Competition Bureau Makes Recommendations to Improve Competition in Canada’s Airline Industry

TOP STORY

The cost of flying is a major concern for Canadians. For many, particularly those in northern and remote communities, air travel is not a luxury – it is a necessity. 

Today, the Competition Bureau published its market study report – Cleared for take-off: Elevating airline competition – which makes recommendations to governments for increasing competition in Canada’s domestic airline industry. 

Competition Bureau makes recommendations to improve competition in Canada’s airline industry – Canada.ca

Decisions

Policy grievance, transfers, accumulated service – Air Canada v Canadian Union of Public Employees, Air Canada Component2025 CanLII 56988 (CA LA)

Collective agreement provided that Air Canada Rouge (“Rouge”) cabin crew permanently transferred to Air Canada Mainline (“Mainline”) were placed on Mainline wage grid to earn no less than at Rouge – required to accumulate years of service at Mainline to progress to next step on grid – union grieved employer’s refusal to account for service accumulated during previous temporary transfers from Rouge to Mainline when determining placement on Mainline grid upon permanent transfer – employer argued union conflated provisions on temporary and permanent transfers – arbitrator found that collective agreement excluded temporary service from meaning of accumulated years of service at Mainline – parties intended airtight distinction between temporary and permanent transfers – rejected union’s argument that Rouge employee’s service at Mainline was discounted – all service counted when employee placed back on Rouge grid after temporary transfer ended, and service fully recognized when placed on Mainline grid upon permanent transfer – grievance dismissed

Application, duty of fair representation – Chanel Marino v Unifor 6732025 CanLII 55725 (ON LRB)

Applicant was Customer Services Representative (Aftermarket) with De Havilland Aircraft of Canada Ltd. – applicant complained about issues surrounding holiday shut down schedule and overtime allocation – Unifor did not grieve employer’s failure to release holiday schedule, considering it a procedural breach not warranting further action – union filed grievance regarding overtime during holidays – did not pursue matter to arbitration – applicant filed application alleging violation of duty of fair representation (“DFR”) – union sought dismissal of application for lack of prima facie case – Board found union entitled not to file grievance as long as conduct is not arbitrary, discriminatory, or in bad faith – union not obliged to file or pursue grievance simply because member wants it to – disagreement about interpretation of collective agreement not a prima facie violation of DFR – applicant’s claim that outcome differed from other employee grievances was bald assertion – union telling applicant things she did not want to hear did not constitute failure to properly communicate – grievance dismissed

Grievance, termination, cross-examination – Aircraft Mechanics Fraternal Association v L3harris Mas Inc., 2025 CanLII 56180 (ON LA)

Grievor was terminated for fraudulently recording hours on timesheet on Christmas Day – union grieved termination, arguing differential treatment of grievor, discipline too harsh, hearing conducted improperly, and that employer ignored past practice regarding pay and work on Christmas Day – union intended to cross-examine grievor’s supervisor about supervisor’s fraudulent representations to company, disciplinary history, and alleged harassment, intimidation, and retaliation against employees – issue was whether probative value of evidence outweighs prejudice – arbitrator found some intended areas of evidence irrelevant and inadmissible – some questioning about fraudulent representations allowed, going to credibility, but attempts to prove conduct were barred by similar fact rule and collateral fact rule – allegations of harassment, intimidation, and retaliation in relation to supervisor’s attempts to have employees change time sheet and subsequent actions may be relevant and were valid areas of cross-examination

Workers’ Compensation, employment injury – Ferreyra Thomas et Bombardier inc. (Centre de finition Montréal)2025 QCTAT 2439 

Worker worked as painter, polisher and mechanic for several employers in aeronautics over 17 years – developed pulmonary fibrosis – two independent committees confirmed diagnosis but concluded it was not occupational disease – worker contested decision of Commission (CNESST) – Tribunal first noted presumption of occupational disease did not apply to pulmonary fibrosis – worker needed to demonstrate disease was characteristic of work performed or directly related to its risks – no epidemiological or statistical studies presented – worker argued exposure to various products and dust contributed to disease – Tribunal found evidence presented insufficient to support worker’s position –noted committees’ unanimous conclusions on absence of correlation between pulmonary fibrosis and work performed – also noted rheumatologist consulted by worker diagnosed autoimmune origin – Tribunal concluded disease not occupational disease – contestation dismissed

Workers’ Compensation, imputation of costs – Air Transat – Opérations aéroportuaires2025 QCTAT 2389

Flight attendant sustained injury following turbulence – Commission decision confirmed parties’ agreement that worker sustained lumbar sprain on preexisting condition of degenerative discopathy and facet osteoarthritis – employer seeking to be imputed 10% of cost of benefits relying on doctor’s assessment that preexisting conditions were abnormal – Tribunal found worker suffered from preexisting conditions, but not abnormal – doctor’s assessment based on medical article of limited probative value – medical evidence cannot be imported from other cases and files – contestation dismissed

Workers’ Compensation, presumption of employment injury – Mdzarif et Trans-Sol Aviation Service inc., 2025 QCTAT 2423

