he rebooked his tickets, he incurred expenses for which he is requesting compensation. Mr. Bedjanian also requests compensation for the reward miles that he did not earn because he was not able to use his original ticket.

ANALYSIS AND DETERMINATIONS

[11] In its consideration of an application under section 32 of the CTA, the Agency has consistently applied the following test. First, there must have been a change in the facts or circumstances that was not known during the pleadings. If this condition is met, the Agency next determines whether the change is sufficient to warrant a review of the decision. The burden of proof rests on the applicant to show that their application meets these criteria.

[12] In this case, the Agency finds that there has been no change in the facts or circumstances since the Decision was issued. The issuance of the Agency’s Decision does not, in itself, constitute a change in circumstances. The evidence shows that Mr. Bedjanian bought his replacement tickets between March 18, 2017 and July 5, 2017. At the time, pleadings on his air consumer application were still ongoing. Mr. Bedjanian could have filed additional information in support of his claim for compensation at that time or soon thereafter, as he did in October 2017.

[13] As such, the Agency finds that Mr. Bedjanian has not demonstrated that the above-mentioned criteria have been met.

[14] In regards to Mr. Bedjanian’s claim for the loss of potential air miles, Mr. Bedjanian did not take the flight, so he is, therefore, not entitled to the air miles for it.

CONCLUSION

[15] The Agency dismisses the application.