Background
Two passengers booked a WestJet trip from Kelowna to Rome in May 2023. After the pilots’ union delivered a 72-hour strike notice, WestJet cancelled their connecting flight from Calgary to Rome. Although the strike was ultimately averted, the passengers arrived more than 24 hours late and incurred hotel and meal expenses.
The passengers sought $2,000 in standardized compensation under the Air Passenger Protection Regulations, plus $277.25 for their expenses. The Civil Resolution Tribunal reimbursed the expenses but denied standardized compensation, finding that the strike notice created a labour disruption beyond WestJet’s control. After the passengers assigned their claim to Air Passenger Rights, the British Columbia Supreme Court dismissed its judicial-review petition, holding that the assignment was invalid, the organization lacked standing, and the CRT lacked jurisdiction over the compensation claim.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal in part. It held that the assignment was valid, Air Passenger Rights had standing to seek judicial review, and the CRT had jurisdiction to decide the standardized-compensation claim. It therefore set aside the order quashing the CRT’s decision for lack of jurisdiction.
On the merits, however, the Court held that the CRT correctly denied standardized compensation. A 72-hour strike notice can constitute a “labour disruption” when it materially intrudes upon the labour supply needed to operate a flight. The carrier must also prove a causal connection between that disruption and the particular cancellation or delay.
That connection was established here because the passengers’ flight was scheduled to remain airborne after the strike notice expired, when the pilots could lawfully have begun striking without further notice. WestJet’s cancellation was therefore due to a situation beyond its control, even though the strike was later averted. The Court affirmed the dismissal of the judicial-review petition.
Key Takeaways
- The CRT may adjudicate contractual claims for standardized compensation incorporated into an airline’s international tariff; the Canadian Transportation Agency does not have exclusive jurisdiction over such claims.
- A 72-hour strike notice can qualify as a labour disruption, but the airline must prove that the disruption caused the cancellation or delay of the passenger’s particular flight.
- The fact that a threatened strike was ultimately averted does not determine whether the airline faced a labour disruption when it made the cancellation decision.
Why It Matters
The decision preserves a civil route through the CRT for eligible airline passengers seeking standardized compensation, while confirming that the statutory complaint process before the Canadian Transportation Agency is not exclusive.
It also clarifies the limits of the labour-disruption exception: a strike notice does not automatically excuse every cancellation. Airlines must produce evidence linking the threatened labour action to their inability to operate the specific flight at issue.