Ramp Agent claimed he sustained lumbar sprain while picking up luggage – Commission found no employment injury – worker contested decision but did not attend hearing – Tribunal reviewed conditions for injury to be presumed an employment injury – found worker did not establish that injury occurred at work, noting unexplained delays in reporting injury and consulting doctor – presumption did not apply – due to lack of evidence and worker’s absence at hearing, Tribunal could not determine whether sudden and unexpected event occurred resulting in employment injury – Tribunal concluded that worker did not suffer an employment injury and therefore not entitled to compensation – contestation dismissed

Workers’ Compensation, presumption of employment injury – Garneau et Air Transat AT inc., 2025 QCTAT 2400

Worker injured knee while lifting wheel – did not report accident or consult doctor for several weeks – Commission (CNESST) denied application – worker contested Commission’s decision – explained he was able to continue working as 90% of tasks were administrative – also explained worry about taking leave during busy period – Tribunal found explanations credible – reporting or consulting delays not determinative of presumption of employment injury – no evidence presented disputing injury occurred at work – presumption of employment injury applied – Tribunal concluded worker suffered employment injury and entitled to benefits – contestation allowed

Compensation, denied boarding, return flight – Gervais c. WestJet2025 QCCQ 2321

Plaintiffs purchased flight from Montreal to Puerto Plata via Toronto – flight delayed due to weather conditions in Montreal – denied boarding because they would miss connection in Toronto – in absence of offer for alternate flight, plaintiffs purchased flight with different airline from Toronto to Puerta Plata – unable to confirm availability of return flight with WestJet, plaintiffs also purchased return flight with different airline – claimed $14, 431.19 for cost of tickets with other airline, expenses and damages – Court found presumption of carrier’s liability under Montreal Convention applied to outbound flight – defendant failed to provide evidence of steps taken to inform and accommodate passengers – but Court found reasonable person would not have rushed to purchase alternate return flight the day following arrival in Puerto Plata – if not successful by phone or online, plaintiffs could have gone to WestJet counter at airport to obtain confirmation of their return flight – defendant not liable for plaintiff’s choice to fly with other airline – damages not permitted under Montreal Convention – awarded cost of alternate outbound flight, mileage and accommodation cost in Toronto, for a total of $2,544,54

Compensation, delayed flight – Veillet c. Vacances Sunwing2025 QCCQ 2266

Plaintiffs claimed $2,034.44 under Montreal Convention for 18-hour delay on Cayo Coco to Toronto flight – defendant argued delay due to safety reason – cited technical issue, personnel having reached flight time limitations and night curfew at Toronto Airport – defendant submitted Canadian Transportation Agency decisions establishing that technical issue constituted safety reason – Court found flight time limitations and Toronto Airport curfew were the main reasons for delay, not technical issue – damages not permitted under Montreal Convention – awarded $500 per passenger and cost of registered mail, for total of $1,012.44 – in absence of supporting evidence, cost of additional parking not awarded

CTA News and Decisions  

British Airways penalized for violations of the APPR

Application – West Atlantic Sweden AB c.o.b. FarCargo and as West Atlantic Cargo Airlines – Determination No. A-2025-109

Application for licence to operate a non scheduled international service to transport goods on a charter basis between Sweden and Canada – licence issued, subject to conditions

Application – Seawind Aviation, Inc. – Determination No. A-2025-112

Application for licence to operate a non-scheduled international service in accordance with Annex III of the Air Transport Agreement between the Government of Canada and the Government of the United States of America – licence issued, subject to conditions

Application – Sky Aviation Group Inc. – Determination No. A-2025-113

Application for licence to operate a domestic service, small aircraft – licence issued

Application – Sky Aviation Group Inc. – Determination No. A-2025-114

Application for licence to operate a non‑scheduled international service, small aircraft, to transport traffic on a charter basis between Canada and any other country – licence issued, subject to conditions

Application – ExecuJet Europe A/S c.o.b. ExecuJet – Determination No. A-2025-115

Application for cancellation of Licence 140079 – licence cancelled

Suspension – Frontier Airlines, Inc. – Order No. 2025-A-S-110

Licences 060009 & 060008 – reinstated effective June 18, 2025

Suspension – C.B.E. Construction Ltd. – Order No. 2025-A-S-111

Licence 962088 

Suspension – GC Aviation, Inc. c.o.b. Volato – Order No. 2025-A-S-112

Licence 100120 

TC/TSB News

Industry Association News

Union News

Airport News

Rotary Operator News

General Aviation News

Related Articles

It's Not 'Elbows Up' Approach as RCMP Renews Contracts for American Helicopters, Industry Association Says

TOP STORY OTTAWA — The RCMP has renewed the contracts for three Black Hawk helicopters to patrol the Canada-U.S. border,…

Air Passengers Rights Group Files Court Challenge to 'Unconstitutional' Rules it Says Muzzle Travellers

TOP STORY Jill Rorabeck says she wishes she’d never turned to Canada’s airline regulator to settle her dispute with Swoop…

If Air Passengers Don't Pay Fees, Canadian Taxpayers Will, Experts Respond to WestJet CEO

TOP STORY A speech by WestJet CEO Alexis von Hoensbroech is reigniting the conversation about air travel costs in Canada…