Air Canada denied compensation to passengers after cancelling flights by citing safety-related maintenance. One notable case involved Gatineau resident Juan Rojas, whose September 2022 Montreal to Bogotá flight was cancelled following a commercial decision to swap aircraft. Rojas challenged the denial with the Canadian Transportation Agency (CTA), which ruled in January 2026 that Air Canada must pay him $1,000, finding the safety maintenance claim unfounded.
Additional passengers have reported similar incidents. Michael Bociurkiw’s February flight from Bangkok to Vancouver to Newark was cancelled mid-flight at Vancouver, with Air Canada attributing the disruption to safety-related maintenance. However, the aircraft originally assigned
to his flight was still actively used for other routes. In May and July, Carlos Fernandez and Alison Monaghan faced cancellations from Las Vegas to Toronto and Toronto to Vancouver, respectively. In each case, Air Canada transferred a functioning aircraft to cover routes where scheduled planes required maintenance, leaving passengers on the original flights without service but denying financial compensation.
Canadian Transportation Agency Findings
The CTA found Air Canada’s claim that safety-related maintenance caused cancellations to be misleading in multiple cases. In Rojas’s complaint, Air Canada alleged a catering truck collision damaged his plane, but records showed that incident involved a different aircraft. The
CTA described aircraft swaps as commercial choices to minimize delays for some passengers at the expense of others but ruled compensation is still owed when cancellations result.
The 2022 CTA decision clarified that mechanical issues must be a direct cause of cancellations, not secondary consequences. Air Canada’s operational adjustments to reassign aircraft do not exempt it from paying compensation under Canada’s Air Passenger Protection Regulations, which allow up to $1,000 for delays within airline control excluding safety-mandated delays.
Consumer and Passenger Rights Concerns
Sylvie De Bellefeuille, director of legal services at Montreal’s Option consommateurs, described the safety-related maintenance exemption as a “huge duffel bag” airlines
use to deny compensation, noting passengers lack sufficient information to challenge such claims. Air Passenger Rights founder Gabor Lukacs criticized Air Canada for disregarding settled law and called the airline’s practice a breach of ethics.
Passengers like Alison Monaghan called the misuse of maintenance claims a “black mark on Air Canada as far as ethics and integrity go.” Juan Rojas expressed frustration at the regulatory gap that allows airlines to misrepresent reasons for cancellations, saying, “The least the government can do is ensure that our rights are protected.”
Air Canada and CTA Statements
Air Canada defended its practice, stating aircraft scheduling is fluid and operational
adjustments aim to limit overall passenger disruption, justifying compensation denials. The CTA acknowledged privacy concerns as the reason it does not publish dispute rulings but intends to begin releasing decisions early next year. Transport Minister Steven MacKinnon declined to comment on the issue.
The CTA confirmed no fines have been levied against Air Canada for misusing safety-related maintenance claims, despite investigations into similar practices by both Air Canada and WestJet. The CTA stated no penalties were imposed in Rojas’s case.
Regulatory Loophole and Industry Impact
Canada’s Air Passenger Protection Regulations permit airlines to deny compensation for delays attributed to safety-required maintenance, creating a loophole airlines
exploit by citing commercial operational decisions. WestJet has also used similar claims to avoid compensating passengers following flight cancellations.
Consumer advocates and legal experts urge reforms to increase transparency and close the maintenance loophole. Unlike Canada, the European Union limits compensation exemptions for mechanical delays to extraordinary circumstances, such as terrorism, signaling stricter passenger protections.
Documents reveal past transport ministers instructed the CTA to preserve airlines’ ability to deny compensation on safety-maintenance grounds, showing limited appetite for policy change. Passengers affected by cancellations like Juan Rojas may continue to face challenges proving true causes behind disruptions and receiving due compensation
without clearer oversight.
