Air Canada ordered to pay more than $15,000 after Ottawa man wins in two courts
An Ottawa retiree who bought replacement tickets after Air Canada delays will receive about $15,000 after small claims and Superior Court rulings in his favour.
Copy link
By Torontoer Staff
Air Canada must pay roughly $15,000 to an Ottawa man after two courts found the airline liable for the costs and losses he incurred when flight delays and cancellations disrupted a 2022 trip to Portugal. The Ontario Superior Court dismissed Air Canada’s appeal and ordered the airline to cover compensation and legal costs.
The case, which began in small claims court and was later upheld on appeal, centres on whether the passenger acted reasonably by buying higher-fare replacement tickets when his original itinerary would have been missed. Both judges concluded he did, and that Air Canada failed to offer adequate alternate transportation or clear instructions.
How the trip unfolded
Rejean Landry, a retired business consultant, booked travel for himself and his two adult children from Montreal to Lisbon via Toronto for July 2022. The family’s Montreal to Toronto flight was delayed, which meant they would miss their onward Toronto to Lisbon flight. Landry bought three refundable, higher-fare replacement tickets from Toronto to Lisbon so they could make the connection.
An Air Canada agent in Toronto allegedly told them to use the new tickets, and the agent transferred their luggage to the replacement reservations. When Landry’s children later tried to use the original return portions of their tickets from Lisbon to Toronto, they were told those segments had been cancelled because the first portion of the original tickets had not been used. Landry then had to buy additional tickets to get his children home.
Court findings and the legal basis
Small claims court awarded Landry compensation covering the delay, the cost of the replacement Toronto–Lisbon tickets, compensation for the denial of boarding for his children, and their return fares from Lisbon. Air Canada appealed, arguing Landry should have waited for the airline to rebook them rather than buy new flights.
Ontario Superior Court Justice Ian Carter rejected that argument. He found no evidence Air Canada informed Landry he needed to wait to be rebooked, and he noted the airline’s automatic rebooking tool was not shown to have been activated in this case. Justice Carter also said the Montreal Convention does not require a passenger to wait for an airline’s rebooking.
In fact, there is nothing … in the Montreal Convention that states a passenger must wait to accept a new flight from the airline.
Justice Ian Carter
The court concluded Air Canada breached its obligations under Canada’s Air Passenger Protection Regulations, known as the APPR, which set out compensation rules for delays, cancellations and denied boarding. The Superior Court ordered Air Canada to pay Landry about $15,000 plus his legal costs, and it dismissed the airline’s appeal on Jan. 12. Air Canada has said it will not appeal further.
Breakdown of costs
- $1,000 each for delay compensation under the APPR
- $6,500 for the replacement Toronto–Lisbon tickets
- $1,800 for each child for denied boarding and related expenses
- Additional connected fees and legal costs, leading to a roughly $15,000 award
Responses and broader implications
Peter Fitzpatrick, Air Canada’s manager of corporate communications, said the airline appealed the small claims decision because it disagreed with how the regulations were interpreted. He noted APPR is relatively new and that precedent is limited, and he said Air Canada wanted the rules interpreted correctly.
The airline appealed the small claims court decision because it disagreed with how the law was interpreted. The APPR are fairly new and there are few cases interpreting them, it is important that they be interpreted correctly.
Peter Fitzpatrick, Air Canada
Gábor Lukács, founder of the advocacy group Air Passenger Rights, said the decision reinforces three key principles: if an airline offers adequate alternate transportation, passengers may accept a refund plus limited compensation; if the airline fails to offer compliant alternate transportation, passengers may buy a replacement flight and seek reimbursement for its full cost; and passengers are not obliged to wait passively for rebooking.
This is an indication that the judiciary sees through what airlines are doing to passengers, and judicial patience and goodwill are running thin.
Gábor Lukács, Air Passenger Rights
Landry, who represented himself in small claims court and only hired counsel for the Superior Court appeal, urged other travellers to take complaints to court when they believe an airline has failed to follow its obligations. He said he is satisfied with the result, although he added he has not yet received the awarded funds.
What this means for travellers
The decision clarifies that passengers can buy replacement travel when an airline fails to provide acceptable alternate transportation, and that they may recover those costs if a court finds the carrier breached rules under the APPR. Travellers should keep documentation of communications, receipts for replacement travel, and any agent instructions they receive at the airport.
The ruling does not change the requirement that airlines must attempt to rebook or offer remedies in accordance with the APPR. It does, however, put more weight behind enforcement of those rules when airlines do not meet their obligations.
The case took almost four years to reach a final resolution. Landry called the outcome gratifying, and legal observers say the decision may encourage more passengers to seek remedies through the courts when airlines fall short.
Air Canadaair passenger rightstravellawOntario Superior Court
