Air Canada signage is seen at the Toronto Pearson International Airport on March 31, 2025.Cole Burston/Getty Images
When a flight disruption left four Toronto passengers stranded overnight in Dallas last fall, their experiences dealing with Air Canada were anything but similar despite their identical ordeal.
The passengers contacted the airline for reimbursement of expenses, including hotels and meals, as well as compensation for the inconvenience. One was fully reimbursed and received $1,000 in compensation. The airline fully reimbursed another passenger for all his expenses, but did not provide compensation. Yet another only received USD$200 toward his expenses, while a fourth allegedly received nothing.
The different outcomes highlight the uneven way airlines determine customer compensation and how the ambiguity of current regulations can empower airlines to deny passengers what they’re owed.
Michael Segal flies frequently with Air Canada, has logged 300,000 miles and spent tens of thousands of dollars to secure Aeroplan’s coveted “Super Elite” status. That gives him premium perks like priority customer service and complimentary upgrades. When his Dallas flight was delayed by more than 12 hours during a work trip, he assumed there would be a breezy reimbursement process.
He was wrong.
“I called Air Canada and I said, this is what’s happening. It’s midnight…will you pay for my hotel? They’re like, ‘Yeah, just submit the forms. No problem,‘” Mr. Segal said.
After submitting his request online, he got a different answer. “This is a safety issue. You don’t get anything compensated,” Mr. Segal said he was told.
An Air Canada representative said that the carrier was “happy to contribute” US$200, which didn’t cover the hotel costs, let alone food and transportation, according to Mr. Segal. Reimbursement for those costs is required in such a case under Canada’s Air Passenger Protection Regulations.
Air Canada spokesperson Peter Fitzpatrick said the airline offered passengers meal and hotel vouchers for the night and that Mr. Segal was among those who “did not avail themselves of this offer.” Mr. Segal said he was exhausted when he called Air Canada before booking his hotel room to confirm whether he’d get reimbursed later – it was midnight and he didn’t want to wait in line in the middle of the night to obtain a voucher.
As ‘Buy Canadian’ surges, companies trip over ‘maple-washing’ mistakes
An even bigger surprise for Mr. Segal: despite being on the same flight, a colleague, a friend and an acquaintance faced different outcomes with their own claims.
One of those passengers travelling with Mr. Segal told The Globe that while he didn’t receive compensation for the flight, he was fully reimbursed for his hotel and Uber expenses – something Mr. Segal did not receive after spending US$375 on similar expenses.
Screenshots of documents and e-mails provided by a third passenger showed yet another outcome. That passenger, who flew first class, received full reimbursement of around $300 for expenses and an additional $1,000 in compensation. (The Globe is not identifying the two individuals because of their concerns that the airline might revoke the reimbursements and compensation.)
According to Mr. Segal and the third passenger, a fourth person received nothing.
“It showed me that it’s a completely arbitrary [decision],” said Mr. Segal, who also filed a pending complaint with the Canadian Transportation Agency. (The CTA adjudicates complaints filed by air passengers and can compel airlines to pay restitution.)
Air Canada’s Mr. Fitzpatrick said that the $1,000 in compensation paid to one passenger on the flight was an error. He added that, “based on a customer’s circumstances, airlines have discretion in handling individual cases.”
Paul Daly, a University of Ottawa professor specializing in administrative law and government, acknowledged that part of the issue falls under contract law, where airlines have considerable discretion. “Air Canada can decide to give someone $5,000 or $10,000…whatever Air Canada shareholders will tolerate,” he said.
This isn’t the first time Air Canada has been criticized for the way it decides on compensation and reimbursements. Last December, the airline was ordered to pay $10,000 to a Yukon couple after wrongly classifying their claim as ineligible for compensation, among other issues.
Documents in that case show that the carrier’s legal counsel admitted that their computer program “will automatically deny claims” when it sees a weather-related delay.
“It’s possible Air Canada uses internal algorithms or machine-learning to differentiate passengers,” Mr. Daly said. “These internal policies, not publicly disclosed or justified, might explain the inconsistency.”
Air Canada’s Mr. Fitzpatrick did not directly address The Globe’s question on whether computer algorithms were a factor, saying that “all the cases were reviewed and handled by separate agents.” He added that “pretty much everyone uses algorithms as all computers rely on them.”
The stated cause of the disruption played a central role in what Mr. Segal and his fellow passengers were owed under air passenger protection rules. Yet the airline communicated various reasons for the delays and ultimate cancellation.
“At one point, they said the plane we were supposed to take had an equipment failure. Then they brought in a plane from Montreal that supposedly was fixed … but it wasn’t,” Mr. Segal said. “
He added in an e-mail that when that plane was unable to fly, a third plane was assigned. “After waiting for some time at the gate they announced that the crew would not be able to take us to Toronto and the flight was finally cancelled,” he said.
Notifications sent to passengers prior to the flight that were seen by The Globe show the stated cause for the disruptions evolved, and the final stated reason was crew constraints. “The messaging kept changing,” Mr. Segal said.
Mr. Fitzpatrick maintained that “the initial cause for the delay” of the Dallas-to-Toronto flight was a maintenance issue required for safety, making passengers ineligible for compensation under Air Passenger Protection Regulations. The carrier’s e-mails stated that “cascading events are treated as a single incident” and it’s the “most significant contributing factor” that counts.
Gabor Lukacs, president of the Air Passenger Rights advocacy group, said the evolving explanations suggest passengers were entitled to more under the APPR.
“This was a knock-on effect at best,” he said. “If it was a maintenance issue, passengers are entitled to meals, accommodations, and a rebooking on the airline’s next flight within nine hours – or even a competitor’s flight, if needed. If it was a scheduling issue, they’re entitled to lump-sum compensation for a delay over nine hours.”
Geoff White, executive director of the Public Interest Advocacy Centre, said the lack of consistency and general confusion about what is owed underscores a vagueness in passenger protection rules that needs to be resolved.
“This ambiguity is being used to deny passengers compensation.”
