Air Canada has canceled multiple flights citing safety-related maintenance as a reason to deny passengers compensation, a practice drawing scrutiny for exploiting a regulatory loophole. Passengers affected by these cancellations have challenged the airline’s refusal, with the Canadian Transportation Agency (CTA) ordering at least one payout.
JAUN Rojas’ Case Highlights Loophole Use
Juan Rojas, a Gatineau resident, had his Montreal to Bogotá flight canceled in September 2022. Air Canada attributed the cancellation to safety-related maintenance and refused to pay compensation. After Rojas contested the denial, the CTA ruled the airline owed him $1,000. Evidence showed Air Canada misrepresented a catering truck accident as damage to Rojas’s
assigned aircraft when the incident actually involved a different plane. Rojas said, “I felt like they were trying to cheat the system.” The CTA concluded that Air Canada’s decision to swap functional planes to cover those undergoing maintenance was a commercial choice that still required compensating passengers on the original route.
Similar Incidents Show Pattern of Aircraft Swaps
Other passengers experienced comparable situations. Michael Bociurkiw, traveling from Bangkok to Vancouver in February 2026, faced cancellation of his connecting flight to Newark attributed to safety maintenance on the same aircraft he had boarded. Carlos Fernandez had his Las Vegas to Toronto flight canceled after an aircraft swap in
May, and Alison Monaghan’s Toronto to Vancouver flight in July was canceled for similar reasons. In each case, Air Canada justified denials of compensation by citing safety-related maintenance, while the originally scheduled aircraft was used on other routes. Monaghan called the practice “a real black mark on Air Canada as far as ethics and integrity go.”
Air Canada Admits Commercial Decisions; CTA Calls for Compensation
Air Canada acknowledged these instances involved commercial decisions to reassign functioning aircraft from one route to cover another with maintenance issues. The airline described the schedule as fluid, requiring operational adjustments to minimize overall disruption. Despite that, Air Canada maintained it was within its
rights to withhold compensation under Canada’s Air Passenger Protection Regulations. CTA rulings specify that mechanical problems must be the direct cause of cancellation for compensation denial, excluding knock-on effects from aircraft swaps. In Rojas’s case, the CTA ordered compensation despite Air Canada’s position.
Experts Criticize Maintenance Loophole Exploitation
Sylvie De Bellefeuille, director of legal services at Montreal’s Option consommateurs, called the safety maintenance exemption “a huge duffel bag in which they can put anything and everything,” allowing airlines to deny compensation to countless passengers yearly. She added, “Most passengers do not have enough information to counter whatever is said by the airline.” Gabor Lukacs, founder
of Air Passenger Rights, called it “stunning” that Air Canada ignores settled law requiring mechanical issues to be the direct cancellation cause. Lukacs said, “Right now, it is just more economical for an airline to deceive passengers than to actually comply with the law.”
Regulatory and Industry Context
The CTA has not imposed fines on Air Canada for citing safety-related maintenance as a cause for cancellations. Prior transport ministers have instructed the CTA to preserve airlines’ ability to deny compensation in these cases. The CTA has also withheld publishing past dispute decisions due to privacy concerns but plans to begin releasing them early next
year. WESTJET has also been reported to use similar exemptions, though the full scope among Canada’s major airlines is unclear. In contrast, European Union rules only allow compensation denial for mechanical issues under extraordinary, unavoidable circumstances.
Passenger Impact and Calls for Reform
Passengers affected by these cancellations often receive no compensation when airlines classify disruptions as safety-related maintenance. Those like Juan Rojas, who successfully challenged the airline, remain exceptions. Sylvie De Bellefeuille called for changes so passengers are not forced to rely solely on airline explanations when cancellations occur. Rojas urged the government to protect travelers’ rights, stating, “The least the government can do is ensure
that our rights are protected.” Transport Minister Steven MacKinnon declined to comment on the controversy.
