A B.C. man whose return flight to Canada was cancelled due to wildfires has been reimbursed nearly $1,500 after the B.C. Civil Resolution Tribunal ruled the airline had failed to provide convincing evidence.
David Menzies Pansegrau had booked a return trip from Bogota, Colombia, to Kelowna, B.C., on Aug. 16, 2023. West of Kelowna, the McDougall Creek wildfire had ignited the day earlier and would soon trigger the evacuation of more than 30,000 people.
According to a recent tribunal decision, Pansegrau was waiting for his 7:20 p.m. connecting flight from Toronto to Kelowna when Air Canada sent him an email.
The airline was cancelling the trip due to “bad weather.” Five minutes later, the passenger received another email saying he was booked on a 10 a.m. flight the next day. Ultimately, Pansegrau arrived in Kelowna on Aug. 17 at 11:40 a.m., 15 hours later than scheduled.
On the morning of Aug. 18, the McDougall Creek wildfire crept closer to the city and the Kelowna International Airport shut its airspace to aid firefighting operations.
Airline made a 'commercial decision' to cancel flight, claims passenger
Tribunal member Micah Carmody found the out-of-pocket expenses Pansegrau sought were due to a contractual breach under Canada’s Air Passenger Protection Regulations (APPR).
Air Canada argued the tribunal was not the forum to hear the case. But Carmody ruled the low dollar value debt claim was consistent with its mandate.
The airline also argued that the flight cancellation was out of its control. It cited a section of the APPR that states cancellation, delay or denial of boarding may be deemed outside of a carrier’s control in situations where meteorological conditions or natural disasters “make the safe operation of the aircraft impossible.”
Air Canada said it had to cancel Pansegrau’s flight because of a combination of high winds and limited visibility due to wildfires in or near Kelowna, wrote Carmody.
Pansegrau, on the other hand, said the airline “made a commercial decision to cancel his flight” so it could minimize compensation due to a delay of another flight.
Air Canada's evidence falls short
Carmody said previous case law suggested Air Canada must provide evidence that safely landing in Kelowna was “impossible.”
But evidence presented by Air Canada relied on a terminal aerodrome weather forecast that was issued more than two hours after the airline told Pansegrau it had cancelled his flight.
“Air Canada’s argument also includes some factual statements without evidentiary support. It said the maximum tailwind allowed for the plane scheduled to fly Mr. Pansegrau’s flight was a ‘strict 10 knots’ and that a visual approach required a minimum visibility of 9 statute miles,” wrote Carmody.
“There was no objective evidence or expert evidence offered in support of these assertions, and I find them unproven.”
Overall, the tribunal member found Air Canada’s evidence failed to explain its decision to cancel the flight.
The airline was ordered to pay Pansegrau the debt owed, damages, interest and travel expenses totalling $1,477.47
