{"id":130823,"date":"2026-01-25T00:12:53","date_gmt":"2026-01-24T18:42:53","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/aviationa2z.com\/?p=130823"},"modified":"2026-01-25T00:12:57","modified_gmt":"2026-01-24T18:42:57","slug":"air-canada-ordered-to-pay-15000-after-ontario-courts-uphold-passenger-rights","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/aviationa2z.com\/index.php\/2026\/01\/25\/air-canada-ordered-to-pay-15000-after-ontario-courts-uphold-passenger-rights\/","title":{"rendered":"Air Canada Ordered to Pay $15,000 After Ontario Courts Uphold Passenger Rights"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

MONTREAL-<\/strong> Air Canada (AC)<\/a> has been ordered to pay more than $15,000<\/strong> after two Ontario courts ruled in favor of an Ottawa passenger affected by flight delays and cancellations. The airline has confirmed it will not pursue a further appeal.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The case stems from disrupted July 2022 travel between Montreal (YUL), Toronto (YYZ), and Lisbon (LIS), and centers on how airlines must handle rebooking and compensation under Canada\u2019s Air Passenger Protection Regulations.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"Air
Photo: Cl\u00e9ment Alloing<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

How the Dispute Reached Two Courts<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Rejean Landry, a retired Ottawa business consultant, booked travel for himself and his two adult children from Montreal to Lisbon via Toronto in July 2022. The return flights were split, with his children scheduled to fly back earlier due to work commitments, while Landry planned a later return.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

A delay on the Montreal to Toronto segment caused the family to risk missing their onward flight to Lisbon. With no confirmed rebooking provided by Air Canada, Landry purchased new higher fare refundable tickets from Toronto to Lisbon to avoid losing the trip.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

An Air Canada agent advised the family to use the new tickets and arranged for their luggage to be transferred. However, because the original outbound segment was not used, Air Canada later cancelled the return flights for Landry\u2019s children from Lisbon. This forced him to buy additional replacement tickets at his own expense, the National Post<\/a> reported.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"Air
Photo: Markus Eigenheer | Flickr<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Small Claims Court Ruling in Ottawa<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

After returning to Canada, Landry spent several months exchanging emails with Air Canada, initially seeking reimbursement for the replacement tickets valued at approximately $6,500. When no resolution was reached, he filed a claim in Ottawa Small Claims Court in late 2023.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Representing himself, Landry argued that Air Canada failed to meet its obligations under the Air Passenger Protection Regulations. The small claims court agreed, ruling that the airline was responsible for flight delay compensation, denial of boarding compensation, and the full cost of replacement flights.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The court awarded damages totaling close to $15,000, covering delay compensation, new outbound tickets, cancelled return flights, and related costs.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"
Photo: By BriYYZ from Toronto, Canada – Air Canada Airbus A330-300 C-GFAF, CC BY-SA 2.0, https:\/\/commons.wikimedia.org\/w\/index.php?curid=67447893<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Air Canada Appeal and Superior Court Decision<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Air Canada appealed the decision to the Ontario Superior Court of Justice. The appeal was heard in Ontario, with Justice Ian Carter presiding. Air Canada was represented by Toronto-based litigators, while Landry retained legal counsel for the appeal.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In a written decision released on January 12, Justice Carter dismissed the airline\u2019s appeal and upheld the small claims ruling in full. He found no evidence that Air Canada activated its internal rebooking tools or clearly informed Landry that he was required to wait for automatic rebooking.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The court emphasized that passengers are not obligated to wait indefinitely when an airline fails to offer compliant alternate transportation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"
Photo: Montreal Airport<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Role of the Montreal Convention Explained<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Air Canada argued that Landry should have waited for the airline to rebook the flights and relied in part on interpretations of the Montreal<\/a> Convention, which governs international airline liability for delays, baggage, and passenger harm.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Superior Court rejected this argument, stating clearly that the Montreal Convention does not require passengers to wait for an airline to offer a new flight.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The obligation rests with the airline to provide timely alternate transportation. If it fails to do so, passengers are entitled to make reasonable arrangements themselves.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Compensation Breakdown Ordered by the Court<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

The total award included several components:<\/p>\n\n\n\n