A B.C. tribunal has ordered WestJet to pay more than $2,000 to two passengers after ruling the airline failed to provide sufficient evidence that weather conditions made it unsafe to operate scheduled flights.
In
a decision from the province’s civil resolution tribunal
published last week, Nathan and Leah Baugh were awarded $1,000 each under Canada’s
Air Passenger Protection Regulations
(APPR), which mandate such compensation when arrival at a passenger’s destination is delayed by nine hours or more beyond the time noted on the original ticket for reasons within the airline’s control.
The Baughs, scheduled to fly from St. John’s to Vancouver on March 7, 2022, with a stopover in Toronto, were notified by email about 17 hours prior that their flight had been cancelled due to weather. They were rebooked on flights departing March 8.
WestJet said the weather in St. John’s on the evening of March 6 — a winter storm and wind speeds greater than 62 kilometres per hour at the airport — forced the cancellation of the incoming flight from Toronto due to safety concerns. With no aircraft available to operate the route the next morning, the March 7 departures had to be rescheduled.
As part of their claim, the Baughs also submitted a recording of a phone call with a WestJet representative who said the cancellation was due to a scheduling change — not weather. The airline didn’t dispute that the call took place, but said its agents sometimes operate with incomplete information and maintained that the cancellations in question were weather-related.
The Baughs also submitted a screenshot showing that several other airlines operated flights out of St. John’s International Airport on March 7, arguing that weather conditions did not prevent safe departures that day.
The APPR absolves airlines of compensatory obligations in instances where weather would make it unsafe to operate, provided they can provide the necessary evidence.
Tribunal member Max Pappin, however, said the Western Canadian airline didn’t provide “any information about the specific aircraft” or its limits as it relates to the terminal aerodrome forecasts submitted as evidence.
“Additionally, much of the evidence provided consists of unexplained acronyms, codes, and numbers, whose meaning is far from obvious,” Pappin wrote of the “highly technical” evidence, which he ruled needed an expert’s opinion to decipher their meaning as it relates to the APPR.
“There is no expert evidence before me. So, I find the submitted evidence is not sufficient to show that safe operation of the aircraft was impossible due to meteorological conditions.”
Pappin also noted the airline failed to provide documentation to support its claim that the cancellations were made for safety reasons.
In addition to the $1,000, both applicants received $126.72 in pre-judgement interest under the Court Order Interest Act, and Nathan Baugh was reimbursed for a $125 tribunal fee.
Our website is the place for the latest breaking news, exclusive scoops, longreads and provocative commentary. Please bookmark nationalpost.com and sign up for our daily newsletter, Posted, here.
