WestJet must pay $2K for cancelled flights after B.C. tribunal rejects airline's 'highly technical' evidence
Article content
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.
Article content
Article content
Article content
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.
Article content
Article content
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.
Article content
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.
Article content
Article content
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.
Article content
Article content
The APPR absolves airlines of compensatory obligations in instances where weather would make it unsafe to operate, provided they can provide the necessary evidence.
Article content
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.
Article content
'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.
Article content
'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.'
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Vancouver Sun
2 days ago
- Vancouver Sun
WestJet must pay $2K for cancelled flights after B.C. tribunal rejects airline's 'highly technical' evidence
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. Start your day with a roundup of B.C.-focused news and opinion. By signing up you consent to receive the above newsletter from Postmedia Network Inc. A welcome email is on its way. If you don't see it, please check your junk folder. The next issue of Sunrise will soon be in your inbox. Please try again Interested in more newsletters? Browse here. 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 and sign up for our daily newsletter, Posted, here .
National Post
2 days ago
- National Post
WestJet must pay $2K for cancelled flights after B.C. tribunal rejects airline's 'highly technical' evidence
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. Article content 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. Article content Article content Article content 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. Article content Article content 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. Article content 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. Article content Article content 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. Article content Article content The APPR absolves airlines of compensatory obligations in instances where weather would make it unsafe to operate, provided they can provide the necessary evidence. Article content 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. Article content '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. Article content '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.'
CTV News
3 days ago
- CTV News
WestJet ordered to pay travellers $2K for cancelled flights
A pilot taxis a WestJet Boeing 737-700 plane to a gate after arriving at Vancouver International Airport in Richmond, B.C., on Monday, Feb. 3, 2014. THE CANADIAN PRESS/Darryl Dyck B.C.'s Civil Resolution Tribunal has ordered WestJet to pay two passengers $1,000 each after it deemed the airline did not provide enough evidence to prove their flight was cancelled for safety reasons. The airline argued it cancelled Nathan and Leah Baugh's flights from St. John's to Vancouver with a stop in Toronto due to weather conditions, and therefore did not need to compensate them. Under the Air Passenger Protection Regulations, travellers are entitled to compensation if they arrive at their destination more than nine hours after they were supposed to – if the reasons were within the carrier's control. The Baughs' flights were scheduled to depart on March 7, 2022. They said they received an email the previous day, about 17 hours before the flight, notifying them the trip was cancelled and rebooked for March 8. The pair ultimately landed in Vancouver about 24 hours later than originally scheduled. WestJet said it cancelled an incoming flight from Toronto to St. John's on March 6, which led to the cancellation of the Baughs' March 7 flights leaving from Newfoundland. The Baughs submitted a screenshot showing flights from other airlines were leaving St. John's on March 7 as normal, to argue that the weather was safe enough for flight. They also claimed they received two different explanations from WestJet as to why their flights were cancelled – in the first email that it was due to weather, and in a later call with an agent that it was due to a scheduling change. 'WestJet does not deny that their agent told the Baughs that their flights were cancelled due to a scheduling change,' the decision reads. 'However, WestJet says that their agents work with limited resources and information. WestJet says that the cancellations were caused by weather conditions and not a scheduling change.' For its part, WestJet submitted terminal aerodrome forecasts purportedly showing the weather conditions leading to their decision to cancel the flight, including wind speeds over 62 kilometres per hour and a winter storm around the city on March 6. In his decision issued last week, tribunal member Max Pappin noted that WestJet didn't provide any information about the specific aircraft or its limitations, or any expert evidence. 'Additionally, much of the evidence provided consists of unexplained acronyms, codes, and numbers, whose meaning is far from obvious. I find this evidence is highly technical and requires expert evidence to explain whether it shows that there were meteorological conditions that made safe aircraft operation impossible under APPR,' he wrote. 'I find the submitted evidence is not sufficient to show that safe operation of the aircraft was impossible due to meteorological conditions. Based on the evidence before me, I find that the flight cancellations were for reasons within WestJet's control under APPR.' Therefore, Pappin ordered WestJet to pay the pair $1,000 each for inconvenience, as well as $126.72 each in pre-judgment interest and $125 in CRT fees.
