Flair Airlines loses legal case after delayed flights

A Canadian airline that came up with reasons not to pay passengers compensation after their flights were delayed has lost a case in the small claims court.

Originally, Flair Airlines admitted that flight crew rest requirements caused delays on its flight from Vancouver to Kitchener, Ont., but once passengers Matthew Welsh and Andrew Nickel took the airline to the small claims court in order to get compensation, the airline changed its tune.

According to a Feb. 6 B.C. Civil Resolution Tribunal decision, Welsh and Nickel booked return flights in March 2022.

Both flights were delayed between three to six hours which, under Air Passenger Protection Regulations, stipulates that passengers are due $125 in compensation for the inconvenience if the delays are a result of something within the airline's control.

The decision says before the flight took off from Vancouver, the airline sent multiple emails saying the delay was because of flight crew rest requirements.

However, once Welsh and Nickel took Flair to court the airline came up with more reasons not to pay.

"While not directly denying that flight crew rest requirements were a factor, Flair now says the 'most significant' reason for the delay was 'up-line weather' that was outside its control," the Tribunal said.

If the weather was the reason for the delay, Flair wouldn't have to pay compensation because that's outside of its control.

READ MORE: Kelowna woman loses case with airlines over 'direct' flights

"Flair says an earlier flight was diverted and delayed due to weather, which caused the outbound flight to be delayed because it used the same airplane."

However, the Tribunal didn't like the airline's evidence.

"First, Flair says the earlier flight was delayed on its way to a third city, when weather caused it to land at another airport before continuing to the third city," the decision reads.

The Tribunal says Flair provided no evidence that it took any steps to make up for the earlier delay on the two intervening flights.

"Flair submitted no witness evidence, including any evidence from the pilots, other flight crew, or others," the Tribunal ruled.

The Tribunal then goes on to criticize the weather and flight information it submitted as evidence.

"I find the submitted evidence consists almost entirely of unexplained numbers, acronyms, and codes, whose meaning is far from obvious, and which I do not understand," the Tribunal ruled.

READ MORE: Court rules receipts not needed as B.C. student wins case against airline

The Tribunal goes on to say Flair has been involved in numerous other Civil Resolution Tribunal cases and knows not to submit evidence that is highly technical and that only experts can understand.

Ultimately, the Tribunal ruled that the delays were within Flair's control and ordered it to pay $440 compensation as per the Air Passenger Protection Regulations.

There's nothing in the decision about why Flair didn't pay this in the first place, or why the passengers had to take the airline to court to get it to adhere to the Air Passenger Protection Regulations.

To contact a reporter for this story, email Ben Bulmer or call (250) 309-5230 or email the editor. You can also submit photos, videos or news tips to the newsroom and be entered to win a monthly prize draw.

We welcome your comments and opinions on our stories but play nice. We won't censor or delete comments unless they contain off-topic statements or links, unnecessary vulgarity, false facts, spam or obviously fake profiles. If you have any concerns about what you see in comments, email the editor in the link above.