Couple awarded $10,000 for botched Air Canada trip shows court is best bet for angry consumers, advocate says | Canada Voices

When Tosh Southwick and her husband volunteered to get bumped off an overbooked flight in 2023, they had no idea that it would end up costing them thousands of dollars in hotels and transportation, hours of lost wages and a gruelling two-year battle with Air Canada AC-T.

Their ordeal began when the Yukon couple chose to take a once-in-a-lifetime vacation without their kids to Cuba that year. The logistics were complicated – finding babysitters, taking time off work, booking multiple flights.

“We’d researched it for well over a year. We saved for three years. We had excursions planned in Cuba. We had arranged for transportation to pick us up at the airport, we had all of those things in place,” Ms. Southwick said.

But instead of getting their long-awaited break, the couple embarked on an arduous battle that ended in small claims-court after Air Canada failed to rebook them on another flight following their voluntary flight change.

The dispute ended this week after Katherine L. McLeod, a justice in Yukon, granted the couple $10,000 in damages and compensation for a “horrendous experience” with Air Canada and “numerous breaches” by the airline of the Air Passenger Protection Regulations.

“It is extraordinary that without this small claims court action, no person-to-person communication would have taken place,” said Justice McLeod in her written reasoning for the case. “Moreover, there has been no acknowledgement of the difficulties suffered or even an apology for the complete lack of care.”

Gabor Lukacs, president of Air Passenger Rights, a consumer advocacy group that worked with the passengers in this case, said it is a strong example of the failure of passenger-rights enforcement by government entities and airlines alike.

“Small claims court is the avenue to get justice for passengers,” he said. “When the airlines are disobeying the law, they are making a rational, calculated decision to maximize profits because it’s cheaper as it stands to break the law, and occasionally pay a nominal fine. They rely on people not knowing the law.”

The Southwicks’ ordeal began shortly after they arrived at the airport that winter. They were told the flight was overbooked and the airline would need volunteers to take different flights in order for the plane to move. “My husband and I looked at each other and said, ‘You know what, we probably could do that,’ because they had told us that it would be another flight two hours later,” said Ms. Southwick.

So began a wild-goose chase from Toronto to Montreal to get a seat on a flight. At one point, the couple was offered a flight to Vegas instead.

After three days and more than $1,000 lost, the couple chose not to waste a long-awaited vacation. They took what they believed would be a momentary hit to their wallet and rebooked a trip to Cancun.

“They told us, you know, don’t worry about it. You’re going to get reimbursed,” said Ms. Southwick of her correspondence with Air Canada. En route, it became clear they would not be getting a cent of their money back.

“We couldn’t get through on the phone for hours and hours,” said Ms. Southwick. After multiple calls and hours on hold, they were told to submit an online form.

“We got back a response in 24 hours, that said, ‘No, you’re not eligible for any compensation.’ It was all weather-related – outside the airline’s control,” Ms. Southwick said.

Court records show that Air Canada legal counsel Liliane Phame-Bui said that the claim made by the plaintiffs was denied by the computer as its program will automatically deny claims when it sees a “weather-related delay.”

The next time the couple heard from Air Canada was more than a year later when the company offered the pair about $2,000 each to settle and never speak about the case publicly. They promptly refused.

Air Canada did not respond to request for comment.

Though the couple’s claim was granted in the amount requested – $10,000 to cover out-of-pocket expenses, damages, and time off work – the judge said that had they claimed all of their entitlement under the Air Passenger Protection Regulations – around $25,000 in this case – they would have received a greater sum.

Mr. Lukacs said that despite the win, airlines are counting on the fact that most people won’t go through the process the Southwicks went through. Increasing the penalties of the Air Passenger Protection Regulations to $250,000 would be a way to dissuade airlines from the current approach, he said. While Parliament has given the government authorization to raise penalties, the government has yet to do so.

For now, the Southwicks likely won’t volunteer to switch flights any time soon.