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.
