On October 26, 2026, a CBC investigation revealed that Air Canada denied compensation to multiple passengers by exploiting a maintenance-related loophole following flight cancellations.
Juan Rojas, whose September 2022 flight from Montreal to Bogotá was cancelled, challenged the airline’s compensation denial. Air Canada claimed the cancellation was due to safety-related maintenance after alleging a catering truck damaged his assigned aircraft. However, the Canadian Transportation Agency (CTA) found the damaged plane was not the one scheduled for Rojas’s flight. The CTA ordered Air Canada to pay him $1,000 in compensation under Canada’s Air Passenger Protection Regulations.
Additional Cases of Questionable Maintenance Claims
CBC’s Go Public uncovered three
similar cases involving Air Canada where passengers were denied compensation despite flight cancellations categorized as safety-related maintenance disruptions. Michael Bociurkiw’s February 2026 flight from Vancouver to Newark was cancelled mid-flight for maintenance reasons, although his assigned aircraft was subsequently used on other routes.
Carlos Fernandez experienced a May 2026 flight cancellation from Las Vegas to Toronto shortly after his aircraft was replaced by one reportedly requiring safety-related maintenance. Alison Monaghan’s July 2026 Toronto to Vancouver flight was cancelled because her plane was reallocated to substitute for an aircraft on a different route facing maintenance issues. In all cases, Air Canada
denied owing compensation.
Air Canada’s Explanation and Regulatory Interpretation
Air Canada acknowledged it reassigned functioning aircraft to routes where scheduled planes required safety-related maintenance, viewing this as a commercial decision to reduce overall passenger delays. The airline stated that aircraft scheduling is fluid, permitting operational adjustments that exempt it from paying compensation under the Air Passenger Protection Regulations.
Founder of Air Passenger Rights, Gabor Lukacs, disputes this interpretation, citing a 2022 CTA ruling that mechanical issues must be a direct cause of cancellations, not indirect effects of aircraft reassignment. He criticized Air Canada for neglecting settled law and continuing to misrepresent causes for cancellations.
Consumer Advocacy and Legal Criticism
Sylvie De
Bellefeuille, director of legal services for Montreal consumer group Option consommateurs, described the safety-related maintenance exemption as a broad loophole airlines exploit to deny compensation to countless passengers annually. She noted most travelers lack sufficient information to effectively challenge airline claims.
Alison Monaghan called Air Canada’s practice “a real black mark on Air Canada as far as ethics and integrity go.” Lukacs remarked it remains more economical for airlines to deceive passengers than comply fully with the law, warning of systemic mistreatment and fraudulent assertions even before regulatory decision-makers.
Role of Canadian Transportation Agency and Policy Background
The CTA has ruled Air Canada must compensate passengers affected by
commercial decisions to swap aircraft but has never fined the airline for misclassifying cancellations as safety-related maintenance. A CTA spokesperson confirmed no penalties have been imposed to date for such mischaracterizations.
Previous Canadian transport ministers have directed the CTA to maintain airlines’ ability to deny compensation citing safety maintenance. Compared with European Union regulations that limit compensation exceptions in cases of extraordinary circumstances only, Canada’s framework allows broader airline exemptions.
Transport Minister Steven MacKinnon declined an interview request regarding these issues.
Impact on Passengers and Regulation Calls
Passengers facing flight cancellations classified as safety-related maintenance by Air Canada often receive no compensation. Many passengers, including Rojas,
only obtain payment after formal appeals. Others like Bociurkiw, Fernandez, and Monaghan remain uncompensated despite evidence questioning the airline’s claims.
De Bellefeuille said the regulatory framework leaves passengers vulnerable, forcing them to rely on airline-provided information without sufficient means to contest it effectively.
Air Canada maintains its right to deny compensation based on operational adjustments made to minimize overall passenger disruption. The airline faces ongoing scrutiny as legal experts and consumer advocates call for regulatory reform to close the maintenance loophole and better enforce passenger rights.
