Lawyers speaking for the federal government defended the country’s airline passenger regulations before the Supreme Court of Canada on Monday, arguing the rules are needed to ensure consumers are treated consistently and fairly when their trips are disrupted.
The judges on Canada’s top court held a three-hour hearing of the appeal launched by domestic and global airlines of the country’s Air Passenger Protection Regulations, or APPR, which came into force in 2019.
The industry, led by trade group International Air Transport Association, or IATA, is seeking to overturn a 2022 ruling by the Federal Court of Appeal that largely upheld the regulations.
The APPR rules cover airlines flying into, out of or within Canada. They aim to ensure passengers whose flights are cancelled are given a refund or a seat on the next available departure, or with another airline. The airline must also compensate passengers for the inconvenience of a cancelled or delayed flight, if the reason for the delay is within the airline’s control. The amounts can reach $1,000 for delays of nine or more hours.
The judges adjourned after Monday’s hearing and will issue a decision at a later date. At stake is a set of rules that underpinned a major push by Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s government to fulfill its intent of ensuring airlines deal consistently with passengers when services fall short of expectations.
IATA, which represents 300 airlines in 120 countries including Canada, says Ottawa lacks the authority to regulate foreign airlines, and that the rules provide compensation to customers that exceeds actual losses.
Pierre Bienvenu, a lawyer for the airline industry, said Canada’s regulations are incompatible with the Montreal Convention, an international agreement that provides damages to mistreated passengers.
While the APPR says certain types of delays automatically entitle passengers to compensation for inconvenience, the Montreal Convention says they must prove they suffered damages or incurred costs of food or lodging as a result of a flight disruption.
Lawyers for the Canadian Transportation Agency and Attorney-General of Canada dismissed the industry’s claims, telling the judges the dual regimes can co-exist.
Barbara Cuber, a lawyer for the CTA, said in court that “Parliament wanted compensation for inconvenience to be available to passengers in a standardized way, and it did so by changing the agency’s authorities in the act.”
The Supreme Court judges frequently interrupted lawyers for both sides, questioning their arguments and, in some cases, making statements on the matter at hand.
Justice Mahmud Jamal raised the idea the Canadian regulations went beyond compensating passengers and were a way to prod airlines to improve their services.
“It’s a way of bringing competition to bear in a concentrated industry,” he said.
Bernard Letarte, a lawyer for the Attorney-General, agreed industry improvements were a government policy objective that underlies the regulations.
Justice Malcolm Rowe seemed to cast doubt on the airline industry arguments that an international agreement trumped a Canadian set of rules.
“Domestic law is determined by Parliament, not by some supranational tribunal,” he said.
Some judges, however, asked if the APPR rules amounted to compensating for out-of-pocket costs that had not been incurred.
Eric Atkins