91Ô­´´

Skip to content
Join our Newsletter

B.C. family loses airline delay compensation fight

There was nothing Air Canada could do to mitigate delays resulting from damage to an airplane wing, tribunal rules.
airplaneinsky
Air Canada’s evidence showed the unscheduled maintenance was required for safety purposes, the Civil Resolution Tribunal ruled.

A B.C. family has lost its bid before B.C.’s Civil Resolution Tribunal to have Air Canada compensate it for flight delays resulting from damage to a plane.

The couple and three children purchased flights from Edmonton to 91Ô­´´. 

However, the flight from Edmonton to 91Ô­´´ was delayed so they sought $2,000 for compensation under the Air Passenger Protection Regulations and $90.91 for additional rental car expenses due to the flight delay.

Air Canada said the delay was due to an unforeseen maintenance issue that created a knock-on effect on flights, said his Sept. 25 decision.
As such, the airline said, the family is not entitled to compensation for the delay.

Air Canada also said it paid the applicants $90.91 for rental car expenses and said that portion of the claim should be dismissed.

Henderson said that, on May 21, 2023, Air Canada notified the family that AC245 on May 22, 2023 would be delayed due to additional time needed to substitute the aircraft.

He said AC245 was the return flight of AC240, which flew from 91Ô­´´ to Edmonton. The aircraft used on AC240 and AC245 was a Boeing 737. 

Air Canada said the scheduling conflict was caused by the knock-on effect of another Boeing 737 (FIN 517) that required unscheduled maintenance for safety reasons. 

On May 20, 2023, aircraft FIN 517’s winglet was damaged while parked.

“The damaged winglet required repair. This unscheduled maintenance affected the availability of Air Canada’s fleet of Boeing 737s,” Henderson said.

He accepted Air Canada’s evidence that the delay was caused by a shortage of aircraft arising from unscheduled maintenance of FIN 517 that posed a safety issue.


Henderson said Air Canada’s evidence showed the unscheduled maintenance was required for safety purposes and that there were no reasonable measures the company could have taken to mitigate the impact.

The families’ names were anonymized to protect the children’s identities.